/lit/ - Literature

>>12265743
suck cock and do X

>>12265743
Nietzsche for normies and pseuds the thread

>>12265743
This book is mostly anti-Christianity. There wasn't much about the existence of God, other than God in the Christian sense.
Where do you go from here - you either read philosophy seriously starting with the Greeks, if you're dedicated enough to finding more understanding, or you just bury your feelings and go on.

>>12265743
(Posted this earlier, it applies to you too)
>Roberto Mangabeira Unger.

I suggest his general (as opposed to political and legal) philosophy trilogy:

>The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound
>The Religion Of The Future
>The Singular Universe And The Reality Of Time (w physicist Lee Smolin)

>>12265743
Find something to believe in and find it for yourself.

>>12265743
>applying scientific method to metaphysics
I can see why everyone laughs at him.

>>12266492
This was my main complaint too. He meets philosophical arguments with scientific claims and vice versa.
I may chap some asses saying this but Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies is how it should be done.

You speak as if there is a problem when the opposite is true
Find meaning don’t find meaning, live or die, none
truly matters to anyone but yourself.
So the problem is yours to make

>>12265743
Whitehead proved God is real though.

>>12266492
Metaphysics are just what science was called before it was invented and are very outdated as systems of truth claiming and explanation
I don’t understand if people who say things like you are legit idiots with low IQ or just trolls

>>12266670
>being such a retard you're refuted by the etymology of the fucking word

retard

>>12266670
It's time to step away from the keyboard.

>>12266673
So is it the first or the second? are you an honest idiot or a troll?

>>12266682
retard

>>12266684
Ok I can accept your ailment as a justifiable explanation for such low quality thinking,

>>12266670
lol

dostoyevsky, nietzsche and other existentialists write extensive proofs proving that God exists, swiftly and continuously defeating the "logic" of all 19th-21st century nihilistic atheists... yet is defeated by "if God's real, why can't we see him? hahahhahhahah"

grow up retards

Any books on the positive aspects of organised religions and how such a grand institution can be used for social good?
I don't support organised religions but I see how important and ingrained it was to so many societies around the word, which we might be lacking nowadays.

>>12265743
>Without ultimate meaning, life just seems like pointless distractions
Why? What does 'meaning' mean in this context? This shit always confuses me tbph

>>12265750
>not starting with indians

>>12265743
Anti-christian propoganda that has no actual philosophical merit or substance

>>12266821
He's not wrong though. The Bible has a shitload of plot holes. This board has a very gay infatuation with christfaggotry.

>>12266853
I agree, the amount of butthurt christians in this thread is worrying.

>>12266715
Dawkins even said that in this: that he couldn't prove God doesn't exist but he chooses to believe God doesn't exist.

That's a faith judgment right there

>>12266660
>>12266715
>philosophers proving something
maybe I should remind you that philosophers are a bunch of clever guys disagreeing with each other. Also having coherent philosophical system does not make it right because it might rest on false premises, all concequences of premises not being evaluated far enough, exploiting word ambiguities or something else. The larger the framework the probability of mistake increases and philosophers disagreeing with each other is a proof of that.
Your favorite philosopher is shit and didn't prove anything.

>>12266977
lol

>>12266715
Huh, where do Dosty and Nietzsche prove the existence of God?

>>12266996
Life would be miserable without god. Therefore god :^)

>>12266996
they're all trolling man
their interest in truth and intellectual integrity is zero.

>>12266670
Reddit intellectuals everyone

>>12266999
Life would be miserable without strawman. Therefore strawman :^)

>>12267004
yeah if you want the truth then you have to read Dawkins, not philosophie

>"I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" ( God Delusion , p. 84).

It's more than just a little faulty. It's one of those rare books that will actually make you dumber for reading it because you're bound to passively accept something he says and it will probably be really stupid.

>>12267023
>Modal Logic
How very dare they!

Another issue I have with Dawkins is his fascination with non-overlapping-magisteria. Degrees and peer reviews don't mean shit if the course and discipline are overrun by dimwitted pseuds that enjoy the taste of their own dicks. There's way too much taken for granted in his belief system

>>12266999
B-but life IS miserable

>>12266853
>plot holes
>bibles
No

>>12266853
>The Bible has a shitload of plot holes

>>12267832
>>12267941
>the bible is absolutely consistent

>>12267948

it's like your life, the chapters goes nowhere by itself but overall it's a consistent failure going downhill

>>12265743
Easy OP. Now check out some Alan Watts, or go the stoic route with Seneca, Marcus Aurelius

>>12266492
You can play the metaphysics card for any conceivable religion. I think most atheists don't like going down that rabbit hole because if you say that god exists outside of space and time, you've displaced yourself from the discussion. How the fuck can anyone begin to argue against that? You don't play the joker card.

>>12266753
this

>>12266939
He said that he can't disprove god in the same way he can't disprove that there are fairies in his garden.

Don't get faith twisted.
Faith is a belief without evidence.
He chooses to believe god doesn't exist based on the many topics he covers.

“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”

>Emancipated slave: What do I do now? Without serving my master, life just seems like pointless distractions!
Are there really people out there whose life is so dependent on superstition that their free will has atrophied completely?
And no, you don't need to read books to know what to do. Seems like too many people on /lit/ can't think outside books.
WHAT DO YOU WANT? Do you want to be a rockstar? Live a life of isolation? Write beautiful poetry? Be a famous novelist? Will that be YA pulp or avant-garde or something more traditional? Do you want to be filthy rich surrounded by luxury? Or would you rather dedicate your life to helping the poor? Do you want to fall in love? Do you want a family? Do you want children? Many or few? Will you be adopting? Do you want to go sky-diving? Cycling, running, swimming? Will you be an athlete? Do you want to win a gold medal in the Olympics? Do you want to invent something that will change the world? Do you want to explore space? Or just settle down on Mars? Will you cure cancer? Will you help your community? Or maybe you want to just help yourself? Travel the world, see all the wonders, natural and artificial? Climb the Everest? Protect the environment? Be a painter? Dancer? Write beautiful music? Write horrific music? Fight in wars? Campaign for peace? Be hedonistic? Be ascetic? Make many friends? Bring smiles and happiness to everyone you know? Fight for justice? Experience everything in the world? Or live a routine in a small cozy corner?
If you want none of these things- if you want nothing, then yea, for you, life is pointless.

>>12265758
Wait, was kojima peddling post modern conceptions of meaning to a 10 year old me?

>>12268080
This argument sucks because there is also no reason to believe there are fairies in the garden. Dawkins is extremely insulting.

>>12268524
Haha how do you think the plants bloom?
Obviously fairy dust
Idiot

>>12268602
epic

>>12268610
The only thing that is epic is the amount of delusion religion is able to instil in the minds of people.

heh, you guys ever see a man EVISCERATE and DEMOLISH both Pascal AND Thoma Aquinas in under two and a half minutes? well... now you have: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYPPTcoCiU

>>12265743
You only think life is without ultimate meaning now because you placed all of its meaning on the beyond, which now exists as superstition for you. This is entirely a psychological problem that you can move past. Read Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil, The Antichrist, and Will to Power, as he discusses this whole situation at length in them.

>>12268700
possibly the worst video on youtube

>>12268123
Yes.

>>12266715
>"if God's real, why can't we see him? hahahhahhahah"
More like "If God's real, why am I so sad all the time?"

>>12265743
Read Pensées to restore your faith in God

>>12268052
Where else would God exist?

>>12268700
I fucking hate all the atheists who take the wager out of context without reading the rest of Pensées

>>12269110
Hes a shepherd not a genie

What I don't get about the atheism movement, even if I typically agree with the main talking points, is this position of being awakened. Personally I never believed in a god in any meaningful way and therefore I struggle to enjoy the greatness of this position. I mean, to me, reading a book that convinces you there is no god is pretty much as absurd as believing in one in the first place.

>>12266670
fucking what

>>12269923
Agnostic is far superior to atheist. Nothing is more psued than being a militant atheist

>>12270015
Metaphysics (something i don’t understand) are just what science was called before it was invented (feeble grasp at intellectualism) and are very outdated as systems of truth (buzzwords i heard) claiming and (misspelling) explanation
I don’t understand (obviously) if people who say things like you are legit idiots with low IQ or just trolls (meme words)

>>12270041
>being this anally devastated
the age of humanities is over;
the age of STEM has begun.

>>12268052

Underrated post

>>12269110
the power of the atheist intellect

>>12268052
holy shit atheist posters need to leave this board ASAP

>>12269406
what does the rest of the book say? you are well versed in his arguments and philosophy so you can of course provide us with a convincing and high fidelity rendition of them to support your grievance with tangible evidence right anon?
>>12270105
If God’s real why is life here hell and why are Jews and Anglos in charge of the planet? Does he hate us?

>>12269923
>reading a book that convinces you there is no god is pretty much as absurd as believing in one in the first place.
I don't see how that's absurd, if a person was convinced out of their superstition. I'm sceptical about their effectiveness, but they seem to have helped some people out of their religion, and they make atheism more visible, and therefore more approachable. You're already an atheist, so I assume the book is not for you (I haven't read it).
>>12270029
How agnostic are you about Santa Claus? How agnostic are you about Scientology? Flat earth? Staged moon landing? Don't tell me you're agnostic only when it comes to religions?
Also, imagine that 90% of the world believed those things. And imagine a small percentage that was agnostic about Santa Claus. And when you tell them he is not real, they say you're "pseud" and are smug about their wishy-washy position on the matter of Santa Claus.
I know annoying atheists exist, and I'm sorry, but you should ignore them.

>>12270053
Cringed harg ngl

>>12270141
He explains why the Christian God is the God you should believe and how the wager is only a starting point to having true faith

>>12270172
I have emperical evidence santa doesn’t exist. Can you say the same for God?

>>12270172
Oh look its another retarded atheist post

>>12265743
Why does the only meaning come from God (in particular the Christian God)? What is that meaning anyway? Treat this life as a burden in order to get rewarded in Heaven by a god that would disregard you and let you suffer for eternity without a second though?

I know this life isn't supposed to be a burden but how many modern Christians truly live a Christian life full of kindness and loving?

Anecdotal but the majority of my family seem to want nothing more than to get to heaven and life is just an obstacle and an inconvenience to them.

It's no wonder no one cares about the Earth when they expect it to be destroyed in an apocalypse anyway.

>>12270184
I can't imagine an "empirical evidence" for the nonexistance of Santa Claus for which there wouldn't be an analogue for the nonexistance of gods.
>>12270202
I hope you live a happy, productive life as an honest, good person.

>>12270221
>bro just make your own meaning! xD
>did you know that Christians aren't perfect human beings?!
>the Christian apocalypse is what makes people selfish and short-sighted

>>12270179
>he explains the thing that’s implied by his insane wager
Ok, what does he actually say? What is his argument that the wager should pertain to and be rightly oriented from the position of the reality of the described god of the Church and Bible? Stop leaving me hanging, my soul’s fate is at stake and im too busy at the moment to read the work. Your faithful deliverance of his incisive and grave assessment of soteriology concerns me and if i were to see good reason to believe that at least some trustworthy, noble and acute mind was capable of convincing themselves of his most important of teachings then I might find it within me to convert to the religion of the Church. Please don’t allow me to be damned anon, God will not look kindly upon you for this if you should allow it to come to pass...

>>12270240
Claim: Santa is a man that comes down the chimney and delivers presents to children.
Evidence: No ones has ever seen Santa and the presents are put there by parents

What does this have to do with God?

>>12270261
this sarcasm is so cringe. you are definitely a teen.

>>12270262
>No ones has ever seen Santa and the presents are put there by parents
Can you verify that every single present ever delivered has been put there by parents or are you going to "arrogantly" assume that, just because it coincides with your beliefs?

>>12270249
I mean where's the meaning in God if none of them are actually living how they're taught to? It's just grandstanding.

>>12270270
>lmao I just got called out and don't actually understand the book I'm shilling (because I probably haven't even read it), better call him a high schooler!
not him btw

>>12270293
Absolute empirical verification is impossible and also doesn't really matter. There's no reason to believe in Santa folklore and I'm pretty sure no adult has ever literally believed in it or argued it to be true.

What does this have to do with God?

>>12270322
I'm not the guy he was responding to. His post was just complete shit and so is yours, teen.

>>12270262
>Claim: Santa is a man that comes down the chimney and delivers presents to children.
>Evidence: No ones has ever seen Santa and the presents are put there by parents
Your evidence is not empirical.
>Claim: God created people and other animals.
>Evidence: No one has ever seen God, and people and animals came into existence through evolution.
Evolution is empirical.

>>12270270
you’re an insect

>>12270240
The presents are given by the parents. That’s objectively true and probable

>>12270357
Provable*
>>12270293
So am I agnostic that a guy named santa gives presents to some children but definitely not most? Ok sure ya that’s absolutely possible

>>12270334
God by definition is not a "thing" that can be seen with our eyes like any other object. If He could then that wouldn't and couldn't be God. Evolution explains the complexity of organisms, it doesn't explain anything about creation or contradict God in any way.

Try again.

>>12270334
Evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. The vatican teaches it these days

>>12270347
lol

>>12270328
You claimed you have empirical evidence santa doesn’t exist, and you challenged whether one could say the same for god. It seems you don't have empirical evidence after all. My point is that your reasons for taking the matter of gods more seriously than Santa are weak.
>I'm pretty sure no adult has ever literally believed in it or argued it to be true.
Imagine there was one. Or, to make it easier, replace "Santa" in our discussion with "Scientology."
>>12270366
>>12270374
Some religions or their sects teach that their god created people and animals. My example was in assumption that the other was a religion of this belief.

>>12270261
It’s obvious you people don’t care to read the book. You just want an argument or two to be posted so you can doubt it and argue against it and justify your unwillingness to read the book. You’re too busy to read the book, yet you’re not too busy to mess around on /lit/? Have some integrity, dude.

Before any of you retards try to argue against God try to inform yourself first on the arguments:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Or if you want to watch and listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9gLvLYF5s

>>12268524
Just like there's no reason to believe there's a god at the head of the universe. You deserve to be insulted.

>>12270441
Every theist religion and sect in the world says that God created people and animals.
>assumption
Basically a strawman

> It seems you don't have empirical evidence after all
No one has, or needs, this kind of militant verification for anything in life.
>My point
You haven't actually argued that point because Santa and God are utterly different.

>Scientology
This is a 20th Century cult based on science fiction. Christianity is an ancient religion.

>>12270477
>there's no reason to believe there's a god
*citation needed

>>12270365
>>12270365
>The presents are given by the parents. That’s objectively true and provable
Crucially, it has not yet been proven. Are you going to assume that is the case?
>So am I agnostic that a guy named santa gives presents to some children but definitely not most? Ok sure ya that’s absolutely possible
How about Santa giving presents to most children? There is no solid proof otherwise. Are you agnostic about that?

>>12270537
The claims about God's existence are not the same as Santa, you idiot.

>>12266670
>metaphysics are
>metaphysics ARE
Nice metaphysical statement you dumb idiot.

>>12266670

>>12270476
Thanks anon

>>12270493
>God created people and animals
If you claim evolution is real, yet God created life, then the animals and people did not exist in their current form at the time of creation of life. That, to me, seems to suggest a belief that God did not create people.
>Basically a strawman
I'm not strawmanning. Honest misunderstanding at worst.

>No one has, or needs, this kind of militant verification for anything in life.
What is "militant" about it? Anyways, I was mimicking agnostics who demand a strict proof of the nonexistence of gods.
>Santa and God are utterly different
>Scientology
This is the crucial difference. I don't deny that they are different. That's not the point. My point is that the existence of one is not more convincing than the other.
Perhaps due to confirmation bias, agnostics and theists are biased to give religions special treatment and demand "militant verification" for their disproof (I have demonstrated above how one could do that with Santa Claus), whereas they easily dismiss other superstitions.

>>12268080
Dawkins chooses to believe God doesn't exist without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Dawkins doesn't believe in God if God was empirically provable, but nobody claims God is empirically provable. It's a strawman argument.
The question of whether God exists or doesn't exist is not scientifically verifiable. It's pretty obvious really, if you look at any of the religious traditions, if you read religion for dummies or any other basic comparative religions for beginners.
Dawkins doesn't do this, he doesn't research the argument which he is claiming to refute. He's a pseud and a charlatan and he's making money selling snake oil to the fedora tippers, that's all.

>>12270619
>God did not create people
If they exist then He created them. Evolution is the material process of that creation which, without God, would somehow magically have no cause.
>demand a strict proof of the nonexistence of gods
>gods
Thor and Zeus and the pagan gods were believed to exist as superbeings in the world. They walked around, they had fights, they had sex etc. These "gods" are obviously not real and we have no reason to believe in them. However, God in traditional Christianity cannot be disproven or proven in the same way as Thor and Zeus because He doesn't exist in the world as a being.
When agnostics "demand" evidence from you to prove that there is no God they are talking about a cause or creator of the Universe, not a big invisible old man in the clouds.

>the existence of one is not more convincing than the other.
I hope I've shown you why this point doesn't make any sense. God's existence explains the Universe. Santa is a children's folklore character.

>>12270660
>nobody claims God is empirically provable
You might want to do a quick research on this.

>>12270477
Something does not come from nothing.

>>12270261
Why do atheists say this embarrassing shit? Do they have no awareness?

>>12270699
By nobody, what I meant was none of the traditional religions. Not absolutely nobody, and I don't care to become bogged down in semantics.

Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are what are considered the traditional religions. None of these teach, in the orthodox mainstream and traditionally, the God which Dawkins refutes.

If I'm wrong, it is my own ignorance but please do not argue against me with some sect of 509 people or some other bullshit :^) I mean by and large and generally, which is what Dawkins also means, except that he mostly targets exclusively Christian beliefs whilst maintaining a vaguely misleading attitude that all of his arguments count against all non-atheists. But I digress.

My personal opinion is that there could be faeries in the garden, so I'm keeping an open mind to that possibility.

>>12270676
>Evolution is the material process of that creation which, without God, would somehow magically have no cause.
What? Are you claiming that evolution needs a god to function? That makes no sense. Or are you claiming that the creation of life has only one possible cause (the god)? That is not true.
>When agnostics "demand" evidence from you to prove that there is no God they are talking about a cause or creator of the Universe, not a big invisible old man in the clouds.
I see your point. I see how you differentiate between gods.
>God's existence explains the Universe.
It's not the only explanation, and it's not been verified satisfactorily to me and to many others, therefore it is not strictly true. So this claim doesn't make the existence of your god more likely to me.

>>12270792
>That is not true.
>It's not the only explanation
Physics cannot ever explain why or how something comes from nothing. Thats not what physics is. Either you become agnostic and say we can never know anything about it, or you accept some idea of God as creator and cause. There are no other answers.
>not been verified satisfactorily
So instead you believe that something can come from nothing. That belief hasn't been "verified" either.

>>12270792
>it's not been verified satisfactorily to me and to many others, therefore it is not strictly true
Not him but,
It could be true, just because you're not convinced and a bunch of other people aren't convinced doesn't make something more or less likely to be objectively true. Don't say strictly true though, unless you want to explain what the degrees of truthiness are, as far as I know there is truth and there is not truth, unless by strictly you mean objectively. If that's the case then I will say only that either there is God and He created the universe or there is no God.
The statement: God created the universe. Is either objectively true or it is false.
Still, you're entitled to believe in whatever you want to.

>>12266660
God is the monopolization of creativity, while the implications of Whitehead's philosophy is the anarchization of creativity: pancreativism. The cosmos is a tapestry where each strand creates and is created by all others not as a singular creative unity but a multiplicity of co-creative becomings, each strand both containing and pervading the tapestry. Instead of a hierarchy of cause and effect ultimately leading to a singular source, what characterizes occurrences is bi-directional relationships, a network of mutual influence with cause and effect being an abstraction that models some occurrences well enough, but isn't the nature of reality. Pancreativism can be thought as the application of evolution to the metaphysical, with all forms of evolution from the cosmological, geological, biological, and conscious just specifications of the metaphysical creative process that characterizes the process of reality itself, the way things come together while still changing.

God is merely the personification of the monopolization of creativity that has been applied to human societies and individuals, traditionally used to justify monopolizations of power and wealth but is no longer necessary as with capitalism the monopolizers themselves have been commodified, easily interchangable and replacable elements in a self-perpetuating power system that now spans the entire world, colonizing every aspect of human experience. Atheism is a necessary first step to the realization of the pyramid scheme the world is built upon, a realization that is growing as the lies it needs to persist become ever more unbelievable as it reality manifests in increasingly greater life-negating extremes: environmental destruction, climate catastrophe, the farce of politics, the awareness economy and growing wealth inequality. It is becoming ever more apparent that the core assumptions upon which modern civilization are built have resulted in transforming humanity into a Doomsday device made of human minds, and these assumptions stem from the metaphysical: the primacy of permanence and being over change and becoming, a self-preserving anti-evolutionary praxis of mind, the reduction of humanity to self-interest-maximizing automatons.

Human consciousness is the creativity inherent to reality that has found a way to fold on itself and self-create, to modify its own evolutionary process using its basic elements. Self-creativity is a skill, and one that is actively destroyed in favor of the domination of the will, of pre-existent desires and desire-injection, to figure out how to manipulate others to manifest the desires one is manipulated by. Self-creativity or "agency" comes from questioning one's self and the world. Awareness is a request for information, self-awareness is synonymous with self-questioning. The meaning of life isn't an answer, but an omnipresent question mark, meaning and purpose are infinite in potential and inexhaustible, an endless becoming.

>>12270839
>Physics cannot ever explain why or how something comes from nothing.
My (limited) understanding is that we have not confirmed that there was ever nothing. I believe the book "A Universe from Nothing" discusses how the big bang could have started from a quantum vacuum, which is not nothing. I may be wrong. I'm afraid know very little about the book.
>Thats not what physics is.
Science is not set in stone. New discoveries are made, theories refined. Physics may be expanded.
>Either you become agnostic and say we can never know anything about it, or you accept some idea of God as creator and cause.
False dichotomy. More data, more analysis, expansion of science, or some new way of truth discovery may reveal more about the big bang and its origin. Or they may never. Either way, the matter should have nothing to do with religious belief.
"God of the gaps". The same false dichotomy was responsible for attributing all sorts of natural phenomena to gods in the past, until we ACTUALLY discovered the truth.
>So instead you believe that something can come from nothing.
I don't.
>>12270875
I meant that it's a possibility, not a certainty. It's very improbable.

>>12270994
>we have not confirmed that there was ever nothing.
Because physics can't tell us about "nothing" nor can it confirm non-existence.
>which is not nothing.
And therefore doesn't answer the question.
>nothing to do with religious belief
No argument here
>"God of the gaps"
No. The concept of God that I'm arguing about has been around arguably since Aristotle. Nothing has changed about that basic idea of God and nothing has been "disproven" about Him.
>until we ACTUALLY discovered the truth
You're arguing about pagan gods again. Zeus and thunder are not the same as God and creation.

>>12271034
>Because physics can't tell us about "nothing" nor can it confirm non-existence.
So you agree with me that there is no scientific consensus that there was ever nothing? Therefore there is no existing question on how something can come from nothing?
>nothing has been "disproven" about Him.
>You're arguing about pagan gods again. Zeus and thunder are not the same as God and creation.
With that statement, I was talking about your false dichotomy, not your god. The insistence on knee-jerk attribution of the creation of the universe to your god is the very same "god of the gaps" mentality that was responsible for attributing mysterious natural phenomena to ("pagan") gods in the past.

>>12271097
Science cannot address the question of nothing because that’s not what science is. That very obviously doesn’t mean that the question isn’t valid, though. There are many question that science is unable to address.
>knee-jerk
What exactly is knee-jerk about my argument? All you’re doing is illogically pretending that physics will one day answer the question of creation.

>>12270441
I do have emperical evidence as the parents leave the gifts. This hypothesis is demonstrable by having the parents not leave gifts and seeing if any appear. Your grasping at straws now

>>12270477
Then what created the universe life consciousness and man?

>>12271131
>That very obviously doesn’t mean that the question isn’t valid, though.
Why not? If we haven't confirmed that there was never nothing, isn't it possible, then, that there was always something? And if there were always something, then the question of how something could come from nothing is not valid.
>What exactly is knee-jerk about my argument?
You presented your god as the only explanation for the creation of the universe without acknowledging the possibility of any alternative.
>All you’re doing is illogically pretending that physics will one day answer the question of creation.
As I've conceded, we may never. Through physics, through science, or some new way of discovery. We may never. That makes it a mystery. That DOESN'T make it something that only a god could be responsible for.

>>12271164
You’re just talking in circles now. Let’s end the conversation here.

>>12270619
>That, to me, seems to suggest a belief that God did not create people
And thats a perfectly acceptable assumption and belief that i would never mock

>>12271154
Have you demonstrated this for every household?
>Your grasping at straws now
Then I've successfully demonstrated to you what it feels like as an atheist to hear the weak arguements that theists present to justify their belief.
>>12271162
>Then what created the universe life consciousness and man?
We don't know yet. We may never. Thousands of years ago, we didn't even know what caused the wind, the waves, the eclipses, the droughts, the storms, but we do now. Or, more accurately, we thought we knew, but then we discovered for real. After all those misapprehensions, let's be more careful before we jump to conclusions, eh?

>>12271176
Sorry, I made a typo with that second sentence. I meant to write
>If we haven't confirmed that there was EVER nothing, isn't it possible, then, that there always was something? And if there were always something, then the question of how something could come from nothing is not valid.
In other words, do you accept the possibility that there was always something existing in the universe?
I don't wish to drag you back in to the discussion, if you want to end it even after my clarification.

>>12271220
>that there always was something?
No, not unless we believe that gravity or quantum fields are, without any argument or evidence, eternal and uncontingent. Science can’t tell us where those basic things have come from nor why they’re here as they are not why they’re here at all. To just assume that they are uncaused is not reasonable at all.

>>12271239
*as they are NOR why they’re here at all.

>>12271239
>gravity or quantum fields
If you don't know why they're here, then how do you know that it is not possible for them to be eternal and uncontingent?

>>12271284
That just sounds like god of the gaps logic

>>12265743
You're still probably wrong. I mean sure the Abrahamic religions seem pretty faulty
(all religions do).


Also is the possibility of no god really that bad?

>>12266670
>are
>was
>are
>are

the absolute madman

>>12271290
The difference is that I am asking about the possibility. I'm not claiming that it's the ONLY possibility.

>>12271318
Well then I’m not sure what the point of your argument is. Science can’t discuss eternal things or nothingness, that has to come from philosophy.

>>12271341
It's possible for there to have been things that always exist, ergo, it is possible that there was no "creation" (from a god or otherwise) in the universe. There is still a lot to discover about the nature of the universe. There is no special reason yet to believe that a god is involved in its existence, albeit it is a possibility.

>>12271425
I disagree but let’s stop this now

>>12266670

The meaning of life is SUPPOSED to be subjective. You find your own purpose. If the meaning of life was the christian "let me grovel before you, god, as i kill my own son to please you" , i'd be pretty unhappy. I have a daughter, i love her way more than any possible god or divine asshole. If someone told me to kill my daughter i'd be like, go fuck yourself asshole.

>>12271488
upvoted

>>12271191
I have given you a way to demonstrate it for every household in the world. If you have doubts theres an empirical way to test them
>we dont know yet
That’s exactly what agnosticism is you psued

>>12271341
>Science can’t discuss eternal things or nothingness, that has to come from philosophy.
My entire point

>>12271501
Thanks for agreeing with me then.

>>12266977
He thinks these existentialists were systematizers....

>>12271488
Sure you have a daughter and love her but if life is subjective as you say, then it's acceptable in my own subjective experience to rape, torture, and kill my own daughter because that is what gives me meaning?

>>12271546
What a cheap misinterpretation of what i said and a recycling of the old"only god can be a source of morality" argument.


You are truly breaking new ground. I haven't heard this argument thousands of times before

>>12265743
>world religions emerge via literature and spiritual speculation
>world religions couldn't possibly be accurate
then, dawkins:
>world religions are wrong, therefore there is no creator, afterlife, metaphysical beyond, etc.


you'd think an empiricist wouldn't be this fucking retarded.

>>12271516
So you’re agnostic now?

>>12271495
>That’s exactly what agnosticism is you psued
It's also atheism. We might be getting into semantics. Do I know absolutely 100% that Scientology is false? No, but I'm not going to say I'm agnostic when it comes to Scientology. Am I a pseud for that?
>>12271516
For clarification, >>12271501 is not the one you were in a conversation with.

>>12271546
Sure and some nutcases do. Rapists are locked up every day

>>12271488
I feel like thats a deliberately obtuse interpretation of abraham and isaac

>>12271622
How do you not know the difference between agnostic and atheist and you’re still sitting in this thread arguing

>>12271622
>i am not 100% sure a higher power doesn’t exist
>im not agnostic
My god ive been arguing with an absolute retard

>>12271632
True, it's a bit exaggerated and intentionally obtuse, but if you look at the psychology behind the story, it's appropriate. The psychology of faith has always been "there is someone who knows better than me, so even if I feel what i'm doing is wrong, it's right because that person who knows better than me approves". This is the psychology of every atrocity even commited by mankind. Sorry, peoplekind. I am solely responsible for the things i do, and i solely male the decision to do them. Fuck your god, fuck your political leader, i choose what i do.

>>12271668
So you just invented free will. Congrats. Has nothing to do with the conversation

>>12271678
Yes iit does, i was talking with the guy about the abraham story. The.moral of the abraham story is if you trust authority it will not let you down. This is a horible moral.

>>12271644
>>12271665
I'm atheist and agnostic in the same way that Dawkins describes himself in this video where he mentions the OP book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

>>12271703
There are two big takeaways from that story. Foremost is that God does not demand sacrifice. Second is a faith in the resurrection of the messiah or Jesus Christ for christians. God had already directly told abraham how important isaac was to the world

>>12271715
>atheist and agnostic
Not a thing

>>12271851
According to your semantics.
I can't be sure absolutely 100% that a god did not create the universe, Scientology is not true, or that I'm not in a simulation or a some dream, or unicorns would have been discovered already if they existed, but they're so unlikely to be real that I live as though they were false.

>>12265743
There is definitely a higher being, to believe there is no one above you is just egotistical. The same way we look at microbiology and atoms, a higher being(s) looks at us the same way. Whether they care about us or not is a different argument.

>>12271909
Definitions =! Semantics. Youve been exposed as a psued multiple times in this thread why keep digging the hole?

>>12271909
Nobody is asking you to convert to islam. Im only asking you to Know basic definitions of the words your parroting before you keep blathering on like an ignorant faggit

>>12271703
>The.moral of the abraham story is if you trust authority it will not let you down.
Specifically God's authority. It's not all authority in general

>>12271924
>>12271975
I'll quote definitions from wiktionary.
I don't believe a god exists. That makes me atheist.
>Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
I acknowledge that I can't prove it 100%. That makes me agnostic.
>The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.
Those are correct definitions.
Please don't get hung up on semantics.

dawkins is actually a retard, just like sam harris and (most of all) ricky gervais

>>12271665
You misunderstood me here. I don't say that I'm not agnostic in my post. I mean that I would identify myself as an atheist, not agnostic when it comes to Scientology (and religion in general), even though I am also agnostic. It makes the lack of belief clear.

>>12272019
I'm Muslim and as such I believe that: as a virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, the anti-christ will appear before the second coming of Jesus, the ant-christ will be killed by Jesus with a spear, and many other theological matters such as the doctrine of repentance are exactly the same in Islam as in Christianity. But I'm not a Christian, but I am a Christian in the sense that I follow what I believe Jesus taught which makes me a follower of Jesus but I'm not a Christian.

If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Just like how I do believe Islam and that precludes me from the label of Christian, if you don't believe in God you cannot be an agnostic.

>>12272019
I cant believe someone as dumb ad you exists

>Another thread of athiests fucking embarrassing themselves

Does materialism always lead to brain damage?

>>12272088
Do you reject the definition of "agnosticism" from wiktionary.com that I quoted in my post?
I'd like to avoid the agnostic label too, but I must admit that I am technically "agnostic" (according to the definition I quoted in my post), when the other gentleman presses the question.
>>12272099
Do I believe that unicorns exist? No (atheism). Can I prove their nonexistence without a doubt? No (agnosticism).
I'm sorry, but discussions turn dicey and bizarre when it comes to semantics, technicalities, and misused labels with various meanings. I don't like it either. I'm sorry.

>>12265743
imagine anyone taking this piece of shit book serious lmao

>>12272107
yikes.

let's look at it this way: EVERYONE in universities and who are experts in their respective fields of sciences or philosophies are Materialists; contrasted with all of the shitposters on a Lycanthropy Erotic-RP Enthusiasts forum who claim to be the superior and enlightened Idealists.

hm, I wonder which of these two groups' opinions should be considered valid...

>>12272159
>EVERYONE in universities and who are experts in their respective fields of sciences or philosophies are Materialists
are you retarded?

>>12272147
Terminology is important, as distinct from semantics. Labels are important so that we can properly understand each other's argument, it's fundamental to the use of a common language. Apparently you're an atheist.

Atheism =/= Agnosticism

You can as an individual say that you're agnostic in a sense, just like how any Muslim can say he is a Christian in a sense.

>>12272189
apply to >>>/sci/ and say you think Materialism is "retarded". see what happens.

I'd tell you to ask go a professor but, let's face it, you've never set foot anywhere near an institute of higher education

>>12272208
He didn't say materialism is retarded, he asked you if you are retarded.

>>12265743
If you think that book is convincing of anything, then just kill yourself.

>>12272212
follow the reply chain retard

>>12272208
Wew for someone in higher education you should work on your reading comprehension. Is this what the type /sci/ churns out?

>Listen to Ricky Gervais argue against religion for an hour
>Every attempt he makes at an argument is an obvious fallacy

>>12272219
I have and he doesn't say that. If I'm wrong show me

>>12272208
>sci
lmao
>I'd tell you to ask go a professor but, let's face it, you've never set foot anywhere near an institute of higher education
in grad school

>>12272220
Bro, this guy's not from /sci/

>>12272228
---> >>12272107

>"does materialism always lead to brain damage"
this translates to: Materialism is retarded.

congrats if troll btw, you made me respond. the (you)s were fun

@12272243
wasn't the one who made the original post, just wanted to say you're retarded

>>12272243
>this translates to: Materialism is retarded
No it doesn't. You're insufferable

>>12272222
Digits confirm God exists

>>12272243
Well part of that original post is definitely applying to (you) right now

>>12265743

u can go read every single atheist philosopher to exist. good ones are scopie, nietzche, stirner,
even look at buddhism

>>12272204
FYI, agnostic atheism is not an uncommon label. It even has a wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

>>12272304
>buddhism
>atheism

wtf?

>>12272394
Agnostic Atheism is distinct from Atheism is distinct from Agnosticism.

>agnostic atheist
is an atheist

>atheist
is an atheist

>agnostic
is NOT an atheist

>>12265743
Lmao

>>12265743
Nobel prize winning physicists vs pop scientists like Dawkins

>>12273024
>this meme image again
everyone on the left except Einstein is a joke that no one in the modern sciences even bothers to laugh at anymore.

and there are plenty of modern scientists you could have put on the right who BTFO of philosophy. but the ones you used would be like using JK Rowling, Stephen King, and whoever wrote 50 Shades of Grey and then going
>see?? literature sucks! just look at these awful authors

terrible image. humanitiesfags need to stop spamming it

THIS IS A BLESSED THREAD FULL OF GOD'S WISE MEN

BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE WITHOUT SEEING

>>12267405
Therefore no God, obviously

>>12272394
To be fair, most atheists are agnostic atheists, it's pretty rare to find one of the edgy reddit tier "I know for a fact god doesn't exist and if he did he'd have to answer to me" types.

>>12268095
>without serving my master
Fedora-tipping aside, this is what I was wondering earlier. What do people mean when they say they want life to have a 'meaning'? On the face of it the concept seems a strange one, and your interpretation- that they want to be subordinated to something- is a possible answer.

A more standard answer would be that they want their life to have a reason, but that's still hard to make sense of- what reason does any given religion supply?

>>12266670
Cringe.

I love when god blesses this world with babies who are born without skin or half of their brain missing. Truly, we are blessed.

>>12273049
>everyone on the left except Einstein is a joke that no one in the modern sciences even bothers to laugh at anymore.
You are joking right? The guys on the left literally created the foundation for quantum mechanics. They are all published scientists with multiple breakthrough and heavily cited papers with formulas and theorems named after them. The guys on the right have done nothing.

>>12273024
Huh? Top right quote is clearly pro-philosophy

>>12273198
Low IQ non-argument

>>12273274
so what? the people on the right are better known as science communicators/popularisers than for being scientists (although at least dawkins has some notable papers to his name)
so find some pictures and quotes from modern nobel prize winners. i would bet they are closer in their general outlook to the people on the right than the people on the left.

>>12273312
...which you cannot refute except with some generic "these things are sent to try us" foot-shuffling

>>12272304
>nietzche and stirner
>atheist
Wowzers.

>>12273198

>>12273198
Of course, this is a difficult thing to talk about but it doesn't really disprove God because you're appealing to the sublime awfulness of a doomed baby as an argument. When in just the same way it could be used as an argument to the contrary (The feeling is so strong and palpable that God must exist). Good can't exist without opposite.

This thread is fucking cringe
People who believe in God are allowed to have their personal psychopathy in their own private lives
As long as I don’t need to hear about it or accept it in the Law in any way shape or form I couldn’t care less
As long as the norm is actual intelligent people who are able think critically and see how ridiculous and dangerous the idea of God is than we’re fine.

>>12265743
>Dawkins
Ok

>>12273473
>Good can't exist without opposite.
You can't feel good unless you know that mothers are suffering because their baby died during the birth process? Well, I hope you get a good, hearty laugh out of that.

>>12273500
I'm sorry to break it to you but only pseuds reject the idea of God

>>12273987
As I lve said I don’t reject the idea of God
I think it’s a legit model of interpretation which humans have been using to make sense of reality for thousands of years and if you find it useful in your personal life than good on you.
You just need to be aware as much as possible that you are logically inept in relation to modern standards, and that we, that is the rest of society, really couldn’t care less about your imaginary friend.

>>12273432
Nietzsche is definitely an atheist as far as Christians are concerned.

>>12273141
I didn't intend to suggest the subordination aspect, but I couldn't think of a better analogy. I assume people mean that they want their life to have some ultimate goal to work towards. It's supplied by religion or ideology, but it's something people can also supply by themselves.

>>12274004
>the rest of society
atheists are the minority in my global society. What's your society?

most of our brillant minds were fucking believers
by the standards of your religion that is atheism, einstein and Descartes were idiots
Also if you believe that dude facts lmao is science you are a super duper seudo
get educated

>>12273500
reddit

>>12269323
On top of Mt. Olympus my nigga, duh.

>>12274059
I live in Israel and most people I know are either atheists or subhumans

>>12266722
Try New Testament

>>12274092
Most brilliant minds still are. The center of focus in belief has just changed, due to belief itself. This was N's whole point. The atheism we have today is a direct result of the church; it's the fruit of Christianity having been brought to its next logical conclusion based on our ever-evolving knowledge of the world around us. The death of God signified that shift and it was brought about upon the discovery of relativity.

>>12272212
But materialism is retarded once you realize all that stuff is worthless, which is of course the ultimate nihilistic conclusion. An atheistic worldview falls flat on its own eventually, even Dawkins has started returning to church. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html

>>12274153
>even Dawkins has started returning to church.
of course he fucking hasn't you idiot
he's always gone on about his christian heritage e.g. telling people to read the bible for its literary merit
he regards christianity as being the bulwark against something worse, i.e. islam

>>12274092
Einstein was an atheist though

>>12268095
I spent way too long arguing with a family member about this point. He's not even traditionally religious but still holds on to the abstract concept of a god for the sole reason that he couldn't imagine someone attributing their own subjective meaning to their life. It seems to be a really hard idea for a lot of people to accept. I'm not sure if I'm retarded and didn't understand it properly but that was the whole point that I took away from Camus and his absurdism.

>>12265743
Imagine being so uninitiated that this book actually affects you in any way

>>12266670
God... why? How do people as dumb as you manage to not be wiped out by natural selection?

Reddit: The Thread

>>12274315
Socially unaware and insecure: The post

>>12274357
Trying way too hard: Reloaded

>>12273049
brainlet

>>12266670
> muh enlightenment era explains everything about life

Cringe

>>12266715
Might be a troll but this is the consequence of a Petersonpill overdose

>>12274092
>most of our brillant minds were fucking believers
only because they lacked the knowledge we have today or lived in a time when to be atheist meant being burned at the stake.

take Newton and Leibniz and show them all that we know today about neuroscience and cosmology and evolution and they would drop their theism in a second.

>>12274802
>they would drop their theism in a second.
umm where's your evidence for this?

>>12274816
umm the fact that no noteworthy scientist or philosopher today is a theist?

>>12274912
Name one that's an atheist.

>>12274974
Raymond Tallis. Daniel Dennett. Eric Kandel. Lawrence Krauss. James Watson.

and on the theist side we have... uhhh.... hmmm...

>>12274974
every single major evolutionary biologist, theoretical physicist, chemist, statician etc is going to be atheist.

>haha God's existence has no evidence
>assumes there is evidence that evidence is the only way to know things

>>12275042
This just opens up subjectivism and solipsism, which aren’t the kind of idealism you wanted.

>>12275057
Wrong. If anything it opens up epistemology and how things can be known to be true. Dawkins assumes the scientific process/scientism is the only way.

You can still believe is objective truth without thinking evidence is the only way to know things.

>>12275075
No you can’t because then anyone can make a rigorous argument or philosophical system and establish it as the source for valid statements you FUCKING BRAINLET, that’s why idealism is generally a bad idea. You cannot check who is or is not going to instnantiate an insane set of first principles or axioms. So, you’re left with either the option of making a totalitarian system, either like Hegelianism which subsumes everything, casting serious doubt as to whether its not just a machine for spitting out self affirming statements OR a real world totalitarian theocratic institute that simply bans other people from creating well formed, rigorous and comprehensive philosophical systems, like the Church

YOU SMUG MIDWIT 125 IQ FUCKING SUBHUMAN BRAINLET NIGGGGGGEERRRRRRRR

>>12275098
Room temperature iq post. Rather, dare I say, bluepilled and cringe as well.

>>12275098
bluepilled and cringe

>>12275098
>So, you’re left with either the option of making a totalitarian system, either like Hegelianism which subsumes everything, casting serious doubt as to whether its not just a machine for spitting out self affirming statements

lol, this is the most basic bitch summary of Hegelianism anywhere, read before you call others brainlets

>>12275108
>>12275114
you’ve disappointed me worse than any thread ive been a part of this past year. I don’t get how rationalists and idealists don’t realize the maelstrom they expose themselves to by trying to ground their systems in faith or worse reason. You’re going to always invite extreme violence or ignorance by doing so, the Church depended on censorship and monomaniacal education of its philosophers to ward off people like Kant and Hegel and Schelling and the German Idealists did not agree, could not stop splintering or the most trivial quarrells from breaking out, and Hegel literally built his system to justify totalitarianism. All of it is disgusting, its so obviously slimy and underhanded. Anyone who wants to eschew evidence for reason or worse for faith is going to murder people or waste your time the moment their system is established. There’s no reason to take Christian ontology or epistemology more seriously than German idealism or Hinduism or Islamic metaphysics or any other system of noetic thought seriously.

You’re a nigger, you’re a sociopath who exploits language and the apathy inherent in complex social assemblages to farm dopamine and attention from others. What you believe is repugnant, and maybe worthy of punishment. Fuck you

>>12275120
that is basically the point of Hegel’s thought, everything is cannibalized and turned into an affirmation of his system, Hegelians don’t have to think at all, every phenomena moved their dialectic forward and confirms what they already believed. You can see it with Accelerationists and communists very clearly. There is no depth to idealism, none of it has any subtle meanings or esoteric implications, its all predicated on political and social aims. Namely the creation of self sustaining hierarchies like a priesthood or a totalitarian state or a cannibal superintelligence or “spirit” that everything is involuntarily sacrificed for. Responding with sardonic faggotry just makes you look more like the impish bumbling pseuds that you are. Hegel is fucking insane, Kant was a brainlet fraud, Schelling a con artist, Fichte a psychopath and the Christian church a den of pedophile snakes. Its all evil, if there was anything truly evil it would definitely be philosophical and religious institutes, even before the politicians and tyrants.

>>12275132
It's interesting the lengths to which you defend a purely evidential approach to truth even when those thoughts largely operate on assumptions that lack evidence. You're also defending your thoughts with that oh so dangerous thing called reason. Just comical

>>12275161
You don’t understand any language other than rhetorical sophistries or reasoned argument, if you weren’t a demoniacal lunatic I would just appeal to common sense or would physically show you why you’re mistaken. People become idealists online because they’re divorced from the context that informs most axioms of thought and trains the psychophysical intuition about the outside world. There’s little, if any, evidence for a deity in nature, you won’t find miracles or god particles or angels, or first principles, in a forest. You mean to retreat into either Reason, which is really unwise since you will inevitably end with Kant or Hegel or Heidegger, or with faith and then deferring to reason as the executor of faith’s project, but that’s not tenable to me. i have no reason nor instinct to accept the faith that informs your presuppositions about which things you take for granted. We don’t have to agree, and in not having any obligation to begin at the same point we can both, if clever and motivated, construct relatively consistent and ambitious systems, convince other intelligent people to shore up the fissures and lacunae we neglect to notice and then transfer this mind virus to physical authorities who can enforce it with wealth distribution, doling out of prestige or violence to those who do or don’t assent to it. That’s exactly what the commies did, that’s exactly what the Church did. There is a good reason why people violently rebelled against it and why atheism was established both by observing the heart of the natural world, violence, survival by tooth and claw, and actual vicious, murderous rebellion with churches and aristocrats being annihilated mercilessly. You don’t see everything you do has consequences, its not a joke at all to establish a wrong system of values and spread them like a contagion causing an epidemic of stupid beliefs among people with real means to enact something like their values on this planet. This is why i hate you, and am revolted by you. Religious people, idealists, don’t care who they harm or what kind of wreckage they leave in this life.

>he doesn't believe in God
based
>he believes in God
redpilled
>he argues about it on a vietnamese knitting forum
cringe and bluepilled

>>12275201
More people have died at the hands of secular-led governments in the past 100 years than in all purely-religious wars combined.

>>12275230
Wait wait wait wait wait, so you be saying.... athiests might not actually care about life as much as they say??

>>12275018
yikes

>>12275230
No that’s not true at all, the An Lushan revolt, Mongol conquests, conquest of Tamerlane and combined death toll of the religious wars in Europe, Muslim conquest of India, Crusades is probably far more than the death toll from Stalin, Mao and Hitler. If we’re speaking purely about deaths per 100,000 then its not true at all. You and the other retards don’t have anything to say.

>>12275235
>no evidence that life is """"valuable"""

>>12275244
While there were more wars religiously throughout history (I'll give you that) do some research. The populations were bigger with Mao, Stalin, Hitler, cambodian killing fields, and secular genocides of the 20th century. Far more people died.

>>12275246
>>12275240

Man christfags really outting themselves as brainlets ITT lol

>>12274912
Stop being a toxic and brainwashed. Go study. Stop being a NPC.
Francis Collins, Jérôme Lejeune, Jacinto Convit, Antony Flew.

>>12275394
yikes.

you musta missed the "noteworthy" part of my post

>>12275148
why write all this when I know for a FACT you haven't read Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Schopenhauer, etc.?

>>12275414
maybe because the other anon missed where you successfully argued that academic fame directly correlates to truth

>>12266722
I suggest "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution And Its Fashionable Enemies" by David Bentley Hart

>>12275414
>>12275452
btfo

>>12274134
literally neck yourself, you filthy kike

>>12275306
Which posts exactly?

>>12275727
Your posts

>>12275259
I'm not that anon, but if you're literally claiming that more people died from secular governments in the 20th century than from religious actions in -all previous history-, you probably need to educate yourself. Estimates of the Taiping Rebellion, on its own, are 20-30 million.

>>12272222
Well, no use tryin to argue with jesus quads.

>>12275844
>The Taiping Rebellion began in the southern province of Guangxi when local officials launched a campaign of religious persecution against a millenarian sect known as the God Worshipping Society led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ.
This is not a war caused by religion. Hong was obviously insane and not in line with Christian doctrine.