/lit/ - Literature

>>14211483
Is this guy dead yet? I can't wait for him to burn for his blasphemy.

>>14211487
Judgement comes on judgement day regardless of when someone dies.

>>14211483
Unironically a pretty good book. I don't think anyone here has argued against his refutation of Aquinas in good faith. His books have value in them, I don't know why /lit/ dismisses him so flippantly.

>>14211504
>if god created everything then who created god hurr durr
yeah, irrefutable argument

>>14211483
atheists being so cringe is enough proof of God for me.

>>14211507
There's a bit more depth to what you're talking about and you're only demonstrating my original point: Why so flippant? You haven't even argued against that in your post.

>>14211512
Explain his argument then.

>>14211483
Enjoy your Muslim country, Richard. Now that you've killed your own culture, maybe a new one can finally erase faggotry from your chickenshit island.

>>14211504
aquinas literally memorized the entire bible. lmao if you think dawkins is even the same species as him.

>>14211517

I never read Dawkins in even my edgiest phase of being a teenager, so I tried listening to the audiobook of The God Delusion recently. Dude is so fucking smug. People like him are the reason people hate atheists.

Oh and also it's hilarious how he shoehorns in references to le nerd culture shit like Hitchhiker's Guide and Monty Python. It's very reddit.

>>14211532
does this retard actually think the average normie is walking around fearing God? lmao.

>>14211528
>Aquinas was a bug drone
Indeed not the same species

>>14211540
reddit is a christian board

>>14211516
Aquinas' arguments are basically god of the gaps arguments. Why would it be your god, and why is your god immune from infinite regress but the universe without a god isn't?

>>14211751
>Aquinas' arguments are basically god of the gaps arguments
Wrong and self-outed as a brainlet.

>>14211751
the flying spaghetti monster hehe

>>14211784
>>14211808
Hearkens back to my original point. None of these replies have substance and they refuse to attempt to refute my argument, because they know it's true. Aquinas uses a vague argument and then fills in the gaps with a very specific god.

>>14211827
Nobody is bothering to reply to you because it's obvious you haven't done any actual research into Aquinas' arguments, nor read any of his work and yet you're trying to make an argument against him. Do you see how irrational that is? You're wasting everyone's time. Now, either go back to r*ddit or actually read Aquinas.

>>14211827
You misrepresented Aquinas's argument, there isn't a debate to be had.

>be me
>walk into bookstore
>Go to philosophy section
>first books I see standing out are Outgrowing God and The Moral Landscape

Is philosophy dead guys?

>>14211751
I was actually expecting something original and of substance. Disappointing.

>>14211901
>>14211900
That's not true at all. I have read his five truths and I have read Dawkins. You haven't read him if you think he specifically outlined how the first mover is clearly the Abrahamic one. Your replies are filled with ignorance. Not once have I misrepresented him.

>>14211532
what a fucking retard

>>14211913
>>14211901
>>14211900
>>14211808
>>14211784
>>14211784>>14211507
>>14211507
>literally none of these posts have made any argument whatsoever
Holy fuck, Christians are literally subhuman. You have one guy who simply explained Dawkins' position and around 6 hivemind insektoids piling on without use of reason or intelligence

>>14211918
>You haven't read him if you think he specifically outlined how the first mover is clearly the Abrahamic one.
No one is saying this. You're just retarded if you think the point of his argument was to specifically prove the Christian God.

>>14211918
>I read 1 single pamphlet from Aquinas
>I read a book from a smug bugman saying duur could god maek rock he not move?
>I am equipped to debunk Aquinas and the entirety of his work

>>14211928
Well there you go! Another argument that you haven't refuted! Reminder that omniscience is ltierall yimpossible and is a paradox, and you can't even argue against it. God can't make the rock, stupid.

>>14211960
Finally an argument from the Dawkinsdrone

>>14211960
>omniscience
How?

>>14211974
>>14211974
Gee, I've given you 3 arguments and you haven't argued against it at all. You're the npc you idiot

>>14211960
>omniscience is ltierall yimpossible
calm down, take your time

>>14211960
>God can't make the rock, stupid.
yes He can.

>>14211984
>>14211984
No he can't, stupid. Your god cannot do that which it is impossible to do, and since he cant he is not a god..Refute this..you cant

>>14211980
You're saying Dawkins refuted Aquinas without explaining how. Also, I've even heard some atheists say that Dawkins handling of Aquinas was poor.

>>14211987
For God all things are possible

>>14211987

>>14212000
>asking a midwit to read a critique of his own opinion
that is truly something god cannot make happen

>>14211987
rock needs a plane to sit on, so that it can be lifted. God is omnipresent, as well as omniscient, so he is everywhere, meaning He is outside the plane as well. He can make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift from the plane, but He can lift the plane itself along with the rock. its not that fucking hard to refute.

>>14212048
god exists outside of human rationality

>>14212034

Atheism has already been thoroughly debunked.

>>14212234
It got debunked by a literal hat.

>>14211483
based

>>14211483
good grief that cover is gaudy. it must be american. uk cover is much better.

>>14211901
>muh aquinas
oh fuck off. his crappy arguments rely entirely on the credulity of the reader. also aquinas believed in literal flying broomstick witches. today we would call him a lunatic.

>>14211487
christian forgiveness, everyone.

>>14211902
philosophy based on any religious standpoint certainly is, yes.

>>14211540
>references to le nerd culture shit like Hitchhiker's Guide and Monty Python
douglas adams was his friend, why wouldn't he? he met his (now ex) wife lalla ward at a party at adams' house. she played romana in doctor who. adams also wrote for monty python and also wrote the screenplay for the doctor who series city of death which has a cameo by john cleese.
they are all buddies with each other. if you could write and if you had any friends, you might mention them in your books too.

>>14212403
Why do söy writers all attract each other with magnetic force?

>>14212412
https://twitter.com/royalsociety/status/999904195711975425

>>14211504
/lit/ hates him because he just rehashes very old and over-used arguments. Granted, it's pretty hard to come up with new arguments for a topic that has been debated for millennia, however, it's annoying to see edgy teen atheists consider him a genius or a prophet. He is simply an atheism televangelist.

As far as Aquinas, no one has yet refuted him. I recommend actually reading Aquinas directly rather than reading bits, pieces, or paraphrasing filtered by someone with inherent bias (an atheist trying to show God doesn't exist).

>>14211483
>I am already are a non-smoker when it comes to 99% of cigarette brands, so I'm basically just like you who's never smoked a cig in his life

Powerful.

The coelacanth went extinct 70 million years ago, also they exist right now
Fuck Dawkins and fuck macroevolution

>>14213023
prove that god exists pls

>>14213047
A child's smile

>>14213005
>that tweet is fucking real

oh my sweet baby jesus what the fuck

>>14212948
I thought Kant ended Thomism and the cosmological arguments

>>14213005
Science is fine and all, but I just wish they would stay out philosophy

>>14211540
>and also it's hilarious how he shoehorns in references to le nerd culture shit like Hitchhiker's Guide and Monty Python. It's very reddit.
Lmfao, they just can't stay away from pop culture references can they. Onions to the core

>>14213047
Prove that Dawkins isn't obsessed with God

>>14211483
>rebel against God all your life
>tells orhers to grow up
Ok boomer

>>14211987
>doing that which is impossible
>that which is impossible has internal contradictions
>that which has internal contradictions is false
>all that is false in non-existent
>all that doesn't exist is a non-entity
>asking God to do nothing proves he isn't omnipotent even though that's what he does all the time according to atheists
You fucked up bucko

>>14213057
Kant was a theist himself and argues for the existence of God in his Critique of Pure Reason.

>>14211483
Someone should tell him that New Atheism died once Atheism+ blew the community to pieces and it became culturally unacceptable to criticize Islam.

>>14213253
Kant recognized that there is no rational proof for God, he argued strictly from morality.

>>14213253
I didnt say he was an atheist. I said he disproved Aquinas

>>14211483
Are their actually any arguments in favour of god's existence that isn't aquinas? I'm genuinely curious

>>14211487
He'll rot in the ground in the same manner as you will, except unlike you he'll go having had a succesful career and life.

>>14211528
Memorizing fiction vs actually going science

>>14213312
Yes.
>>14213253

>>14213057
>when atheists try to co-opt theists because their collection of Nietzsche and Dawkins is looking pretty pathetic

>>14213265
*crickets*

>>14213532
>when theists won't acknowledge the point because their hind-brains tell them next stop is BTFOtown

>>14213579
He may have, but Dawkins, the topic of the thread, sure as shit didn't.

>>14211751
Are you retarded or just very stupid? The arguement is not god of the gaps because it does not feel in a gap. If our current understanding of how the world started is correct, a demiurge outside space and time is necessary. Proving the Christian God is a whole other topic though

>>14212310
That's a strawman tho

>>14213068
This is at the core of my aversion for him. He's a philosophical retard and he even wears it with pride. Disgusting

>>14211483
>gets destroyed in his field

>>14213656
>intelligent design
do fuck off

>>14211504
Because /lit/ is pseuds with magical thinking

>>14213668
>do fuck off
Stunning argument, just like I expected from 'evolution' advocates!

>>14213686
it wasn't intended to be an argument. i was asking you to fuck off. anyone who mentions intelligent design deserves it. now fuck off

>>14213689
I win.

>>14213689
Yikes.

>>14213689
What a faggy Reddit meltdown.

>>14213751
yay here is your obligatory leddit trofy

>>14213265
>disproved Aquinas
sure buddy
>>14213513
what science did he do?
he most certainly didn't advance science

>>14213969
idiot

>>14213508
> He made lots of colourful pieces of paper in his godless lifetime

Found the American

>>14214423
>science is just paper
you sound pretty american yourself anon

>>14214423
>he talked with his imaginary friend a lot of times
Found the American

>>14211487
fucking same. Can't wait for this kuffar to burn in hell.

>>14211918
Anon why are you giving any energy to the pimple-faced computermales here? Your argument is fine. Let them be autistic.

>>14211504
You dishonest little pseud faggot. His argument is famously flawed because he doesn’t understand that notion in Aristotelian metaphysics does not mean spatial motion. Everyone knows this. Lying faggot

>>14211926
Causality is a fact of the physical universe. Why would something that precedes and you exists without the need of time or a physical nature be subject to casuality

>>14211487
I can’t wait for his descendants to live under Islam. The guy hates Muslims and I was actually reading the God Delusion and he talks about the memetic force of an idea, later I was reading an interview of his and it’s finally clicked in his head, Islam’s memetics are far stronger than any current ideology. His atheist drivel only weakened Christianity’s presence and helped pave the way for the Islamisation of Europe and he realises it. It’s all about reproduction, if liberal enlightenment values lower birth rates then they cannot survive. His great grandkids will be waking up to the morning prayer

>>14211751
>God of the gaps
This is a misunderstanding based on Dawkins wanting to see everything through the lens of scientism based on blind faith that science is going to somehow answer questions outside of its scope.
>Why would it be your God
That requires other arguments that are theological, there is no point discussing theology with an atheist because you have to accept the necessity of a God in general before any of that can make sense.
>Why is God immune to infinite regress
Because infinite regress is impossible it follows that whatever the ultimate cause of reality is, it is something eternal and necessary.

Dawkins actually doesn't know what he's talking about at all, he's popular only because his audience knows even less than he does. His new book is marketed to tweens.

>>14213005
>Continentals Algebra
Does he really not realise Algebra is actually a school of mathematics and could very easily be described as a region-specific application. Does this nigger even understand maths?

>>14213969
You don't know anything about Kant, do you?

>>14215197
you could have just left this thread in obscurity
but noooo
now look what's happened

>>14213532
I'm not even an atheist you moron

Does Dawkins ever discuss mainline/academic Christians? he seems to only ever discuss fundamentalists.

>>14211483
Imagine being so prideful that you think yourself better than God and not even being aware of your own hubris.

>>14211554
Yes, but not to that extreme. It should be noted that most of our unconscious values and inhibitions are christian-based. To deny Christianity puts into question those values.

Concluding that “HURR DURR DURR cHrIStiAn mOrAliTY iS a fUckInG mEme DURR DURR” would yield severe long term consequences.

Nihilism and atheism is not for everyone. NPCs need to know their place.

>>14215288
Why would that something be 'god'? On what basis do we imbue that something with characteristics of life (and human life in particular)?

>>14211483
Approximately ten years ago, when I was fourteen years of age, I promised to myself that I would never "grow up" into an adult, that is. - become a decrepid atheist/pseudoscientist like the one featured in the image attached to your post. I am overly thankful to Sofia for keeping this vow strong within me throughout the years.

>>14211504
This has to be a bait

>>14213005
oh no no no please tell me thats not real

>>14213312
Tons. Aquinas are outdated and straw-manned all the time. My favorite is Godel' Ontological and Lebniz's Cosmological. I find the argument from Morality the most compelling

>>14217047
are you dumb? most adults are religious you tard

>>14216770
We don’t. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove an anthropomorphic god

Dawkins and Sam Harris are Atheists for Atheists who are too stupid to understand Marx, Nietzsche, Deleuze etc.

>>14216770
>something with characteristics of life
when was this ever considered god? It seems like youve been brainwashed by fundamentalists or militant atheists who think god is literally a bearded man

>>14215288
>Causality is a fact of the physical universe. Why would something that precedes and you exists without the need of time or a physical nature be subject to casuality

This is why you need to understand Leibniz's contingency argument and the notion of Reason. Long ago, reason and cause were roughly the same thing, then science hijacked that notion "cause" for spacial physical phenomenon. This is stupid though because we even known at the quantum level cause can be atemporal. In metaphysics, the word cause is used for "Reason" ie, the intelligible association of a coherent matter of fact. The PSR says there is a reason for everything conceivable. I dont see how you can disagree with this, lest you fall into contradiction.

>>14211483
nonreligious children are some how more mature than christian adults... yeah right.

>>14211483
Dawkins new strategy is to get the kids early before they have a chance to actually learn anything about philosophy.

>>14212386
>christian forgiveness, everyone.
Go fuck yourself.

>>14218267
>>14218288
If there is no assumed will or valuation or creative vision on the part of this 'god', then I don't see how it is sensible to conceive of it as 'god' as opposed to a non-mystical base state of existence.

You are mystics, disingenuously employing selective logic.

>>14218406
religions do this, why shouldn't dawkins?

>>14218478
so forgiving

Reddit

>>14218651
4channel

>>14218587
Did you even read the smuggie? What's wrong with you people lol.

>"I thought Atheists were suppose to be smart? Where's your "unclouded" critical thinking?"
Christians don't say this to you. Where did you learn to do it to them? Unironically, why are atheists addicted to this type of strawman?

>>14218574
>I don't see how it is sensible to conceive of it as 'god' as opposed to a non-mystical base state of existence.
because thats how its been understood since the greeks. Conceiving the necessary ontological object as something else is pointless when it has been known since 400 BC. Call it what you want, its god by another name. insistence on Anything else is just resentment or rebellion against flavors of Christianity

>>14211504
>I don't know why /lit/ dismisses him so flippantly.
It's about internet atheists attitude mostly, not really about the arguments. They're a bunch of resentful assholes that can't stand that other people go on with their lives without paying attention to them.

I'm a theist, but I wouldn't wast a single second of my life trying to convert anyone. There's no motive for any atheist to behave otherwise, and although I do know that most of them are nice guys, they have a substantial minority that can't contain its pathetic and childish attitude.

>>14218651
Brilliant!

>>14211504
His argument against Aquinas is based on him never reading anything more than the five proofs. The proofs are not meant to be end all lines of phrase, they cannot be separated from the rest of Aquinas's work. Reading them singularly with no background knowledge makes them appear incredibly surface level, easily refutable and borderline all the same.

>>14211487
Why do you need it?

>>14213265
How did he disprove Aquinas, genuinely curious?

>>14218880
because bad thing happen

>>14213607
Yes. Imagine worshipping the scientific method and being humiliated by a non-entity like a strawman.

>>14218920
>worshipping the scientific method
zero people do this
>and being humiliated by a non-entity like a strawman.
zero people do this
>imagine
yeah, you did

>>14218659
You're not conceiving of that ontological object as just an object, but as something with intent. Even the most neutral notions of 'god' are anthropomorphic projections. For example, none of you arguing for god are imagining a fluctuating quantum field, devoid of consciousness and intentional design. Why not?

Nothing to do with resentment. This is supposedly a philosophical conversation, and we're concerned with rigorous application of logic, not tradition or feelings, or even the pragmatic.

>>14218943
quite right anon
i imagine god as the empty frijj milkshake bottle on my desk
god was yummy
checkmate atheists

>>14218934
>zero people do this
'I fucking love science' crowd is just another form of 'my dad can beat your dad' / 'the console my parents bought me is better than the other consoles'
>nobody has been btfo by the fedora meme or any non-argument/strawman ever
Apes mock things and they even punch things to btfo them. They don't need science and arguments to do it.
You certainly seem to believe that they absolutely must. Scientism is retarded.

>>14218953
So you have no argument. Fair enough.

>>14218943
>just an object
No such thing. The word 'just' is a magical barrier that prevents any real meaning from being used.

>>14218973
you're starting to sound a little desperate to believe things that don't actually exist. i guess that's the theist way.
>>14218993
i responded in a ridiculous way to a ridiculous post. >>14218943 is quantum mysticism and sounds like some of the bollocks someone like rupert sheldrake come up with. next stop: psychic pets.

>>14219015
>you're starting to sound a little desperate
Nah.
>to believe things that don't actually exist. i guess that's the theist way
What? My belief is that the atheists were btfo by the fedora meme. You will be btfo by time as well. Arguments are an unnecessary form of existence without meaningful context.

>>14219006
No, 'just' was used to emphasize the non-assumptiveness of object = extant thing. The issue is that the notion of 'god' unduly anthropomorphizes the base of existence, and you all keep ducking this.

>>14219015
Not an argument. By what measure is such an admitted speculation a) mystical or b) ridiculous (meaning what... improbable? unpalatable to your delicate sensibilities?) in comparison to the notion of 'god'?

>>14211483
This dude is a retard, but luckily for him his readers are even more retarded. He even acknowledges that religion is ingrained in human psychology and beneficial for society, but keeps writing these books because he knows fedoras will buy them.

>>14218896
No retard
>>14218880
Aquinas interprets the noumena through the categories which can only understand phenomena. Time and space, cause and effect are categories of the human mind and there is no way to know if the thing-in-itself actually abides by these.

>>14218943
Classical theists and even modern theists like Tillich consider anthropomorphic concepts of God as heretical. Concepts as the Monad as a personal being only came into mainstream in the past couple hundred years

>>14219335
Then I'd have to ask any theist with such a sincerely neutral, non-assumptive perspective to point to the difference in ontological perspective between them and an atheist. I doubt many atheists would deny that some base/source level of existence must exist, and would not claim to have specific knowledge of it. So what are we arguing about? What is the big deal? Wouldn't it be prudent — for the purposes of philosophical discourse at least — to not refer to this unknown source as 'god', since the term will be inevitably conflated with the more popular personal notion?
Even with 'Monad', I must wonder whether you merely refer to a fundamental source, or do you additionally assume a being (albeit an impersonal one)?

Tillich does seem very restrained, but I think even he is attempting to maintain a mystical connection between our nature (valuing, desiring of meaning, etc.) and the source of existence with his 'Power of Being'. If such a connection is purely pragmatic and symbolic, that's fine (I do recognize the utility religion provides), but it's of no ontological significance.

>>14219585
I honestly dont see a point to engage with your post. Your arguing over the public conception of God as personal, so therefore we should use another word? I dont really care. If you and I, or anyone whom I can engage with philosophically can agree to the parameters of term, even if only for convenience, then I dont see a point is discussing the terms sociological function. Certainly the subject has a place for discussion, but its not something I personally concern myself with.
>Even with 'Monad', I must wonder whether you merely refer to a fundamental source, or do you additionally assume a being (albeit an impersonal one)?
Please elaborate. I think there are rational arguments proposed that would conceive of God as conscious(ness) such as references to Him as Nous. I would that as a source of Creation, Creation would be dependent on Him for its contiued essence, and therefore would make Him relevant to the function and desgin of physical existence.
Unfortunately i'm not too familiar with Tillich beyond what I've read from him in a couple of intro to philosophy books. I own one or two of his books and a couple books about his theology, but I decided at that time he was low priority because wikipedia made him out to be some kind of poltical author. Would you reccomend invesitgsting him further as a priority?

>>14219104
>The issue is that the notion of 'god' unduly anthropomorphizes the base of existence,
That's hardly an issue, though. No more an issue than seeing any other exciting qualities there, like energy, potential or the sort - if it's their origin and ours, this is to be expected. The flaw is that we can't expect more.

>>14219722
There's a big difference between acknowledging a common origin and assuming that this origin itself exhibits the complex traits of that which has emerged from it. It's like supposing that carbon atoms are prismatic because diamonds are made of them.

>>14215397
'Atheists' as a rule tend to avoid all possible debate with those properly trained in any field, especially Christian apologists.

>>14218259
>most adults are religious
Indeed, and most religious/traditionalistic individuals ignore God.

>>14213508
So just like his colleague Epstein?

*yawn*

>>14220292
Well Epstein will also die one day, so probably yes.

>>14219961
>exhibits the complex traits of that which has emerged from it.
All emerges from it, so it is impossible for it to not have potential - and actuality - beyond them. Heck, we aren't the limit of existence, our perception is our limit of existence.

>>14215328
If God may be eternal and necessary, why not the universe?

>>14220451
This Universe is finite and has an origin. Ergo, it doesn't explain itself, it needs a predecessor.

>>14218651
>Dumb down 'The god dellusion' because it was too difficult

Pop science books are already dumbed down to make any 13 year old sperglord able to understand it. This reviewer must think he's reading a dense research article when jerks off to every half clever quip in the god delusion.

>>14220451
>most neutral notions of 'god' are anthropomorphic

brother, please go actually read the bible before you go spouting nonsense like this.

Now, please, imagine an ant. That ant can't possible understand we're looking at at or understand its suffering, it's capacity for consciousness is capped. As natural philosophy has grown (first big bang theorist was catholic, get over yourself thinking science is somehow not derived from bettering our understanding of the physical to grasp the metaphysical) we can look deeper, atoms and quarks and the like and even these particles abide to a certain order and consciousness. Believing humans are the end of this chain of consciousness is actually logically ignorant.

There's no point in going deeper into this conversation until you've read the bible, Aristotle's First Order, Aquinas, and Spinoza, and probably dozens of others. You're being too semantical >>14219585 and are now asking about the nature of faith.

>>14220657
meant for>>14218943


>>14220451
If you read the books I mentioned in the above post it explains this>>14220477 as well as arguments for why polytheistic god are potentially derived from the One.

>>14213051
Depends what they're smiling at

>>14215229
Who are you? His mommy?

Honestly if you're older than 11 and believe in god you should be embarrassed

>>14219978
You're operating under the premise that academics can't hold extremely unorthodox beliefs; also opinions in secular biblical studies change on a whim without any new evidence.

>>14218587
Does two wrongs make a right? You can teach something to kids if you are honest about it and Dawkins has never been honest about his lack of knowledge on this topic yet writes books about it anyway.

>>14213689
>anyone who mentions a valid explanation of the origin of life deserves to fuck off.
Intolerant!

>>14211483
Dawkins is a good scientist but a bad philosopher

>>14220778
Nah I'd say if you're older than six and believe in god you should be embarrassed

>>14211483
Dawkins is a midwit or a shill trying to trap midwits in atheism away from Monism.

>>14220889
I'm often surprised at how little Bible academics actually know outside of their niche, I had one guy ask me why the KJV reads so differently from other texts from the same period.

>>14219104
>The issue is that the notion of 'god' unduly anthropomorphizes the base of existence, and you all keep ducking this.
Abraham religions tend to do this, but not general theism

>>14219585
>So what are we arguing about? What is the big deal?
Because atheists insist on denying God exists because they disagree with the revelation of christ. They conflate jesus and god as the one and the same, and then make the movement to claim jesus was not divine, therefore god dosen't exist. This is obviously wrong, yet when you point it out, it is always the Popular Christian Story book God that they strawman.

>>14218943
>Even the most neutral notions of 'god' are anthropomorphic projections. For example, none of you arguing for god are imagining a fluctuating quantum field, devoid of consciousness and intentional design. Why not?
>I know what you are imagining

What the hell is this? Are we seriously at a point where you are pretending you know what people are thinking?? We only know some properties of God, Most of what we know is pure abstraction, transcendence. That why there is so much symbolism in religions. Freud was truly a mistake.

>>14211483
This guy is so arrogant it's almost hilarious.