/lit/ - Literature

>>17747847
God is real but that’s not an excuse for worshipping a demiurge, hylic.

>>17747847
christcucks BTFO with one simple trick
1) Pray
2) nothing happens
3) Therefore God doesn't exist

Agnosticism is the real default position. There is not a single atheistic argument that disproves the existence of God. You can point out inconsistencies in scripture and philosophical holes in the thought of theologicians but none of it implies God doesn't exist.

Great proof. Now follow my particular religion and denomination or Ill stone you

Man reckons self vermiculate; poster

>>17747847
what if i told you that, actually, god is real, but not yet, and this is all just his backstory?

>>17747879
>pray
>it doesn’t work like a vending machine
>therefore god not real

>>17747879
God always hears your prayers. But sometimes the answer is “No.”

The theist / atheist / agnostic debate is peak brainlet.

>>17747879
>>17748179
I prayed two times for myself so to speak and both times it came to be. Still struggling with atheism like an asshole.

>>17748191
>hey god can you please help the starving kids in africa and maybe cure my mother's cancer
>God: yeahhh idk bro I just don't feel like it today sorry

>>17748179
>praying conveniently doesn't work like a vending machine meaning it you can easily deceive yourself into thinking works through confirmation bias
Damn these kikes really thought about everything didn't they

>>17748210
>putting suffering at the center of existence with God himself being tortured and murderd.

>yo bro have you never heard of bad things happening??

>>17748239
Why exactly should I worship a being, that in his infinite power and wisdom, decided to make reality an s & m show?

>>17747847
>To know absolutely
Atheists don't claim to absolutely know because as you said you can never absolutely know anything.

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in a God

>>17748203
The struggle is the point of faith
>>17748232
>religion should work like a vending machine

>>17747847

>1) To know absolutely that you are not an idiot one must have infinite knowledge.
>2) But to have infinite knowledge one would have to be God.
>3) It is impossible that I, and I only, would be God.
>4) Therefore, I cannot prove that you are not an idiot.

The only way you can prove you are not an idiot is by admitting that I am the one and only God

>>17748273
Reality of course is not an 's & m show'. Imagine the myriad of ways existence could be horrible. That you even have a sense of say love and beauty would be a demonstration of a kind entity being involved in its creation. Following from that it's just that God himself is the meaning, what is rational or right is by definition that which God makes it, to not conform to that is not just silly but evil, again by definition.

>>17748284
This redefining of Atheism to mean Agnosticism is cowardly and has been BTFO countless times already

>Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TyI6Hxa4R4

>>17747847
>To know absolutely that there is no God one must have infinite knowledge.
Nah, it's only that you have no proof of god, and nobody else does either. It's just more reasonable given this to not believe.

>>17747895
Based

>>17747847
>1) To know absolutely that there is no God one must have infinite knowledge.

Citation needed

>1) To know absolutely that there is no invisible unicorn right somewhere on earth one must have infinite knowledge

>>17748421
This but unironically

>>17747847
that's kinda like Kant's argument, but it btfos all arguments for the existence of God just as it does all arguments against it

>>17748273
Satan is the cause of unwarranted suffering. Not God. Maybe there is a reason for some of the suffering. When a dog is brought to the vet, it just thinks it’s getting tortured. Maybe we don’t understand the reasons we suffer, in the same way. Our comprehension is limited. God’s is not. The fact that you claim to know better, illustrates man’s folly.

>>17749054
Good except for the part where you say God is not the ultimate cause of everything. But what made you believe in God in the first place?

>>17747847
pic relate is of a post I made in a previous thread on Anselm, so I think you guys might benefit from reading it

>>17748198
>The theist / atheist / agnostic debate is peak brainlet.
Because it's so goddamned boring, unlike questions such as "what is reality?" or "how does one know?"

>>17747847
>Atheism is belief in absolute certainty that God doesn't exist.
>The choice is between atheism vs. theism, instead of thousands of different interpretations of reality / metaphysics / gods.

>>17747847
you know, your brain is really pea size, even smaller.

>>17747902
Based. God helps those who help themselves.

>>17749264
Because something cannot come from nothing. Not with God.

Also, Satan is the author of lies. There’s no contradiction in my statements.

>>17749613
Not without*

>>17748368
The existence of God has been proven. Brainlets don't need to agree with a proof in order for the proof to stand. A proof of the existence of a thing is not, however, a proof of the nature of a thing. Ancient philosophers were completely justified in supposing that though God exists, he probably doesn't care much about the humans plodding about in his creation.

To know the nature of God, one must follow reason to its ends and take a leap of faith, a leap strongly hinted at by the nature of the world and the nature of the failures of reason.

>What do you worship?

>>17749642
But why though, why does there have to be a leap of faith?

>>17747847
>tfw you are so bad at logic your conclusion doesn't even follow from the premises

>>17749741
As above, reason does not suffice to explain literally anything at all. Are you unfamiliar with the absolute collapse/failure of the logical positivists? Are you unfamiliar with the increasing levels of incomprehensibility as science moves away from our own scale? Are you unaware of the complete, inbuilt disability of our symbolic systems of discussing/reasoning about the nature of consciousness?

The most impressive aspect of scientific/mathematical progress, in my opinion, and beyond the fact that mathematics is so well attuned to nature in the first place, is that their study has led humanity to realms incomprehensible even to the specialists thereof. Does a cosmologist really grok spacetime and its apparent bending? Beyond symbols? Does a particle physicist really grok anything about quantum mechanics in the least, beyond symbols? Does a cellular biologist really grok the process of a fertilized ovum growing into an adult human, other than by extrapolating a small understanding of cellular replication and gene activation? Can one of these hope to understand a living being from first principles?

Every direction we look in appears to melt into a fog of weak understanding. I'd say that this is built in to our symbolic systems of description. Infinite onion. Yet here we are! The clear successes of our reason in describing the things around us (enabling engineering) is evidence that we're at least partially clued in. The clear failures of our reason in demonstrating any level of real understanding of whence we came or what we are is a hint towards faith.

You do you.

>>17749741
>>17750148
Kierkegaard does a good job on the leap of faith, IIRC. I'm a physicsfag and so haven't written essays on many philosophers in order that I remember them well, but I do remember Plato's Socrates complaining about being asked to carry his reasons for his beliefs around with him like so much baggage, so I'm fine with forgetting the exact points of the text.

If memory serves, Kierkegaard was similar to Camus in a way. Camus discussed the choice between suicide and continued life as primary. Kierkegaard discussed the choice between absurdity and sanity, sanity requiring faith, as reason can't justify itself.

Kind of silly that the logical positivists ever existed to begin with, considering that folks in the past had already done a better job discrediting them than any of the folks who "killed" their movement ever managed. Alas, politics pollutes everything. If rulers wish for atheism, obedient "philosophers" will do their best to supply it.

>>17750148
>>17750193
To tie it up, as I see it, going back to
>reason doesn't suffice to explain literally anything at all
Reason is necessary but not sufficient. It asymptotically approaches truth, but never crosses the line. Maybe it is a coincidence that only after over 1500 years of the fusion of philosophy and faith (John 1:1, reference original Greek, then look up Heraclitus) did human "understanding" manage to begin advancing in a significant way beyond what was known to the Greeks and Romans. Maybe alchemy was the spark! (this is claimed by many) Maybe it was the concept of secondary causality unique to Christian theology. An orderly universe asks to be tested.

Reason isn't necessary. Faith must be added in order to reach sufficiency.

>>17750033
>he needs to feel

>>17747847
Religion fags btfo in one simple trick
1)If there was a God, it would certainly be me.
2)I'm not God.
3)there is no God

>>17750361
>reason isn't necessary
Meant sufficient. It is necessary in my view. Whether faith alone is sufficient is beyond me. I've needed reason to reach faith, but I'm also obviously an autist. If a simpler person has faith without the backing of reason then this had better be sufficient.

Now I contradict myself. Maybe reason is only necessary as far as to understand (even graspingly) faith, no further (with all of the absurdity and doubt).

I guess I hope that the mentally unfit are given some free grace. My brother died as an infant and probably wasn't very well reasoned at the time.

Enough from me and my blogposts.

>>17747895
Literally this.

>>17747847
Atheism is by definition simply a lack of belief in the existence of gods/deities.

Basically everyone is an atheist in that regard. Christians are Atheists with respect to any god that is not the Abrahamic one.

Atheism makes no claims that gods don't exist.

Pick up a dictionary sometime. Educate yourself. Don't be retarded.

>>17750486
Weak rhetoric. If intended as dialectic, even weaker.

Ignorance is now a virtue.

>>17750486

see >>17748350

>>17747847
Theism BTFO'd with one simple trick:
1) The universe is far too complex to come out of nothing
2) Which is why god (a being far more complex than the universe itself) must have created it
3) How come something far more complex than the universe itself not need a creator?
4) The universe created itself is a far more logical approach than having a God due to having 1 less complicated step for the process.

>>17747847
you don't have to be 100% certain to believe there is no god so your first premise is clearly false. I'm saying this as a christian myself

>>17750506
Definitions are weak rhetoric? I guess you're retarded.

>>17750509
Agnosticism and atheism are nowhere near the same concept. You must be retarded.
Agnosticism: "I'm not sure."
Atheism: "I don't believe it."

Wow, I wouldn't think /lit/ would be filled with literal retards.

>>17750537
>definitions
Are you this bad at sophistry? If the term in question is central to the debate, and you believe that you're simply able to define it away, then you are claiming that there is no debate but merely a misunderstanding.

In this case, there is clearly a debate and, though there may be misunderstandings, the misunderstandings in terms pale in comparison to the subject of debate, itself.

>i only say it can't be proven
>atheism is the same as agnosticism
>don't ask me about the actual, public consequences of what I claim to be relatively benign

You're seen through and found lacking. Stand up or fall, but don't mince words about your exhortation to the world unless you are unsure of it.

>>17747847
Reddit is atheist, the end.

>>17747847
clever op. athiests are lost and deceived by satan and are on their way to hell unless they believe the gospel.

This is a reminder to everyone that even athiest historians/scholars believe Jesus existed. It's a historical fact and an academic consensus. And the resurrection can be proved logically because virtually all of the apostles went through severe persecutions, beatings, and reproach, and many of them were brutally tortured and killed yet they all preached the same resurrection until they died. They wouldn't have gone through all that trouble just to keep a lie, and not just one person, but 12 main apostles & many other disciples of Christ.

And going to heaven is very easy, you don't have to come to church or live a clean life to go to heaven, because eternal life is a free gift with no strings attached and salvation is a one time deal.

Read the gospel tract if you are not 100% sure of going to heaven /lit/

>>17748009
prolly

>>17749054

How does god exist to you? Im kinda struggling with summoning a clear picture of this, or at least an "understood" impression of it

If you had to describe it in a "material sense", because I think god is material, but possible just "invisible" to us as we are to an ant.

Also have you heard that there is allegedly a level of DMT in your brain akin to serotonin and dopamine, which may be why when some people have "trips in groups" the experience is very similar, or at least they see the same stuff.

As if a divine veil is lifted and we have expanded our mental view. Of course im sure this limits out at a certain point, but perhaps levels of consciousness vary with dmt production in the brain like a serotonin or dopamine imbalance would effect someone

Am I a crackpot schizoid, or dose some of this make a morsel of sense?

>>17748284
>>17750486
>>17750537
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.

>>17747847
never post again, dipshit. you make me embarrassed to be a theist. let me go through your argument premise by premise and show why you're wrong

1) yes, God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. However, the burden of proof falls on us as theists to prove his existence. The atheist need only show that the existence of God is neither logically guaranteed nor highly probable in order to justify their lack of belief.

2) Strange thing to assert without evidence, but fine.

3) not a problem if you accept the rest of the argument

4) So, with the most charitable possible interpretation of your argument, what does this conclusion mean? well, the first premise seems to imply that you are using the term "atheist" to mean "someone who is absolutely certain of God's nonexistence." The problem, though, is that refuting such an atheist is worthless. No one, not even TJ motherfucking Kirk (the amazing atheist) claims 100% certainty of God's nonexistence. The second someone says "I don't claim that God definitely doesn't exist, I just don't believe in him" your argument becomes about as robust as a wet tissue. At best, it's useful for embarrassing edgy 8th-graders. It doesn't prove God's existence, it doesn't apply to even the most ardent opponents of religion, and anyone who it actually could apply to will simply adjust their position a minuscule amount and then be immune to it. nice job, retard.

im glad the pendulum is swinging. on average here atheists are the ones that come across as uneducated retards wheras ten years ago it was theists

>>17747895
Inb4 Hitchens razor

>>17750526
Wrong. It truly came out of Nothing. And God is that nothing. He is the only thing which doesn't exist.

>>17751352
>God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis
no one here has defined wtf god even is, so this is a meaningless sentence
>to assert without evidence
empiricism isn't the sole arbiter of knowledge. Hitchens razor cannot be proven by evidence. Read philosophy and figure shit out

anyways you are dumb, because no theist out there claims that God exists like your underpants our trousers or an apple or whatever. They believe he is the ground of existence, not an object within existence.

>>17747847
Nobody cares.

>>17753106
this

>>17747847
That's great, but no one takes that position. Most people who call themselves atheists believe god isn't real, but acknowledge they can't prove a negative like that. You're a big of a brainlet aren't you?

>>17747847
atheism is destroyed once you prove it's a religion.which is easy thanks to all the atheist revolutions and world wars those assholes did. They showed their true form during the commune of Paris.

>>17753145
No.

>>17747971
no

>>17750486
>Atheism makes no claims that gods don't exist.

Behold the weak atheist definer.
Weak atheism does not mean that strong atheism doesnt exist.
You are pointing to a broader definition of atheism as if it somehow magically nullifies the more traditional and philosophically relevant definition of Atheism (the belief or claim that God does not exist).
Atheism definitely makes claims that God does not exist; dont be retarded.