/lit/ - Literature

im requesting i get banned in exchange for the OP getting banned

>>17844876
your poll is fucked. it doesn't count votes for some reason.

>>17844876
/lit/ is an atheist board, anyone who disagrees is a fag

>>17844893
No, r/atheism is the place that's atheist. /lit/ is a theist board.

>>17844899
Wrong, /lit/ is completely and utterly atheist christ cuck

>>17844927
Only reddit tourists are the atheist ones. Do you feel euphoric?

>>17844889
Don't know why.
Try this https://www.strawpoll.me/42833335

>>17844930
>Do you feel euphoric?
Always, I baste in the euphoria of my intellectual superiority to you superstitious simpletons. Imagine believing in organised religion in the 21st century, you people are dogs.

Wasn't /lit/ a literature board?

I’m not. I just respect Dawkins for the massive amounts of assmad and seething he causes in Christtards. It showed that they are truly the easiest group to troll, and the group that gets most assmad, sometimes even more assmad than the Muslims, which is amazing

>>17844948
The God Delusion is a specific work that we are discussing here :)

>>17844948
cum?

Stop sperging out and just read for pete sake.

>>17844943
>>17844876
I voted agnostic in both and it didn't show up in either results

>>17844957
Lol sure dude, Atheism is definitely the easiest religion to troll.

>>17844957
Muslims put a hit out on Dawkins best friend over something he wrote in a work of fiction.Your assertion doesn't hold up, friend.

>>17844957
I'm a Christian, and I enjoy Dawkins' work. His arguments are great, and I find his style of delivering information to be very efficient while remaining entertaining.

Why is there an agnostic option? You're either a theist or not, in which case you are an atheist.

>>17845546
>His arguments are great
They really aren't though. Look up "Pints with Aquinas" on his many misunderstandings of the Cosmological argument for a start.

>>17844876
enough time has been wasted on this meme book

well it looks like it's official

>>17845589
Atheists subscribe to the absolute opinion that there is no chance for God's existence, and vice versa. Agnosticism is the skeptic's choice.

>>17844876
Nigggggggggggggger

What the fuck OP I chose theist and it still selected atheist wtf.

Literature is better then god. Because even god had to Write shit down.

>>17846990
kek

>>17844876
This is definitely the most theistic board I've been on, even ahead of /fit/, another group of enlightened individuals

>>17845589
Atheism and theism are both dogmatic. Agnostic is nondogmatic.

>>17847471
Disagree. /lit/ is very theist. The recent reddit atheist tourists are temporary. /his/ is the most atheist board overall.

>>17844876
It's more theistic now, but it wasn't always this way. When the 2016 election sent a bunch of redditor boomers to this website there was an immediate increase in religious posters. It's a tragedy really; I miss when 4chan wasn't overrun by edgy rightoids.

>>17847493
cope bugman

>>17844876
Lit has a lot of larper Christians, but they're doing out from a reactionary position because atheism is in vogue. In other words it's more a contrarian position than genuine faith. But I have no problem with that because fuck normies and their scientistic fixations.

>>17847497
It's either "cope" or "you will never be a woman." You people are all so tiring.

>>17847491
I said /lit/ is the MOST theistic board dummy

>>17847493
>It's more theistic now
Is it really though?

>>17847504
>Lit has a lot of larper Christians
What makes you believe this?

>>17847532
my bad

>>17847481
There's nothing dogmatic about atheism.

>>17847548
WEAR THE MASK
TAKE THE VACCINE
MORALITY IS OBJECTIVELY PROVEN BY SCIENCE

>>17847539
>What makes you believe this?
I'm old enough to recognize edge posting comes in many forms, including Christian.

>>17847548
No, there is, sorry. You can research this distinction more on your own. For starters you could read the book in OP in which even Dawkins admits it before doubling down on that dogma.

>>17847548
Lmao

>>17847560
>straw man
>straw man
>straw man
None of that is inherent to atheism.

>>17847539
>Is it really though?
I would say so. It's not even just on /lit/, almost all boards now spout conservative rhetoric constantly. Threads now are either blatant bait, thinly veiled bait threads, and sometimes a genuine thread about discussing literature.

>>17847548
>he says that, in a Dawkins thread

>>17847585
Due to the INTJ social outcast nature of the typical channer, things will always tend away from the mainstream culture, which currently is undeniably progressive (and atheistic, etc)

>>17847572
>>17847588
Dawkins isn't an atheist, he's a "New Atheist" or in other words a retard and a charlatan like most Anglos who attempt to write anything about philosophy and ethics. He claims atheism while simultaneously asserting theistic values and prejudices.

>>17847602
You're trying to salvage your ego from being wrong.

>>17847602
>he's not a true atheist!
kek are we in this phase already? how can you tell he's not an atheist without having a dogma to compare him to?

>>17847598
You're probably correct, I do remember during Bush's presidency is was considered cool to want to fuck traps and make fun of religion, and now it's hard to go a single thread without someone posting "you will never be a woman." or some excerpt from the bible. The strangest part is that most edgy posters now feel like boomers pretending to be young 4chan users; the whole website has an almost uncanniness to it now.

>>17847607
I'm trying to salvage atheism from philosophasters like Dawkins.

>>17847611
If you think Dawkins represents atheism then you clearly haven't read anything worth a damn on the subject.

>>17844876
God as a king of the universe that will throw you into hell makes no sense. God as a kind of absolute Idea or ground of reality might very well be discovered to be necessary one day.

>>17847637
He doesn't believe in any God. That's atheist. You don't need any other requirement to be considered an atheist.

>>17844944
>>17844927
God, I miss the mid-late 00s.

>>17847585
>almost all boards now spout conservative rhetoric constantly
I find this board in particular has a healthy balance of both sides. In fact I think there was a poll a while ago which found that the majority of people here are commies.

>>17847653
Someone could not believe in God but be open to the possibility (e.g. they doubt instead of having faith), which is agnosticism, but an atheist is different in that they believe there is not a God, which is the dogmatic aspect, and where Dawkins falls.

>>17847664
There wasw another poll that said they're fascists lol guess it depends on the hour of the day

>>17847653
>He doesn't believe in any God.
And his epistemology is inconsistent with that view, falsely maintaining a logical positivism despite the rejection of God presupposing a dismantling of all truth and substance, which he and the other "New Atheists" don't understand.

>>17847645
>God as a kind of absolute Idea or ground of reality
I mean this is the Christian view of God at least in the Thomistic conception of divine simplicity. In regards to the supposed absurdity of God sending people to hell: hell is identified with the privation of good. And since God is "the good" it follows that not choosing him with your free will warrants you to enter a place where there is a lack of good, that is, hell.

>>17847491
>The recent reddit atheist tourists are temporary
It's the opposite, the tracath larpers are temporary.

>>17844893
Go to reddit.

>>17844876
>Religion
dominant element in virtually all the great ancient kingdoms and empires, established itself both in the higher echelons and lower parts of society, inspired and continues to inspire constant philosophical debate, with a discipline all of its own (theology), as well as shaping both ancient and modern political theory (i.e. sharia and human rights). Took centuries of debate and countless thinkers to "take down" Christianity in the West, but slave morality/religion still persists even in so called atheists whether it is in morals or in State/product worship
>atheism
eternally BTFO'd by a fucking hat

>>17847653
saying you don't believe in God =/= acting as if you don't believe in God
most "atheists" fail to grasp the difference

>>17849273
>no true atheist

>>17844876

OP pic, frivolous book

>>17844876
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/

>>17845546
>I'm X
>his arguments are great
You have to go back.

>>17844876
it's funny how clueless a text can be while actually telling the truth

>>17844876
just dropping this

>>17849766
Wait, wouldn’t defending pedophilia be a good thing to a lot of religious people? Many of their own institutions are infested with it

>>17849766
maybe he isn't as bad as I though

>>17849766
This is an example of someone growing old while fearing death and lashing out at everything around him.

>>17844961
Your skills at observation receive a magna cum laude from me.

>>17845406
You're seething about a 20 year old book.

um atheist bros?

>>17849766
Lol what a deranged freak

>>17844957
The only group Dawkins makes seethe is protestants because their religion is so flimsy they often even agree with bullshit like evolution and let Dawkins kick the shit out of them. No wonder every time you see a new atheist debate the Christian is a prot.

>>17850714
Agnostics are dickless atheists so the survey is about split down the middle.

>>17852053
At least the logic of an agnostic makes sense. Atheists don't give any proofs of God's non existence only refutations of cosmological and theist arguments. You could argue along the lines of Hume's "on Miracles" but it's flawed anyways.

I mean the axis go theist-atheist and gnostic-agnostic

>>17852073
Agnosticism is no more logical than theism or atheism. Skepticism is merely the logic of the person without conviction or self-understanding.

>proofs of God's non existence
God is beyond proof. Asking for proofs of the existence or non-existence of such a concept is illogical.

>>17845406
>I was just pretending to be retarded

>>17852094
>god is beyond proof
so you should be a skeptic and an agnostic then

>>17852094
God can be proven by proving atheism and agnosticism false. Since if they are both false the only possibility is that god exists. Which is easier to do since atheists are retards and contradict themselves constantly.

>>17852138
I'm not a skeptic because I understand what God is.

>>17852145
Theism and atheism have nothing to do with truth.

>>17852155
You just said that arguing for his existence or non existence is illogical. If this is true, we face an epistemological barrier. Committing to the belief of his non existence(atheism) is therefore unjustifiable.

>>17852165
tf are you talking about. only one of them can be true.

>>17852170
Yes, arguing is illogical because we aren't talking about something that can be reduced to a rudimentary language like logic. Logic is a language that is insufficient for parsing God. God and God's absence are both something that can only be understood through a mystical, that is personal, experience — it's about belief and unbelief rather than proof, which is a matter outside of science.

>>17852171
>only one of them can be true.
We aren't talking about something that can be true or false.

>>17852218
>Yes, arguing is illogical because we aren't talking about something that can be reduced to a rudimentary language like logic
Then how can the atheist position be justified then?

>>17852270
Neither theism nor atheism can be sufficiently justified with logic considering that neither of them have anything to do with logic at bottom. You are either psychologically predisposed towards theism or atheism depending on your genetics and upbringing.

>>17852305
Then it follows that the rational position is agnosticism and skepticism

>>17852378
The rational position, yes. But rationality is born from psychological weakness. Hence agnostics are just dickless atheists who don't have it in them to determine anything about themselves or forge themselves into a certain temperament of character.

>>17852218
Why can't it be true or false?

>>17852421
>But rationality is born from psychological weakness.

>>17852461
Gods don't need rationality, and gods are perfect beings.

>>17852473
>it's another person who believes logic and morals exist outside of God

>>17852508
Gods don't need logic or morality. Only humans care about those things and argue with them. Gods simply are, and they know that they do not need to argue to justify themselves.

Applied to humans, a person of strong character simply acts, and the act is all the justification that is needed, while the argument is mere talk from someone who lacks the force to act. It is the last ditch effort of a weakling.

God is a personal meaning. A theist is not someone who knows truth about God. An atheist is not someone who knows truth about God. These are just types of character. If you think God is actually about how the world works, if you think the world works a certain way independent of your character, then you are agnostic, i.e., you are someone of weak character.

>>17849766
Quite interesting that he recently wrote an article against 'wokeism' yet supports 'wokeist' ideas himself.

>>17847548
While I agree there's nothing inherently dogmatic about athiesm, humans literally need a dogma because the only alternative is to be a nihilist and that sucks

>>17852552
>Gods don't need logic or morality... Gods simply are and they know that they do not need to argue to justify themselves.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that you aren't considering other views of what God actually is for the theologian. Most theologians believe that God is that which is most fundamental, meaning nothing exists independent of Him. Thomist theologians believe God is absolutely simple with no parts. Or God is someone who is equal to "morality" or "logic" and the attributes or ideas which are immutable. Saying God doesn't need morality or logic is like saying that a human does not need to exist. Well no, existence is what makes a human - human, and logic and morality, which is God, is what makes God - God. Whether you agree with this or disagree with this is irrelevant. Your initial opinion on the definition of God was flawed from the beginning if you were trying to argue with a theist, and your knowledge of the distinction to be made between lower case g gods and upper case G God is nowhere to be seen.

>>17844876
I voted theist just so atheist will lose

>>17852073
We know people have the tendency to wrongly attribute unexplained phenomenon to supernatural beings, the prime mover concept falls in the same category and so I'm fairly certain no all powerful counscious being exist

>>17852094
I mean, that goes against the Bible, where god shows himself and proves his existance with miraacles numerous times

>>17844876
I don't know or care if God exists.
I don't believe in any religion.
All I know is, Richard Dawkins is a midwit and you shouldn't take him seriously.

The results are BASED AS FUCK!

>105 replies about something no one can know for sure
No one here has the answers. Why pretend you do?

>>17853052
but I do have the answers anon...

>>17852864
>god of the gaps argument
You can't be this theologically illiterate anon, please...

The reason theist is winning in the poll is because the poll is shit, and many people who are not theist refused to vote because of the somehow controversial distinction between agnostic and atheist which shouldn't exist. Either that or people didn't know where to put themselves between agnostic or atheist and just gave up. Either way, the poll is bad and surely people on /lit/ aren't that irrational.

>>17850378
>Manga Coom Loudly
OwO can I have one too?

>>17854122
We know humans have the tendancy to wrongly make this kind of reasoning, so I put less stock in it, arguments like the prime mover in no way need the being to be counscious, making it an unecessary assumption. The problem with the philosopher's god is that the various argument stretch the definition of God to a vague great thing.

>>17854180
Atheists we're winning at the beginning almost 10 to 1. The poll choices are fine. Take the agnostic position to be, "I just don't know."

>>17847560
>the 20something schizo
OH FUCK I'M GONNA HALOOOCINATE.

>>17854261
Under an essentially ordered series God is not inserted to explain the unknowable as a lightning strike is explained by God because of our lack of scientific knowledge (this was actually never believed by any serious theologian anyways; astronomy being the potential exception but I'm not sure).
Instead, a necessary being in pure act is found through deduction with the act potency distinction (explains change). God of the gaps is commonly used as a way to support reductionism. But in no way does the first way deal with anything materially, only metaphysically.

I would also argue that God must have an intellect as the intellect is something free from matter. (yes I believe in the immateriality of the mind and mathematical realism). And God cannot be in extension because matter has the tendency to change (it is being in potency) and it was previously concluded that God is pure act.

Now whether you agree or disagree with the premises or the conclusions of the first way is fine, but I don't see how the argument warrants a God of the gaps disqualifier on it.

>>17854599
identifying the entity you described with any god described in theism would warrent it's association with the god of the gap

>>17844876
Has anyone considered that it is not God that created us, but we are the ones creating God?

Existence is the Will To God

>>17854780
Cringe

>>17854788
???

>>17854675
this is not what god of the gaps is.
>God of the gaps: gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
Explain how the first way is speaking any way at all about a gap in scientific knowledge. It's a deductive argument. Aquinas at the end of the argument makes sure to say, "this is what we call God." In other words, "hey this is our definition of God."

>>17844876
How come a supposedly atheist board like /lit/ consistently votes the Bible and other Christian books into the top of their yearly best 100 books lists?

The funniest thing I ever saw in biological academia was the Rice University study of professional biologists resoundingly as a population stating how they don't like or take seriously the work of Dawkins or think he presents the field accurately and is too sensational while being inaccurate, not having even been asked about him specifically by name. Lol:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html
https://news.rice.edu/2016/10/31/most-british-scientists-cited-in-study-feel-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science-2/

Christ is the one true Lord btw.

>be me
>read 30 pages of a book
>spend the rest of the day thinking I’m a highly cultured genius with very deep concerns

>>17854798
How are you liking junior high?

>>17854780
No shit. This is the literal atheist position. It of course falls apart if the arguments for the existence of God are true.

>>17855322
I guess this is hard to express semantically; I'm not saying that "God" is made up, it's that Existence is God-Becoming. The state of Being God is the Objective of Existence itself.

Instead of God being the cause of everything, God is instead the goal, and by backwards induction, is the cause. This type of thinking is used a lot in game theory In other words, the idea of this post brought it into existence. In this way, God is the Idea of Existence.

This is in no way an atheist position, but instead an Idealist one. It supposes God-Being as the end goal. If anything, it's closer to Brahmanism.

>>17855314
junior high was not the best time in my life

>>17855505
Ok I see what you're saying now. Still don't particularly agree with it though.

>Instead of God being the cause of everything, God is instead the goal, and by backwards induction, is the cause.
Are you claiming that this is what Christians actually believe or unconsciously do?

>>17855802
This follows along with lots of Christian thought actually. We can get to this kind of thinking with a combination of Aquinas and Augustine:

If Being itself is Good (privation theory of evil -- both Spinoza and Augustine take this position), then an Absolute Being would be Absolute Good -- which the Christians call God. This is very similar to Aquinas' Fourth Way argument for God.

If Being itself is Good, then the Good is our understanding of space-time (what represents itself as Being). It follows then, for our own God-Becoming, that we value information that brings us closer to this Absolute state. This comes in the form of some abstract relational notion of immortality (having children, writing things, medical care, down to the knowledge of each successive moment). Because space and time are relative, knowing more means we will live longer, and living longer means we will know more.

In other words, we call it information because we are forming into God.

>genuine theists in this thread
I can't fathom how you'd arrive at that. I guess the same kind of endless verbage that convinced all the commies on this board. Reading is cancer

>>17856395
Theism encompasses a lot of different theological stances. So yeah, I voted theist but I'm probably completely different from the next voter that picked the same and so on.

>>17856418
That sounds pretty sinful, deviating from the divine norm

>>17856787
Are people not allowed to debate the nature of the divine?

>>17856787
oh god the most cringy post I've read all night

>>17856859
According to the core principles of monotheism, not really

Atheistbros we are 25% of this board

>>17844876
IT depends on what you define as god.

>>17856395
>big pharma is a conspiracy theory

>>17857568
I personall consider atheism rejecting the doctrine of any perticular religions, it's not called adeism after all

>>17856395
go back