/lit/ - Literature

it's cool, my grandma follows it

God exists or else I wouldn't have dubs right now.

>>17913551
God exists or else you wouldn’t exist

>>17913551
Better believe or the sky daddy will fry your ass in hellfire for all eternity

>>17913551
Killing yourself

Consciousness is a good start. Atheists fail to explain how humans have this.

>>17913551
Eliade's complete works

>>17913677
consciousness =/= God

No religion has a comparable argument to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as testified by the gospels, martyrs, and various other sources. There's always room for some big brained skepticism with anything historical but it's telling how inconsistent the standards of critics are when it comes to Christianity.

>>17913551
Why not?

>>17913805
here's something: it didn't happen

For the existence of God, the best I've seen is the transcendental argument:

https://carm.org/defending-the-faith/the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

Aquinas' 5 proofs aren't so bad, and Pascal's Pensees are worth a read.

Once you're convinced of the existence of *a* God (which, I might add, is impossible to know with 100% certainly when relying solely on logic and mental efforts), you enter the realm of comparative religion. This isn't what you asked, so I won't say too much here, although I spent a few years in this zone, deciding that Christianity held the best claim to truth, and Catholicism the best claim within Christianity.

My knowledge of God now has developed mainly through prayer, trying to live my faith and earnestly seeking to do His will. Philosophising and arguing is only really useful as a means of pushing yourself into making real steps, like tricking yourself into generating 'actual grace'. Though your curiosity regarding religion is no doubt prompted by the grace of God in the first place. Just remember that for every earnest seeker there comes a point where intellectualising faith won't work any more, and you either jump in the pool or decide to walk away (usually, I've found, from fear of getting wet).

>>17913677
>can’t explain it
>therefore god dun did it

>>17913839
Fag

>>17913805
>No religion has a comparable argument to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as testified by the gospels, martyrs, and various other sources.
None of which are outside of Christianity, as is usual with Abrahamic religions

>>17913848
>deciding that Christianity held the best claim to truth, and Catholicism the best claim within Christianity.
Islam disagrees

>>17913854
>argumentum ad faggium
Bringing the big guns of theology I see

>>17913863
Why would that matter? Most of what we know about Rome comes from Romans. That's not a reason in itself to doubt them. This is exactly what I mean by critics having inconsistent standards.

>>17913875
Me calling you a fag is not an argument. It's just me calling you a fag because that's what you are.

Evidential apologetics? Necessary being? I believe in God because my instincts tell me to

>>17913867
I know, I said that's the conclusion I arrived at. I find Islam to be highly implausible when compared to Christianity. But OP didn't ask about *which* religion is true, his post suggests he is interested in arguments for or against a God. Happy to discuss comparative religion with you, though, if that's what you want.

>>17913851
Yes, because it refutes the claim of the Big Bang and that the world is just material. The rationality of the religious claim it's God. Unless you can't prove your own claim, it's the most rational option available, because saying "it's too advanced for the human mind to know" or "science doesn't know yet" is just a cheap way of avoiding intellectual debates.

>>17913894
You don’t think it’s pretty important to have events that break with everything we know about reality be corroborated by people outside the mindless ingroup of followers? For one, those followers have a massive motivation to lie and to force obedience to this lie through groupthink and cultish peer pressure, something that’s a little harder to do when the reports are corroborated outside of the people who have a massive stake in it being true.

Or should I believe the Scientologists’ claims about L. Ron Hubbard as well?

SUZUKI GOLDMAN

I AM A SHIT SIKH

GOT NOSE MIL

RICE MAN

>>17913848
was jesus black?

>>17913915
>I find Islam to be highly implausible when compared to Christianity.
Despite that everything you posted before can be used by a Muslim with little to no problems?

>>17913805
>Who is Tacitus?? Who is Josephus??

Regardless, the claim that 'the only contemporary accounts of Jesus come from Christians' is flawed. If someone saw Jesus perform the miracles he performed, how could they not be what was later termed a 'Christian'? They were ordinary people convinced of Jesus' divinity. A better question is how a dozen illiterate fisherman and tradesmen maintained their stories of Christ's resurrection even under penalty of horrific torture and death.

>>17913551
P1 God is perfect
P2 Perfect being must have a perfect form
P3 Sphere is a perfect form (as well as circle)
P4 Spheres are real (because historical analysis shows that our ancestors believed that there is a spherical border to our world (Ecumene))
C1 God is a sphere
C2 God is real
C3 God is the border of ecumene

>>17913922
>Yes, because it refutes the claim of the Big Bang
That’s news to me
>and that the world is just material.
Atheism =/= materialism, that’s why there’s two words, because they don’t mean the same thing. There can be overlap, but to equate them is a conflation

>>17913939
Yes, because I've only posted things arguing for the existence of a God, not specifically a *Christian* God. I could provide arguments for Christianity over Islam, but that isn't what OP asked for. They only asked in arguments for a God, any God.

>>17913958
Define ‘perfect’

>>17913925
No, because I expect people who witness a miraculous event to be changed by it in radical ways, like in the case of Paul who started out in staunch opposition to Christianity and then converted into one of its most devout followers. I don't expect these people to give up their wordy possessions and face prison and torture for the rest of their lives over some ploy. You assume early Christianity was some get rich quick scheme when in reality it was a "get a quick death" scheme.

GOD-BIG FINN

FIVE FIFTIES

NINE. YEARS.

>>17913966
>Yes, because I've only posted things arguing for the existence of a God, not specifically a *Christian* God.
Not even that, it’s at best arguments for deism, not theism, and pretty dubious ones as well. For one, nothing you posted can be tested in any meaningful way, and logical consistency isn’t good enough

>>17913967
I would prefere not to. It would ruin the argument. Perfect is just perfect without any other definition.
Endless? Beautiful? Without flaws? Non of this is correct.

>>17913959
The concept of the Big Bang is based on materialism and mathematic probability though.

>>17913979
Because God's existence cannot be rationally proved. I do believe what I've posted so far strongly argues for the existence of a God, though - at the very least a perfect, transcendental mind. Belief in God can never be arrived at solely through use of our mental faculties, but we are so much more than simply our mental faculties.

>>17913973
>unironically still using the argument from martyrdom
I’m sure the eternal reward after confessing your faith had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Because if you’re living through one of the most politically unstable times and places ever, fear of death definitely won’t overwhelm you where you’ll desperately look for any conman who alleviates your death anxiety. You’ll also be able to easily convince such people otherwise once they’ve been convinced that their beliefs provide a way out of death

>>17914012
Early witnesses of Christ's resurrection were literally flayed alive and still maintained it was the truth. I don't find your argument plausible.

TWO FUCKING SECONDS

>>17914004
>Because God's existence cannot be rationally proved.
Why did you bother with arguments then? Aren’t you already confident in your beliefs? Seems like the only one you wanted to convince with Aquinas, Augustine and Anselm was yourself

>>17913966
>>17913915
What are your arguments for Christianity over Islam, then?

The historical accuracy of the Bible that atheists seem to overlook is a good place to start.
There has never been any question if the man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph was a real man, because he is one of the most historically verified people in existance.
The only question comes about his divine nature, which are attested by the gospels, the epistles, and the various other martyrs of old Christianity. Regardless of what pseuds say, these are some of the most reliable accounts in all of human history. Their events, their people, their locations are all historically accurate, and are continually being verified by the works of archeologists and historians.
Plus there's the fact that these books coincide with the visions and foretellings of the Prophets from hundreds of years earlier, which make the chances of it being a mere coincidence next to none.
Even if this is not enough, even the miracles which were testified by secular historians like Tacitus (who denounced him as a jewish magician) and Thallus (who coroborates the days the earth went dark after Jesus's death on Good Friday). So to say that there's more to it than these fools >>17913839 >>17913863 would like you to believe.
Then there's this >>17913848
this >>17913677
and especially this >>17913557
all that are pretty convincing evidence.

Then finally, if there's the fact that many people TODAY testify that their life has drastically changed since they made the efforts to have relationship with the God of the universe. So there's more evidence, even if it's increasingly rare in the ever growing secular world.

>>17914021
I literally explain in my post why they probably did that, because it gave them a one way ticket to eternal life. They probably viewed being flayed as having their body destroyed, not their soul. That there’s zero evidence that all of this is actually accurate probably wasn’t relevant for them, because they weren’t looking for the truth, they were looking for a way to relieve death anxiety

>>17914027
Because OP asked for 'the best argument for religion', which I took as 'best argument for existence of a God'. I feel those are the best arguments. If OP asked for the best way to experience true belief and faith, best way to know and experience God, and so on, I might have said something else.

JE-SUS CHRIST!

>>17914033
>The only question comes about his divine nature, which are attested by the gospels, the epistles, and the various other martyrs of old Christianity. Regardless of what pseuds say, these are some of the most reliable accounts in all of human history.
They are not, they’re arguably some of the most hopelessly biased accounts in all of human history. Like I said, they’re on the same level of objectivity as the accounts of L. Ron Hubbard by Scientology. They people who spouted them had a massive stake in believing this, which would be the promise of living forever.

Also, namecalling is not an argument

>>17914049
People don't do that. There's a reason places like China, Japan and the Middle East have had mass apostasy. People don't willingly undergo torture unless they're convinced, and they don't become convinced unless they've either seen evidence first-hand or had experience of the divine. People in Jesus' time weren't somehow dumber than people today, and they wouldn't have undergone such monumental suffering because they'd bought some random dude's promise - ESPECIALLY when that 'random dude' was seen as a criminal, and offers of eternal life were available through Judaism or contemporary Roman religions, which were much safer.

THE VERY IMAGE

>>17914051
>I feel those are the best arguments.
But you just said you don’t believe in proving God by arguments

>>17914086
Here are the best arguments, and yes, it's self advertising
>>17913958

>>17913551
who gives a shit beliebve in it if you want to

>>17914083
>People don't do that.
The Jews even did it, have you ever read the book of the Maccabees? It has people rather dying that renouncing their faith. Does that make you conclude that Jesus wasn’t actually the Messiah? Or does your argument for martyrdom only work on the religion you happen to subscribe to?

By the way, Muslims have also laid down their lives rather than renounce Islam, and still do to this day, but none of that convinces you that Muhammed wrote a horse through the sky, climbed a ladder to heaven and had his prophethood confirmed by God himself. Why not?

>>17913551
Here is my two cents; Brain scans, psychotherapy and history all agree that the health benefits of religion are remarkable, and also incredibly available.

If that is not reason enough to take the leap of faith, then you must be much more of a believer than me.

>>17914092
>best arguments
>that don’t bother with definitions because that would totally ruin how true they are

>>17914120
Which religion? There’s quite a bit to choose from

>>17914120
If we extend the definition of religion to religiosity then yes, you are completely right

>>17913602
Lol case closed

>>17914124
perfect is perfect (without flaws and endless)
sphere is a sphere
border is border

>>17913551
Makes you feel contempt.

>>17914145
Those are repetitions, not definitions. Definitions explain the terms you're using, you’re just restating them

>>17914129
I consider my a protestant with Daoist characteristics.

>>17914130
yes, something bigger than yourself, but gods are easier to worship.

>>17914032
Very extensive, far too extensive to describe in full here. However,

Christianity had 12 Apostles with first-hand knowledge of Jesus, 11 of whom maintained He was divine under horrific torture to death. There were likewise hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, with many - such as Paul - having a complete personality 180, going from killing Christians to spreading their message. Widespread accounts of miracles, evangelisation across multiple countries, etc.

Mohammed never claims to be the son of God as Christ did. Mohammed, Islam teaches, received his divine knowledge from a spirit while in a cave. It's worth noting that Mohammed himself believed the spirit to be a demon, and the spirit did not tell him otherwise, as biblical angels did when mortals were afraid. Upon returning home, Mohammed's wife persuaded him the spirit was not a demon, but was divine, and so he decided to spread the message.

Islam is much more 'human' than Christianity, and suggests to me a human source. Christ's message of love was truly radical for its time. Scores of Christians were persecuted, yet they turned the other cheek, did not fight back, and the religion flourished around the world. Although there were later crusades, these were largely a response to unchecked Islamic aggression. Because Islam doesn't preach nonviolence; it is, ultimately, a religion of conquest, and the Quran does not have the delineation of old and new testaments that Christianity has, so comparisons of Islamic Jihad doctrines with OT records falls apart in context. To conquer and gain wealth and power is very human; to suffer on the cross, to suffer in love, is divine.

Lastly, their conceptions of the afterlife truly highlight this human/divine discrepancy. Christianity teaches that in the afterlife we will be perfected, be granted the Beatific vision, and gain new celestial bodies in which to inhabit a new earth. We will be like angels, who do not marry; we will become the perfect version of ourselves. This is the 'telos' that Aristotle speaks of. In this way we will love and worship God forever, in union with God, which is the highest end we can attain. Islam, on the other hand, promises men 72 virgins and lots of food and drink. Which seems the more human picture? Which seems the more divine?

There is much, much more than this - at best this is a dramatic oversimplification - and there are whole books on comparative religion which do a much better job than I can here, which I recommend if you are still interested.

>>17914150
Don’t forget self-loathing, very important

>>17914086
No, I don't, but that's what OP asked for. I think it was a silly question. He should have asked 'which religion do you think is true, and why?', or 'what is the best way to arrive at belief in God?'

But he asked for arguments, so that's what I gave. I like to stay on topic.

>>17914129
Doesn't really matter

>>17914160
>I consider my a protestant with Daoist characteristics.
I’m pretty sure Protestant doctrine doesn’t accept that as acceptable. As far as I’m concerned, you can believe whatever you want as long as you don’t intentionally harm people with it, but I don’t think the average Protestant agrees with me

Dubs if Christianity is real.

>>17914158
Perfect is without flaws and endless
Sphere is a geometrical figure where all dots are at the same distance form the center and all dots are in 3 dimensions
Borders are geographic and metaphysical boundaries of political entities

>>17914092
>>17913958
This is either a troll or so so dumb after reading through the sophisticated arguments in >>17913848

>>17914186
Are you going to debunk them or what?

>>17914072
>hopelessly biased
>Ignores the historical authenticity
>ignores the odds that it would have taken for Jesus of Nazareth to fin into the shoes left by the prophets centuries prior
>ignores the concurrence with secular sources, literally 2 lines away
It's not namecalling at this point, it's a statement of fact.
Atheists like to believe that truth exists, and that it can be found by having good evidence and citing their sources. When it comes about that literal historians and archaeologists find YET ANOTHER thing that was first described and found in the Bible they dismiss it because it doesn't fit their definition of truth they're literally being pretentious """""intelectuals"""" without any true basis in scholarship, or anything.
It's fine to reject the notion that Jesus was God. No one says that you have to believe much of anything. but the second that you make a claim, try to back it up, and then dismiss every rebuttal you don't like as "bias because X" (which you cannot even prove) you are literally acting pseudointellectually.
The fact that you responded to my statement with the exact arguement you're trying to use to dismiss other anon's arguements immediately gives off the impression that you found some new "BIG ATHEIST DISPROVES CHRISTIANITY" video on youtube, and are trying to use that not-so infallible logic to rightfight without any real reason but to "own the christcucks".
If you're gonna have an arguement, don't use canned rebuttals, and actually think critically.
You don't need to agree, but don't be an idiot.

>>17913984
>defining a key concept ruins your argument
Lol this sucks

>>17914165
>Christianity had 12 Apostles with first-hand knowledge of Jesus, 11 of whom maintained He was divine under horrific torture to death. There were likewise hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, with many - such as Paul - having a complete personality 180, going from killing Christians to spreading their message. Widespread accounts of miracles, evangelisation across multiple countries, etc.
And I already explained why the argument from martyrdom is total bunk. After all, is Hussain’s sacrifice then not just as valid?

>Christ's message of love was truly radical for its time. Scores of Christians were persecuted, yet they turned the other cheek, did not fight back,
>what impact did the reign of literally every Christian emperor have for the rights of polytheists to practice their religion in peace
>and the religion flourished around the world.
Again, so did Islam. All the way from Casablanca to Indonesia. It wasn’t all peaceful, but neither was Christianity

>>17914179
God doesn’t play favourites. We all are his children and there is a blaze of light in every word as Leonard Cohen used to sing.

>>17914178
It really does, since many of them claim a monopoly on the truth

>>17914186
>>17914206
These are Plato's arguments btw, but without the soul movement aspect.
For him the circular movement of god is perfection.

>>17914165
>Christianity had 12 Apostles with first-hand knowledge of Jesus, 11 of whom maintained He was divine under horrific torture to death. There were likewise hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, with many - such as Paul - having a complete personality 180, going from killing Christians to spreading their message. Widespread accounts of miracles, evangelisation across multiple countries, etc.
>using the bible to prove the bible
Bro

>>17914219
Vis a vis health benefits, it truly doesn't

>>17914223
>Plato said it so it must be right

>>17914197
>>hopelessly biased
>>Ignores the historical authenticity
Established by others who for the most part were also biased
>>ignores the odds that it would have taken for Jesus of Nazareth to fin into the shoes left by the prophets centuries prior
There were loads of apocalyptic faith healers around at the time, if it hadn’t been Jesus, it would’ve been Salomon the Leper or something.
>>ignores the concurrence with secular sources, literally 2 lines away
None of which corroborate with the claims of miracles, which is the vital thing to demonstrate. I don’t need someone to demonstrate that Jerusalem existed at the time, because that isn’t physically impossible
>It's not namecalling at this point, it's a statement of fact.
No, a statement of fact is that your arguments are pure trash and little more than cope

>>17914226
There are secular sources attesting to these details. In any case, the various documents of the Bible WERE contemporary sources, before they were pulled together some 500 years after Jesus' death to form the Bible as we know it

>>17914240
I didn't see a single refutation from you guys.
Athees can suck my big ding-dong

>>17914223
And for you a circular argument is

>>17914250
>There are secular sources attesting to these details.
Name them. Show how they attest to the miraculous claims, and not just claims like ‘some people in Judea followed some guy named Jesus, who they believed could perform miracles’, because that doesn’t prove shit

>>17914254
Every truth is a circular argument and in correct arguments each premise can be interchanged with the conclusion. This applies to logic and maths

>>17914250
>infograph from a protestant youtube channel
Seems trustworthy and not at all like they have an agenda to push

>>17914268
>Every truth is a circular argument
No, sorry, I know the moon exists because I can actually see it in the clear night sky

>>17914273
The moon exists because you see it
You see it because the moon exists

>>17914266
The ones that attested to those claims are considered Christian accounts for their attesting. What you want is a non-Christian saying they saw someone raised from the dead, but that won't happen, because everyone with first-hand knowledge became a Christian and their accounts assimilated with the early Church.

You, and anyone else seeking God, are infinitely better off praying in earnest for Him to reveal Himself to you in some way, to grant you His grace and guide you, than by arguing over logical tenets

>>17914279
The first statement isn't true at all though

>>17914272
Yeah, and
>there’s loads of copies, therefore it’s true
I guess Bigfoot and UFOs are also real, after all there’s loads of tabloids that say so

>>17914272
Pretty sure it's Catholic, not Protestant, but truth is truth no matter who speaks it.

>>17914287
>I know the moon exists because I can actually see it in the clear night sky
>The first statement isn't true at all though
Is this what they call schizophrenia?

>>17914282
>praying in earnest for Him to reveal Himself to you in some way

>look for a sign
>find one

>>17914288
That's not the same and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

>>17914282
>if they observed it, they became Christians automatically
How very convenient. I thought you had independent secular sources, now you suddenly don’t?

>>17914291
Ah, I saw all the "what's the deal with Mary" stuff and assumed they were criticisms

>>17913848
Pascal's pensees are genuinely persuasive. OP, I suggest you to read them.

>>17914296
No, it doesn't happen like that. If you really want to seek Him, try it. It's unmistakable. Beg Him to show you the truth, if He's real. Be open to it but don't go looking for anything. But be prepared for an absolutely wild ride. Once you've asked, and started seeking Him in earnest through prayer, then I guarantee it'll almost seem out of your hands. It's almost scary.

>>17914295
"The moon exists because you see it" and "You know the moon exists because you see it" mean very different things

>>17914291
>truth is truth
So, out of Jews, Christians and Muslims, and all their denominations and all the niche interpretations of those denominations, who’s not going to hell? And is it conveniently your religion, denomination and interpretation?

>>17914309
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/
No. Educate yourself

>>17914298
No, sorry, it pretty much is. Truth isn’t a democracy, and if 99% of the world believed that 1 + 1 equaled 3, that wouldn’t make it so

>>17914308
From my own experience, "begging for the truth" in prayer or whatever else is exactly the same as looking for a sign. I've seen people do it with all sorts of religions. You get yourself into a state of mind where you're prepared to see god in everything, and then there it is. Shocking, I know.

>>17914308
>If you really want to seek Him, try it.
Again, you make this sound so subjective. This is never the case with other forms of inquiry. A biologist doesn’t ‘want’ to prove his pet theory right, in fact, he will try and do the very opposite, namely test it to see how reliable it is. You’re just showing that religion is the exact opposite of robust inquiry

>>17914312
I truly don't care. Does the moon disappear from existence when you stop seeing it?

>>17913551
The current state of the western world.

>>17914347
>I truly don't care about epistemological status of things
Typical athees

I'm still waiting for refutation of my argument

>>17914244
>b-bias BIAS! MARTYRS DONT MATTER EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MARTYRS! Maybe if I say it enough it's true, and not a canned and unprovable statement!
Their historical accuracy in literally every other regard gives no reason to believe this.
>Loads of apocalyptic faith healers
Apocalypse has nothing to do with the prophets who foretold the coming of the Son of Man, born in Bethlehem, before the destruction of the second temple, resident of Nazareth, a relative of david etc etc etc. The probability of it happening that way is as close to 0 as you can humanly get, so no, no other man would have fit the bill, regardless of how little you want to believe.
>No corroboration
Literally Tacitus did. this is not the same as "well I know that nantucket existed", this is secular, non church corroboration.
>still using canned arguements
>still can't get over being called a pseud when he's STILL acting pseudointellectually
Whether you believe my arguement or not is irrelevant. You can think my arguement is trash and cope but it is a statement of fact that you are acting pseudointellectually. I gave a rebuttal that you didn't like. You didn't have to agree, you didn't have to say "wow that's crazy, i may go look into that". No. You plugged your ears, ignored it, and came out of the closet as nothing but a pseud.
I'm done anon, if you want to have an actual arguement then don't act like an insufferable nonce from r/atheism, circle jerking the one new "tactic" and using it where it doesn't even apply.
Have a good one.

>>17914300
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tranquillus. Secular sources who attest to reports of miracles, etc. But like I say, accounts of actual miracles are attested to by Christians. If Tacitus had personally observed one of the miracles, he would've converted, and you'd be considering him a Christian source. I believe your approach to this is flawed in any case. Look at what Christianity teaches, give earnest prayer a chance, and decide for yourself. If you won't try to pray earnestly, or openly, but are hardening your heart before you even try, then what's the point? Hardening your heart to God's grace - not even attempting to seek Him or be open to Him - is listed in the Bible as the one sin God won't forgive (because you won't let him). But your mere presence in this thread suggests to me you're seeking, and I know what a painful, difficult process that is. When I started on this path, some 6 years ago, I found particularly helpful Mere Christianity by CS Lewis as an intro, then Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton, Confessions by St Augustine, Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton, and various works of apologetics after that (The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, Peter Kreeft's 'A Shorter Summa', and Screwtape Letters by Lewis are highlights).

I wish you the best of luck regardless and will pray for you and everyone in this thread. I may have faith, but I am probably a worse sinner than you. Faith doesn't stop you sinning, but it certainly takes all the fun out of it.

(I would also recommend some of the short YouTube videos covering chapters from Screwtape Letters, and Fulton Sheen's sermons/10 minute videos. He was an excellent orator).

>>17914325
Yeah, i get it. But you're expecting something like 'if God is real, send me a sign' and you look at the clock and it's 11:11, or you see a blue car. I'm talking about something much more profound than that. It's like an illness, but the opposite. You'll feel a foreign presence working within you, if you let it, and it will change you and prompt you to do things. Just try it and see.

>>17914332
Oh, 100%. The best way to know God is a combination of mental inquiry (through the philosophy and doctrine of the Church) and subjective, personal experience of Him. Robust inquiry cannot prove the existence of God and never will be able to, because that's not the point. All it can do is tenuously point to a higher power. But once you KNOW God, really have felt Him and experienced Him, it's unmistakable. The rest of your life will be defined by its relationship to your 'subjective' experiences of the divine. Like I say here:

>>17914369


Anyhow, I have to go now. Best of luck to everyone and God bless.

>>17914363
>MARTYRS DONT MATTER EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MARTYRS!
I mentioned the martyrdom of Hussain just a few posts ago. That doesn’t convince you that Muhammed is the seal of the prophets. Why not?
>Apocalypse has nothing to do with the prophets who foretold the coming of the Son of Man, born in Bethlehem, before the destruction of the second temple, resident of Nazareth, a relative of david etc etc etc.
It’s almost like all this info was available to them, and they post hoc adapted their story to fit it
>Literally Tacitus did. this is not the same as "well I know that nantucket existed", this is secular, non church corroboration.
Of the resurrection, and any of the supposed miracles that happened? And not just hearsay bullshit?
>I gave a rebuttal that you didn't like.
No, I didn’t just not like it, I explained why it was an unconvincing shit argument. And now you’re just spouting a stale appeal to reddit, and you’re running away. Not something I’d do if I was convinced I was right, but okay

>>17914033
>The historical accuracy of the Bible that atheists seem to overlook is a good place to start
Interesting what you've listed. Is there any specific historiological work you'd reccommend me putting all the pieces of the bible together through accounts and archaeology?

>>17914369
>Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tranquillus. Secular sources who attest to reports of miracles, etc.
I already explain here >>17914266 that that’s not good enough
>But like I say, accounts of actual miracles are attested to by Christians.
I also already explained multiple times why those are biased and almost entirely useless
>If Tacitus had personally observed one of the miracles, he would've converted, and you'd be considering him a Christian source.
And I also already told you that this is just a shitty excuse to never present independent sources
>I believe your approach to this is flawed in any case.
Finally, I also already explained why you’re wrong. In good faith inquiry, you falsify

>>17914361
Does the motherfucking moon disappear when you are not looking at it? If

>>17913551
just look at it out there

Didn't a bunch of people commit suicide at James Town under the direction of a random guy name Jim Jones....

Martyrdom stories are just proof of the irrationality of people. People are willing to die for a lot of stupid things. Doesn't make any of those based on reality.

Miracles, are just tricks. By charismatic con-men.

Just saying.

>>17914428
Not him but how can there be independent sources of a miracle... If I saw a miracle I'd be converted. What kind of source would satisfy you? Why are accounts by Christians all of a sudden completely unreliable? If you and 20 otherscsaw a UFO, and wrote about the UFO, and people were saying 'those accounts are biased, we want an account from someone who saw the UFO but doesn't believe in them' how would that make any sense

>>17913951
>a dozen illiterate fisherman and tradesmen
The gospels are work of literary genius, how could they have been illiterate? Furthermore, there's evidence of parts of the gospels being edited to (incorrectly) match old testament prophecies, like that thing in Matthew with the donkey and the foal where Matthew read that the messiah would ride into Jerusalem on "a donkey, a foal" and interprets it as Jesus riding in on two animals, a donkey and a foal where every other Gospel author disagrees with him.

>>17914086
Can you not understand that philosophical arguments aren't concerned with logical proof?

>>17913551
people naturally gravitate towards structures of spirituality and worship. this isn't an argument for any beliefs in particular as much as it is for the necessity of practice.

>>17914474
Suicide /= being hunted down while in hiding, dragged to a public arena, and burned/flayed/crucified with the promise you can go free if you say you made the whole thing up (and still sticking to your guns). Christ was tortured to death. Do charismatic conmen tend to do that? Hundreds of early witnesses testify Christ Rose from the dead, starting a religion which now dominates the world. Do charismatic conmen tend to do that? Like Lewis says, Jesus was either evil (liar), delusional, or genuinely the Son of God. Delusion can be ruled out as throughout the Gospels he acts prudently and with a sound mind - secular psychologists have analysed them and drawn this conclusion. So either an evil liar, or the Son of God. I know which I think to be more likely, given his teachings and what ended up happening.

I also trust Napoleon's judgement more than yours

>>17914484
>Not him but how can there be independent sources of a miracle... If I saw a miracle I'd be converted.
The same way there can be independent sources of gravity. You take a ball, and try to use every fibre of your brain to will it into the air. Then you drop it and it will invariably fall.

Notice the massive difference? Notice how what I believe when it comes to gravity had absolutely no effect on its truth value? All my biases changed nothing about its outcome. If those miracles had incontrovertibly happened, anyone could’ve denied them that they happened, and it would’ve been just as convincing as denying that the sun is in the sky. Yet when we look at the claims of religion, suddenly the biases of people have a massive impact on its truth value.

You can even see this in this thread, where suddenly stuff that has little to do with whether your claim is true is presented as evidence. Christians allowed themselves to be killed for their beliefs. And? The Heaven’s Gate cult didn’t even need oppressors to prove their dedication, they killed themselves. Does that prove that their claims about UFOs coming to take us to a new stage of human evolution are true? After all, people killed themselves for it

>>17914514
No, because logic is literally a branch of philosophy

>>17914138
reroll, refuted

>>17914522

I'm not saying they didn't believe what they thought they saw. And I wonder how many actually reversed their position. But of course torture doesn't end because the one being tortured changes course. Secondary sources aren't reliable at all. Just saying


Delusional charismatic con-men might. Did this Jesus guy even understand exactly what was happening. Or was he so delusioned to believe what he was saying?

Again secondary sources aren't exactly reliable. You can test this. People are persuaded rather easily, and even then their memories aren't exactly full-proof evidence of shit.

People don't rise from the dead that is fact. People in the grieving process aren't exactly reliable at anything. Delusional grieving people probably don't give the factual information.

Those secular psychologist probably need to realize they aren't analyzing an actual patient. They are adding their sentiment to a story. So what?

DESU I just love how you don't realize how dumb you are. You are so deluded in historical accounts, you are hopeless.

>>17914332
Its hard to describe, but its not like looking for answers that aren't there. When you earnestly seek God it is an emotional experience, one that nearly defies logic and expectation. Its a state of mind truly at peace; the most beautiful thing in the world

>>17914590
>desu onions desu desu onions basedjak desu
discarded

>>17913951
This is a retrofitted historical narrative created to support presupposed beliefs. that's what christian apologetics is. It must be a historical reality because I already believe in it. Never mind how you're supposed to cram faith into a supposed historical absolute certainty.

>>17914308
I've been asking for a long time. Nothing has happened.

>>17914369
>>17914395
>Look at what Christianity teaches, give earnest prayer a chance, and decide for yourself. If you won't try to pray earnestly, or openly, but are hardening your heart before you even try, then what's the point? Hardening your heart to God's grace - not even attempting to seek Him or be open to Him - is listed in the Bible as the one sin God won't forgive (because you won't let him). But your mere presence in this thread suggests to me you're seeking, and I know what a painful, difficult process that is. When I started on this path, some 6 years ago, I found particularly helpful Mere Christianity by CS Lewis as an intro, then Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton, Confessions by St Augustine, Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton, and various works of apologetics after that (The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, Peter Kreeft's 'A Shorter Summa', and Screwtape Letters by Lewis are highlights).

>I wish you the best of luck regardless and will pray for you and everyone in this thread. I may have faith, but I am probably a worse sinner than you. Faith doesn't stop you sinning, but it certainly takes all the fun out of it.

>(I would also recommend some of the short YouTube videos covering chapters from Screwtape Letters, and Fulton Sheen's sermons/10 minute videos. He was an excellent orator).

This is the only worthwhile advice in this thread. Once you know God everything else falls away. I know my father exists. If I had no pictures of him and he lived far away, and someone was convinced he didn't exist, I would shrug my shoulders. I don't just believe he exists, I know for a fact he does. Nothing can ever shake that. I hear his voice, I see him every time I look in the mirror. I can trace his indelible influence in my life and the trajectory of my life. I have experienced his company and know and love him.

I could never prove definitively that he is alive through purely conceptual, logical argument. I might persuade you, might influence your opinion slightly, but I could never prove it. In any case, your arguments that my father doesn't exist could never persuade me otherwise, because I know he does. You could show me his death certificate that you'd acquired, but it would be meaningless, because I don't just think he's alive, I KNOW it.

The best way to convince you - the only real way - would be to bring you to meet my father. That only happens with God through prayer. It's a terrible misconception that prayer is eyes shut before bedtime asking for good things. Real prayer is an entire life of the soul.

1/3

>>17913551
There are no good arguments that any particular religion is true. However if you want potentially good effects of society being religious, religious first world countries usually have higher birthrates than their peers.

>>17914682
2/3

>>17914705
3/3

BLESS DA WHOLE BOARD

WALK ON, EGOISTS

>>17914542
You're thinking of it in the reverse order of what the people you're arguing with are.

Skeptic Steve is a documented skeptic. All his friends know he's not a UFO believer. Then, he sees a UFO, aliens stretch his anoose, etc. Afterwards, he testifies to the truth of UFOs.
In your argumentation, his testament to the UFO evidence made him "biased", and the only source you would trust is Stubborn Scott, somebody who sees the UFO, gets his anoose stretched, but then maintains that UFOs still don't exist, and happens to write about it for your pleasure many years later. Do you get how this doesn't make sense?

Your gravity example is irrelevant because your interlocutors aren't talking about scientific experiments that can be repeated, they're talking about specific, historical events.

>>17914682
>>17914705
>>17914717
What's the book?

>>17914862
Diary of a Country Priest by Bernanos. Almost did as much for my faith as the Bible. Up there with Brothers Karamazov.

>>17914898
Thanks for the rec. Brothers Karamazov is on my list too.

>>17914395
>You'll feel a foreign presence working within you, if you let it, and it will change you and prompt you to do things. Just try it and see
You can keep calling it different stuff, it will still just be you finding the truth where you want it to be. Which is fine, if you need god then you can have him. But I get so tired of all the proselytizing, and even more than that I'm tired of aimless young men begging to be convinced. These people don't need god, they need to feel like they matter to someone.

>ITT: one anon tries to dismiss evidence he doesn't like and seethes about it for an entire thread
This is the reason that /lit/ is shit now, redditors come here thinking that repeating the same phrase will get them updoots, when in reality it just shits up a thread trying to have healthy discourse.

>>17913602
Roll

>>17913551
Everyone I've met who places themselves in an idealistic, metaphysical world is happy and forward thinking while everyone I've met who places themselves in a materialistic world are upset and sad.

Elephants, whales, dolphins, and apes have proto-religious practices so there must be something innately tied between nature, intelligence, and religion (which is amazing to think of).

> Religious countries are third world shitholes
> Secular countries are the best countries in the world

I guess God just has contempt for his followers huh? Also explain the purpose of pic related

Personally I think that everyone practices religion in some form even if the name is different. Look at contemporary American politics as an example. They congregate, preach, express sincere faith, develop rituals and dogmas; it's all the same parts but with different labels. Look into the face of someone with hair the colour of dishwater who screeches about coded this or privilege that and tell me they are not a zealous disciple of the church of woke. See a man in a buffalo hat marching through his nation's capital and tell me he is not a crusader for his faith in Trump.

Everyone is religious, the difference is in the labels.

>>17916028
>Elephants, whales, dolphins, and apes have proto-religious practices
source [in a noncombative way]?

>>17916238
Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

Sources listed at bottom of page, but good read to get a glance at it--that's really all I've done. Proto-religious might be a stretch for skeptics, but I think ritual mourning implies some conception of a spirit world.

Elephants mourning bones of matriarch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjtrdpSwEUY