/lit/ - Literature

>>19668179
>I know atheism is bullshit

Based on what? Because you really sound like just another tradlarper

>>19668189
dumb frogposter

>>19668179
Well they're all life-affirming but they say your most quality life isn't materialist or egoist. Ig in this sense I'm not sure what you mean. Islam is submission to Allah and they won an empire.
Granted you can pick and choose what you want from religions. Buddhist meditation here etc

>>19668179
Start with the Greeks.

>>19668179
Become Roman Catholic. It's the core of Christianity, and has kept doctrine the same throughout time. Most churches aren't pozzed, and you can find Latin masses which can be even better than norvus ordo masses. Also the people who go to Latin mass are typically far more devout than the average Catholic and they pretty much all follow Church doctrine in their day to day lives, which can't be said of many Catholics.

>>19668179
>>19668196
I haven't explored cyclical life arguments but Plato used them and so did samurai. Anyways it was very life-affirming and they did crazy shit all the time knowing the more badass they were the better their next life would be and Plato predicted a monotheist God so his insights aren't something to sneeze at but obv without exploring it I'm in the same cultural boat as you.

>>19668189
Well this is my argument against atheism. You're free to disagree if you want but you can't just say I'm a LARPer.

Materialism is self-refuting because it destroys the possibility of any sort of human inquiry, including empirical science. All fields of human inquiry -- mathematics, science, ethics, metaphysics, etc. -- have to assume certain immaterial concepts like the laws of logic. It is only through the use of these laws that the scientist studying cat biology, eg., can draw any conclusions whatosever.
And yet the laws of logic are immaterial, eternal, and transcendental. They would have existed without us, and will continue to exist even if we dissappear. To prove this is easy. Imagine for a moment that the laws of logic were only "the way our brains work". This would mean that we have no basis whatsoever to assert the superiority of logic thought over other forms of thought. An emotional argument, or even a nonesense one, like "goo goo ga ga therefore God exists" would be just as valid as a logically deductive one. This is because both arguments are simply "operations of the brain", movements of particles, and no movement of particles can be "truer" than another movement of particles. Just like no firework can be "truer" than another firework, no chemical explosion in the brain can be "truer" than another.
This means that atheism leads directly into skepticism (as even atheists like Hume observed), which is untenable. Hence atheism is false.

>>19668179
christianity mixed with touch of hinduism is kino, but make sure to read things like st basil the greatn st augustine, cement of alexandria st gregory st ambro, albert the great, st john tobascus then you'll understand why its not blasphemy since these based fellows came to similar conclusion, know about hindusim just helps conceptualize

>>19668210
I'm in RCIA right now, set to be baptised this Easter. I just can't stop having these doubts about Christianity. Why did God create us sick and demand that we be well? Why will he torture us forever due to a condition that he engineered and thrusted upon us? Why do we have to kneel and act like unworthy dogs before this God whose fault it is for making us this way in the first place? And why must we reverence Mary so deeply, when it is not through her own virtue or free will that she was made perfect, but merely through the arbitrary gift that God gave her? I deserve to be the Virgin Mary as much as she did; she was simply chosen and I wasn't. Then why must I praise her so submissively all the time?
I just don't understand it.

>>19668237
You're thinking about religion wrong. When you study science you have to learn formulas and respect them to the degree they're fundamental. You're not getting bullied for your lunch money. There's a particular reason we respect the divine or more fundamental. It's just how everything works. Right now you're respecting some egoist thing more fundamentally which is fine but leads to a dead-end.

>>19668179
If you're American I have no answer for you, but if you live in the land of your ancestors, then reconnect to their pagan beliefs.

>>19668259
Those ppl literally committed genocide against each other

>>19668259
Paganism is totally worthless. I'm from Lithuania, we have a somewhat large neo-pagan movement here (https://youtu.be/JnFLiAiOHbg)), but the vast majority of them are just larpers. You can't "go back" to pagan beliefs because those beliefs were tied to cultures and communities which don't exist anymore. They didn't write anything, they had no holy scripture, no theologians, no philosophers, no liturgy, not even any records of their practices. All that has come down to us is in the form of folk songs and old ladies' tales. Everything else is just conjecture and LARPing.

>>19668179
Daoism is based

>>19668259
is there a bigger sign of being a tradlarper than rejecting christianity for paganism?
Stop basing your spiritual beliefs on how epic and trad and trve evropean they are, and instead focus on finding truth and fulfillment

>>19668179
Start with the Vedas

If you like to pathologize every aspect of human existence sentient and sapient, Buddhism and its mutations might be for you.
If you want to go back to the first principles, adapt animism, ancestral worship, and bring glory to your forefathers. See the glory of creation, the sacral in material.

>>19668372
Buddhism is basically atheism. The critiques I have of atheism apply to Buddhism as well.
And I explained why neo-paganism isn't appealing to me here. >>19668275

>>19668376
You don't have to be neo-pagan to be an animist, it's a worldview.

>>19668218
>All fields of human inquiry -- mathematics, science, ethics, metaphysics, etc. -- have to assume certain immaterial concepts like the laws of logic.

No they don't. Most research doesn't give a single shit about immaterial laws of logic, and works almost entirely based on trail and error.

Honestly, you just sound like another larping logiclord who just read Aquinas for the first time and now thinks that he has access to super sekrit divine knowledge. Not only is this kind of teleological reasoning far from flawless, even if we accept it (which we don't have to), you're still stuck with the question of which immaterial creator/ground of being/whatever you want to call it we have to pick, because there's quite a bunch to choose from, each with wildly different answers for the ultimate questions and each claiming to be the only right one

>>19668218
>Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. With TAG's argument, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. However, if logic is created by or contingent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary, and God can change them on God's fiat. Thus God can change the laws of identity to make them invalid at some point, making statements not the same as themselves. Since logic is contingent on God as one of His creations, to argue that God cannot change the laws of logic blows away God's omnipotence. As a result, the claim that logic is dependent on God is false.

>>19668267
>genocide is...LE BAD

>>19668218
Elizabeth Anscombe, a Roman Catholic, already refuted this "argument". Also I don't see how scepticism, at least of the Pyrrhonian variety, is "untenable"

>Anscombe argued that Lewis has not shown that materialism is self-contradictory and that it impugns the validity of rational inference. She begins by rejecting his "rule" that "no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes." This rule implies that any cause that is not rational is irrational. But that does not follow. There is a distinction between irrational and nonrational causes. Irrational causes are psychological states that interfere with a person's ability to think rationally—for example, passions, self-interest, wanting to see only one side of an issue, prejudicial adherence to the tenets of a particular party or school of thought, and so forth. Nonrational causes, on the other hand, are not psychological states, but physical conditions—for example, arthritis, a tumor on the brain, jaundice, tuberculosis, and so forth. These conditions can interfere with a person's ability to think and act rationally, but they need not. Because of his mistaken equation of irrational with nonrational causes, Lewis was "led to imagine" that if all human behavior, including thought, could be fully explained in terms of causal laws, rational inference would no longer be valid. Anscombe thinks that this is true in the case of irrational causes, but not in the case of nonrational ones.
>To show this, she examines his contention that naturalism destroys the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning. She begins by observing that sometimes he talks about the validity of a piece of reasoning and sometimes about the validity of reasoning itself. She wonders what he means by the latter. What she is driving at is this: If you were asked to explain the concept of validity, the "most obvious" way would be to produce examples of valid and invalid reasoning and explain that (and why) the conclusion follows from the premises in the valid arguments and that (and why) it does not follow in the invalid ones. These examples would serve as paradigms of valid and invalid arguments. But while it is meaningful to ask whether a piece of reasoning is valid, it is meaningless to ask that about reasoning itself. The concepts of validity and invalidity are parasitic on paradigmatic examples of valid and invalid arguments.

brother, let me give you advice here because I am a little drunk and it is New Year's. seek Truth above all else. truth is found in your own loved experience. it is not found in books or any other bs. that is just rhetoric; not truth. ye shall judge them by their fruits. where do you see fruits? go out and talk to them. see what they're all about. trust your gut.
modern churches suck, yah. I'm le ebin Orthodox, but even we're not free. I got ostracized from my parish that I have been serving with for 4 years because I wouldn't wear a mask a year into the scamdemic. people do not know the Gospel because they say they do. they demonstrate it with their lives. PRAY. PRAY, NIGGA, PRAY. meditate, whatever. open up a channel between you and the divine. ok im tired because it's 3am here, hopefully this helped. God bless you on your journey, friend, and do not let anyone tell you that your lived experience is wrong.

>>19668259

>>19668237
Troll, why would anyone go through baptism as an adult with these thoughts

>>19668430
He's not a troll those are the kind of thoughts I had as well.

>>19668419
i cant advocate for homosexuality when this homosexuality in 2022 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTHLKHL_whs

>>19668387
>No they don't. Most research doesn't give a single shit about immaterial laws of logic, and works almost entirely based on trail and error.
This is a misunderstanding. Lets say a scientist was trying to study something random like the correlation between reading and IQ. He could ask people how frequently they read and compare it to their IQ number. He could then infer some sort of correlation. But his research would have to assume various logical laws, such as the law of excluded middle ( eg. if someone's IQ is 100 it can't be not 100), and others.

Besides, the laws of logic were just one example of the immaterial things scientists have to assume. Another one is Similarity. The senses cannot give you similarity. They can indeed give you one blue surface and another blue surface, but to form a connection between them and between all things which share in blueness is an operation of the mind. If this is "merely in the brain", then it is not trustworthy; if it is our soul's interaction with the immaterial form of Similarity, then it is.
>>19668392
This is just euthyphro's dilemma applied to logic. It can be countered in many ways.
>>19668407
Notice I did not say that movements of particles are "irrational". I said no movement of particles is "truer" than another movement of particles. If you disagree, explain why.

>>19668430
I explained why. I realised atheism was bullshit and jumped to the nearest religion. Now, after attending weekly mass and joining RCIA for a couple months, I have these doubts.

>>19668210
Orthodoxy is the core of Christianity, we have actually stayed the same in terms of dotrine since Pentecost, energy/essence distinction can be found in the earliest Church fathers such as the cappadocians, where is your doctrine of absolute divine simplicity found? What about the Filioque, that was added to the creed long after the council of Nicea by catholics in 1000 AD, despite around 800 AD one of the popes even said that the papacy didn't have the authority to override ecumenical councils and change the Nicene creed, he even put the Nicene creed in the original greek and latin on the doors of St. Peter's to show this, yet come 200 years later the papacy added it anyway. The catholic Thomist Trinitarianism or anything resembling it. I respect catholics more than any protestant denomination but the patriarchate of Rome seperated from the other four patriarchates and is such still schismatic and apart from the true Church
>>19668237
Begome Ordodox :DDD
We literally have none of these problems in our Mystical Theology like catlicks do
Instead of original sin we have ancestral sin
In Orthodox theology hell isn't a place that God sends you to rather it is a state of being where you reject God's love “[St Gregory of Nyssa] teaches that Paradise and Hell do not exist from God’s point of view, but from man’s point of view. It is a subject of man’s choice and condition.” ~Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos
In Orthodoxy Mary wasn't immaculately conceived and thus didn't sin through her own virtue and piety
In Orthodoxy we go stand the entirety of Church, pews are very rarely found in some american Orthodox churches but almost never in Orthodox countries
It is not God's fault we are like this nor did he engineer our condition and thrust it onto us, that is again the catholic doctrine of original sin (which came from a mistranslation of genesis by St. Jerome and was accidentally used by St. Augustine both of whom realized this mistake and corrected it, but catholics still use the results of this mistake in their dogma for some reason) where Adam sinned and we all where punished. The Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin is very different, Adam seperated himself from God and so the natural consequences of seperating yourself from the source of life and goodness followed, that is why God the Son became incarnate so that the created and uncreated was united again (symbolized in His hypostatic union)

>>19668179
hinduism

Islam does not really have Christianity’s problem where God after permitting the existence of Sin is bound by it to self-annihilation in way of its removal. That said, become Muslim, as the Prophets and their followers did before us. Read the Qur’an. A lot of people write it off because of its strangeness and its exclusivity, but the theology is pretty solid.

>>19668606
I wanted to attend an Orthodox parish to see what it is like but there are none in my area which celebrate mass in English. One is closely tied to the Greek community organisation in my town, and as I am not Greek I doubt I would be very welcome there. The other is Romanian and their website is entirely in Romanian so I suppose it's the same thing.
I emailed the Greek priest and asked him whether he knows of any Orthodox parishes which celebrate in English. He told me of one over an hour's drive away where he said they celebrate 50% English 50% Greek.
It seems to me that the Orthodox churches are deeply rooted in ethnicity and nationality, like the Anglicans.
Furthermore, I've heard many convincing arguments by Catholics saying that the papacy was accepted in the first millennium.
> Adam seperated himself from God and so the natural consequences of seperating yourself from the source of life and goodness followe
Yeah but I had no part in that so I don't see why I should inherit Adam's sin. I also don't see why I should be grateful for Jesus' sacrifice, or even how that sacrifice is supposed to help us anyway. Ok God was tortured to death by humans -- how does that mean we are now united to him?
Also, God is the author of my lust. When I see a beautiful woman I want to have her. Yet God will punish me if I do have her. Instead, he could've created me without sexual desire for anyone but my future wife. It seems like God keeps putting traps everywhere for us to fall into sin, then punishes us when we do so.

>>19668179
>>>/his/

>>19668218
>And yet the laws of logic are immaterial, eternal, and transcendental. They would have existed without us, and will continue to exist even if we dissappear.
I actually more or less believe this and don't think it conflicts with my atheism and materialism.
I don't think we have special access to logic/mathematics, it's just the way everything works and we deduce it using a fallible process.
>This would mean that we have no basis whatsoever to assert the superiority of logic thought over other forms of thought.
My basis for using logical thought is that it seems to work well, so I'll continue using it.
It's unfortunate that I can't give it a firmer foundation than that. But life moves on.
>Hence atheism is false.
That seems a step too far. Maybe it can't justify itself, but does that mean it's definitely false? Some true things are unprovable.

>>19668179
This nigga thinks that hes too good for God, the guy that created existence itself

>>19668218
Nah, they're just mathematical laws. (A->B^B->C)->A->C is as necessarily and inherently true as 2+2=4.

>>19668442
Why not advocate for homosexuality but against degeneracy whether heterosexual or homosexual? You don't have to like every instance of a concept to think the concept itself has validity.

>>19668179
You might consider Buddhism, as its core doctrine of anatta (no-self) is basically confirmed by science.

>>19668218
Order and logic can both exist in true randomness - study mathmatics instead of sitting down and just making shit up the assuming it's valid, you're talkg about concepts like logic and by extension it's place among entropy (atheists position) but if I asked how have you learnt about these subjects could you give an answer beyond you know what the words mean?

>>19668696
>the papacy was accepted in the first millenium
The Bishop of Rome was seen as the first among equals, not above. We can see a council between the Apostles in the bible and nowhere does St. Peter have more authority over any of the other Apostles, as he was the first among equals with them. If he had absolute authority he wouldn't need to discuss with the other apostles and so if Rome had absolute authority in early church history then the Council of Nicea and any of the following ecumenical councils would have been unnecessary
>I don't see why I should inherit Adam's sin
You don't inheret the sin or it's guilt you inheret the fallen nature of man because you like everyone else is descendant from Adam. St Athanasius, says “Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case” (On the Incarnation of the Word, Ch. 2) The fall of man created 3 problems: man and God were seperated, sin entered the world, death
God corrects our fallen nature starting with Christ's incarnation which reunites creation and it's creator for the first time since the fall, his crucifixion destroys all sin, and his resurrection destroys death, so all of this opened the path for Theosis which has it's end goal as becoming one with God's energies. "God became human so that we might become God" - St. Athanasius the Great
Before Christ, death meant you went to Sheol/Hades/Gehenne, a place devoid of God completely, Christ's descent into hades meant that God was now where he was absent and so after death we are consumed in his fiery love and are thus united with him rather than being devoid of God's presence entirely as it was before Christ's resurrection.
>God is the author of my lust
No he isn't, God doesn't use sin to tempt people, satan is the ruler of earth. God's kingdom is far grander
>God will punish me if I have her
The catholic notion of sin comes from the more judicial meaning found in the old testament, the Orthodox concept is from the new testament and comes from the greek archery word "Hamartia" which means "to miss the mark". In Orthodoxy sin is missing the mark and is a part of theosis, there is more forgiveness in God than there are sins in you

>>19668837
> as its core doctrine of anatta (no-self) is basically confirmed by science

>>19668865
It is, though. As far as anyone can tell, there's no 'Cartesian marble' of consciousness, just a bunch of interdependently arising phenomena.

>>19668879
> It is, though
No, it hasn’t, that’s just part of the self-serving pablum which is uncritically repeated in Buddhist-modernism books and which retards eat right up, but there is actually no scientific study that has ever refuted or rendered false the premise of an independent, base-layer consciousness

>>19668179
Well that's what religions are like, very different from philosophy. Even other religious codes are following rules, a or trying your best to do so.

>>19668890
The concept wouldn't even make sense based on what we understand of the brain.

>>19668894
> The concept wouldn't even make sense based on what we understand of the brain.
Nonsense

>>19668908
Do you think it's still plausible that the brain isn't composed of matter following the laws of physics?

>>19668788
I think you should read Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamzov, especially the Grand Inquisitior chapter, you might find a lot of answers in that

>>19668927
>>19668696
Meant that for this

>>19668918
I never said that, I regard the brain as physical and consciousness as non-physical

>>19668938
How can consciousness be non-physical if the brain is physical, does a non-physical process somehow affect the firing of neurons in the brain to cause it to produce a different output?

>>19668179
>even though she did nothing to deserve this
Read the Gospel of James even though it makes all denominations FOOM

>>19668945
Our knowledge of logic, causality, and teleology cannot be made coherent without some aspect of the intellect being immaterial

>>19668964
That's not an answer to my question.