/lit/ - Literature

>>22060166
>What if I am fine with ceasing to exist upon death?
Yeah that's not an option buddy. Stop reading satanists if you want to be a Christian. He literally has a book called antichrist, why do you read him? To be cool? That's why God left you. Be humble and stop being retarded if you want His grace.

Read the Perennialist school to understand why exoteric practice is the necessary support for esoteric practice and then choose an appropriate religion which you should be able to do after your reading.

>>22060177
Browbeating me won't help. I read Nietszche because I was interesting in his ideas because his philosophy was described as very life-affirming. To be frank, I already agreed with him on many things, and now I am convinced by his rhetoric.
How am I not being humble? I am asking for advice to find my faith again and you put me down. Is this what Christ would have wanted? Read John 8:2-11 again.
>>22060207
I don't particularly like the perennialists because their ideas seem too extreme and weird for me (Guenon converting to Islam and LARPing in Egypt is a huge turn off for me), but that idea sounds nice and has been recommended to me before, but others of the faithful told me to NOT do the "exoteric practices" without real faith.

Scheler - Ressentiment
Girard - I See Satan Fall Like Lightning
Fornari - A God Torn To Pieces
Benson - Graven Ideologies

Pray and then just start doing it. Go to Mass even if you are not really feeling it. If you start living it you will become it, just take the first step.

>>22060166
>Please, put the brainworm back, I can't handle thinking on my own.

>>22060166
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche's opposite.

>>22060166
>How do I become religious
Don't

Marcus Aurelius
Golden Verses of Pythagoras
Dhammapada

>>22060166
grab actual theology and apologetics.
your idea of Christianity is full of holes and is most likely a very bad strawman.

start with the Bible;
my personal recommendation of an order would be Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, John, Epistles, Revelation, OT.
search for everything that seems weird, that you didn't understand, that you found complicated. more than one source to be sure.

as for resources,
Biblehub is great for ohther translations, originals, and commentary.
gotquestions is decent if you ignore the calvinist slant.
Bible Project has pretty great videos.
the 'one for israel' channel is one of the best for a channer; especially the "answering rabbinical objections" series, which is basically debunking gotchas and strawmen that, ironically, both rabbinic judaism rabbis and fedoras say verbatim. they're jewish Christians and there's also testimonies, discussions, etc.

here's a great chart. you'd do well in looking into the doctors of the church and the orthodox after you have basic theology down.

>>22060389
>le jew man face who made an atomic bomb
Wow you conviced me

>>22060389
>mogged by Tesla in all possible forms

>>22060429
also another chart

>>22060221
You're obviously low IQ if an idiot like Nietzsche conviced you of anything let alone that Christianity is not true when it has a much richer intellectual than any atheist can even grasp. Your problem is your enormous pride.

>>22060431
>>22060436
>"Le Jews are bad therefore I can indulge my desire to believe in a daddy figure in the sky"
Embarrassing

>>22060450
>non sequitur
>ad hominem
bravo

>>22060166
also on btfo'ing neetch

Reading a little philosophy makes you an atheist. Reading a lot of philosophy makes you a Christian. A tale as old as time.

>>22060221
It's weird to describe Guenon's conversion as a LARP when, by all accounts, he was a diligent Muslim. LARP usually implies a lack of seriousness of devotion which I don't think can apply to Guenon.

Lobotomize yourself.

>>22060429
>gotquestions is decent if you ignore the calvinist slant
Is Calvinism not scriptural?

>>22060477
All this proves is that midwits flock to universities and become atheists if they weren’t already

>>22060453
Bro, I replied to people dismissing someone based on that person being a Jew, and you come back with "URHM, don't use Ad Homs!"??? Are you for real? /lit/'s base line is retarded, but religious /lit/ is on a whole different level of brain dead.

>>22060485
not at all.
all of their tulip stuff is nonsense, especially predestination.

>>22060459
>Reading a lot of philosophy makes you a Christian

>>22060496
you're implying i'm dismissing Einstein for being a jew.
i'm just saying Tesla is better.

you're trying to force "you're antisemitic" onto me, if you need it in simpler terms.

>>22060491
>le grug equals genius bell curve meme
This only works on 80 IQ boards like /pol/, buddy.

>>22060507
>my belief is true because other midwits believe it too
The absolute state of atheists

>>2206066
Go talk with some priests or the like, advice on spirituality is sort of their job and their offer it for free. Also, give 4chan larpers a wide berth.

>>22060501
Read the other post dumbass, also, cope and seethe, you have supernatural daddy issues.

>>22060513
>Belief in God is a positive indicator you are probably retarded
>Theist idiot draws the exact opposite conclusion from the chart
It's like poetry in motion, thanks for proving the point anon.

>>22060520
>These really smart people became atheists because they thought these things through and not because we are in an age of secularism and atheism
You go back 1000 years and all the smart people were religious. I don’t assert the existence of God on that basis though

>>22060166
Pray a lot.

>>22060497
But from what I've seen from Bible verses (specifically looking up things to disprove Calvinism, though I'm not a Calvinist) predestination seems like a literal fact. It's mentioned and cross-referenced constantly.

>>22060540
it's not.
it's always misinterpreting verses to fit into it. or, to be precise with the wording, eisegesis.

to blow it up, there's a simple question:
how could God be good if He chooses people to suffer for no fault of their own?

as for dispelling that, i recommend you pick up Augustine's 'On the Freedom of the Will', it's amazing.

>>22060532
You mean back when blasphemy was punished by the state? But now that people are permitted to form their own opinions, all the smartest people dispense with the superfluous idea of god? Again, no one said "smart people don't believe in god, therefore god doesn't exist", we're mocking the fact that your belief is an extremely strong indicator of being dumb lol. The fact that you can't keep up with this is adding to the hilarity, by the way.

>>22060532
>yeah these really smart people "became" atheist because of muh heathen zeitgeist propaganda, but these retards who are a priori infinitely more suggestible and susceptible to external influence "stayed" religious because reasons
Nobody "becomes" an atheist, tiara-tipper. It is a natural state of man. Only religion spreads through grooming and sophistry.

I think it takes realizing that the God shaped hole isn’t in our minds but is rather in our hearts.

>biting obvious fedora bait
come on anon.

>>22060559
kind of both, really.
you can feel the one in the heart better.

the one in reason takes much longer to reach, and it's full of pitfalls that want to "cover" it.
funny how the greeks literally reasoned there had to be a single God instead of their ranks of idols even without knowing Him.
puzzling why they kept with the idolatry.

>>22060559
Freud would have a field day with you. That "God shaped hole" is a desire for a perpetual parent figure so you can remain an infant, in other words, the inability to grow up and be an adult.

>>22060566
I wonder why Christians insist on having three gods when one is more reasonable.

>>22060166
Pray, read the Gospels, and go to Church. Unironically, if you met with a priest and told him how you felt the guy might break down and cry.

>>22060166
I know that you said preferably Catholic, but I got back into the swing of things when I started going to my local Quaker meeting.

>>22060562
Ikr. Ever since jerking off to muh religious aesthetic, fetishizing weak meandering apologia and larping as a devout believer on a pornographic cartoon forum became the hot new thing among zoomsters this place has become unbearable.

>>22060568
Alternatively it's not and the idea that anyone becomes an adult when really most adults are just well disguised children wearing the mask of wrinkles and a libido.

>>22060548
>how could God be good if He chooses people to suffer for no fault of their own?
The counter is usually "Because God says He is good." It's difficult to argue, especially with Calvinists that tend to be Biblical literalists. But even then it's difficult to explain, I think, the multiple mentions of there being a pre-destined group of people to be saved, and how no one who comes to faith does so without God calling them to it.

>>22060574
Triune, friend.
also
>>22060579
>1 minute between each post
atleast wait a bit to make it less obvious.

>>22060583
My man, the Christians literally refer to god as "the heavenly father". It's not even subtle, it's overtly a desire to remain a child and let daddy take care of everything.

>>22060590
>Triune
>Tri
Right, three gods

join jehovah's witnesses and start a happy little jw family

https://youtu.be/hThVzMExULQ

>>22060586
>no one who comes to faith does so without God calling them to it.
Dude, your whole post is one of the most tortured things I have ever read. Maybe if you need to contort yourself with this many mental gymnastics it's time to just admit the whole exercise is a doomed farce and makes zero sense.

>>22060598
wheel with 3 spokes

>>22060604
Right, and the spokes are different gods

>>22060507
This could mean that atheism is a potential outcome of high IQ not a necessary outcome. I have no idea how you people believe that "Something came from nothing," And disagreeing with the sacred wisdom traditions of every civilozation in human history is "enlightened." You people literally go to museums and see mummies and think, "What beautiful art," as if they were not religious in intent and method. I just can't even fathom how silly it is to say that humans cannot believe in God, an afterlife, as nothing is quite literally not proveable to exist - it can't be touched, seen, or tasted and yet atheists and even agnostics think that nothingness can be which is absolutely insane. I don't get it - religion is the natural state of man and a moderatelt higher IQ just means you are better at lying to yourself and others.

what a gay post

>>22060591
>remain a child
>And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3, the point is a return to childhood not a remaining as hedonism is fundamentally the option of remaining but spiritual wisdom is the out to back in.

>>22060611
desu i'm tryin to make sense of trinitarian belief to myself too even saying the three spokes thing. think william penn had good takes on the trinity.

>>22060389
>t. posts Einstein when he doesn't even know calculus

>>22060603
>Matthew 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
>Mark 13:20 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
>Ephesians 1:11 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
>Romans 8:29 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
>Romans 11:2 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
>John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

>>22060613
>I have no idea how you people believe that "Something came from nothing,"
Because the phrase "came from" implies the existence of time, and therefore to ask a question "where did time come from" or "what caused time to begin" (when causation also implies time existing in which the beginning of time could be caused) just goes to show the formulation of the question is irrational. But instead of accepting it's irrational, religious people insist, not only is it a rational question, THEY HAVE THE EXACT ANSWER! This is why religion tends to be the home of unintelligent people. You need a modicum of intelligence to comprehend that the questions are badly formulated and the answers preposterous.

>>22060622
Augustine's 'On the Trinity (De Trinitate)'
no proper examples or comparisons for it, desu.


the simplest explanation that is covering everything is the Nicene Creed.

>>22060628
My bad,
>Romans 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

>>22060500
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intellectual LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weakpoint is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

>>22060620
>the point is a return to childhood not a remaining as hedonism is fundamentally the option of remaining but spiritual wisdom is the out to back in.
Did you experience a stroke while writing this? It's utterly unintelligible. That quotation does support my case, Christians are obsessed with remaining children.

>>22060634
Not him but I agree. I'm not a Christian, but I don't think I'd ever be an atheist. The only logical conclusion atheism can arrive at is there is no morality, no logic, no thought, nothing beyond the physical and physical gratification.

>>22060630
This is a common error - Catholics do not argue for the existence of God to prove that you need to go to mass and confession but simply because they believe God is proveable rationally. Feel free to disagree with Socrates, Plato, Aristotles, Hermes, Hinduism, some sects of Buddhism, most esoterica, Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kierkergaard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine. God's existence does not alone imply the trinity nor does it imply Catholicism's correctness - rather the implication that God exists therefore Catholics are right is merely the basic fact that the truth is subconsciously known to all that the Catholic Church was founded and is maintained by God.

>>22060640
>The only logical conclusion atheism can arrive at is there is no morality, no logic, no thought, nothing beyond the physical and physical gratification.
I disagree. Morality, logic, thought, all of these things are products of material phenomenon. The real con of religion is that they convince people that the idea of "god" adds anything to reality. It doesn't, everything you value exists, and is a product of the physical universe.

>>22060637
>remaining
>convert
Go ahead and look these words up in a dictionary. Remaining a child is staying without ever becoming an adult but converting is a turning back. One implies never having been an adult the other doesn't. Also, as wise as serpents and as meek as doves etc

>>22060649
>physical universe
So the physical universe made itself?

>>22060634
Atheism is the rejection of a religious claim, by definition, that's all it is. Also, if you think the "legacy" of atheism is a random youtuber, you're pretty delusional, but we already knew that since you're a theist.

>>22060666
checked

>>22060666
ok demon

>>22060622
Read the Cappadocian Fathers and St John of Damascus

>>22060666
>>22060670
>satanic trips
Kek. Behold the legacy of the New Atheism movement (pic-related).

>>22060166
Try Art of Loving God by Francis de Sales. He was a great Saint and a great man to learn from. I’ll be praying for you anon.

>>22060646
>An appeal to authority
I do disagree with all those people you listed, and believe their reasoning in this regard was flawed. The natural universe is much more mysterious than they comprehended, and as a result of their own personal incredulity, they thought that a being or an entity made more sense. Also, even those names in your own list vehemently disagree with one another, but since I've recently read Spinoza's Ethics, I'll take a moment to logically disprove the existence of his god. He claims that if you imagine the greatest of all possible gods, it remains mental, therefore an even greater god is possible, one who possessed all those traits but also existed, therefore such a god exists. This is, of course, absurd, since "the greatest of all possible gods" would surely convince everyone of his existence, even (and indeed, especially) if every person used their free will to believe. The proof is that if even one person doubts god's existence, then surely a greater god is possible who would have won that person's belief, therefore it is logically impossible that "the greatest of all possible gods" exists.

>>22060660
"Made itself" implies the act of making, a fundamentally cause-and-effect phenomenon, cause preceding effect in time. How would it be possible to cause time to exist if there is no time in which to have a cause?

>>22060678
And the priests who raped little boys is the legacy of Christianity. Real deep thinking, huh?

>>22060696
It’s a contradiction for a priest to be a boy-loving pedo.
It’s not a contradiction for an atheist to be a degenerate deviant.

>>22060676
The only patristic I'm really at all familiar with is Origen. I haven't read his thing that relates to the Trinity, personally. Most stuff I tend to read in relation to my religion relates to environmental ethics and related topics.

>>22060706
>It’s a contradiction for a priest to be a boy-loving pedo.
Not according to the Pope, who purposely shuffled priests around to protect them from the law and to enable them to rape more boys. By the way, it was the secular law that wanted to actually hold them accountable for their crimes.

>>22060696
>mind instantly goes to graphic description of child molestation
There's something wrong with you, bro.

>>22060720
Right, and just gloss over the fact that banana boy has permanent residence in Christcucks' brains lol

>>22060723
Oh no! Not Dick Dawkins too!

>>22060727
>The Atlantic
I'm sure that's a perfectly honest headline and not sensationalized to drum up more interest at all.

>>22060712
Fair enough. In those Fathers you’ll erudite explanations of the Trinity. Their approach is typically described as the Monarchia of the Father

>>22060713
His point was an ethical/metaphysical one, not a pragmatic one

>>22060728
>SOURCE!!!!
Kek, retard. Keep coping.

>>22060728
>"He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
I understand his later statement of x is not as bad as y, but you gotta admit that quote's kinda fucked up

>>22060738
That's not even what really happened. The institutions of Catholicism are much more open to the public and contain a diversity fedora tippers can't imagine. Benedict wrote an essay on what happened that the retard we're replying to doesn't even know exists. We know his response though anyway: "SOURCE THO!!!" Kek.

>>22060683
>universe is much more mysterious
Is this supposed to mean anything other than that they are wrong with raising no alternative hypothesis? No need to answer because I already know the answer.
>would surely convince everyone of his existence
This assumes you understand a theoretical or actual God better than God does which is just blatant pride masquerading as critical thought.

>>22060501
>Tesla is better
How?

>>22060738
The leader of the church justified child rape when he purposely harbored rapists from the law and enabled them to rape again. Also, metaphysics don't exist.

>>22060713
>Not according to the Pope, who purposely shuffled priests around to protect them from the law and to enable them to rape more boys
Oh look - the Boston Globe doesn't even pay you to be its shill. Also, if you actually cared about preventing child rape, you don't, you would make it illegal to have live in boyfriends who are not the biological father of the children in the house.

>>22060754
>metaphysics don't exist
So, neither does rape nor guilt - how profound.

>>22060746
Or maybe it's a human being trying to cope with his own trauma by downplaying it, something which is very common.

>>22060166
Listen to and read Wagner. The essence of religion lies in feeling, faith and myth, not abstraction. This is the opening paragraph from Wagner's celebrated essay Religion and Art:

>ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the kernel of religion by recognising the symbolic value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,—whereas she could only, fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine.

>>22060748
>they are wrong with raising no alternative hypothesis?
If a proposed answer is logically incoherent, an alternative is not required in order to dismiss it as being logically incoherent. Admitting you don't know the answer is preferable to just picking a bad answer as if it has any merit at all.

>>22060754
>metaphysics doesn’t exist
>don’t be a homophobe
Atheists actually think they can hold these positions concurrently

>>22060755
>you would make it illegal to have live in boyfriends who are not the biological father of the children in the house.
What makes you think I don't support that measure?

>>22060768
>Admitting you don't know the answer is preferable to just picking a bad answer as if it has any merit at all.
The term for that is agnostic and not atheist.

>>22060763
okay yeah, you're right. i retract that

>>22060773
>What makes you think I don't support that measure?
Because you would have said you do and not ask this rhetorical question that shows you care more about making the Church look bad rather than children's well being. You're just satan's equivalent of an SJW.

>>22060761
Ethics are not metaphysics. Ethics arise out of material systems of biology which give rise to thought which give rise to codes of behavior based on reason.

>>22060772
Atheists can be homo"phobes".

>>22060782
>Ethics are not metaphysics
Metaphysics is mental categories... what do ethicists use?

>>22060772
You can have systems of ethics without metaphysics

>>22060774
Define those two terms, since you seem to draw a distinction between them

>>22060754
That's not what happened though.

Read City of God by St Augustine the way he connects Christianity with Greek philosophy and history is masterful. He addresses a lot of problems i had with Christianity too like why bad things happen to believers, everyone being saved through grace vs having to actually live a just life to be saved. Roman "gods" and how other belief systems fit into Christianity, etc. It's long but pretty enlightening.

>>22060785
>Metaphysics is mental categories
Mental categories arise in the brains of human beings, meaning they are in the realm of physics. Would you classify computer software as "metaphysics"?

>>22060784
They have no philosophical basis to be so

>>22060790
Metaphysics is the mind recognizing its own categories and ethics is those categories applied to human action ascribing value of better and worse as well as good or bad. These things aren't hard but when you stop believing in truth and the fact that humans beings' senses and minds reflect the outside world accurately you just go insane.

>>22060781
I'm in favor of balancing individual liberty while also taking measures to prevent any person from harming another, even more so when it's children in danger. You still need to grapple with the fact that the Catholic church justified child rape when the Pope protected rapists from justice and shuffled them around so they could continue raping children.

>>22060793
>it’s all chemicals bro

>>22060792
one of the great works.
surprising how it's all written out, but people don't look for it, eh?

>>22060804
Chemicals, physical structures, and electrical signals

>>22060803
>justified
>so they could continue raping children
It's clear words don't have meaning to you and their only function is just raping a preexisting narrative into a conversation for whatever satan daddy wants you to do. Moreover,
>I'm in favor of balancing individual liberty while also taking measures to prevent any person from harming another
Might actually be the funniest thing I've read. Here's a game - a design a better system of marrital rules to prevent child rape better than the Catholic Church's. Because you care about the prescious children so much this should be easy and in fact you should have already done this exercise. Oh, you haven't? I am shocked.

>>22060810
>SCIENTISM!!!!
You're an ideologue and don't even know it, kek.

>>22060810
Disgusting, I need to be God's special boy.

>>22060837
I'm sorry no one loves you so you take solace in the fact it's just chemicals and electrical signals.

>>22060763
Look at this guy making excuses for someone publically downplaying the dangers of pedophilia all the sudden! Careful with the cognitive dissoance anon, too much and you might not be able to impress others that you're an adult who doesn't believe in Santa.

>>22060837
You are :3

>>22060806
Yeah I thought it was very interesting how the answers to almost all of the mainstream criticisms of Christianity were thought of 1500 years ago yet I never see people posting about it. I asked some Carmelite nuns about their thoughts on it and even only a few of them had read it.

Atheists BTFO by this one simple verse

>>22060857
Based, Christ the king always so wise.

>>22060841
>I'm sorry no one loves you so you take solace in believing that the magic sky daddy loves you.
This one makes more sense.

>>22060857
Yeah, remember the part where Christ says everyone should give them their money and uses his position to gain power? Oh wait...that didn't happen.

>>22060867
>NO YOU
Kek, every single time. Athests are such retards. Hey anon, since you brought up "sky daddy" do you know how the symbolism of the "sky father" relates to biblical mythos with regard to the different phases exemplified in the Old Testiment (i.e. agrarian pastoral, urban)? Probably not but then again--you probably sperg about "muh scientism" all the time and don't even know basic calculus, kek.

>>22060890
>>NO YOU
It's literally built into your religion.
> Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.
Electric signals on the other hand require no emotional attachment to on my part.
>do you know how the symbolism of the "sky father"
Why would I care about some bullshit made up by yids?

>>22060876
Acts 4 and 5 describe the Apostles convincing people to sell their possessions and join their commune (though it's said they distribute gifts and healing) and two people are killed for withholding some of their money from Peter.

>>22060166
Catholicism ain't the way. It preaches that we are saved through our works when scripture contradicts this.
Repent and acknowledge your sinful nature. Compare your own life to that of Christ and compare your behavior to the ordinances of God. Examine your conscience and you will find that your nature is, indeed, sinful. If you wish to know and fall in love with God, you must have faith in Christ and believe the Gospel, that he was crucified for the remission of our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day, and that through faith in Christ one can be made righteous before God.
Do you remember the story of the penitent thief who was crucified along with Christ? He acknowledged that he deserved to die for his crimes, and he had faith such that he did not ask the Messiah to rescue him from physical death, but merely to remember him when he enters his kingdom. Nonetheless, Christ had mercy on him and the thief was the first person to enter Heaven.
If you have faith like the penitent thief, and if you are able to acknowledge and confess your shortcomings and transgressions before God in full sincerity, you will be saved.
Repentance isn't simply the resolve to never sin again (you will). In Greek, repentance means a change of mind. Your mind will be changed and you will become a new creation through repentance, which takes you on the life-long process of sanctification. In the process of sanctification, you will gradually find that your will will align more closely to that of God naturally. You cannot simply resolve to become righteous, but rather the Holy Spirit works in you when you have faith in Christ and put away your former life of habitual sin and self-centeredness. Your life will be marked by self-denial and a taking up of your cross.
While these in and of themselves might not save you, some good habits to start off with are the reading and study of scripture (I recommend you read the entire New Testament before the Old), prayer, and fasting.

>>22060912
>NO YOU "NO YOU"
>yes I don't know calculus but I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE! so if course I have strong opinions on subjects I know nothing about--just like religion
Atheism is an intelligence LARP and you're a retard.

>>22061007
So you don't find solace in the magic sky daddy overseeing you when you're down?

>>22060996
St John of the Cross, a doctor of the Catholic church, would agree with you. He claims that prayer, self reflection, and fostering your relationship with Christ are the greatest of the good works that you can do. That is why Mary Magdalen went into the desert to live in isolation focusing on her relationship with Christ and uniting with God's will instead of becoming a spiritual teacher.

>>22061012
>can't into math but "MUH SCIENTISM THO!"
I'm sorry you're an adult who wants others to be impressed he doesn't believe in Santa Claus, anon. Thanks for the laugh though--pride is the father of all sins but fedora tippers' unearned intelligence LARP will always be hilarious.

>please address my le scientism strawman
Look at him repeating the same thing over and over.

>>22061025
>sky daddy
>sky daddy
No you.

>>22061034
Do you find this quotation relatable, yes or no?
>Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.

>>22060431

>>22060389
You know Einstein sperged against the Big Bang because a priest came up with the theory, right? He said that Georges Lemaitre was trying to inject a creation event into physics. When Hubble observed red shift Einstein apologized for being ideologically blinded.

>>22061038
You're an overly disingenuous person who has indoctrinated himself into Scientism when he can't even perform basic calculus. Why on earth would I want to discuss scripture with you? Kek.

>>22061052
>overly
Overtly*

>>22060913
I always thought this part was weird. anyone have any liturgical explanations? I wonder if they died because they didn't give away all of their possessions or because they lied to St. Peter. Or is it a metaphorical story explaining that if you don't put your whole heart into following the master, the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ that your soul will suffer the second death.

>>22060831
If you can provide a reasonable argument against scientific materialism, produce it. If you scoff at this, then just admit you prefer to be irrational.

>>22060841
Did you just tell on yourself? Most people have other people in their life who love them, it's not god or no one lol

>>22060913
Where's the part where the cult leader takes all the money and uses it for personal wealth? You know, the key element to sell the theory that you can fairly compare it with something like a modern cult?

>>22060849
>downplaying the dangers of pedophilia
Did you not read the quote? It's referencing a specific incident which effected him. People deal with trauma in a number of ways, but downplaying it is pretty typical. You just want to read into it more than is there because you're biased against him already.

>>22061046
>Einstein apologized for being ideologically blinded.
Hang on a second, he realized he was wrong when he looked at evidence? Is that supposed to make me dislike him?

>>22061168
First, scientific materialism has a clear poverty of language when it comes to things beyond direct description (e.g. ranging from subjective personal experience to grand concepts such as love/truth/etc). Second, concepts such as under-determination and theory-laddeness make it clear that scientific materialism is just as open to the same ideological pitfalls as other modes of thought.
>>22061171
>ideologue has shitty reading comprehension
Go figure.

>>22061177
It's pretty clear that you're making excuses for someone you see as being on your ideological team, anon. Also, what you're saying is based on your own personal conjecture and what's more it isn't in line with the persona Dawkin's presents.

>>22061194
>"Well, I... I just can't describe it... there's just more than materialism... there just is, okay?!"
Very persuasive, genius

>>22061202
He's literally directly downplaying that specific incident which involved himself. Are there any quotes where he makes generalizations about pedos? No? Perhaps you're trying to read more into that one quote than is actually there? Like perhaps he actually condemns pedos in general?

>>22061207
>filtered by poverty of language means even though he's on a literature board
>doesn't know about under-determination and theory-laddeness
Atheism is an intelligence LARP. Simple as.

>>22061220
>"It's not that I can't describe it, it's jut that the words don't exist"
You sound like a literal schizo

>>22061214
Also see >>22060627. By the way, have you read that book? Dawkins said it's as significant as Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle.

>>22061228
>still ignoring under-determination/theory-laddeness
I was going to do an inb4 saying you'd ignore that in the original post but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, yes: poverty of language is a pretty glaring deficit when it comes to scientific materialism. You're partaking in an intelligence LARP. Simple as.

>>22061239
>poverty of language is a pretty glaring deficit when it comes to scientific materialism
Just admit you have zero argument and just want to LARP as if there is more than materialism (when there's no good reason to believe there is)

>>22060166
I think you should start with Kierkegaard and see if anything resonates with you.

>>22061046
Imbecile. Einstein was right and was wrong to cuck out because of redshift because all that proves is observed expansion. The redshift and expansion was and can be explained by other models such as the steady state model. Ironically if Einstein stuck to his guns, he would have been 100% vindicated with the JWST proving the existence of galaxies so old, large and still growing near the infliction point they completely contradict and altogether disprove BBT.

>>22061247
>MUH SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM (of the gaps, kek)
>still can't answer to the idea of under-determination and theory-ladenness
I gave you two easy criticisms of scientific materialism. First, there's a poverty of description when it comes to the experience of phenomena. Second, (very basic) concepts in the philosophy of science demonstrate the pitfalls of ideology to which scientific materialism is open. Do you want to get into the history of science as well? I can point out that it's likely that what you consider to be "science" now (note that my guess is that's fairly minimal and likely very basic "popular" science as we both know you haven't studied any scientific discipline; but it works for that as well as detail) likely won't be understood as "scientific" within a century. Does that mean what you understand now doesn't qualify as knowledge?

>>22061182
>he realized he was wrong when he looked at evidence
After jumping to a conclusion due to a bias against organized religion. You should read about his relationship with Kurt Godel.
>>22061258
As someone who studied astrophysics in university I want to tell you that you're a complete retard.

>>22061268
"Science" is a process of hypothesizing, gathering data, and using reason to build better models of how reality is in truth. If you take exception to any part of this, or believe that through some other process you can arrive at truth (while conveniently not providing data in support of such) then you are just arguing in favor of irrationality and have abandoned reason.

>>22061297
>gave up on crying about the fact poverty of language exists
>still can't answer to the concept of under-determination and theory-ladenness
Kek, no retard. The version of scientific endeavor you're presenting is laughably simplistic and completely divorced from reality. First, if we simplify things to models you can see how education into one framework creates an automatic systemic bias towards what qualifies as a proper model. Second, financing plays a huge role in research pursuits and it should be obvious to you that this creates moral hazard when it comes to areas of research. Third, there's those concepts of under-determination and theory-ladenness that completely undermine the idea that science is divorced from both subjective impulse and unconstrained by the limits of language/perception.

Atheism is an intelligence LARP that tricks retards into Scientism. Sorry, there's no short cuts to being smarter than others, anon.

>>22061297
>"Science" is a process of hypothesizing, gathering data, and using reason to build better models of how reality is in truth
imagine believing this is science

>>22061316
OHHH, by "scientism", do you just mean the modern incarnation of academia? That fits way more with what you're saying, but it goes to show there is no problem with "poverty of language", it just means you don't know how to use words.

>>22061316
>bias towards what qualifies as a proper model
The primary way religion propagates itself is the indoctrination of children into the religion of their parents, and you want to criticize bias that can emerge in science???

>>22061366
You have no answer for underdetermination/theory-ladenness and clearly don't understand what "poverty of language" implies. You also have a very naive picture of how the scientific enterprise operates and need to read more.
>>22061383
>whataboutism slide
First, why should we ignore the fact religious institutions exist that have various forms of apparati set up to debate and elucidate religious modes of understanding in order to focus on parent alone? It seems like you're simply begging to go after low-hanging fruit and wish to make a selective appeal to authority. Second, do you deny that indoctrination can exists in public institutions? The vast majority of people don't study a given scientific discipline in detail, fewer still study the history/philosophy of science in general and fewer still that of a specific discipline--most present rather naive understandings of how science operates (as evidence ITT). Third, of course it's important not only to discuss how bias can emerge in science itself but also how an ideology such as Scientism restricts the outlook of those whom (unconsciously) self-indoctrinate and may impose not only a tragically restrictive but also a dangerous hegemony. Fourth, are you a libtard who believes in "her penis?" There are certain areas of education that are better left to the family unit and should not be imposed upon children by public employees.

>>22061358
Don't tell him about Kuhn loss.

>>22061448
>Desperately trying to untangle himself from admitting he can't use words
kek

>>22061477
>gives up on debating to slide into "last word" war
Are we done?

>>22060166
I don't think you can intellect-yourself into it at your stage; you just have to try praying even if it sounds cringy to type out.

>>22061480
You keep repeating the same nonsense when you've already admitted you don't have the words to even put your argument into form.

>>22061497
>I'm filtered and it's your fault
First, you clearly don't understand what "poverty of language" entails. Second, you can't engage with the ideas of under-determination and theory-ladenness even after you have been given half a dozen chances to do so. Third, you presented a naive view of how the scientific enterprise operates that was countered with specific examples that contradict your narrative. Fourth, if both of these responses (>>22061448) were directed toward (You), it's clear that you were at a loss even when it came to the slide you yourself chose (i.e. you had no response just as with everything else).

You've totally lost this debate. It's time for you to recognize that you took a (quasi)intellectual shortcut so you could engage in an intelligence LARP that didn't pan out. This is an opportunity for growth on your part that only comes at the expense of misplaced pride.

You've been humiliated and it's time for humility, anon.

>>22061517
>"I admit I don't have the words to form my argument, but just trust me, it filters you"
And then you declare yourself the winner of the debate. You truly are a clown.

>>22060649
These are neither morality nor logic since they're subjective to every person. They're just instincts, don't take concepts from other philosophies, they don't fit into yours. As an atheist you only have instincts, no truth, no morals, no logic. You are an automata.

>>22060687
By having the equivalent of cause and effect atemporally. Things don't just appear or they would always just appear.

OP here. The two faggots arguing need to shut the fuck up.

>>22061563
>still doesn't know what "poverty of language" means
>still can't address under-determination and theory-ladenness
>can't respond to the examples given which demonstrated his narrative of scientific enterprise is naive
>couldn't address apparati that address/debate/elucidate religious modes of understanding
>retreated when it was pointed out he was trying to make a selective appeal to authority
>couldn't distinguish between modes of indoctrination
>retreated when it was pointed out public perception of science is unsophisticated
>wouldn't acknowledge why it's important to discuss specific scientific bias as well as Scientism
>still can't even acknowledge Scientism exists let alone directly address what it entails
>couldn't answer to "scientific" absurdities like "her penis"
>retreated when it was pointed out they implied education imposed by public employees is problematic in that education through the family unit is valid
You lost, anon. I didn't even list everything. If you're just going to continue to be disingenuous until you get the last word, we're done.

>>22061642
OP is a faggot and if he read the discussion he'd see that Scientism is an ideology which hinders the growth of knowledge. If you want to educate yourself on religion you should be aware of the most pervasive ideology that seeks to invalidate and replace religious understanding--defending such will educate you on how to be religous.

>>22061629
You are wrong and don't understand what you're talking about. Just inserting god literally does not change how reality manifests. Everything that exists, exists in the way it exists without a god. Reason and truth exist. It's just a non-sequitur to suggest these things don't exist on the atheist world view.

>>22061649
>Has to misrepresent everything so he can convince himself he won even when he admits he can't even formulate his argument
Lost? You forfeited the debate very early on.

>>22061662
>back to crying
I didn't misrepresent anything, anon. I clearly stated my arguments multiple times and directly responded to your posts eventhough you were disingenuous and did not respond in kind. In my last post I even broke down several of the points you failed to address--you think an assertion that they're misrepresentations speaks to a lack of explaination on my part more than to the fact you're too stupid to recognize your own duplicitousness? If you can actually respond go ahead.

The simple fact is that atheism is an intelligence LARP and you were cheated by your own shortcut. You don't possess any of your own opinions about either science or religion and simply regurgitate naive notions of both. You haven't responded because you can't. Simple as.

>>22061699
You trotted out nonsense about "poverty of language" when asked what was outside of material existence. You literally admitted you couldn't form an argument against materialism, and then realized you'd knee capped your own position so you desperately scrambled to cling to anything else, including assigning positions to me I never said. The only LARP in this thread is you, but your own words undermine you.

>>22060166
>How do I become religious
Do whippits until you get brain damage and the rest will follow.

>>22060166
Read Plato dialog Timaeus.
>Catholic
My rec would be to drop the mythology and stay with platonic and neo platonic thinkers, but if you really want Meditations on the tarot: a journey into christian hermeticism is the best christian book (other than the bible ofc) that I ever read.

>>22061725
>shifts goalposts
You asked for criticism of scientific materialism and such was offered. You confused the idea of it having a poverty of language, that is being able to work outside of pure descriptive nature, with some notion that I've "kneecaped my position" when I simply pointed toward the idea of phenomenology. You've been hanging onto that confusion for multiple posts and continue to ignore the other criticism: under-determination/theory-ladenness.

You then slid by offering a laughably naive idea of scientific enterprise which was directly addressed. You now pretend the slide didn't happen. Respond to the actual points, anon.

>still doesn't know what "poverty of language" means
>still can't address under-determination and theory-ladenness
>can't respond to the examples given which demonstrated his narrative of scientific enterprise is naive
>couldn't address apparati that address/debate/elucidate religious modes of understanding
>retreated when it was pointed out he was trying to make a selective appeal to authority
>couldn't distinguish between modes of indoctrination
>retreated when it was pointed out public perception of science is unsophisticated
>wouldn't acknowledge why it's important to discuss specific scientific bias as well as Scientism
>still can't even acknowledge Scientism exists let alone directly address what it entails
>couldn't answer to "scientific" absurdities like "her penis"
>retreated when it was pointed out education imposed by public employees may be problematic and education through the family unit may be valid
On top of that you didn't address how education into particular models embeds bias into the scientific process nor did you respond to the fact that financial incentives dictate which research pursuits are valid/invalid. You also ignored the argument regarding how your naive understanding of scientific knowledge is invalidated by the historical record.

bomp

>>22061725
P.S. I don't really want to acknowledge another one of your slides, you'll simply pretend it didn't happen after you've been BTFO, but if you want something that exists outside of reality I could argue that characteristics of virtual particles qualify.

>>22061767
You can't label something as "naive" and pretend that addresses the point. I gave the exact definition of what the process of science is, but it's inconvenient for you, so you choose to gloss over it, just like you gloss over the fact that you actually admitted you can't describe your argument because you don't have the words. Also:
>religious modes of understanding
The LARPing continues for you lol

>>22061052
>discuss scripture
I wasn't trying to discuss scripture, I was trying to figure out if you feel unloved by everyone but your faggot God.

>>22061658
>It exists I promise! No I can't justify it, explain it, elaborate, it simply exists! Because I want it!
This is the extent of the atheist intellectual depth.

>>22061815
:^)

>>22060446
This will surely convince OP, carve a notch in your bed post, anon, you converted another one.

>>22061783
I didn't merely assert your concept of the scientific enterprise is naive. I clearly explained why. Unlike you, I haven't been disingenuous and have responded directly to everything you've said.

Your idea of science is naive because you fail to take into account how education predisposes bias regarding acceptable models. Lee Smolin is a bit of a pseud but his book "The Trouble With Physics" is a good treatment of how/why theoretical physics has been spinning its wheels over string theory for decades precisely due to what I've just mentioned. Your idea of science is naive because you fail to take into account how financial pressures validate/invalidate areas of research. Steven Weinberg wrote a short paper on the Superconducting Super Collider and the politics surrounding it. Your idea of science is naive because you're basically regurgitating the accumulation model of scientific knowledge which doesn't stand to criticism from the historical record. Your idea of science is naive because you appeal to a vague notion of falsificationism that is over 100 years old and hasn't been taken seriously for well over a generation.

See, anon? This is how you argue with someone and win a debate. You directly address their criticism while offering your own in good faith. You can't even abide by your own naive view of how science operates in a simple discussion. Pathetic, anon. Pathetic.

>>22060446
Nietzsche didn't even know calculus.

>>22061815
With the starting point of purely what is within one's own experience and expanding that scope of knowledge through induction gets you to all the concepts mentioned, no god needed. This is probably beyond your intellectual depth though, so better stick to blind faith in sky daddy.

>>22060613
Started off strong, ended in mundane incredulity. Mediocre.

>>22061783
>you'll simply pretend it didn't happen after you've been BTFO (>>22061775)
See?

>>22061825
My man, you are using the fallibility of human beings as a criticism of the principles of the scientific process. Every concern you have in this post demonstrates a departure from the principals of constructing models, gathering evidence to confirm or falsify the predictive power of the model, and then building a better model.

You aren't addressing the point. You're using another non-sequitur. "Some people do science badly, therefore science is flawed". If this is actually made in good faith, it just goes to show how ignorant you are, hardly the stuff that "wins debates". Pathetic seems to be your wheelhouse, anon.

>>22061831
That's not my argument at all, retard.

>>22061831
Do you even know calculus, retard?

>>22061833
He can't even read. Do you expect him to be able to do math?

>>22061832
lol, that's literally what your post consisted of. "education predisposes bias regarding acceptable models", that is a criticism that individual people bring a bias which colors their reading of data, not a criticism of the principals of the process itself. You can't even follow the line of an argument, can you?
>>22061833
kek, I'm no better than Einstein!

>>22061839
You don't know calculus either.

>>22061842
>"education predisposes bias regarding acceptable models", that is a criticism that individual people bring a bias which colors their reading of data
No it isn't you complete and total retard. It's a determiner of what types of scientific theories are deemed acceptable by the scientific community. Why do you think Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect and not relativity? A generation of scientists had to die off before GR could be taken seriously and replace the previous paradigm. I also mentioned how finance/politics dictates which avenues of scientific research are pursued, criticized the accumulation model, and alluded to the fact that falsificationism is an old interpretation the demarcation problem and forwarding it means you're missing out on over a century of discussion.
>>22061843
I sure do. I had to take it as part of my degree.

>>22061851
You have now done this multiple times, like with the "her penis" thing. You think that certain social movements and opinions held by academics is the same thing as the principals of the scientific method. This is utterly embarrassing for you, it doesn't matter whether "theories are deemed acceptable", it matters if they have predictive power or reliable applications in practice, that is, pragmatic value. To conflate these things is absolutely laughable. It's as if you heard Anthony Fauci claim he is the science and you believed him lol

>>22061828
Explain, don't handwave it. Explain how morals come to be in an atheist view.

>>22061885
You experience sensations which carry in them an inherent essence of "undesirable" or "desirable". You live in community with other beings who similarly experience such sensations. Morals grow out of a synergistic effort to minimize the undesirable sensations while maximizing desirable sensations, mediated by reason.

>>22061882
>You think that certain social movements and opinions held by academics is the same thing as the principals of the scientific method.
No, I think your characterization of the scientific method is naive and betrays the fact you have no science education and have never read a book on the history and/or philosophy of science. You're regurgitating "pop sci" soundbites and clearly haven't thought of these things on your own.

I also notice that you're avoiding discussion of under-determination and theory-ladenness. I mentioned Kuhn-Loss in a previous post as well but seeing as you're parroting a really simplistic version of Popper from the 1934 I doubt you'd know what that is.

My man, you're a complete retard and should fuck off before I embaress you further.

>>22061892
>I think your characterization of the scientific method is naive
How so? You keep repeating this, and your only other points are how academics have biases or otherwise fail in the execution of the process of the scientific method as I laid it out.

>>22061890
That's not morality, it's simply individual preference that sometimes may or may not coincide with others' preferences. Can you understand this?

>>22061896
>your only other points are how academics have biases or otherwise fail in the execution of the process of the scientific method
I never made any such argument and this was explained to you above, retard.

Science has nothing to do with YHWH. Anyone bringing up science in such debates is disingenuous.

>>22061903
It seems awfully disingenuous to suggest that human flourishing as defined by a life filled with desirable sensations versus human misery filled with undesirable sensations is a simple matter of preference. Even so, morality is a process by which we organize our interactions with each other to be preferable to the alternative (immoral interactions). Morality exists to mediate interactions between people to maximize the preferences of as many people as possible in a reasonable way.

>>22061912
It doesn't for the most part but fedora tippers like to parrot their pop-sci level understanding of it to aid in their intelligence LARP.

>>22061904
You claimed I "couldn't answer to "scientific" absurdities like "her penis"", implying you think the concept of a female penis is scientific. Again, it's as if you think individual academics like Fauci actually ARE the science, and their dictates (kek) constitute what the science is. It's laughable, you continue to embarrass yourself. The social movements among academics simply are not the same thing as the scientific method.

>>22061917
Better just stick to religious faith then, although it's always cute when theists decide they ought to have some evidence as well as faith.

>her penis
>scientific
Why do westoid christtards always ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community doesn't believe that shit?

>>22061915
There's nothing disingenuous, stop being evasive. You agree that in your philosophy morality is based on shared personal preferences. This is not what morality means. All systems have shared personal preferences, we don't call that morality, it's called preferences. You don't have morality you only have preferences so you rename your preferences morality in a disingenuous attempt to disguise that you don't have that concept at all. Honest atheists admit this at least, but you seem either ignorant or dishonest.

>>22061931
But bow tie science man who is actually an engineer said so, so that must mean it's the unassailable determination of Science!

>>22061934
Morality is a system to mediate interactions between people, it's almost like you purposely misinterpreted what I was saying in a dishonest way.

>>22061934
>Would you prefer people act morally towards you or immorally?
>AHA! Morality is just preference!
This board is so retarded

Do christcucks really think that atheists can't borrow from religious morality?

>>22061945
Hey, Christianity is a hodge podge of borrowed everything to begin with

>>22061920
>First, why should we ignore the fact religious institutions exist that have various forms of apparati set up to debate and elucidate religious modes of understanding in order to focus on parent alone? It seems like you're simply begging to go after low-hanging fruit and wish to make a selective appeal to authority. Second, do you deny that indoctrination can exists in public institutions? The vast majority of people don't study a given scientific discipline in detail, fewer still study the history/philosophy of science in general and fewer still that of a specific discipline--most present rather naive understandings of how science operates (as evidence ITT). Third, of course it's important not only to discuss how bias can emerge in science itself but also how an ideology such as Scientism restricts the outlook of those whom (unconsciously) self-indoctrinate and may impose not only a tragically restrictive but also a dangerous hegemony. Fourth, are you a libtard who believes in "her penis?" There are certain areas of education that are better left to the family unit and should not be imposed upon children by public employees.
That's what I wrote in response to your slide, anon. Where did I say that the scientific method is invalidated because of "her penis." The above was in specific response to your slide that science is superior to religion because science is taught at school and religion is taught at home.

>>22061952
>slide
???

>>22061940
There's nothing to misinterpret, are you arguing that the basis of the mediation is not personal preference? You're a long way to demonstrate that.
>>22061942
Stop using morally when you mean "in a way that I prefer" if you want to be honest.

>>22061954
Yes, anon. That point was in specific regard to your slide about science@school v. religion@home. I included it in the list below of things you were unable to address:

>still doesn't know what "poverty of language" means
>still can't address under-determination and theory-ladenness
>can't respond to the examples given which demonstrated his narrative of scientific enterprise is naive
>couldn't address apparati that address/debate/elucidate religious modes of understanding
>retreated when it was pointed out he was trying to make a selective appeal to authority
>couldn't distinguish between modes of indoctrination
>retreated when it was pointed out public perception of science is unsophisticated
>wouldn't acknowledge why it's important to discuss specific scientific bias as well as Scientism
>still can't even acknowledge Scientism exists let alone directly address what it entails
>couldn't answer to "scientific" absurdities like "her penis"
>retreated when it was pointed out education imposed by public employees may be problematic and education through the family unit may be valid
On top of that you didn't address how education into particular models embeds bias into the scientific process nor did you respond to the fact that financial incentives dictate which research pursuits are valid/invalid. You also ignored the argument regarding how your naive understanding of scientific knowledge is invalidated by the historical record.

>>22061966
I don't think you know what a slide is.

>>22061976
You're an idiot.

>>22061952
>your slide that science is superior to religion because science is taught at school and religion is taught at home.
Where did I ever make that claim? Seems like you're sliding a bit here anon, you very clearly stated you think the idea of a female penis constitutes "Science" because you conflate the social movements of academics with the principals of the scientific method. You literally believe Fauci when he says he is the science, and you probably actually think you're smart, what a joke lol

>>22061982
>The primary way religion propagates itself is the indoctrination of children into the religion of their parents, and you want to criticize bias that can emerge in science???

>>22061962
Morality is a system for mediating interactions between people. Obviously this must take into account individual's preferences, but again, since this is a system to mediate interactions between people over time, it must also be built on concepts of fairness and community and society. What do you mean when you use the word "morality"?

>>22061982
>keeps talking about "her penis"
Stop sliding, retard. Try one of the other points:
>still doesn't know what "poverty of language" means
>still can't address under-determination and theory-ladenness
>can't respond to the examples given which demonstrated his narrative of scientific enterprise is naive
>couldn't address apparati that address/debate/elucidate religious modes of understanding
>retreated when it was pointed out he was trying to make a selective appeal to authority
>couldn't distinguish between modes of indoctrination
>retreated when it was pointed out public perception of science is unsophisticated
>wouldn't acknowledge why it's important to discuss specific scientific bias as well as Scientism
>still can't even acknowledge Scientism exists let alone directly address what it entails
>couldn't answer to "scientific" absurdities like "her penis"
>retreated when it was pointed out education imposed by public employees may be problematic and education through the family unit may be valid
On top of that you didn't address how education into particular models embeds bias into the scientific process nor did you respond to the fact that financial incentives dictate which research pursuits are valid/invalid. You also ignored the argument regarding how your naive understanding of scientific knowledge is invalidated by the historical record.

>>22061966
You're replying to a different anon who is probably as perplexed as anyone who is lurking in this thread because of how horrendously you use words (which to be fair, you did already admit you have trouble formulating your arguments because of "poverty of language")

>>22061991
Fairness, community, and society are all based on personal preference. Why do you keep introducing words to distance yourself from the basis they all have? You have to either admit it's entirely based on individual preference or demonstrate how it's not. Please don't introduce new words that can be boiled down to individual preference like you've been doing up until now.

>>22061986
Again, you conflate biases of the academic community with the process of the scientific method. You can't help yourself!

>>22061997
>there's more than one fedora tipping retard ITT
That's not what "poverty of language" means retard. Imagine crying "muh science" and thinking truth is democratic because there's someone just as stupid as you in the same thread, kek.

>>22061993
>"Oh shit, I'm getting blown out on yet another point, better slide the conversation to something else!"
Embarrassing!

>>22061999
Morality mediates interactions between people while taking into account fairness, which references the preferences of many people, often with conflicting preferences. It's a system to mediate these things while ensuring the participants of the system continue to buy in and participate. Again, you have yet to comment on what you think morality is other than this.

>>22062002
You replied to him as if it's me, and then get pissy that multiple people are calling you out on your blatant bullshit lol. You're a real hoot, my man.

>>22062000
>Again, you conflate biases of the academic community with the process of the scientific method.
No, and again this has been explained to you above. You're confusing a shallow/cliched take you have on academia with criticisms about your naive presentation of scientific enterprise. What does the academic community have to do with underdetermination? What does the fact the accumulation model of scientific knowledge have to do with the academic community? What does an appeal to the poverty of falsificationism when it comes to the demarcation problem have to do with the academic community?
>>22062003
Multiple anons operating in a hivemind and they can't even address one point. Did you guys ride the same short bus too?
>>22062010
He's just as stupid as you so it's an honest mistake. Like I said, it's funny that you're emboldened by the fact there's more than one retard in this thread when the fact that truth isn't democratic lines up automatically with your naive understanding of science.

>>22062013
>Emboldened
I'm just as bold as I've been this whole thread because of the poverty of your positions on just about everything. Again, all you want to do is case my iron clad case for the scientific process as "naive" purely because it obliterates your worldview. You want the full focus to be on the short comings of scientists, instead of the unmatched power of the principals of the scientific method in terms of producing reliable knowledge.

>>22062013
>Emboldened
I'm just as bold as I've been this whole thread because of the poverty of your positions on just about everything. Again, all you want to do is cast my iron clad case for the scientific process as "naive" purely because it obliterates your worldview. You want the full focus to be on the short comings of scientists, instead of the unmatched power of the principals of the scientific method in terms of producing reliable knowledge.

>>22062013
This poster right here is an example of a person who had to go to university to be this dumb

>>22062014
>Your idea of science is naive because you fail to take into account how education predisposes bias regarding acceptable models. Lee Smolin is a bit of a pseud but his book "The Trouble With Physics" is a good treatment of how/why theoretical physics has been spinning its wheels over string theory for decades precisely due to what I've just mentioned. Your idea of science is naive because you fail to take into account how financial pressures validate/invalidate areas of research. Steven Weinberg wrote a short paper on the Superconducting Super Collider and the politics surrounding it. Your idea of science is naive because you're basically regurgitating the accumulation model of scientific knowledge which doesn't stand to criticism from the historical record. Your idea of science is naive because you appeal to a vague notion of falsificationism that is over 100 years old and hasn't been taken seriously for well over a generation.
That's why your understanding of science is naive, anon. Care to directly address the above or are you going to pretend I'm saying a few bad apples spoil the bunch again?

What does under-determination have to do with the way the scientific community operates? Does theory-ladennes imply personal bias or systemic bias? Why does the accumulation model of scientific knowledge not stand to scrutiny when it comes to an appeal to the historical record? Can you account for concepts like Kuhn-loss by your description of scientific activity? Why did falsificationism fail to address the demaraction problem? (Do you even know what any of the above things are?)
>>22062017
Retard.

>>22062021
>t. NEET
Sorry you couldn't better yourself on your own.

>>22062007
Morality is an objective system of acting independent of personal preference.

>>22062023
Again, all nonsense because you fail to address my central point: a model is only as good as it's predictive power. There is all your demarcation problem, bias, and whatever other nonsense you regurgitate without understanding taken care of. But I'm sure you'll stick to whatever retarded variety of faith you think works in the void of the poverty of your language.

>>22062028
How do you determine it's objective? Independent of who's personal preference? A system of acting with what aim?

>>22062033
>predictive power
Kuhn-loss is a concept that describes how a theory can lose aspects of the predictive power of it's predecessor you complete and total retard. Your so out of your depth, kek.

Also, the demarcation problem has to do with how to discriminate science from pseudo-science. Karl Popper set out falsificationism as the guideline but this was shown to be inaccurate by the work of Thomas Kuhn. Imre Lakotos tried to salvage parts of it and had a famous debate with Paul Feyeraubend, a former Nazi and advocate of "scientific anarchism" who didn't believe the scientific method could be confined in that way.

Again, you're a complete and total retard and you should be embaressed that you think regurgitating pop-sci I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE shit makes you sound smart. Retard.

>>22062036
Objective means independent of individual preferences. The individual preference of people who accept the system. The aim is given by the system. Atheism as a system cannot do this. Religion can.

>>22062051
Which religion can provide objective morality?

>>22062076
Monotheism.

>>22062080
>Monotheism.
Not a religion.

>>22062082
Yeah it is.

>>22062076
Any religion with a moral code.

>>22060166
>257 replies
>42 posters
All because OP wants to become a practicing Catholic. It's almost like spiritual warfare is real... Huh!

>>22060456
>the Gospels embody the discernment of a small minority that dares to oppose the monstrous mimetic contagion of a Dionysian lynching
Thank goodness those peaceful and loving christians would never lynch someone like Hypatia in Alexandria

>>22060598
>>22060604
>>22060611
>>22060622
The Trinity doctrine is total nonsense. Every attempt to explain it into a way that is comprehensible to anyone with a brain gets labelled a heresy:

Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism)
...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherants believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.

Tritheism
...Tritheism confessses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three independent divine beings; three separate gods who share the 'same substance'. This is a common mistake because of misunderstanding of the use of the term 'persons' in defining the Trinity.

Arianism
...taught that the preexistent Christ was the first and greatest of God’s creatures but denied his fully divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the development of Christology during the fourth century and was addressed definitely in the Nicene Creed.

Docetism
...taught that Jesus Christ as a purely divine being who only had the “appearance” of being human. Regarding his suffering, some versions taught that Jesus’ divinity abandoned or left him upon the cross while other claimed that he only appeared to suffer (much like he only appeared to be human).

Ebionitism
...taught that while Jesus was endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him from other humans but nonetheless regarded Him as a purely human figure.

Macedonianism
...that that the Holy Spirit is a created being.

Adoptionism
...taught that Jesus was born totally human and only later was “adopted” – either at his baptism or at his resurrection – by God in a special (i.e. divine) way.

Partialism
...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together.

The Trinity is just a ridiculous exercise of mental gymnastics. There is no logical explanation of it. If you just take it on "faith", that's fine, but don't pretend that it makes any kind of sense or gives the believer any kind of practical understanding of god.

>>22060568
I actually don’t care at all what Freud thought.

>>22060566
Well, I don’t think the Greeks felt a reason to abandon their gods even if some of them could’ve arrive rationally at the necessity of a creator God. Dogma wasn’t quite so important to them.

But the reason I said it’s the heart and not the mind because I think we can rationally arrive at the existence of God, but ultimately, the reason we reject God, and the reason we suffer, is because we can know God intellectually but we don’t open our hearts. Man isn’t a creature of pure mind or intellect. It’s the heart that governs man and it’s in the heart we find evidence of the fall. We have to open our hearts to God to really know Him.

>>22060166
Was smug Chesterton not enough to awaken that yearning within you? Then you'll probably learn to read Spanish

>>22060446
Please be kind to him anon. Christ did not, in the great commission, command his followers to tell unbelievers to go fuck themselves

>New Atheists conflate religion with literalist biblethumping and base their entire worldview on attacking ridiculous strawmen with theological arguments they misunderstand and misinterpret
>"New Basedtheists" conflate science with leddit scientism and base their entire worldview on attacking ridiculous strawmen with pop-philsci arguments they misunderstand and misinterpret
Postmodernity was a mistake.

>>22061174

>>22062292
At this point I don't think the answer is Christianity, and I definitely don't think it's Atheism.

>>22060207
>choose
kek

>>22060568
Even if he was an insightful thinker, Freud was prejudiced against religion and thus never capable of empathizing with religious figures. That's clear in the first chapter of Civilization And Its Discontents.

>>22060166
Maybe have a legit paranormal experience?

>>22062045
You cling to the work of several obscure people as if it dismantles the fact that the scientific model is the only reliable way to produce knowledge. None of the things you present are in any way as damning as you seem to think they are, which just goes to show you are the ultimate pseud, you aren't capable of keeping individual work in context. You can't argue the fact that the scientific method, as I laid it out, is responsible for creating of all modern technology. You don't get computers or space stations on any other model but the one I laid out. You're so deep in your own schizo world you've lost contact with reality entirely.

>>22062051
Again, you fail to answer my questions. Your "objective" morality (which you assert is objective, you can never prove this) has what aim? Where is it derived from if not the conditions which produce preferable lives? Once again, if your morality system has nothing to do with people living better lives for following it, and living in better harmony with those around them, then it seems like a pretty arbitrary and shitty morality system.

>>22062088
>Any religion has objective codes
>Many religions have conflicting and mutually exclusive codes
>Conflicting objective moral codes all exist at the same time
Oh no, he's retarded

>>22062247
Okay, continue being both afraid of and in love with your oppressive father figure in the sky lol

>>22063414
Freud actually directly addresses this, I think in "The Future of an Illusion" where he tells of a colleague of his talking about the religious feeling as if one is a tiny drop in a wide ocean, and Freud states he has not experienced this "religious feeling", which in my opinion puts him in the perfect position to critique the religious impulse, because he is free from the bias of emotional inclinations. I suspect this feeling is main drive which pulls people to religion, coupled with the observations of Freud regarding a desire for an all powerful father figure to have permanent and total dominion over a person's life (which is a form of self imposed infantilization)

>>22062292
This is like saying Thomas Paine based his world view on attacking strawmen of religion when he really advocated for free thought and expression at a time when religious people were gaining political power and using that power to persecute anyone who criticized religion. Any point of view that relies on knowledge from revelation is worthy of ridicule and dismissal.