/lit/ - Literature

Is Clockwork Orange the worst book ever written?

So I've been trying to remind myself why I became a good man and thinking about the Burguess' stories and how much sense they make to me now that I'm a non violent person.

>>3287517
3edgy7thisthread

Short answer:No.

Who is worshipping it here?

The fact that one can call God a dick instead of thinking man was mistaken in its endeavour at Babel is merely an ideological difference in the reading of the text, that sustain its quality as one of the most important cultural references of the western world. I think your reaction is merely a product of the fact that you were born in a context in which these myths have lost their power and that the industrial and technilogical age are already building its own Babel tower. So to think that a natural unwielding force can crush our technocratic utopia of "advancing through history", globalization and so on comes as a challenging and blasphemous statement for which we can only think "nonsense!" and then continue building our tower. What a dick is mother nature with its typhoons and blizzards...

lel i'm being an edgy athiest! XDDDD that's wut FAWUX NEWS told me atheists act like so ill act liek that XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

You seem to hate it and yet here you are discussing it in your free time. How in the hell does that make it a poor book?

Not to mention that the Old Testament God is indeed wrathful and brutal; the idea of an all-loving God is a christian function, not a jewish one.

>>3287525
lol

OP being a faggy boring atheist

>>3287561
Yes. Let us stop making our tower of babel. Let the progress stop. Who needs this shit we have god who doesn't want us to progress because it fears we will style on him. Lets go back to Medieval age and stone and burn people for blasphemy.
>>3287588
So why do you believe in a wrathful and brutal god? Do you enjoy being crapped on from above?

>>3287650

Why do you act so condescending towards medievalism? It's a serious idea with very scholarly support. Never heard of J.R.R. Tolkien?

>>3287659
Because medieval times, at least in Europe, are know for witch and heretic burnings and for church restricting scientific progress. I do appreciate medieval times for other reasons, for it's castles, music, fashions knightship etc. But religion and science-wise it was terrible.

>>3287650
you as almost all atheist are an idiot, you're not even a truly atheist, you invoque biblic passage and quotes to prove the dickinness of god, wich imply you believe this story (and even worse, you give it a complety literal interpretation) but you fade away from god view.

A truly atheist simply don't believe in anything,(include bible, quoran, etc) and don't use the book he/she don't believe as a source to prove anything to anyone

>>3287666

>>3287666
I don't believe in it. I quoted it for the people who believe in god and for the purpose of making this thread.

>>3287664
>heretic burnings and for church restricting scientific progress

No, that shit happened during the Renaissance, fucktard.

Like 85% of the Old Testament is the story of how a priest caste rose to power, from the point of view of that priest caste.

The Gospels are Jesus speaking to the poor and downtrodden, helping them to regain a sense of pride in themselves, of dignity, and showing them how to defend themselves against cruelty.

The rest of the New Testament is a pretty mixed bag.

Have a link:

http://www.southerncrossreview.org/39/wink2.htm

>>3287681
During medieval times as well.

>>3287678
yees you still believe it as a valid source to prove your point of view, you try to look for people who share your believe,

being atheis is like play warm and never decide to look for answer, thats why is so weak form of seeing the world

Is OP the edgiest faggot ever to shitpost?

>>3287696
> During medieval times as well.

No. Lern2history, moron. (Protip: 'medieval times' is roughly from 600 to 1350 A.D.)

Someone needs to ask that "The Awesome Atheist" dude or whatever his name is, what he thinks of Spinozist pantheism.

>inb4 he says Spinoza was an idiot and a billion commenters suck his dick

>>3287650

Shit spam error, I get so mad when this happends I take a screenshot and post anyway.

>>3287678
Then don't do it here next time. This is not the place for that. No one here shares your perspective of the bible, neither the theists or the atheists. If you want the state of kansas vs dawkins type of discussions, go elsewhere.

>>3287711
5th to 15th century. Are you trying to tell me there was no witchburnings during this time or something? Renaisance 14-17th centuries is actually when science and arts and free thinking started to pick up more. Hence the name. I'm not telling that it was immune from the witch/heretic burning though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

>>3287736
>The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt

Not even him...

>we citing wikipedia now

Please, delete this embarassing thread

>>3287700
Thinking that all atheists are worms is like thinking that all religious people are worms who just believe blindly and never decide to look for answers and see the world weakly. There is absolutely no proof of god and you worship it only because of the blind faith that you cling to because you were brought up in it. If anything, I would say your predicament is much more limiting.

>>3287747
Why are you clinging to your witch hunts? They existed in Middle Ages as well and we were talking about the scientific progress here. There was none in the Middle ages because of church oppressing science. It started to pick up in the renaissance. So yeah Middle Ages were dark in this retrospect.

>>3287754
wait a sec, leeme laught HAHAHAHAHa

well, now it's done
1st of all I'm NOT cristian, i'm neopagan and a bit of gnostic
>not bind faith here

so, there is no prof of god you say? well, let me ask. What is it a "god"? we need to define before what are we looking before looking proof of it's existence

>>3287777
>neopagan
Go back to Christianity. Please stick to shitting on one religion with your ignorance rather than shitting on many.

>>3287773
Why are you even clinging to this? You raised as a straw man long and has nothing to do with Tower of Babel.

>>3287791
Because I was replying to this question >>3287659 when someone interfered saying that it all happened in renaissance. When actually renaissance is when science started to pick up more and I had to clarify this for them.

>>3287803
You already proved you know nothing of either periods and the myth of the Tower of Babel.

Do you want to move to french revolution or greek myths now?

Verify 32.536365,44.420756 google map
pic related

Most of the good books in the bible are in the old testament. The greatest work of hebrew lit is job, for fucks sake.

>>3287786
insulting a believe and never even post a good reason why

>Go back to Christianity
please, you are insulting yourself so hard

veredict: a troll has been spoted in Mordor

>>3287808
I don't care what you think about me but do stick to the topic, if you want to discuss French revolution or Greek myths make a thread about it.

>>3287803

Fuck you dude, do you seriously think there was no scientific advances in the medieval ages because of the church? For one thing, the church had even more power over people after the renaissance, for another thing, science was still very much so important in the middle ages. In fact the renaissance was partly a reaction to universities being filled with just a bunch of science.

Motherfucker. Read.

>>3287827
Neopaganism is a slapped-together bastardization of older pagan religions. Modern Christianity is a twisted form of early Christianity. People already shit all over real Christianity with shit like megachurches and stuff. I was suggesting you return to the religion of which people are already making a mockery in large numbers rather than perpetuate neo-pagan "I'm a demigod on the inside, I know because I dreamed it" bullshit.

I'd just like to chime in here, in regards to the Church and the Medieval Ages:

They were the sole light of scholasticism during that time. They fucking kept knowledge alive and, actually, religion has probably been one of the greatest forces for scientific advancement in human history. It's only over the past couple centuries that the two have been "in conflict."

>>3287840

>treating neopaganism as a monolithic entity

What the hell, dude. And are you seriously going to try to insult any kind of cultural product by calling it a "bastardization"?

That's ignorant, bro. That's just ignorant.

>>3287850

The conflict, of course, being between those with enough brains to think but not enough brains to think well.

>>3287858
To me, that's exactly it. Science and religion are two sides of the same coin, and one day I think we're going to be able to look past this perceived conflict and see how the two compliment one another. It'll be an awesome eureka moment, I think.

>>3287851
I've never heard anyone use the term "neopagan" except to refer to "eclectic paganism" and Wicca-inspired stuff.

>>3287862

And you care so much about people practicing these things because... ?

>>3287871
I used to be one, and the books are never well-researched, you can't criticize anyone ("No, you are not the reincarnation of Freyja") without being ostracized, and it's basically not so much a religion as a collection of tiny bits and pieces of other religions (that no one bothers trying to understand as a whole) mashed together into a sort of roleplaying game/superstition.

stupid atheists! we're way more advanced than you, you're just as bad as dumb religious folk!!

>>3287850
Oh sure that's why inquisition executed Giordano Bruno and harassed Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus.

To take this thread in another direction, I'd like to read the Bible.

Which books are your guys' favorite?

>>3287650

>>3287879

That's exactly what it is, a role playing game. You know the point of paganism is on a ritual basis, right? It's about practices. These practices are partly role playing. They're seen that way today and that's how they were seen by the ancients.

>>3287861
How are science and religion two sides of the same coin? Religion is blind faith and science is there to seek out the truth. they do not compliment one another and never will.

>>3287907
Yeah, but I'm talking about a "role playing game" where you're never not playing or allowed to talk to anyone out of character because they think they're really half fairy or the Chosen One or that Saiyans in Dragon Ball Z were inspired by a species from another plane of existence, and they've learned secrets from them, or that they know all about "Native American Religion" (read: hundreds of different religions) and their spirit guide is a wolf who told them that they're destined to save the world from the devil, also they're best buds with Loki.

>>3287892

But that's after the middle ages...

>>3287898
Job

>>3287907
>the ancients
>"hurr don't call neopaganism a monolithic entity, but every ancient culture is 'the ancients'"

>>3287898

Job, Song of Songs, Psalms, Gospel of Luke

>>3287924

Sounds like you're too autistic to have fun.

>>3287930

Yes, ancient cultures were ancient, and when spoken collectively you can shorten their name, "the ancient cultures," to just "the ancients."

What's the problem there?

>>3287650
>implying progress is equal to destroy the planet

you're an evil lonely underage faggot who doesn't understad a shit about life

>>3287936
Sounds like you're unaware that people actually delude themselves into believing this shit.

>>3287938
You're making a sweeping statement about what all ancient people believed. That's silly as fuck.

The bell-rope that gathers God at dawn
Dispatches me as though I dropped down the knell
Of a spent day - to wander the cathedral lawn
From pit to crucifix, feet chill on steps from hell.

Have you not heard, have you not seen that corps
Of shadows in the tower, whose shoulders sway
Antiphonal carillons launched before
The stars are caught and hived in the sun's ray?

The bells, I say, the bells break down their tower;
And swing I know not where. Their tongues engrave
Membrane through marrow, my long-scattered score
Of broken intervals… And I, their sexton slave!

Oval encyclicals in canyons heaping
The impasse high with choir. Banked voices slain!
Pagodas, campaniles with reveilles out leaping-
O terraced echoes prostrate on the plain!…

And so it was I entered the broken world
To trace the visionary company of love, its voice
An instant in the wind (I know not whither hurled)
But not for long to hold each desperate choice.

My word I poured. But was it cognate, scored
Of that tribunal monarch of the air
Whose thigh embronzes earth, strikes crystal Word
In wounds pledged once to hope - cleft to despair?

The steep encroachments of my blood left me
No answer (could blood hold such a lofty tower
As flings the question true?) -or is it she
Whose sweet mortality stirs latent power?-

And through whose pulse I hear, counting the strokes
My veins recall and add, revived and sure
The angelus of wars my chest evokes:
What I hold healed, original now, and pure…

And builds, within, a tower that is not stone
(Not stone can jacket heaven) - but slip
Of pebbles, - visible wings of silence sown
In azure circles, widening as they dip

The matrix of the heart, lift down the eye
That shrines the quiet lake and swells a tower…
The commodious, tall decorum of that sky
Unseals her earth, and lifts love in its shower.

>>3287926
Ofcourse it is after middle ages. All thsoe famous scientists are from the renaissance because that's when people started gaining interest in sciences and question what church said. Renaissance is called the renaissance because people started to wake up and question church and the world.

>>3287945

Ancient civilizations partly saw public rituals as role playing.

How silly of a statement! How unqualified! How unsupported!

>>3287840
my gods, is truly notable you were an cristianfag before an atheistfag

>I'm a demigod on the inside, I know because I dreamed it

what the hell is... ?=+# you obliously had no idea what are you talking about

>>3287862
i'm not wiccan, btw yes, it is not a really cleary term, due to it can involve many believes in diferent combinations

neopaganism is like firefox, very customizable

>>3287953

No, the renaissance is called the renaissance because it was a rebirth of artistic talent. Science had about nothing to do with it, and the only role the church had in it was sponsoring these artists.

And, by the way, among almost all scholarly historians today it's thought of as stupid to call it the renaissance and imply that the medieval times before them weren't full of science, art, universities, etc.

>>3287956
>what the hell is... ?=+# you obliously had no idea what are you talking about
Never hung out with self-proclaimed neopagans IRL, have you? It leads to shit like that. Seriously.

>>3287956
>neopaganism is like firefox, very customizable
So you can just pick and choose what you believe without any regard for philosophical truth, theological basis, etc.?

>>3287941
>>3287966

We get it, dude, you hung out with a random dumb cult. No one cares.

>>3287970

>>3287971
Google "wiccan spells" and look around. With the exception of a possible Wikipedia article about the origin of wiki, you're going to see lots of sparkly shit and people saying "light a candle and chant in a rhyme and whatever you want to happen, will happen! But be sure to wave your fingers in a star afterwords or you'll get possessed!"

And this is just the generally agreed upon shit.

>>3287977

Yeah we get it, dude, wiccans are dumb. No one cares.

>>3287666
>666

I was raised in a conservative-Christian household, and I still live in that household, but a few years ago I decided I had not need for faith in deities, and I felt that the universe was indifferent to humanity, and I ought not spend my time trying to appease one of many possible religions when I simply never felt any depth of faith.

Anyhow, I like to use to Christian doctrines to defend religious actions to my friends sometimes, because I am sympathetic to all beliefs, and religion can be a wonderful thing for people who can use it. Quoting religious texts doesn't mean you believe them, and I encourage all atheists to read the bible, if you're going to take a stance against the existence of the metaphysical then you ought to know the foundations of said beliefs, so as to affirm your disbelief.

>>3287965
Then why are the first famous scientists appear in renaissance? Before renaissance it was widely accepted that the world is flat, center of the universe and no one questioned the church on it.

>>3287525

Wait, Clockwork Orange was supposed to be about why violence is bad or something? I saw it as encouragement to act like those guys. In the end it doesn't matter anyway. I thought that was the message.

>>3287988

>Then why are the first famous scientists appear in renaissance?

That's a loaded question, but I'll attempt to explain your misguided view simply: the advent of printing.

>>3287650
>>3287664

>MUH PROGRESS TELEOLOGY
>MUH 'SCIENCE' WORSHIP

It's like I'm really in the 18th century

>>3287988

>Before renaissance it was widely accepted that the world is flat

You should probably google that and then come back and take it back. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>3287999
Which appeared in renaissance and not in Middle Ages.

>>3287988

>Before renaissance it was widely accepted that the world is flat

Commen misconception. Are you in middle school?

>>3287992
OP is being edgy and against the message of the bible, the guy did the same there with CO by being the opposite.

>>3287988
>First famous scientists appear in the renaissance?

LOL, EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS FUCKING RETARD! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

>>3288002
>>3288013
Church was harrasing the people who were saying otherwise.

>>3288011

Exactly, bud. That, however, implies very little about the church suppressing scientific advancement. Because the church did not suppress scientific advancement.

>>3288029

Surely this is a true. It has to be. It must be. Must be a troll. It h-h-hasss to beeeee.

>>3288024
Except for being a bad troll you aren't providing any information to prove me wrong.

>>3287966

never hang out with other neopagans, so never roleplay or the shit you talk anyways

neopagan =/= wiccans

> look at me, i'm a wikipedia intelectual and a google master chazzza!

i sense you butthurt

>>3287892
It's funny, because the Church actually APPROVED of Copernicus until the Protestant Reformation provoked a fundamentalist Counter-Reformation response from the Catholics. If you want to blame something for the restriction of scientific advancement, blame Politics, not religion.

>>3287988
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

in conclusion, you are dumb

>>3288036
you're supposed to be providing information that you are right

your argument is the equivalent of me saying "actually everyone in the renaissance believed the world was round"

ITT: OP gets told real hard in multiple ways and faces the harsh truth about himself

>>3287910
>Religion
>Blind faith

Yeah, no. Anyone whose not a plebe actively seeks out spiritual truths of human existence, they don't just go listen to the preacher on Sunday. Those people are plebeians in the same manner as the guys who watch science shows on the Discovery channel and start being edgy atheists like yourself without really understanding anything about science.

>>3288046
oh is that what happened i couldnt bring myself to read that big ass wall of text especially when it was by some edgy athiest teen who wants to get back in touch with jesus now that he finished rebelling against his dad or whatever the first sentence said

>>3288046

OP soon realize the awful truth, he is a fag no matter wich believe he hold

Only thing more annoying than Debate Me -atheist are the 2nd wave reactionaries who defend religion to stand out from the atheist masses of the internet.

I wish I could end your misery.

>>3288045
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Have you even read that thing yourself? Read the parts about early Middle ages and late Middle ages and come back here.

>>3288050
However Tattersall shows that in many vernacular works in 12th and 13th century French texts the Earth was considered "round like a table" rather than "round like an apple". "In virtually all the examples quoted...from epics and from non-'historical' romances (that is, works of a less learned character) the actual form of words used suggests strongly a circle rather than a sphere.[111]

Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

>>3288036
Allow me to retort:

>Hesiod
>Thales
>Anaximander
>Anaximenes
>Pythagoras
>Xenophanes
>Heraclitus
>Parmendies
>Anaxagoras
>Democritus
>Aristotle
>Euclid
>Aristarchus
>Archimedes
>Apollonius
>Hipparchus
>Lucretius
>Manilius
>Nicomachus
>Ptolemy
>Galen
>Thomas Aquinas


All famous scientists who existed before the Renaissance. Faggot.

>>3288077
>Said the debate-me atheist

>>3288082
Oops, not Hesiod, I don't know who I was confusing him with, my bad.

Spiderman thread pls

>>3288091
Superior Spiderman?

>>3288051
And how do you plan to find spiritual truths of human existence? With science you look for evidence and proof. With religion you rather believe in something or don't. There is no proof provided.

>>3288082
Do Galen and Hippocrates count too?

ITT: butthurt

>>3288091
wincest bitch

>>3288097
I've got Galen, didn't even think of Hippocrates, yeah definitely.

>>3288082
I'm was talking about Middle Ages that preceded the renaissance, not ancient Greece and Rome. Are you able to follow a conversation?

>>3288096
Explain to me how scientific discovery isn't the best way to study God. Couple that with the examination of the allegorical truths found in the major religious texts, and you've got yourself a winrar!

>>3288105
>Dat Backpedaling

Mhm. Nice try, bro.

Whenever someone says anything against religion. People of faith will just quote a fictional book endlessly to try and prove you wrong. Or other edgy aethiests will play devils advocate also quoting more works of fiction.

>>3288084
>said the sandnigger ghost apologist

>>3288110
Science studies things that exist. God doesn't. Therefore science cannot study god. Some people try to attribute scientific advances to god's wonder but they are really in no relation to each other.

please


this thread

>>3288131
>cannot into Spinoza

>>3288105

Jabir Ibn Hayyan (Geber)
Al-Kindi
Ibn Firnas
Al-Khwarizmi
Ar-Razi (both of them)
Al-Farabi
Az-Zahrawi
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen)
Ibn an-Nafis
At-Tusi
Ibn Sina

All were religious people who lived in religious societies.

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

THIS ISN'T LITERATURE!

>>3288131

Can you study quality? You can't. Quality doesn't exist then?

>>3288114
I'm not backpedaling at all. The conversation was about comparing Middle ages and Renaissance. Bringing scientists from antiquity was a misunderstanding on your part. And now I'm clarifying that i was talking about Middle Ages in regards to that statement.

>>3288105
alchemist were pre-chemist of today

also "witches" and "mages" some of them had a shitton of knowledge about botanic

the anus of OP is really loose, it could store a wall of dicks there

>>3288139
The Bible is literature.

>>3288105
Middle Ages Europe dude. Read the whole conversation. We were not talking about Middle east.

>>3288140
Quality can be measured, you can line up knives for how sharp, durable etc. they are. And if there's a "quality" that can not be measured objectively, and is a subject to opinions, then yeah it doesn't exist.

>>3288118
People who use periods like this are very irritating.

Please disabuse yourself of the childish notion that 'science' adheres steadfastly a certain method and progresses linearly. Read Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend. Realize that science seeks consensus, not 'truth', and that it does not possess the epistemological value you attribute to it.

>>3288151
>Middle Ages Europe dude. Read the whole conversation. We were not talking about Middle east.

Both parts of the world were highly religious. Arabic works were translated into Latin and studied in medieval Europe. Why should it make a difference?

>>3288140
Is it a serious question? I mean we can use science to improve the quality of life. How do you relate it to god? Do you plan to find god somehow using science? I just don't understand your aim here.

That's not a scientific measurement. Try agian

OP, most everyone who actually worships the Abrahamic God don't take the stories in the Old Testament literally. Just the Evangelical Christians and the Orthodox Jews.

Secondly the Old Testament is not a fucking book, it's a compendium of books.

>>3288190
If you don't take Old Testament literally(do you take new testament Literally?) then why do you believe in this god? Assuming you do because I don't know if you do or not.

>>3288196
It's not one big book. It's a bunch of books that some people decided should be lumped together. There was much debate over what should be considered canonical when it happened, and much later, we still haven't all agreed.

all the old gods were aliens

threat/

>>3288210
That doesn't answer my question at all.

>>3288196
A lot of people are atheists here, with no religion whatsoever. Including me.

You are still retarded, OP. You're just doing it wrong.

>>3288196
There's something of a wide dichotomy between believing in God and believing everything that was ever written about God, even if those writings are "canon."

I knew a Polish Catholic priest who described the Bible as "a book of nice stories" and said that, for the most part, what's important about those stories is what they teach. They're not usually supposed to be records of things that actually happened. Christians have been taking the events of Genesis in particular with a grain of salt at least since the time of Augustine in the 4th century.

As for the New Testament, I'm pretty sure that every Christian sect takes the Gospels pretty literally.

But bits like the Book of Revelation, again that's just something Evangelicals take seriously. Catholics, both Roman and Orthodox, and the traditional Protestant sects don't believe in the Rapture see.

>>3288222
Did you miss the post where i told you that I don't care what you think about me? If you think I'm retarded then gtfo from my thread and don't reply to me. Yet you keep hanging out here seeking my attention. You are the retarded one here.

>>3288240
>don't believe in the Rapture

...Yes, they do. They may not take all of the descriptions of the 'signs' literally, but they do have normal Christian eschatological beliefs.

>>3288252
>Yes, they do.

Who do you mean by they?

Certainly not the Catholics. Maybe some of the Traditional Protestant sects, I'm not sure about all of them.

>>3288240
Well if you don't take them literally then why to believe in this god? If you don't take Bible seriously then what god do you believe in? Do you believe in kind and loving god? How do you know he is so? In many cases he's been shown as jealous, controlling and vindictive.

the one thing I keep having problems deflecting is the 'god is everything' argument...if god is THE everything, this how do you debate against this?

>>3288269
>If you don't take Bible seriously then what god do you believe in?

I didn't mean to say that Christians don't take the Bible seriously. Most just don't take every word of it literally.

Anyway you're just going on about the Old Testament here, if you really want an idea of what Christians believe read the New Testament.

>>3288266
>Certainly not the Catholics

Sure they do. Refer to the Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2P.HTM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Q.HTM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1V.HTM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1W.HTM

etc.

>>3288283
OP can't tell diference beetween literal and metaphore, he just want someone who actually say what he want to hear

>>3288286
We're talking about the Rapture here, not the apocalypse.

Obviously Catholics believe in the apocalypse. But they do not believe that prior to it, all of the righteous will be reported to heaven. They specifically regard that notion as a heresy.

>>3288283
I know the story of Jesus. You see I feel like you are avoiding my question. How much of it you don't take literally? I mean if you take the Bible seriously then you must take some of it literally? What parts do you take literally? Why do you choose to believe in it?

>>3288307
>reported

er, teleported

>>3288310
>What parts do you take literally?

Catholics and Anglicans leave the interpretation of scripture up to the clergy. Protestants leave it up to the individual, but they still have an idea of what the correct interpretation is. And for most of those Protestants, that interpretation is not "everything must be taken literally."

>>3288322
OK. So why do you personally believe in this god?

>>3288310
> I mean if you take the Bible seriously then you must take some of it literally
mfw i have no face

>>3288307
>We're talking about the Rapture here

I thought the final resurrection was the rapture for them?

>>3287517
Actually the god of the bible is a combo of 4-5 pagan gods

>>3288336
Why do you keep asking about me personally? Did I say that I was Christian? Do you assume that I am because I know the most basic information about Christianity?

I've taken some religious studies courses in college, we could be talking about any religion here.

As for why Christians believe in God, well I assume that generally people believe in the spiritual because it solves all of their existential crises. Religion teaches that there's life after death, that life has a meaning, and that there's final justice.

Philosophers like Descartes have more advanced arguments of course, but I think that's essentially what theism is about.

>>3288345

>muh zeitgeist

Everyone knows about ancient Hebrew polytheism man

>>3288345
I'd said

zeus+the tao

>>3288364
I asked because I assumed you were a believer. If you aren't then telling me this is enough. I am interested in talking to believers asking them why they believe.

>>3288345
No, he's one god in particular. The most ancient Hebrews acknowledged many gods but they had one god they placed above all others. Eventually their mystics came to the conclusion that this god was THE God.

>>3288381
>I am interested in talking to believers asking them why they believe.

>btw im a athiest debate pl0x

>>3288367
you called?

>>3288282
You don't.

The thing is that, for the same reason one who is religious only believes in a version of god and deflects all others, one too cannot be atheist for all definitions of god. God is an abstract concept with a meaning that varies not only from religion to religion, but inside one religion as well and from person to person. If the God of Newton are the mathematic laws themselves, how could one refute that aspect of it?

One can raise arguments for each religious claim, pro or against the notion of god merely depending on how the person defines it. Just like with everything else really, it's just that god is a bit tricky.

So if some people take the bible literally and uses it as evidence against other knowledges (that is, one actually believes the Earth, the physical planet, is 6 thousand years), we can refute this argument with evidence. For most of other theological notions, it's not a matter of physical evidence or debate against it. First because the social aspect of it varies, they won't use it against science, for example. Second because it's a metaphysical argument.

I call myself an atheist because I go against the notion of a solid objective aspect of reality, which for me is strong in most concepts of god, though some atheists believe in it too. While for other definitions, I don't call it god. If god is everything, I call him "everything". That's enough reason.

God is a concept, a symbol, a sign, a word. Something we say.

You fail instantly by taking the story literally. Only way to read the bible is with a biblical commentary to compliment it. This is what the commentary I own, Gerome's New Biblical Commentary, has to say about the Tower of Babel: First off, many people of God disobey a direct command by not settling in their appointed lands, but all settling in Babel. One can see the contrast between human planning and devine intent by the contast between what the humans say ( "Come, let us make bricks...") and what God says ("Come, let us go down there and confuse their language"). The builders of the tower also wanted to "make a name for themselves" when they should know this is impossible, as God says to Abraham before this "I will make your name great". The confusion of their speech is a punishment for pride and also a ways of guarding God's position of, well, being God. Is this wrong? Hell no. The Isrealites would of made terrible Gods; they are by nature flawed and limited, not suited for the role of diety.

>>3288399
Most theists on the internet probably don't know enough about their own beliefs to really debate them. Just like how most atheists on the internet don't actually know anything about their lack of belief, having not read anything by Hume or anyone else. I know it's a cliche but a lot of the atheists one encounters online are just atheists to piss their parents off.

Anyway if anyone wants to learn why Christians believe in Christianity they ought to check out the writings of the great Christian philosophers and theologians. If they want someone more contemporary they should go with C. S. Lewis I think. He became a Christian after lengthy debates about religion and philosophy with Tolkien and others, and he wrote a lot about why he changed his mind about the existence of God.

>>3288407
to your mom, sure

>>3288415
okay, okay...everything is everything, also nothing is everything, atheism is part of everything yada yada...but we also worship everything, we make music, we draw, we write, we 'do' everything...suicide is part of it as well, it's inescapable...every though, construct, fiction, it's all everything and by living our lives or ending it, we're participating in it like a 'religion'.
like that idea of 'god' being inside everyone and everything...if you're part of it, being against it only means that you're still part of it.

>>3287898
Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Job, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Psalms.
Awesome books. Get a biblical commentary though.

>>3288469
I don't really understand what you are trying to say in this post...

But yeah, that's why it's so offensive to some religious people to say that you are an atheist. God is, for a lot of people, the most natural thing there is, it is "how things go", "how things are", so when you call yourself an atheist people jump as if you said you like to go against the current, you're a cheater, you'd go against the natural order and so on. It's like saying you don't believe in gravity for some people.

I think knowing this can give internet atheists a little more of sensibility on the matter. Just like, to an orthodox and not too thoughtful religious person should learn that being an atheist doesn't mean being, I don't know, evil, rebel, promiscuous or whatever.

Both believe in what they consider it to be real. And outside of the aspects that really clash with each other, like fundamentalism vs science and so on, the problem is only a problem of having different words for what are similar concepts.

>>3288433
That does not make him look any better. Makes him look like a dictator. Like a monopoly with the power to destroy the competition. He demands people to settle in the land appointed to them and not in the land that they themselves want to live in. When they choose to live where the fuck they want to live he punishes them. When the builders tried to make the name for themselves he punishes them as well for this. And saying that the Israelites are by nature flawed and limited is just being plain racist. Makes me wonder even more why people keep believing in this god.

>>3288508
So I shouldn't say that I'm an Atheist because it offends religious people. Well I'm sorry if someone gets offended but I'm still an Atheist. Maybe religious people should learn to accept that there are people who don't believe in god. And learn not to get offended by choices that others make for themselves and are none of their business.

>>3288526
>And saying that the Israelites are by nature flawed and limited is just being plain racist

All humans are by nature flawed and imperfect.

>Makes me wonder even more why people keep believing in this god.

Because they don't believe that he ever actually fucked up humanity for building a big tower.

Also if God were all powerful and perfect he'd be perfectly entitled to tell people what to do and punish them for screwing up. God can't be wrong.

>>3288549
I would think that theists are generally less offended about the very existence of atheists than they are about atheists who literally believe and loudly proclaim that theists are all mentally deficient children. And when they're not trying their hardest to be offensive to other people, they go on about what great humanists they are.

>>3288526
It's not racist you tard. All humans are limited. You are limited to your one perspective, sex, background, etc. He does not punish them just for living in that land either, but for the extremely prideful act of trying to build a tower. It's both in conjunction; both are prideful acts because, by disobeying God and trying to be like him, they act as if they themselves are Gods. When they're not. They're Isrealites. They could never be Gods. So rather than doing something they could truly be amazing at like, oh I don't know, settling the land that God told them too, they build this fucking stupid tower out of pride and misunderstanding.

>>3288526

You respond to a post that tells you stop taking things literally by TAKING EVERYTHING FUCKING LITERALLY

Think about that for a second

>>3287583
for fuck's sake anybody who pulls this shit for any reason should just feel ashamed. Why does it happen so often?

>>3288550
>All humans are by nature flawed and imperfect.
Doesn't at all mean we shouldn't do what we want and aim to the top. if we are imperfect and god is all powerful why did he feel his position threatened by us? God just seem to hate us doing good and is scared we get on his level. Sounds like a pretty insecure deity, not at all perfect.

>>3288589
yeah seriously i'm sick of edgy athiests

>>3288599

>Doesn't at all mean we shouldn't do what we want and aim to the top.

Says fucking who? You bat away such a big philosophical question with one sentence like it's middle school, kid.

>>3288599

STOP TAKING IT ALL LITERALLY

FUCK


AAAAA

FUCK

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT GO READ A BIBLE COMMENTARY HOLY SHIT

OP you just want to heard an specific answer, many people tell you theirs point of view throught this whole threat and you just were "bah that's not what i am looking for"

also another answer; Realize that old abhramic god wasn't good at all doesn't mean that you must be automatic an atheist, was he evil? or he just apply a just punishment for those who defy divinity (babel is like icarus story), this story was about the punishment for trying to be/reach good (as many other old golds who also punish those who try to go so far)

tl;dr you believe this was a dick move, other won't

>>3288610
actually is funny seeing op being beated againg and againg and againg, he is just a dick trying to be superior

>>3288611
>tl;dr you believe this was a dick move, other won't

Or, as several of us have been saying ITT, they don't fucking believe that the tower of Babel ever actually existed.

But to some others yeah, God is perfect, so if anyone has a problem with what God does they're the ones who are in the wrong, even if God's actions seem highly questionable.

>>3288628

Throughout this whole thread he's basically ignored posts that actually answer his original question and has just tried to argue against other random things, continually showing his ignorance.

>>3287735
>state of kansas vs dawkins type of discussions

made my day.

>>3288576
> All humans are limited. You are limited to your one perspective, sex, background, etc.
Yeah more news at 11.
That is some terrible apologetics. You see it's dictatorial to punish people for doing what they want to do instead of doing what you want them to do. Instead of settling the land they chose to build a city/metropolis with a huge skyscraper/tower but god got mad at that, that they can achieve it. Basically god being a huge dick and meddling in people's business, power-tripping and punishing because of personal insecurity. Great god to believe in.

>>3288340
>I thought the final resurrection was the rapture for them?

No, that's different.

>>3288647

FUCK YOU FUCK STOP TAKING IT LITERALLY HOLY SHIT

F-FF-F--F-F-F-F-F--F-F-F-UUUUUUCCCKK


FFFFF-F--F-F-F-F--F-F-F-F-F-F--F-F-F-FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK


FFF--F-F-F-F--F-F-F-F--F-F-FFF-F--F-F-FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKK-K--KK-K-KK-K-IIIINNNNGG


PHI

LO

SO

PHY


PHIL

OSO

PHY

PHILLLLLOOOOOSSSSOOOOOOPPPHHHYYYYYY

>>3288611
Do you believe it was a dick move? If not then why?

>>3288676
Stop spamming my thread and kindly gtfo. I don't need more annoying kids in here.

>>3288691

Stop. Taking. It. Literally.

>>3288635
that's why is it funny, I imagined this threat as OP being a girl and every answer like a dude that just smash his dick against OP face, long answers are rape

>>3288647
Look, if you're going to continue treating this story like actual history, like something God actually did, regardless of what most theists actually believe, then you can at least look at their viewpoint, alright?

God is perfect. God is wholly good. God cannot do anything wrong. If God told humanity to live somewhere, that's because doing so was in humanity's best interest. If humanity wanted to live elsewhere, that was because of their imperfection.

God can't be a dick, or meddle, or power trip, and can't be insecure. God has no weaknesses or imperfections.

>>3288697
I've discussed it in literal sense and I've discussed it's commentary as well. How should I take it? Why is the god's book is written in such a way that you can't take it literally or in any other way?

>>3288697
Even if it's a metaphor it's a metaphor for god being a dick.
"Yeah but god can do no wrong" doesn't really stand either, wrong being subjective. Although if you doggedly believe that by definition what he does is good then okay but that's a bit silly of you.

>>3288714
>Even if it's a metaphor it's a metaphor for god being a dick.

Punishing someone for doing something wrong is a dick move now? Really? What are you, 12?

Let's look at the fucking context here:

>I'm God, I created you and the cosmos you dwell in. I told you to do something for your own good but you disobeyed me. Now I'm going to punish you, that you might repent and do better next time.

>>3288700
But his actions contradict that he is perfect. Also saying that he is perfect and everything he does is perfect no matter how you see it is just an easy way to escape answering uncomfortable questions and discussion. It's like not thinking at all and just answering everything with "he's perfect".

>>3288727
They didn't do anything wrong, they did exactly what he made them do.
It's like if I bred a load of rabbits, left them in a room with all the rabbit food then beat the shit out of them for eating it.

>>3288681
do you only read the tl;dr part don't you?

I don't believe it was a dick move because humans aren't supose to be gods or reach gods or touch gods or try to get too close to got or send a sms to gods, THAT KIND OF THINGS WERE ALWAYS PUNISHED THROUGHT LOTS OF RELIGIONS, IT'S A CLASIC FABLE
SO RIGHT PUNISH --> NOT DICK

also there were other gods that were vengative/bloodthrysters ej Kali but hey! they still get adoration, don't they?

>>3287747
>>3287736

I saw in Monty python and the search for the holy grail that there were indeed witch hunts in the dark ages!

>lol when my source is a joke but better than you clowns

stop posting

>>3288549
I didn't say that, brah. I said what I said in order not to get atheists offended when someone is religious. In the same way the religious shouldn't be offended with an atheist.

>>3288733
>But his actions contradict that he is perfect.

Gee whiz, that might be part of the reason the majority of theists don't believe that God did these things! And instead they believe that these stories about God were colored by the limited view of God held by bronze age desert tribesmen, and don't reflect actual history! Like you've been told two dozen times now.

>>3288750
>no true scotsman
Plenty of Christians believe in the literal word of the bible, you're just endlessly saying "oh well they don't interpret it like that" to any challenge brought against it. Of course it's impossible to prove you wrong if you refuse to admit any specific ideology.

>>3287664
>church restricting scientific progress.

Yeah, founding all of those colleges everywhere sure restricted scientific progress. We'd all be so much better off now if modern academia was never founded by those church run institutions, wouldn't we?

Everyone knows that religious people cannot into science, lol!

>>3288755
>christians could read

>>3288733
so for you being perfect= do what suits me?

your concept of perfect is totally wrong

>>3288755
>no true scotsman

Oh fuck off. Like I've already said, those are the small minority. You're making the logical error of associating fringe talk with the mainstream.

Orthodox Catholics, Roman Catholics, and the traditional Protestant sects (Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, etc.) DO NOT TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY.

Only the Evangelicals do, and they are a relatively small group.

You are so fucking dense, why do I have to keep repeating myself like this? I've made these exact same posts several times already.

>>3288747
Well punishing someone for trying to better life for themselves is a dick move. If we have this potential that made god so insecure and mad that he punished humanity so severely for it then it's only logically to assume that we can be gods or reach gods. Sounds like someone's trying to hold us down and you are going along with it. Have some more faith in humanity and not in some insecure, dick sky wizard

>>3288600
i meant the weak attempt at mockery
> lel
>XDDDD
and so on. It just shouldn't happen.

>>3288766
Right, so you're telling me that the majority of Christians do not believe in the God of the Bible?

>>3288755
>you're just endlessly saying "oh well they don't interpret it like that"
Everyone is saying this because if you interpret it literally you are no worse than fundamentalists. You're not going to get anywhere, better as well just go to jesuschristismylordandsavior.com.org.god/debate-me and discuss it there.

If I brought a greek myth here to discuss no one would be spamming my ass with how lightning really works or something of that kind. Because it doesn't matter, it's not the point.

You're only going to get good answers when you treat it seriously, without edgyness and without taking it literally or out of context.

>>3288772
Alright, I'm out.

You said that you wanted a real discussion here, but clearly you don't. You've not listened to one fucking point any of us have been making. You want someone to stroke your dick and say "yeah lol teh bible sure is dumb n so are theists!"

If you ever decided that you want to discuss the belief in God with someone, look into what theists actually believe. You'll discover that they don't believe in an angry "sky wizard" but an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, incomprehensible and eternal creator entity.

>>3288635
lolololololololol it is pretty funny, especially when you put it like that

>>3287517
The Old Testament's a pretty good story.

>>3288777
The God in the bible is not a guy.

>>3288772
I can believe someone is this SO DENSE, that tower wasn't made for making a better life, it wasn't a tower o wi-fi or something that was going to help hebrews, it was a direct challange to god authority, like if they said: look god my pennis is bigger you're a fag and yoou can't stop us

>>3288777
No. They don't believe that everything the Bible says about God is completely true, because they believe that the Bible was written by imperfect humans, not God himself.

That's the issue here. A small group of Christians believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, but most look at it and know that there's no way a perfect entity could do that.

Moron.

>>3288779
>Right, so you're telling me that the majority of Christians do not believe in the God of the Bible?

>>3288779
>If I brought a greek myth here to discuss no one would be spamming my ass with how lightning really works or something of that kind. Because it doesn't matter, it's not the point.

This.

OP, go back to circlejerking with your highschool friends on /ratheism and if you ever decided to mature a little and want to talk about other people's religious beliefs, and not your strawmen interpretation of them, come back here.

>>3288793
Isn't that evidence he's imperfect? If the Bible isn't the word of god then they're just making shit up. He can hardly punish people for following or not following what it says when they can't even be sure which bits he approves of or not.
Even if you disagree with that, he still knew exactly what they'd do long before they ever did it. He made them do it, they had no choice. Little bitch can't take responsibility for his own actions.

>>3288795
That too also. "He" doesn't have a beard either.

An easy way to tell if someone is seriously interested in discussing the concept of God philosophically is whether or not they use the phrase "sky wizard."

>>3288814
lol okay shall we start referring to god as her or plural, depending on how you translate אֱלֹהִ֔ים? Saying "he" is just an easy way to refer to him/her/them being pedantic about that is just pointless.

>>3288793
You know adding Moron at the end made your whole post null?

>>3288797
Well looks like it worked because god sure got really mad at that. How dare you to imply your penis >my penis?? What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.

>>3288813
>God didn't write the Bible
>therefore the Bible isn't the word of God
Stop trolling, you already got the shitstorm you wanted. Now leave or quietly lurk.

>>3288813
>If the Bible isn't the word of god then they're just making shit up.

No you idiot. i didn't say that the Bible wasn't "the word of God" at least in part.

The idea is that the authors were receiving divine inspiration but not very directly.

>>3288824
I have no problem with referring to God as a "he" considering how monotheists almost universally regard God as a patriarchal figure. My problem is with those who insist on taking the "he" literally as part of their strawman insults.

>>3288813
frewill

also I declare this most epic fail thread of this month

>>3288826
>>3288827
Oh so he told them what to write but he's not responsible for it. That makes perfect sense.

Have you forgotten that he's omniscient and omnipotent therefore every syllable that's ever been in a bible was there by his deliberate intention from the start?

>>3288833
Where does the beard come into it then?

>>3288847
Free will to do whatever it is he gave them the idea, tools and opportunity to do.
"Freewill" isn't a magical get-out-of-gods-inherent-responsibility-free-card.

>>3288850
>he's not responsible for it
not responsible for what?
>every syllable in the bible was by his intention
so... is everything happening, happened, will happen in the whole world then, by your argument.

>>3288850
Holy fucking shit. You are either an extremely dense motherfucker in some naive bubble, or an extremely proficient troll.
Either way, everybody sage from here on. Please.

>>3288862
You seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension.

>>3288822
OP troll finally revealed abandon thread everybody

>>3288864
Do the questions and discussion make you uncomfortable? if so what are you doing in this thread and you are free to fuck off whenever you wish.

>>3288864
u mad

>>3288847

It's archived and everything.

>>3288875
Why did it get archived?