/lit/ - Literature

Excuse me, why do I have to care about this whole god thingy again?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei

>>3500008

>Excuse me, why do I have to care about this whole god thingy again?

Are atheists really this dumb?

>>3500030
We're supposed to use them to improve the moral state of mankind, not to go poking around in ideas far beyond our capabilities.

Thought I might as well try to hijack this thread.

What does /lit/ think about ignosticism?

I wasn't sure what category I fit into because I'm atheistic towards some definitions of God and agnostic towards others (perhaps theistic towards still others). I was reading about it on Wiki and it sounds a lot like me - the word God has such a broad array of definitions that words like theistic, atheistic, etc become very vague so that you can't say whether or not you believe, disbelieve or aren't sure until the definition is narrowed down. I quite like this idea. My only worry is sounding like an arse by calling myself ignostic.

>>3500042
just be an agnostic theist.

>2013
>capitalizing his

Oh, boy.

>>3500042
>ignosticism

Anything beyond atheism and theism is semantically shady. For example, I would usually say I'm an atheist. Yet if you press me I will agree that ignosticism makes sense at least as far as I've been exposed to it.

It's time to read some Kierkegaard.

>>3500049

Of what god in particular?

>>3499994
But that doesn't make much sense. Why would a God want stupid sheep who believe and have faith despite overwhelming evidence?

What if the true test is to see if we use our "sense, reason, and intellect" and not believe in him?

What if God is real, but only atheists go to heaven?

>>3500068
>Of what god in particular?

My favourite God is an Aztec God called Huehueteotl.

>>3500031
No answer? Okay, that's what I thought.

literature

>>3500074
You think intelligence is the best trait to have as a human being? No wonder you're on /lit/

God wants us to be good people, intelligence is just a tool.

>>3499994
Go back to /b/ 14 year old.

>>3500103
>God wants us to be good people, intelligence is just a tool.
>Thinking you can know Huehueteotl's will
MMXIII

>>3500074
>overwhelming evidence?

What's an example of said "overwhelming evidence?"

Religion exists to answer existential crises such as, is there life after death, do our sufferings have meaning, and is there final justice? Those answers can't be objectively answered and evidence isn't really a consideration when asking them.

>>3500106
>14 year olds
>not edgy atheists

wow

>>3500074
>mfw all theists are dumb sheeple who make a point of not ever asking questions about anything ever

Even if there somehow was a god, he wouldn't be the judging moral controlling kind b/c he'd probably be intelligent enough to comprehend that free will was just a spook/meme and wouldn't be a prick about humans acting unethically, and I don't think any creator would or would want to make us suffer human-esque existence (even in a heaven) for an eternity anyway so what difference does it even make if there is a sentient magical universe maker?

>>3499994

>thinking any god would be benevolent

This is the most ridiculous idea in history. What the fuck happened in these last few hundred years that we reduced the war gods to these pathetic hippy individuals who seem to magically always abide by what we deem nice and benevolent? There is absolutely no reason for why any god would be benevolent. A god does not have empathy because empathy is both instinctive and a product of Darwinian evolution. A god most definitely doesn't need to obey the little creatures it created, neither. And finally. Look the fuck around you. If a god allowed this and you label him benevolent, then sure, he's benevolent in the sense that he defines some weird banal notion of theistic benevolence but he sure as fuck doesn't give a flying fuck about people.

So, yeah, while I'm ready to entertain the notion of some prime mover, perhaps even an intelligent prime mover, I can never bring myself to belive in this hippy personal all caring god of the Christian creeds.

>any God that's ever been proposed
>not just a projection of all the "good" traits/virtues of that particular culture

pick one

>implying the burden of proof is on atheism

>>3500125
>implying God didn't invent darwinian evolution
>free will motherfucker

why would God be evil?

>>3500131
>implying spirituality has fuck all to do with proof
>implying that the ones who are putting all of the emphasis on proof shouldn't be the ones finding it

Coming from a theology that dumbs down an omniscient entity to the petty rational, issues and mannerism of the average Joe, this is truly something.

>>3500112
>Religion exists to answer existential crises such as, is there life after death, do our sufferings have meaning, and is there final justice? Those answers can't be objectively answered and evidence isn't really a consideration when asking them.

>Religion exists to answer crises such as, how do butterflies work, why do the tides go in and out, where do babies come from and what is the sun? Those answers can't be objectively answered and evidence isn't really a consideration when asking them.

Yeah, no. Religion has served to provide a quick, easy and comfortable 'answer' to questions we struggled with throughout human history. Science has steadily worked through many of these, providing real evidence and proper, extremely likely even undeniable answers.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, it may be a long long time until it does, or it may never completely get there.

That doesn't mean there's any reason, especially in THIS day and age, to fill those holes with God or religions instead of just simply settling on"we don't know, yet".

>>3500126
>implying that all cultures aren't grasping for the same unknowable divine reality, hence the syncretism

>>3500137

Spirituality is irrelevant. Religiously-motivated claims about the nature of reality are not. You wanna make a claim, best back it up.

>>3500137
>I had sex with a dragon last night
>I doubt that's true
>WELL PROVE I DIDN'T THEN HAHA YOU CAN'T

>>3500133

Are you saying god evolved through natural selection in an environment full of other living entities? That's probably incompatible with your theology, yet that's the way we got empathy in the first place.

And the last point is a false dichotomy. God would have as much reason to be good as he has to be evil. Philosophically it would make sense to say that he wouldn't care one bit, either way. Realistically, that doesn't solve the problem of evil.

>>3500142
>Religion exists to answer crises such as, how do butterflies work, why do the tides go in and out, where do babies come from and what is the sun?

No, those sorts of answers are incidental. Religion doesn't exist to explain natural phenomena. Otherwise I suspect we wouldn't see many theistic scientists.

And please, do you really believe that science will one day have an answer for those existential problems I listed? If so, what are the variable involved? What what scientists be testing and observing in order to find out if our lives have an external, spiritual significance?

>>3500137
>spirituality has everything to do with proof considering there would be no reason to believe in something if there's no actual backing to it
>persistent knowledge you're wasting your time
>under your logic, spirituality in any form and not just towards God is OK
>you have no idea what burden of proof actually means

>>3500151
>Realistically, that doesn't solve the problem of evil.

If it [god] is omniscient, its actions are pre-ordained and unavoidable. I suppose, in that sense, the problem disappears.

>tfw trying to convince someone to follow a religion or to not follow a religion over the internet is like trying to convince someone to change their primarily spoken language in person

>implying a god exists because the god of your conjecture is capable of concealing himself

>>3499994
>accuses me of being arrogant and lacking humility
>is arrogant and lacks humility with the post

why am i even replying fuck
lol 35 posts

>>3500154

It will probably prove those questions meaningless. We already know that we weren't designed as we previously thought. That's already ticks off quite a few of those questions out.

>god/no-god dichotomy

Children.

>>3500169
>We already know that we weren't designed as we previously thought.

how do you mean

>>3500170

What's the other option?

>>3500154
>Religion doesn't exist to explain natural phenomena.

Are you joking? Not, not any more it doesn't. But it did. Gods, spirits, sprites, nymphs, the anger of god, the compassion of god, the jealously of god and so on were all ancient answers to natural phenomena we didn't understand.

Just because we've whittled most of these questions down to the hardest existential questions doesn't mean that they're not solvable.

And if their not, why do we have to make up an answer? Why can't be just be content with not knowing the answers to those questions instead of just choosing a nice comfortable one to fit?

How many questions must be answered before religion gives up? Will theists hang onto the very last unanswered question as just as strong proof of god as all the millions that have been answered by other means?

>>3500174
>they're

need to go to bed

>>3500171

Charles Darwin? Evolution?

>>3500174
>Are you joking? Not, not any more it doesn't. But it did.

What was the alternative back then? You spawn as a ugly human with a penis and see a storm coming? What is your explanation? It sure will be like:
"Storms are created when a center of low pressure develops with a system of high pressure surrounding it. This combination of opposing forces can create winds and result in the formation of storm clouds, such as the cumulonimbus. Small localized areas of low pressure can form from hot air rising off hot ground; resulting in smaller disturbances such as dust devils and whirlwinds."

>>3500174
Explaining natural phenomena was never as important as answering existential problems, which were as relevant to the cavemen as they are to us today.

Also, just because we know that the sun moves across the sky because of the rotation of the earth, and not because a deity is pushing the sun, does not mean that a deity can't still ultimately explain why the sun is moving at all. As Lemaître here >>3500154
would say, the universe exists because of the big bang, and the big bang happened because of God.

>>3500184
>What was the alternative back then?

This is my point, numbnuts. Religion and the supernatural was the only thing we could come up with to explain storms back then with our lack of technology and experience.

Science is proved right over and over again while all that happens to religion is it's debunked.
Religious dark ages, scientific breakthroughs.
Science is progress, religion is stagnation.

How can you see human understanding go from
>storms are caused by the god's anger
to
>Storms are created when a center of low pressure develops with a system of high pressure surrounding it. This combination of opposing forces can create winds and result in the formation of storm clouds, such as the cumulonimbus. Small localized areas of low pressure can form from hot air rising off hot ground; resulting in smaller disturbances such as dust devils and whirlwinds
and still believe that it's religion that will come up top?

>>3500179
And evolution contradicts theism someone?

If so, why was Darwin an agnostic? Why do most theists accept evolution, apart from Evangelical Christians in the US?

>>3500193
>Darwin an agnostic?
Because it was a hard transition and athiesm was unheard of in those days

>>3500192
>Science is progress, religion is stagnation.

Which is why religion has never been responsible for any sort of scientific breakthrough ever. Religion is all about not asking questions.

Oh wait, where exactly did the whole system of Academia come from again? Institutions set up by Christian and Muslim clerics?

>>3499994
I'm not sure that God does not exist, I just think that he is way too human and sounds like a douchebag.

So for his sake I believe that he does not exist and that the theist is the actual douchebag.

>>3500199
>and athiesm was unheard of in those days

Which is why Hume didn't exist, apparently.

>>3500193

Theism? Weren't we talking about design?

>>3500201
>Institutions set up by Christian and Muslim clerics?
Their religion is irrelevant. You get religious scientists.

>>3500206
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it was unheard of. Frowned upon. Persecuted. Atheism has always existed somewhere.


are you guys really this stupid? Or are you just trying to be edgy, pretentious and cool by playing a terrible devil's advocate?

>>3500219
Saying that something was "unheard of" is exactly the same as saying that it didn't exist.

Things that are frowned upon and persecuted are certainly spoken of, after all.

>are you guys really this stupid?

are well calling each other names already?

>>3500173
Monism, non-dualism, apatheism, scepticism, quietism etc.

>>3500192
I can go from
>storms are caused by the god's anger
to
>Storms are created when a center of low pressure develops with a system of high pressure surrounding it. This combination of opposing forces can create winds and result in the formation of storm clouds, such as the cumulonimbus. Small localized areas of low pressure can form from hot air rising off hot ground; resulting in smaller disturbances such as dust devils and whirlwinds"

and believe this:
>Religion exists to answer existential crises such as, is there life after death, do our sufferings have meaning, and is there final justice? Those answers can't be objectively answered and evidence isn't really a consideration when asking them.

Do you get it now?

>>3499994
>trusting "limited senses and understanding of the universe" of some faggot who made up god figure over your own
way to go sucker, I bet you buy all them snakeoils

>>3500219
>Implying Hume and Schopenhauer wer even "frowned upon"
>Implying atheists don't just want some of that sweet persecution complex

The issue here is your certainty. This issue not so much lies in the concept of (a) god but in the concept of religion. Which god do you believe in? You do know that when it comes to Hinduism or any other religion you are not a part of, you are an atheist. By that logic you are the same person you claim to criticize. What a joke you are.

>>3500121

Please - don't go falling into that edgy atheist trap that theists cannot be reasonable.

>>3500265
If you believe in god you better be doing it for lols existentialist-nihilist style.
Else you are a retard.

>>3500143

Are you proposing that mankind has an inherent propensity to 'yearn' for a God?

>>3500143
>cultures and corporations are PEOPLE!

>>3500142

Science doesn't give you a frame of life, nor tell you how one 'should' live their life - philosophy (and religion which I see as just another branch of that) does.

>>3500147

Aww, did edgy teen athiest babbys dragon dildo come in the post?

>>3500289
muh spook

>>3500379
>>>/b/