/lit/ - Literature

>>3517682
Do people really say that ? Whow, that's retarded.

>>3517687
yup, they do, kind of a popular nu-atheist slogan, on t-shirts and shit. I can't believe the amount of ignorance of history or just basic thinking it takes to say such a thing earnestly

Butthurt is imminent in this thread.

>>3517682
>>3517687
>>3517693

Samefag.

And, looking at the history of religion (and the current state of Islam, for instance), they really aren't unjustified in saying such a thing.

You want to talk about history? That would be unwise if your goal was to argue against saying such a thing.

>I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that

>>3517693

What is really frightening is that such ignorance is concealed by a self-deluded veil of "objectivity" and "rationality."

>>3517709

If you're going to criticize religion objectively then you will come to a conclusion very similar, although stated in a different way, of course.

And not all atheists are rational. A lot of atheists are perfect examples on how you can get the god-question right and everything else wrong.

>>3517705
>mfw people think a world without religion will result in world peace

People will kill people no matter what.

>>3517705

Are you one of those idiots that think that the world would be full of cuddles and love if religion didn't exist?

The thing about that cover that pisses me off the most is the font.

>>3517705
Yeah, but you can just as easily reverse the roles.

>Religion gave us moral values, science gave us the atomic bomb.

I know the first portion of that isn't necessarily true, but what the hell.

It's just what people after the fact decided to do with it. No scientist dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and no religious leader was among the 9/11 hijackers.

>>3517721

Yeah. My point is that with or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things and be wholly convinced that it's morally right. Furthermore, it's fairly evident that religion hasn't exactly helped make the world a better place.

>>3517723

I did not even come close to implying this.

>>3517728
>I know the first portion of that isn't necessarily true

Then why are you saying it?

>>3517705
The phrase speaks as though science were an all conquering goal/imperative unto itself; as though a major motivation for going to the moon wasn't political. In both instances forms of ideology were what motivated the actions and science acted as a tool to facilitate each

>>3517720
>And not all atheists are rational. A lot of atheists are perfect examples on how you can get the god-question right and everything else wrong.

Have you noticed the high number of libertarians in atheist/skeptic circles? Replace yahweh with the market

>>3517734
"My point is that with or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things and be wholly convinced that it's morally right." - Christopher Hitchens

>>3517738
because there's truth in it, ethics and religion have always been intertwined historically, only recently, and in the west, is ethics studied divorced from the religion altogether

>>3517738
That's the whole point. I don't think the original

>Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings

is true either.

>>3517742
that's a shitty definition of "good" and "bad", the entire sentence is a semantic trainwreck

>>3517734
>implying nationalism can't easily do what religion can do

The 20th century had the most brutal and violent wars the world had ever seen, and almost all of them were nationally and politically motivated.

>>3517753
>that's a shitty definition of "good" and "bad"
That sentence doesn't define good and bad.

>>3517739

That's absolutely true. But the phrase tries to convey an idea of objectivity where forms of ideology are left out of it and the only reason for doing science is to understand and to progress as a species.

>>3517742

Actually, no, I paraphrased Steven Weinberg.

>>3517734
>Furthermore, it's fairly evident that religion hasn't exactly helped make the world a better place.

At what point in time are you justified in saying that? Like many ideologies throughout time religion has brought many good things as well as bad in the same manner that science has brought good things and equally been subverted to bad things.

You can say >>3517742
> it takes religion for good people to do bad things and be wholly convinced that it's morally right.

but you can also point out that science gave us the atomic bomb, germ warfare, nerve gas etc. - it's how something is used which matters more.

You can very easily reverse it and say good people would do 'bad' things and be wholly convinced it was 'morally' right but that comes down to morals which can just as easily be wrong under any philosophical system.

Science may tell you how something works but not what we should do with it or how to use it.

>>3517759

It's a subjective mindfield using terms like 'morals', 'good', 'bad' etc.

>>3517756

This is a strawman as I never said anything against this. The point is that nationalism is equally as stupid as religion. These are all things the human species would quite simply be better off without.

>>3517766
You said, very specifically, that "it takes religion for good people to do bad things and believe that they are morally right". Misguided notions of nationalism and political correctness can easily do that as well.

>>3517766
>These are all things the human species would quite simply be better off without.

Do you mean right now in time or if they simply never existed in the first place?

If the latter then we can quite confidently regard you as a fool.

>>3517765

But science is a double-edged sword. Scientists do something and then it's used by non-scientists.

>Science may tell you how something works but not what we should do with it or how to use it.

Exactly. But religion can't tell us anything at all about how things work and claims an undeniable right to tell us what and how to use it.

>>3517705
>(and the current state of Islam, for instance)

>Thinks he can analyze the 'state' of an enormous and multiform religion based on what he's gleaned from pop culture and the news

It rained on me yesterday when I didn't have an umbrella. Something is very wrong with the state of water these days...

>>3517720
>If you're going to criticize religion objectively
>criticize objectively

DYER?

>>3517756

This. Frantic, thoughtless "advancement" toward nothing in particular is far more dangerous than mother making you sit through Sunday school.

Sage for obvious trollbait.

>>3517760
I was trying to argue against the dichotomy the phrase makes putting 'science' as good and 'religion' as bad, but the two things cannot be compared like this, with religions being ideological and science being a tool for making accurate predictions, never mind the fact that almost all those who worked at nasa during the time were religious

lol what a crappy thread, I thought you were going to give more examples.

The phrase is retarded, regardless on what you part of it you like the best. It's a stupid thing to say.

hide this thread
stop feeding this sort of debate, geez

>>3517790

Science, in actual practice, is as laden with ideology as every other human endeavor.

>>3517774

Ah, yes. You're absolutely right.

>>3517776

Nah. Religion deserves credit because it was our first serious attempt at literature and our first serious attempt to explain things. It was abused and it failed miserably, and there's no longer any need for it.

>>3517795

You know, questions about religion and science are some of the deepest and most ancient philosophical questions there is.

Why is it so terribly frowned upon to debate it online? Every single philosopher you admire has entered into this debate at some point or another. Why is it so awful to exchange ideas about it here? Why is it so taboo to talk about religion and atheism here?

>Nuclear power is dangerous.
>Islam threatens western society.
>Blacks have lesser value because they have lower IQs.
>Feminists are crazy.
>Men/whites/heterosexuals are discriminated in today's society.
>Genetically engineered foods are bad for you.
Whenever someone holds three or more of these opinions I assume they are dumber than my pet gerbil Johnsson, who died by biting through a power chord.

>>3517806
because this sort of discussion always occurs among uneducated baboons and the end result is as close to the debates of those admired philosophers as banging two rocks smeared with feces together is to building the great wall of china

>>3517812
The construction of the wall was an act of unimaginable barbary which cost countless lives.
>>3517806
*there are.

>>3517812

I get your point, but that could be said about essentially everything we discuss on this board. And at least we're trying. And exchanging ideas and changing minds in a civil way seems incredibly difficult here.

>>3517816

Yeah, the "is" annoyed me too. Sorry about that.

>>3517809
I wish they'd do the same.

>>3517806
The internet is dumb. Anons have read Dawkins and know religion from television and cults. Few read Aquinas or Kierkegard, there is little to discuss it this way. Also, EVERYTHING turns into a religious debate. If you make a thread on Harry Potter and someone make a comment on how religion relates to it, the thread is immediately derailed. Fuck this shit.

It doesn't matter if it is deep, it is discussed in the most shallow possible way here and the internet in general. And this thread is not about this anyway, so thread ruined.

Africa faces serious problems. Why aren't we talking about it in this thread? We should exchange ideas about it.

>I love psychology! I was diagnosed with acute tripolar obsessive-depressive/schyzophrenic syndrome disorder thing, I take 4mg of Lunaxyl everyday to put my mind to shape! I'm INTP by the way, what are you? By the way, my IQ is 118!

>this is what people actually believe

>music is my life

No. No. Listening to songs on shuffle, not playing any instruments and your favourite bands being One Direction and you like Rihanna and shit like that...

no.

>>3517800
>Religion deserves credit because it was our first serious attempt at literature and our first serious attempt to explain things. It was abused and it failed miserably, and there's no longer any need for it.

Why are you people so hopeless when it comes to conceptualizing things like religion, mythology, spiritual practices, etc.?

Past thought can't simply be reduced to 'failed proto-science'. Your paradigm isn't the culmination or intended goal of all previous intellectual and philosophical pursuits. Religions encompass far more than their folklore, which was never supposed to serve as a strictly literal historical account or explanation of natural phenomena anyhow. Human societies have traditionally had interests and concerns outside of the endless accumulation of (usually) pointless data.

>>3517866
Who are you to say music can't be a huge interest for someone just because you don't like the type of music they like or the manner in which they enjoy it?

>>3517809
Fuck off neo-feminazi, go elsewhere to spread your hate.

>inb4 castrate all men 4 perfect society

>>3517785
>double-edged sword

Every human endeavor is a double edge sword. A fact's utility comes from its purpose. The purpose is the motivation for the endeavor. In other words a fact is a fact if it is given a purpose.

So, that means the doubling of the sword's edge is not in the endeavor itself, but from us has we give something a purpose. We endeavor in scientific things for the same reason we endeavor religious things. We think it's important, it something that has value. We think it will give answers to the questions that trouble us.

And so, both the sciences and religion can be called out too, as endeavors that we use to tell us what we should do. Both are cohesive in there own way. But each values something different, because each is attempting to answer different questions. We value science because we think it will help us to better understand the nature of the universe. We value religion because we think it will help us to better understand our own existentialism.

However, when it comes to knowing what the good thing to do is, both claim an undeniable right. That is because we give them that purpose to do that.

>>3517955
I'm not spreading hatred. People claiming we have passed gender equality are denying facts and inventing their own(see: denial). Those who claim gender inequality never existed are just living in their own world. You aren't onto something new for thinking you're ahead of feminism, you're just believing in a hypothetical future which will likely never happen.

>>3517955
go fuck yourself you are the fascist here

>>3518778
>,

>>3518778
>>3518788
>.

>>3518778
>>3518788
>>3518792
>G

>>3518788
>>3518792
>>3520042
Gotta up your game.

>>3520057
wat

>>3520071
Ain't gonna troll nonionrings with pussy prescriptivism.

And the thread went to shit.

>>3517866
>only le queen and le beetles are reel muusik XDD

I fucking hate you,

>>3517809
Does the truth hurt?

>mfw if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have airplanes to crash into anything and the sand niggers would stay in their gay desert
>mfw i use the same dumbfuck logic atheists use

>>3517809
you're literally the dumbest person on this board

>>3520267
>>3517809
I've been writing a review of nuclear power, and in general the opinions that it's good either come from educated people with a vested interest in the continuation of nuclear power, or lay people that have a boner for technology. There are a number of key issues with nuclear that remain unanswered as far as I'm aware by anyone.

>>3517742
>Believing in objective good and evil.

>>3517799
How so?

>>3517727
>calling a typeface a "font."

Co-wop-eration instead of Co-op-eration
Thurdy instead of Thirty or Twenny istead of Twen-tee

Hate that shit

>>3517711

So the Atomic bomb blew up one city. So what?

You know what else it's done?

Prevented another bout of global trench warfare for more than fifty years. Think about how many protracted ground wars we might have fought if not for the specter of mutual destruction hanging over everything.

Boo hoo, the poor citizens of Hiroshima. Ask yourself why we haven't used the bomb in a military context since. Then be thankful you have an arsenal of terrifying nuclear weapons protecting you from your fellow man.

>>3521228

> one city

Two cities, whatever. Point still stands.

>>3521228
You know what else it's done?

Prevented another bout of global trench warfare for more than fifty years.

Your ignorance of history and military science is astounding. Is everything you learned from the History Channel?

>>3521228

I have mixed feelings about nuclear weapons. I do think they prevent war breaking out between two nations that already have the bomb. But at the same time, the more hands it goes into then the increased chance of giving it to some idiot who will actually use it.

I think the nuclear arsenal should be reduced but not got rid of completely. We have enough weapons to destroy the planet 60 times over currently, can scale it back massively, save tons of money and still retain the power of having nuclear weapons.

People who vocally correct other people for misusing the word irony.

People who don't criticize their own beliefs.

People who laugh with others without hesitation at what they're laughing at.

Me when I'm quick to make judgement.

Me when I compromise my beliefs for social benefit.

Others who stink so strongly of their own vanity that they might as well wear it as a cologne.

The girl I met last night that condescendingly told me her favorite festival was Jazz fest but couldn't name a single artists in the genre.

People who entertain a false self.

People with no ambition.

Me when I have no ambition.

Me when I post a winded - partially relevant responses.

>>3521269

Have we had a World War 3? By that I mean a global conflict between superpowers with a death toll in the tens of millions? No? Then shut the fuck up.

>>3521292
The Cold War arguably could be World War 3, but with dozens of proxy wars.

>>3521311

Did tens of millions of people die in military conflicts during the Cold War?

If you say yes, you better back that shit up with hard numbers.

>>3521318
Korean War
>Estimated number of Chinese and North Koreans killed in the Korean War: 1,500,00013
>Number of South Koreans killed in the Korean War: 415,000
>Number of Americans killed in the Korean War: 36,000
http://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html
Vietnam
>195,000-430,000 South Vietnamese civilians died in the war.[5][6] 50,000-65,000 North
>The Army of the Republic of Vietnam lost between 171,331 and 220,357 men during the war.[31][5]
>The official US Department of Defense figure was 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974
>US Troops: 58,282 KIA or non-combat deaths (including the missing & deaths in captivity)[36]
Afghan Russian War
>Civilians 850,000–1,500,000 killed[20][21]
>Mujahideen:
75,000–90,000 killed, 75,000+ wounded (tentative estimate)[19]
Mozambiquan Civil War
>Total Killed: Around 1,000,000 (civilians and military)

That's 4 from roughly over 20 "official" Cold War conflicts

>>3521318
We could also argue the 45 million from Mao's Great Leap Forward and resulting famines due to the Chinese Red War

>>3521292
>post hoc ergo propter hoc

>>3521318
I don't believe you understand how retarded of a statement that was.
The Cold War spanned for almost 60 years and engulfed numerous nations in political, ethnic and social conflicts

It's not fucking unreasonable to assume several dozens of Millions died as a result, considering what the fuck happened in 10 years of World War 2

>Life is short
No, not it is not. I feel like I've been here a terribly long time and I'm still very young.

>>3522409
Well, life is the longest thing you will ever experience.

>>3517682
>That image
As a Jazz musician, FUCKFUCKFUCKUFKUCKUC{"S-ueow ruhd

>>3521217
>being autistic

>>3522418
hey, a fellow jazz player on /lit/
primary instrument? i'm an altoist

>>3517766

nationalism is a support group, just like community, family, race, unions, or whatever category you wish to act on.

but when you take away support groups, you have a world full of 'individuals' who have no power to resist buttfucking.

>Mainstream music from my generation sucks. Led Zepplin/Miles Davis/Mozart is way batter, and I'm even 14/15/16 years old.

You see this shit on every music video ever, and it's always top comment. Mainstream music doesn't suck. It is just simplified and easily accessible, which is why it's fucking mainstream. True, Justin Beiber or One Direction or whatever aren't too crash hot, but neither was a lot of shit from the 90s/80s/70s/60s/50s/40s ad infinitum.

The reason you happen to be commenting upon bands like Led Zepplin, or composers like Mozart, is they're probably the very first links from a quick Google search for 'Classical', or 'Rock', or 'Jazz' music. This is because they too are mainstream, and to such a degree that they have survived for as long as they did.

No one gives a shit about your age. The simple fact that you see your age as a noteworthy point tells much about your motivations for watching video's like this in the first place.

In short, kill yourselves.

>>3522416
second only to this dick!

>>3517809
>death by power chord

That must have been the most righteous death ever.

I agree with you though.

All the anti-atheist bitching that constantly takes place on this board. It's as immature and bad as what it's criticizing.

>>3517809

Did Pete Townshend kill him?

>>3517711
>The probably wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.

>>3522632
>The probably wouldn't say anything.