/lit/ - Literature

the concept of god is inherently beyond science

I think it's a reaction to militant atheists.

They belittle and mock religious people, believing that if you believe in a god you must be less intelligent. Most people on /lit/ are non-religious, they just are sick of militant atheism and quite quick to defend religious people when needed.

>still debating the actual existence of god

lel

>>3622265

Because this place is largely populated by people who are not only sensible but also sensitive.

>>3622271
Exactly this. Forcing your views on others and being contemptuous of theirs comes across as aggressive and arrogant. I'm not religious but I dislike this attitude amongst dawkinites.

>>3622271
this is dead on
same reason i'm a "fascist"

>>3622265
Because Dostoevsky.

Analytic philosophy has more theists than continental philosophy does.

That's because theism is truly logical and you are just too dumb to figure that out.

Faith is a part of the human spectrum of passions.

Many great works of art and literature deal with man's eternal struggle with faith.

Indeed, there are works of astounding beauty that are direct expressions thereof.

Even I, a "hard" Athiest, and a physicalist, can look upon something like the Hagia Sophia, or the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and feel the strength and passion these works exude, and wonder at them; not because I think them touched by the divine, but because they are fruits of human devotion and ingenuity, of a sort that has seldom been directed to anything besides works of faith.

Human beings are strange and wonderful creatures indeed.

Most of them are agnostic actually, because there's no evidence either way.

The idea of agnosticism for that reason is simply a thought exercise however, not meant to be taken seriously but for some reason still is, very much like Schrodinger's Cat.

I believe we'll never get the answers to whether there's "more" no matter how long we search, and so I am an agnostic. However, I still think people who attach themselves to a religion are fucking stupid, because there's an equal amount of "proof" (read: none) for all of them, so using one and not another makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm open to the idea of God, but have yet to be convinced there is one.

>>3622271
It's pretty much this for me.
I've never concerned myself with philosophy so excuse my ignorance, but isn't the question whether or not there is a dog [sic], just a matter of definition? Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that if you call our physical laws 'God' then of course there is a god?

Working the other way around the God of gaps: pussy does not get farther away; pussy comes closer: when thinking about her existence; inquiring every detail of the Sciences she laid forth for you to unravel.

God is Pussy. You got know a lot about it before you can live,

Because right now, I'm dead.

>>3622312

[sic] stands for "as is", in other words, "this error was present when he said this". You're only supposed to use it with quotes.

It's become the edgier and more provocative opinion, that's why it's now so commonly expressed everywhere on 4chan.

>>3622315
I know. It's actually a part of a joke from IJ but I was too lazy to look it up.

It's mainly just babby's first philosophy.

Most of the militant agnostics on /lit/ are former atheists -- possibly some were even Christian before that -- who have adopted a new world-view package, and now wallow in the rejection of science and objective knowledge.

It's just a phase.

>>3622307
>not because I think them touched by the divine, but because they are fruits of human devotion

muh pussyfooting

Because we're not intellectual children

Because they'll likely reach the same conclusion by themselves, no point in being annoying about it.

Since there is no objective truth anyway, why deny people from believing it if it's something that helps them in life? I'll argue with a religious person not on their beliefs but on certain practices that could be harmful to them or people close to them, same as I would argue an atheist about it.

I've seen more atheists doing stupid, crazy shit than religious people anyway.

Also, I think religion is an easy, effective way of spreading a morality system that doesn't depend on direct physical punishment, since most people don't really take the time to examine themselves.

>>3622320
'And then but so what's the difference between tennis and suicide.'
~ David Foster Wallace

>>3622328
>there is no objective truth
I criticize this concept as I am not a edgy person with emotional issues.

>>3622265
>sure, but most contemporary philosophers and scientists agree there is no God.
Hivemind? No thanks, I'm not a termite.

>>3622338
And you are well to do so. By saying there is no objective truth, I am posturing that that itself is an objective truth.

I should've said "my subjective opinion is that there is no objective truth", maybe, but still I'm at fault with logic even then.

Help?

>>3622319
This.

Same reason why most of the time some Anon want to tel us about his political leanings, surprise! It generally has the most caricatural reactionary kneejerks somewhere in it. And not just on /pol/ or /int/, nor only for trolling purpose.

The irony is that most of the religious fags here are just as much leaking with haughty misanthropy.

>>3622344
THERE IS NO ESCAPE

half of those people weren't atheists, not even Darwin in the strict sense, this is the kind of ignorant arrogant bs new atheists spout

>>3622322

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

>>3622352

What do you think "atheist" means, you ape?

>>3622353
I was just going to post this

>>3622271
>>3622274

/thread.

>>3622357
>>3622353
based riddetbros

>>3622360

fuck you guy

>>3622361
I hit you right in the jimmies right?

>1. Strong theist.
100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
>2. De facto theist.
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
>3. Leaning towards theism.
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
>4. Completely impartial.
Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equi-probable."
>5. Leaning towards atheism.
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical."
>6. De facto atheist.
Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
>7. Strong atheist.
"I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

>>3622265
Because a lot of us are sufficiently capable of critical thought to arrive at a degree of scepticism where all ideas seem relatively arbitrary. At that point religious beliefs aren't as far fetched as for babby thinkers who still cling this true/false sort of dumbed down rationalism as the most high.

Also, a large part of /lit/ is artistically inclined and artistically inclined people usually have a tremendous weak spot for a narrative/dramatic conception of the world.

So if nothing is certain and one belief isn't necessarily preferable over another when it comes to truth values and your heart aches for some sort of story for the void, religion starts to look pretty good, even if you don't necessarily make the leap of faith and truly adhere to it.

>>3622363
Why the arbitrary distinctions?

>>3622366
It is depressing to think of everything as arbitrary therefore I don't believe it.
You are probably an unemotional autist (a bad thing because i said so)

>>3622366
Because there aren't any arbitrary distinctions. You could compress it to five or three, or expand it if you wanted, but 7 is probably best.

>>3622364
>thinking of everything as a "void"
you're just as ignorant, kid

>>3622366
BECAUSE THE WORLD IS RUDDERLESS

>>3622374
says you

>>3622369
>>3622371
So that gives you license to just leave important bits out? You're making this all very simple.

>>3622373
I was referring to the conceptual emptiness and lack of framework one experiences in the absence of convictions and beliefs. It was figurative, not metaphysical.

>>3622377
You're only saying that because the world is rudderless.

I call my self atheistic, but I have a very personal idea of god that I don't often care to explain or express. That being said, the one thing that irritates me more than r/atheists is the automatic association that 'god' equals Yahweh.

Many of the stories I write have some god-like figure in them, or even someone/something directly called 'God.' I just know I'm going to catch flack for it one day though. Fuck the haters.

"So maybe 'god' isn't the right word, but I believe in you."

>>3622363
Dawkins is a 6.

>>3622389
Would not bang.

>>3622394
When he shaves his legs and puts on some makeup he can pass for a 7.

>>3622265
Einstein is a theist

>>3622353
half of them were still not agnostic, but affirmed belief in a God, Lincoln, Twain, Jefferson, Franklin, all either liberal theists or deists. Darwin called himself agnostic, but he specifically said he was not an atheist.

>>3622265
Because some of us are religious, obviously

I think that this neo-atheism current is the cause of a more recent boom in religious young middle-class people. They're so annoying people just want to be against them to attract anger and frustration.

>>3622324
Pussyfooting noithing, There is no God, but people sure do make some nice shit in his name, gotta respect 'em for it.

Or did you skimread over the part where I self-identified as a Hard-Athiest Physicalist?

>>3622420
For a relatively smart bunch of people /lit/ has a lot of trouble distinguishing the true and the beautiful.

>people who honestly believe that because an arguement is logically sound, it is absolutely true

>rejecting their parents beliefs

>trying to form a counterculture

>excuse for their moral misbehaviour

fucking atheists

>>3622428
/thread

>>3622414
Or, you know, it just makes sense for some people? I used to be an atheist (probably not at heart, though) until I realized that you can be a theist and still think that most Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus and are just using religion as an excuse for whatever. Finding some very sane Hindus helped in my case as well.

>>3622364
>a tremendous weak spot for a narrative/dramatic conception of the world.

Fuck me, right?

Personally, because I respect people who try to adhere to a code of non-selfishness, non-indulgence, and personal growth. Even if they're doing it for somewhat flimsy reasons, it's still a hundred times better than a militant atheist telling me that because there's no god, they can and will do whatever they like within the realms of what they deem 'safe and respectful', i.e. not causing themselves or anyone else any direct short-term harm, indirect or long-term harm be damned.

>>3622265
>most contemporary philosophers and scientists agree there is no god
No.
Most contemporary philosophers agree that there isn't enough evidence of god for them to believe in him.
Most scientists likely agree that there is no god, but there lies the issue with science: it overturns older absolutes that were never questioned just to reestablish the same type of absolutes, simply once-removed from their original position.
To claim "there is no god" is foolish. To claim Gnosticism is to lie. It is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Therefore, a person of science requires about as much faith to claim the nonexistence of god as is needed for a religious person to claim the existence of god.

The only reasonable and obvious answer toward theism (unless, of course, you have seen the hand of god- then it is reasonable to claim god's existence) is to say, "I do not believe in god." If you have seen no evidence to support the positive claim, you will not believe that claim. Lack of evidence towards a claim should not necessarily cause you to take an equally-opposite belief towards it (i.e. to say "God does not exist," as an answer to "God does exist," simply because the positive claim lacks evidence is foolish).

One who has not seen the hand of God only has one possibility in which they have not taken any liberties: Agnostic Atheism.
By the way OP, you based your argument on the fact that "philosophers and scientists believe something, so why would one think otherwise?"... which is bullshit.
There has been a time when scientists and philosophers believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. There was a time when no respectable scientist or philosopher doubted the existence of god. I am sure theists made the same argument you did against any disbelief in god. NEVER base an argument off of, "Well they say this and we should all trust what they say, so this is right."

Whether or not God exists is completely irrelevant to virtually all theologians.

Google Christian Atheism.

>>3622428
>atheism = moral misbehavior
Really now, what century is this?

>>3622363
>implying being completely impartial is possible
It isn't.

>>3622265
More than fifty percent of those in the image aren't even atheists.

>>3622449

>Personally, because I respect people who try to adhere to a code of non-selfishness, non-indulgence, and personal growth.

A strong atheist can also adhere to a code of non-selfishness, non-indulgence and personal growth.

>>3622420
I have precognitive dreams and this pisses you off fucker
shove a physical dick up your ass you little tweak

>>3622469
Sure, and those who do I respect equally. But very often, they don't. Read the rest of my post.

>>3622453

>Most contemporary philosophers agree that there isn't enough evidence of god for them to believe in him.
That's called being an atheist.

>there lies the issue with science: it overturns older absolutes that were never questioned just to reestablish the same type of absolutes
Science itself makes no claims about absolutes or truths. Just because there might be retards who worship science in such a way doesn't mean it's a fault of science. Science is always open for questioning.

>Therefore, a person of science requires about as much faith to claim the nonexistence of god as is needed for a religious person to claim the existence of god.
Stop speaking as if there's any significant number of scientists who claim to know about the nonexistence of god-

Your post tries to make science and scientists look like the bad guys when they're the ones who by and large behave exactly as you deem reasonable (agnostic atheism).

>>3622426
Is There No Truth in Beauty?

>>3622453
this.

but you should consider that OP maybe meant with " most contemporary philosophers and scientists agree there is no God." that /lit/'s opinion is mostly the opinion of the majority of contemporary philosophers. And he asks himself why /lit/ doesnt agree with them in this one point..

>>3622491
smell wife's anus

>>3622483

You make it sound as if non-selfishness, non-indulgence and personal growth are qualities more commonly found in religious people than in atheists.

>>3622474
Yerwot?
I'm having trouble parsing your garbage-speak.
And apparently I'm the one who's pissed off now?

>>3622456
As an actual theologian I had to read this thrice, before concluding that anon meant it as is.
Anon, this isn't the case.
'some theologians'? Sure
'virtually all'? Hell, no

>>3622458
The one right after the horrors inflicted on the globe by the atheist regimes of the 20th Century, obviously

>>3622496
That's because I think they are - at least amongst people who explicitly define themselves as religious, versus those who do the same with atheism.

>>3622426
>/lit/
>even relatively smart
Pick one.

>>3622495
>you obviously missed the reference

>>3622311
>Most of them are agnostic actually, because there's no evidence either way.

Technically, they'd be Agnostic Atheists.

>>3622511
Relative to the rest of 4chan?

>>3622513
get francis to have some fun with ur feet ;D

Beats me, OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47ArcQL-XQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt4WSK_NlQ

>but im smarter than all of those unsophisticated /re/ddit morans!!!

>>3622507
>Wah, Hitler and Stalin were Athiests, so Athiests must be evil!

You gonna start hatin' on Moustaches too buddy boy?

And don't even let me get the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Purging of the Knights Templar and all that bad old shit in here, and that's just Christianity, there's plenty of fucked up stuff for all flavours of Theist, come one come all.

True, you might argue Hitler and Stalin killed more people each than any singular Theist initiated purge, but this was because they lived in an age where it was logistically feasible to do so.

If Tomás de Torquemada could load hundreds people into trains to be carted off and wiretap the phone-lines of presumed blasphemers he would have jumped at the chance.

>>3622533

Hitler was not an atheist.

>>3622489
>Thats called being an Atheist
Yes. An Agnostic Atheist. My dispute was that OP said most contemporary philosophers believe that there is no god.

>Science itself makes no claims about absolutes or truths. Just because there might be retards who worship science in such a way doesn't mean it's a fault of science. Science is always open for questioning.
Science assumes that there are answers and that existence can be examined through the means of logic.
See: the Absurd
>Stop speaking as if there's any significant number of scientists who claim to know about the nonexistence of god- Your post tries to make science and scientists look like the bad guys when they're the ones who by and large behave exactly as you deem reasonable (agnostic atheism).
Fair enough. I was trying to humor the OP a little, but I should be more careful. You are right in that sense.

>>3622539
Ah, my mistake, I have long operated on an inference that he was, based on his suppression and subversion of the church.

>>3622539
No, he worshipped le sun lel

>>3622494
Fair point.
I still have criticism toward the attitude, but OP may well have been innocent in that.

>>3622539
Neo-pagan. Same difference.

>>3622526

These videos are awesome. Thanks.

>>3622548
>I still have criticism toward...
Why am I writing like a foreign 12-year-old trying to sound intelligent today?
Jesus Christ!
>I am still critical toward...
>fix'd

>>3622518
That's like comparing the intelligence of a Mastiff to a Border Colley, The Colley is smarter, sure, but we're still dealing with creatures that lick their own balls.

>>3622265
>Implying anyone can argue a convincing case against the cosmological argument

>>3622545
He was a Roman Catholic.

>>3622550
see
>>3622555

>>3622555
But it's well documented that he supplanted the Catholic church with his own brand of "Positive Christianity".

He may have been baptized, but that's not exactly something a good Catholic would do.

>>3622265
I just do it to troll the "atheists".

Which is just an attempt to temporarily escape from the bitter realization that adults are in fact having these unintellectual debates.

>but most contemporary philosophers and scientists agree there is no God.

Untrue. Most intelligent people don't assume they know all that much about the universe.

>cosmological argument

There's that too.

>>3622561

He nitpicked and abused religion however he wanted.

But even if Hitler was an atheist, that does not mean that every one of his soldiers who actually did the killing, and all of his generals (and so on and so on) were also atheists. These arguments are some of the dumbest one can make in such a discussion.

>>3622567
Agreed, we should promptly violently turn on Married Oldfag and lynch him for bringing it up.

>>3622557
He as baptized Catholic but was not practicing. He took a hands off approach regarding religion since his subordinates went for everything from Catholicism to Neo-paganism to Atheism. As long as the "German" blood was worshiped, he didn't care.

>>3622565

Because discussing one of the oldest and problematic issues of philosophical discussions is childish, right? Retard.

>>3622566

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU

There we go. Debunked, by a soap opera actor.

This rather American phenomenon is pretty fascinating.

>>3622575
I have noticed that Americans tend to give more fucks in general about religion or a lack thereof.
I mean, here in jolly old England we couldn't give two shits, and are quite happy that way.
I have friends of various religious flavours, and I wouldn't want them any other way, unless they decide to tell me I'm going to hell because I periodically fly off to Tangiers for junk and boys.

>>3622574
>one of the oldest and problematic issues of philosophical discussions

I'm sure something like "where does rain come from?" was even older and more problematic throughout human history.
Doesn't mean we should still debate it.

>>3622583
America is a new country that has inherited all the shit parts of Europe, and is trying to wade through it by itself. Europe has finished, and now sits back with a glass of cognac and a cigar while American's hurl shit at each other. It's just a shame that Europeans get caught in the crossfire online.

>>3622591
One day there will be a browser add-on that filters out any post on any forum from American IP addresses.

>>3622533
>but this was because they lived in an age where it was logistically feasible to do so.

It still is, in fact more so. It's just more difficult to carry out...

>>3622575
No kidding.
When I first stumbled upon /r/atheism I was quite shocked.
But then when you look at the religiousness statistics and demographic data it all makes sense.

>>3622622
Yeah, America has people like this. r/atheism is just a reaction to them.

Why do I need people of status or no status to influence my decision?

>>3622648
Because they make it okay for the general population. You are fortunate to be living in a time when declaring that you don't believe in a God is more socially acceptable than at any other point in modern history. We have noble knights like Dawkins, who stand up for reason, and it is only through people like this that the public can use that figure as a shield to avoid being burned at the stake.

>>3622561
The debate isn't whether or not he was a GOOD Catholic, the issue is whether he was an atheist or not.
And if Catholics can make the argument that bad people inside their boundaries are not "true" or "good" Catholics and therefore not representant of Catholics as a whole, atheists can say that bad people within our boundaries are not representant of atheists as a whole.

>>3622566
>implying atheism is necessarily gnostic
>implying the definition of atheism isn't simply "the lack of belief in god"

Atheism doesn't mean you HAVE to believe that god is nonexistent (however, that belief is within the boundaries of atheism as well as being the most foolish belief any atheist could claim), it simply means that you have to not have an explicit belief in god.

Because I've actually studied religion and get upset when teenagers shit all over stuff they don't know anything about. They act as if they're above the overwhelming majority of humanity while most of them lack the cognitive capacity to even understand the idea of the absolute as it was laid out by people like Plotinus, Ibn 'Arabi, Meister Eckhart, Adi Shankara, etc.

I really am ambivalent to whether someone believes in a god or not. I do care whether they strictly follow some kind of dogma, but believing in god says very little about someone just as not believing in god says very little about someone. They're personal philosophy as a whole is much more interesting and the existence of god is just a tiny piece.

>>3622575
>>3622627
>>3622622

I live in one of the most religious states in the Deep South and I don't understand the edgy atheist mentality. I'm convinced that most of these people are simply desperate to feel 'persecuted' and 'different' since they're almost uniformly white and middle class and have never experienced any sort of oppression or real difficulty in their sheltered white bread lives (some Christians are the same way.)

The few who were actually raised in super strict religious households I understand, but the rest are just bored idiots lashing out at old people, traditionalists, and simple folk for no real reason at all.

>>3622533
>>3622533
Changing the subject.
Have openly atheists regimes killed others because of atheism?
Yes they have. Well, at least that is what they claimed, themselves.
And we aren't talking about religious people, are we? No, of course not.
Further, the Spanish Inquisition was far less lethal than any nation with the death penalty.

It seems like a silly topic to debate.

>>3622574
That guy was terrible! Floating from definition to definition, etc. Hell, he appeared to not even understand what the CA really means.

>Why is /lit/ so sympathetic to the existence of God?
I'm not. I'm an atheist. But the reasoning behind my disbelief in the need for a God is too long to fit on board posts. So I usually just don't bother. Because the only atheistic posts and replies that can fit in this space is short, oversimplified, and generally polemic, of the type the "militant" atheists use. (Which is a poor term for it but one that easily conveys meaning, so eh.)
I think /lit is sufficiently secular, I don't know what we could do to "make it more atheistic" because atheism has no doctrine to be repeated, and because the debate usually degrades into the type of flamewar that belongs in /pol.
I think the reason it seems so God-sympathetic is because there's nothing to say and when you don't say anything about it one way or another, people assume you are on the side of believers, or at least on the side of the subtype of agnostics that are "on the fence"

I suppose we could compose an infographic about it. But it would take some time, Something that would eloquently express that "we don't believe, here is briefly why we don't believe, any further discussion >>>pol" while also saying that we don't want to create a hostile environment for believers either."

And maybe we could make a new reading list especially for theology and... for lack of a better term Anti-theology.
But that would take some time, I'll have to think about making a thread for suggestions on that later in the month when I have some more time.

>>3622734
Not white, nor middle classed, but I was once an "edgy" r/athiest or "militant" atheist. So I can give you some insight.

I used to be a christian, and when you're fresh coming out of the religion you can be really hostile toward it, partly because you've got a lot of extra energy (changing religions is often a big dramatic thing for the person involved and can give them a lot of enthusiasm, you see the same thing in people who "get saved' before they settle down.
But the second part of it is just psychology about having been fooled, for a good part, or in many cases, for most of their lives. It makes you feel stupid, and a little angry and ego-depleted for having been conned and the kind of militant atheism or the anti-religious humor that many apostates indulge in is a way of getting some of their dignity back. It feels good to strike back at this thing that has played such an important role in your life and now you see is not what you though it was.
It's a phase, it passes, and now, (though I may still laugh when actually witty people satirize religion) I don't indulge in the "militant atheism" and don't follow Richard Dawkins or read Christopher Hitchens or feel the need to bother people because they believe something that I find unreasonable.
What you have to understand is that for most of that crowd, this is just a thing that they are going through at the moment. Atheism isn't a continuing thing that you have to keep putting energy in to, like religion is. For adult atheists it just doesn't take up that much of your time.
Now teenage atheists, I think you know why they put so much energy into it. It's not the atheist part, it's the teenager part.

>>3622265

depends on what you mean by god.

>>3622734

militant atheists are predominately poors descended from the middle-class. they're surrounded by other poors who are religious and can't help but feel contempt for them - the religion thing is a convenient way of assuming intellectual dominance over them. they are attempting to prevent themselves from sinking to the poors' level but all they are doing is creating a newer and trashier stratum of poors.

>>3622574
It's not the question being debated that's childish, it's the debates.

Both sides have eloquent speakers, long, well-constructed arguments. (and for one side) a logical conclusion.

But most of the internet isn't conducting the debate at that level. It's more at the level of a schoolyard brawl.

I'm not sympathetic to the existence of God, I'm a catholic.

>>3623054
>>>/x/

L I T E R A T U R E

>>3622271
I was more of a "militant" atheist. But yes, even if I'm still an atheist I will tend to defend religious people except for extremists.

>>3623060
>>>/b/

>>3623060
>>3623069
>>>/s4s/

The term "militant atheist" as 4chan uses it is fucking stupid.

>>3624019

Why is the "militant Christian" in that picture a WBC member? The internet is fucking retarded. WBC are probably one of the most peaceful if not the most peaceful Christian denomination in existence. All the others have dirt and blood smeared throughout their history books but all the WBC do, they do with their mouths.

>>3624019
This.
It's a difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness.
Even though Militant can refer to speech, it is meant to represent much more combative advocation. You'd think atheists were going door to door, or lobbying the government to have a their beliefs printed on money.

it's more important to not be thought of as a "Reddit Dawkins-worshipping atheist" than it is to make any firm assertions on metaphysical matters

>>3622296
Show me the logical argument for the existence of God, please. And refute the problem of evil while you're at it.

Why is Sagan grouped with all those idiotic atheists?

>>3622575
It's in large part because of the first amendment. Religious freedom means many religions compete to gain members; many see it as their mission to bring as many as possible into the campaign. In Europe, state religion was the norm for hundreds of years. There were few alternatives, so people generally lost interest in religion, and it gradually became less important.

Not so in the U.S. of A.

>>3624103

Here we go again. Please tell me what bastardized definition of atheism you adhere to where such a quote would make a theist out of Sagan?

>>3624116
>Please tell me what bastardized definition of atheism you adhere to where such a quote would make a theist out of Sagan?

I never made any such claims.

>>3624105

Yes however, American atheists should have some hindsight.

The US was for the better part of history much more religiously liberal than Europe. It it what allowed the unique free market Christianity to arise and that in turn allowed for huge strides of progress to be made. American atheists should appreciate this. The Catholic church at its height was far more disruptive of state and social affairs than a few bible thumping neighbors.

LOL God is simply felt in feminine jouissance, fixing castration upon entering the symbolic order.

do you even lacan

>>3622265
>mfw no one in OP's picture was an atheist

>>3624146
They were, and there are more of them.
Non-smug atheists exist, they're all around you.
Why don't you see them?
Because they're not rubbing their disbelief in your face.

>>3624165
Every one of the people in that picture are either deist or, at the most, agnostic, bro. Sorry to bust your bubble.

>>3624169
This. You're retarded, OP.
Not so polite sage.

>>3624169
Deists and agnostics is just semantics. They didn't believe, and were the equivalent of an atheist for their time period.

The only reason to argue otherwise is just to be pedantic and to try to deny "claims" by one side or the other. As if the answer to the question of whether there is reason to believe in a god was about getting enough celebrity sponsors and not about logical arguments. And your post smacked of the type of agnosticism that's about finding thin semantic flaws in either sides arguments so that you can look down on both.

OP's pic was retarded, his post more so, and everyone of these ridiculous replies is only more examples of why we don't do this shit here.

Because it always degrades into a believers/agnostics/atheists flamewar and that shit can >>>/pol/

>>3624169
>at the most, agnostic

Why are you separating Deist and Agnostic as if they lie on the same plane?

So the consensus on /lit/ is essentially that your stance on religion is irrelevant unless your a Dawkins-Thumping Atheist badger?

>>3624258
Basher

>>3624258
No, in fact /lit seems to enjoy Confucianism and Buddhists, the stance on lit is that if you want to talk religion, you have to talk philosophy and theology and leave the flamewar arguments on the shelf.

Just like with politics, we allow political philosophy, but when it degrades into politics we don't want it in here.

The problem is that a lot of the anons on both sides don't want to debate theology or philosophy and instead want to post pithy little statements and go "AHA Check it, you lose"

On a side note, could /lit/ recommend any valuable religious or philosophical texts or writers that they would consider invaluable for this discussion? ( obviously excluding the bible etc.)

>>3624258
more or less.

>>3624300
Zizek. His first few books focus a lot on Chrisianity and religion in general.

>>3624311
That being Slavoj Zizek?

>>3624311
That being Slavoj Zizek?

>>3624326
You mean THE Slavoj Zizek?

>>3624300
William James, Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, Peter Berger

I think if people read some of these more widely instead of the new atheists or Freud/Marx/Nietzsche they would have a better appreciation of religion and the religious experience. Either that or any basic anthropology text with lots of case studies is good. Religion is something humans do, like civilizations, you can't separate most of us from it. Even in the so called atheistic states like the Soviet Union, the party eventually became a sort of church with its own myths, dogma, rituals, etc.

>>3624331

>>3624335
Thanks. Just looking for a place to start without delving into Dawkins

>>3624019
>real militant atheism

>>3624389
>real militant atheism
B-but it was because of communism.

>>3624453
the point is atheism wont bring about any serious progress, people will always be shit

>>3624335
Any specific books?

>>3624453
Funny how those "Atheist/Communist" were defended by good ole' Christian America in the end. (When those horrible Vietnamese Atheists were destroying the Khmer Rouge)

>>3622265
Einstein was christain.

I personally believe that there is a god due to the fact that we are where we are today.
I know that sounds christ-fag ish, bu think of it on the largest possible scale you can, the existance of matter as a whole seems impossible without a greater being.

>>3624516
Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Cmon, now. You're not even trying.

This is a literature board. The majority of books published, especially "classics," were written by people who believed in God. Plenty of books deal directly with the struggle of belief in God and religion and many interesting books portray both viewpoints (and all in between) sympathetically.

The Bible is still necessary reading for us because it is the basis for more allusions in western lit than any other book. It's not necessary to believe in God to enjoy the Bible, but it's also easy to eventually feel sympathetic to religious folks.

The existence of some god cannot be disproven by logic or philosophy (it's always designed that way -- arguments for or against existence of God can be fun exercises, but they are rarely consequential now) so it's irrelevant. If this were a philosophy board, there might be more discussion of it. Even so, plenty of philosophers (again, most "classic" ones) believed in God. Essentially, it's a subject that's very interesting to explore in literature and it would be foolish to think that one could be an atheist and also think everyone else "should" be an atheist as well.

>>3624515
>Christian America
Secular from the first, it's written in the programming.
We worship celebrities now, not dead carpenters.

>>3624503
Jame's The varieties of religious experience, Eliade's the sacred and the profane

>>3622265
Check this out:
http://bookos.org/book/1292662

Anything by Schuon or Guenon will be helpful.

Science will never be holistic, the very laws of nature prevent it from being so. As long as we will never have supreme knowledge there will always be those who believe in a higher power.

Belief in superior beings is an evolutionary trait and a consequence of intelligence and curiosity. Back when cavemen couldn't explain why the sun rose and set, belief in higher powers helped them cope with these sort of existential problems.

Modern science has brought us to a point where we have a pretty good grasp of how our world works, but with it we understand that we are constrained by the laws we have discovered. More and more it becomes clear that reality is a sort of system that derives complexity from relatively simple laws. Not unlike a procedural program a software engineer would write.

Thus I think the paradigm shift of belief in God will move from the gods of old that would interfere and govern our lives (an arrogant thing to assume, that our little speck should have that importance), to a more detached, less omniscient God, a creator of the system, who only sets the rules, not knowing what they will create.

As our own understanding of reality is refined, so our perception of God is refined, but we will never reach a point where the concept of God will be obsolete.

Guys, I have a great admiration of Jesus, and I hope there is a good and kind god, though I have grave doubts.

What does this make me theologically

>>3624335
Also, I think that the main problem with the whole new wave of atheism, is that they have a very old and inadequate view of religion. It's the view of Comte and the positivists, that religion is a kind of 'proto-science', a way to understand and try to control the world. IF this is indeed the case then religion is no longer useful as a way to understand the world. And you see this view propagated by Dawkins et al every chance they get, they see religion as a series of beliefs and truth claims first and foremost while ignoring almost all other aspects of it - I would say the most important aspects.

However, religious studies have come a long way now and such theories are really no longer accepted because they cannot explain the complex and varied nature of religious expression. So the new atheists are working from a false premise of what religion is, they are attacking straw men.

>>3624586
A Christian agnostic?

>>3624595
Yes this is a very big problem when trying to discuss belief with the typical atheist.

They'll take stuff from old creation myths literally ("lol christians think the earth is 2000 years old"), they want to have a childish shit flinging contest, but are incapable of tackling the deeper issues of faith and belief at their core.

>>3624595
I disagree, I can think of many philosophers today that get lumped in with that very et al, who think along those lines. And even Richard Dawkins was much more scientific in his Selfish Genes book rather than polemic, though that dealt primarily in evolutionary theory and not anti-theology. I think the issue is just polarized, as it is in politics. You just have to expect a certain level of disdain or vitriol dealing with the issue and read from a wide variety of sources. It's not the worst thing to have strong arguments out there. So long as it isn't an incitement to violence and vandalism.

>>3624605
Faith and belief are secondary to truth. They must be, or else we shall not be able to endure.

>>3624598
Sounds right.

>>3624619
>Faith and belief are secondary to truth.

As they are in many religions. It isn't necessary to censor religious texts because they contradict the prevailing scientific theories. It'd be rare (for example) to hear a Catholic priest preach about the age of the earth because that isn't a fundamental fact for a Catholic. Belief in God is the only essential belief in many religions, which will never be trumped by truth.

Not really on topic, but I think that Hitchens and Dawkins are glued together in the minds of many people in a way that I think is not accurate.

Hitchens is far and away superior at least in terms of writing ability and non-scientific thought.

>>3624619
>>3624639
Read this:
http://bookos.org/book/1328610

>>3624641
>Hitchens
His ability to write seems to not weigh so heavily on his actual output, which is seriously annoying to read. He was a poor thinker on religion, or --and I suspect this is closer to the truth -- he pretended to be in order to advance the idea that organized religion is awful, something he seemed to genuinely believe.

Dawkins has a great mind for sure and is a pretty solid pop-science writer, but any time he goes full-on evangelical atheist is embarassing to read (but as has been mentioned this actually is pretty rare -- he argued for atheism ostensibly, but was much more focused on refuting scientific "facts" of fundamentalists

>>3622265
>read a wikipedia article claiming that someone had some reservations about the existence of the Christian personal God
>LOL HE WAS EPIC ATHEIST

>>3624664
I'd agree with you on the point about Dawkins being more effective when trying to refute pseudo-science, as opposed to his other more "r/atheism" stuff. And Hitchens did tend to err towards spectacle rather than substance some of time: ("Is religion Child Abuse" for example.)

And yet, I still have yet to find solid counter-arguments against his agnostic atheist position. I've tried to find convincing ones, but the best I can find are those spread by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza and Shmuley Boteach. Which are lacking at best.

>>3624702
it's not his philosophical position that's the problem, it's his intolerant anti-theism

>>3622344
no need to assume the truth of Aristotelian logic

>>3624557
>>3624658

Glad to see someone posting stuff like Guénon/Schuon. They're too often overlooked and lumped in with the very sort of new age and occultist crap they hated... probably due to their tendency to talk about things like the 'unity of religions' and 'oriental metaphysics'. But their writings are generally quite rigorous and lucid, I've found them to be an invaluable resource for religious studies and even took a seminar on them from a professor who knew Schuon, Lings, Nasr, etc.

>>3624730
Well, he said he did't have a problem with people practicing personal faith, and didn't argue with people who on the point of personal revelation. Unlike his "fellow" atheist thinkers, he said that he wouldn't abolish religion if he had the power to. Additionally, he's recognized the achievements of Francis Crick and other scientists who are Christians (I avoid the "christian scientist" term), and said that religious music and art, on the whole, was a positive aspect of religion. His bias was mainly the uncritical acceptance of faith, what he believed amounted to serfdom.

That doesn't sound like intolerance to me.

>>3624680
If I ever become a famous philosopher, writer, or scientist, I'll be sure to leave behind a notarized declaration of disbelief.

Nothing short of that will satisfy /b/ lievers.

"God is unnecessary"

"Well look, he's saying god is unnecessary, he's not saying he doesn't believe in god. Let's mark him down as deist."

>>3624762

Franklin and Jefferson were explicitly deists. Lincoln clearly professed belief in some sort of deity as well. Same with Twain, who seemed to vacillate between deism and some sort of highly unorthodox theism. Einstein professed belief in Spinozan pantheism and also described himself as agnostic. Darwin was a self-identified agnostic who made a point of saying that he wasn't an atheist. Hemingway's religious views were unclear, though almost certainly unorthodox. Sagan made a point of not identifying himself as an atheist.

You can whine about the definition of atheism all you want, but the fact is that literally every single person in that image would have denied being an atheist. And half of them were explicitly God-believers, even if we exclude the pantheist.

It was probably made as a troll image anyhow, quit being a moron.

>>3624739
>occultist crap
obviously you don't know much about the occult beyond crowley

and the occult isn't new age either

>>3622328
>has seen atheists do crazier shit than the religious.
What planet are you living on? Suicide bombers, childhood brainwashing, institutionalized hate, etc.

>>3624808
>obviously you don't know much about the occult beyond crowley

I'm talking about specific occultist movements in the West mostly during the first half of the 20th century. I'm not insinuating that all studies of what might be considered "occult" (e.g., alchemy, science of letters, etc.) are crap.

>>3622545
Are you kidding me? He literally invoked the name of god during his speeches. Keep spinning in your imaginary world

>>3624802
I mean, you have to take it in context. Had their professed religious belief been atheistic, at least some of those people mentioned would have lost political or social stature as a result. I can't say that "all of those people were atheists but were too afraid to say it." However, it should be known that there might have been outside factors that colored their public religious point of view.

Additionally, being a deist before the earth-shattering discovery of evolutionary theory is by no means a small deal. As the case for atheism/agnosticism becomes stronger with scientific discoveries, those that held a view other than theism before the facts were in becomes all the more impressive to me.

>>3624815
that's nothing compared to the mass murder and persecution on an industrial scale by anti theist governments in China, Soviet Union, etc

"I want to argue for the existence of God."

Don't care >>>/pol/

"I want to argue the non-existence of God."

Don't care>>>/pol/

"I want to argue about how agnostics shouldn't be lumped in with atheists, and how even though I don't believe in God, I should be patted on the head and given a cookie and not grouped with those "Militant Atheists."

Don't care >>>/pol/

"But I deserve special treatment because my side is the most intellectually honest."

>>>/pol/ >>>/pol >>>/pol

>>3622328
Few points:

1) The genital mutilation community is entirely religious.

2) The suicide bombing community is entirely religious (including political factions which are basically religions in themselves.)

3) Being an atheist doesn't make one morally superior. One can be a mass murderer and an atheist. One can also be a humanitarian and an atheist. Not mutually exclusive.

4) However, in order for what would otherwise be good men to, say, saw off the genitals of newborn children, that requires religion.

>>3624815
>The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed.

Every society in existence practices "childhood brainwashing" and "institutionalized hate." Suicide bombings targeting the US embassy in Turkey were carried out by an avowedly Marxist-Leninist group a couple of months ago.

Welcome to /lit, we discuss books, and to a lesser extent, philosophy.

Oh you want us to host a bitchfest about the existence or non existence of God?

>>>/pol/

LIT or GTFO

>>3624821
>Are you kidding me? He literally invoked the name of god during his speeches.

And as we know, everything that political leaders say in their addresses to the public is absolutely true.

>>3624824
Each of them used an established a cult of personality around themselves, and were often in league with various religious institutions. Even the French Revolution, which was originally founded on Renaissance thinking, became a sort of group religious adherence to extreme principles. (North Korea is the best example of a "secular" religious state. )

>>3624836
>1) The genital mutilation community is entirely religious.
Nope. There are people who think it's a hygiene issue. If you only mean female "circumcision" then you're just being a hypocrite.

>2) The suicide bombing community is entirely religious
The regular bombing community is pretty damn varied and includes plenty of atheists/freethinkers/agnostics. Really all this shows is that the rational thinkers are simply more effective murderers, not exactly a point in their favor.

>>3624843
Silly, no leader would invoke god for political power.
Especially since there are so many consequences for lying about something that can't be verified one way or another.

>>3624829
You are not a very close reader. OP has done none of your 4 things. Perhaps you are a robot with stock responses... OP was asking /lit/ why they were sympathetic with a particular argument. An argument, I might and will add, that is central to almost all of our interpretations of literature. Furthermore /lit/ has been doubling as a philosophy board for while now. Next time you post in a board you might want to try and engage a bit more than your standard 12 neurons.

>>3624822
>I mean, you have to take it in context. Had their professed religious belief been atheistic, at least some of those people mentioned would have lost political or social stature as a result. I can't say that "all of those people were atheists but were too afraid to say it." However, it should be known that there might have been outside factors that colored their public religious point of view.

This really doesn't amount to anything beyond baseless speculation. Plenty of evidence for their religious beliefs comes from private correspondences and journals and other sources in which we can only assume that they were being genuine.

>Additionally, being a deist before the earth-shattering discovery of evolutionary theory is by no means a small deal.

It was nothing special. The entire so-called 'enlightenment' upon which American political philosophy was predicated was largely the product of deists and other highly non-traditional thinkers. By that point such views were widespread, especially in a liberal and revolutionary country such as the United States was at the time.

>>3624838
This somewhat dodges the real point: human beings are prone to violence, group thinking, torture, and discrimination. Organized religion is a subset of at least one of these traits, and, more often than not, encompasses all of them. This doesn't prevent other non-religious people from being evil, but neither does it exempt religion as a whole.

Guys you've strayed pretty far from topic, which was why as a community we are tolerant of religion. Nobody cares if you've got a hardon for arguing one way or the other with a bunch of reaction faces. Go to a different board if you're trying to do that

There is no such thing as race. Only ethnicity. You could argue for genetic differences between ethnicities. And ethnicities are not in anyway comparable to dog breeds.

>>3624869
I held back, I've been monitoring the thread, and participating when the questions were pursuant to philosophy and theology.

But this topic ALWAYS degrades to flamewar.

you can take your smug sense of self satisfaction to >>>/pol/ no matter which side of the debate it originates from

>>3624849
>Each of them used an established a cult of personality around themselves, and were often in league with various religious institutions. Even the French Revolution, which was originally founded on Renaissance thinking, became a sort of group religious adherence to extreme principles. (North Korea is the best example of a "secular" religious state. )

Your point? Nearly all atheists embrace some sort of surrogate religion. Just look at how plebbit and other teenaged-atheists types approach vulgarized science and priestly figures like Dawkins (a real 'fire and brimstone' type.) This in no way makes them not atheists; spirituality or some crude imitation of it is a fundamental part of being human. It just makes them even bigger idiots than they already were.

>>3624851
I don't just mean female genital mutilation. The fact that, as a society, parents can choose whether or not to chop off sensitive nerve endings of their child's penis, without consent, is a product of religious tradition. There are definite benefits to circumcision, sure. And, when the child is 18, he should be able to choose whether or not those benefits outweighed the cost. However, studies also show that circumcision cuts off many sensitive nerve endings related to sexual pleasure. Who would think, without traditional religious influence or outside knowledge, that the human form needs to be sawn a bit before it is fit for society?

I'm talking suicide bombing. Those that are willing to give their life for a cause invariably tend to be religious, whether they be following a traditional or political one. I have yet to find one instance of a "freethinker" (I hate the term) who has blown themselves up for the sake of Spinoza, Socrates, Hume, or any other "atheist" reason.

>>3624869
Philosophy and Theology are not the same thing.
The question of the existence of God has long since split off into its own discipline. I think it's distinct enough for people to understand how the board can allow philosophy and disallow theology, even though "Is there a God" and "How should humans behave in deference to same" seem to be philosophic in nature.

>>3624883
It doesn't always degrade into flamewar, but OP's premise was faulty, his question already more than answered, and the thread long since derailed.
People like to stroke their ego's

>>3624869
That's not philosophy, that's a custody battle for historical figures.

He's right get the fuck off our board.

Are there any more suggestions for reading material?

>>3624912

On what topic specifically?

Some "authorities" not believing God exists doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. The debate on God is in another realm.

"Sympathetic to the existence of God"? God will exist whether you are "sympathetic" to the existence of God or not. Even if you don't believe God exists, you could still see value in the belief in God.

>>3624887
>Nearly all atheists embrace some sort of surrogate religion.

You understand my point, then! Most of the problems religion helps to instill also exist outside religion. personal belief in a higher power, in itself, isn't a problem. That which invariably follows in organized religion, however (mob thinking, persecution of minorities, etc,) becomes the main issues. While these traits can form on their own, Religion allows for their quick adoption and the highest possible justification to implement them.

Atheism doesn't exclude one from fundamentalism or lack of thought. (Although I suspect those that follow Dawkins in a mindless fashion would tend to shoot less doctors, forcibly cut on female genitalia, and deliberately spread psuedo-science.)

>>3624871
Fair points, all in all. Although I would point out that, had they had the information we do today about the origins of the universe, they might have formed different opinions. But this, too, remains speculation.

>>3624927
Logical disproofs of theological claims.
Not logical as in "I agree with that"
But more of taking each claim step by step and disproving it.
Like, I was watching a youtube video that went step by step explaining why god could not be simultaneously omnipotent and intelligent, because of how both concepts are established.

>>3624956
I found the link.
http://youtu.be/mbMcHExf6X4

It includes why "complexity" isn't a sign of intelligence.

>>3624930
You can't truly believe something you think (or even suspect) is false. If you believe something, the foremost reason for that is because you believe it is true. No matter how practical, without truth it falls apart.

I think what we should really be doing is figuring out the supernatural, spirits, and gods (or powerful spirits tricking humans into thinking they are gods)

>>3624968
Good luck.

>>3624966

You don't have to believe it yourself to see value in it.

>>3624968
How?

>>3624974
No, you can see value in it for others, but the believer who keeps their beliefs to themselves isn't the problem.

>>3624978

What problem?

>>3624977
evoke them

>>3624972
>implying

>>3624974
That's a loaded statement.
I appreciate and find value in the bible, it's place in history, and several of the parts of it for literary sense. But I don't find value in the belief in the Christian God, and don't put it in a place of priority in making decisions.

>>3624987

Well, you (personally) don't. Want a cookie?

>>3624956
>Logical disproofs of theological claims.

Ah, I see. Youtube and plebbit should be right up your alley.

Lincoln was a theist with faith struggles, Twain was a deist, pretty sure Jefferson was also a theist; he just only believed in half the Bible. Not sure about any of the others.

>>3624985
What does evoking entail and how does it bring us information? How do you "figure it out" other than trying the scientific method?

http://youtu.be/1xBHFP2s6dk

>>3624994
>Out of line in /lit for asking for literature.
Oh I'm sorry, did I stumble into /Theo/

>>3625002

I don't have much else to offer someone who has prejudged that something is false/true and wants "literature" that will supply him with arguments that he's incapable of formulating on his own.

>>3624989
Yes, I want a cookie, a medal and a trophy.

And you can have a cookie too, and a certificate.

Because when Atheists want validation for their skepticism and want others to share in their world view it's needy and pathetic.
But we all know when believers want validation and want others to share in their world view, it's only because their world view deserves to be valued by everyone whether people agree with it or not.

I have twice the standards you do, I have double standards the best kind of standards.

And circular logic is the best kind of logic cause the best kind of logic is circular logic.

>>3624991
The Jefferson Bible, which he edited, cuts out everything divine referring to Jesus. It was designed to extoll Jesus the man's true teaching without being dragged down in miracles.

Safe to say, he thought those parts extraneous.

>>3624996
go back to /sci/ u nerd

>>3625010
How is saying that I want logical arguments on something evidence of some sort of bias or "prejudging?"

Or do you just suggest that everyone who doesn't agree with you go to plebbit?

>>3625015
Go back to >>>/x/ and tell them about your invisible celestial entity and all the times it's contacted you.

>>3624994
>>3625010
"Anyone who wants logic is against me"
You're not helping yourself, you make yourself sound like you don't want logic.

>>3625019
So much for being open-minded you faggot.
I don't even go to /x/ and haven't even tried evoking anything.

stupid little puny nihilist, go be an adam lanza somewhere else you nutcase

>>3625024
The logic you speak of (word-reasoning) is not objective. As the only objective logic is mathematical logic (immaterial platonic forms)

>>3625025
That was a different anon, but I'm so glad to know you thought I was a faggot,

I wonder why all the r/atheists are always so militant at you guys, you seem so tolerant to me.

serves me right for trying to ask a question in the middle of a flamewar,

>>3625016

You've decided on a conclusion and want arguments that support it. You've got the whole thing backwards.

>>3625024
>"Anyone who wants logic is against me"

Never said that. Your willful misunderstanding or genuine failure to understand my post is no concern of mine...

>>3625046
>>"Anyone who wants logic is against me"
>Never said that. Your willful misunderstanding or genuine failure to understand my post is no concern of mine...

I didn't say I didn't understand your post, I didn't say I disagreed with your post

I said you're doing a shitty job of arguing your side. A side you supposedly believe in very strongly, and are trying to advocate to others.

You're sucking at it.

Learn how to present yourself better or you're going to continue to get ridiculed. Especially here. Cause nine times out of ten nobody is going to step in and give you helpful criticism, and let you know when you're appearing illogical and emotional.

Judging from what I can pick out of your last couple exchanges and posts, (or what I think are yours based on context but I could be wrong)
You asserted something without proof and attacked people who disagreed with you.

No matter what you're arguing or how valid your side may be, that's not going to help you. When you can't field more than a few cursory questions without flipping out and going "You people just don't understand, you people are all biased, you people should go to "plebbit"

You are making yourself look weak.

Count to ten, consider your position, organize your thoughts, and stop shitposting.

>>3624883
>>3624893
>>3624908
A) Look up your terms before you post. If questioning the rationale behind a belief is not philosophy than what is? B) If you think a thread has derailed, don't respond to the derailment just respond to the actual prompt or else you are just laying further tracks, C) I tried to integrate the question back in to /lit/ and you refused, thus you are just as bad.

not /lit/ related, fuck your meta post go to >>>/sci/ or >>>/pol/

>>3622265
Nice lereddit picture
I could make a picture about a bunch brilliant philosophers, artists, and scientists who weren't atheist. I could also point out how half of the people in your picture aren't even atheists... but it doesn't prove anything. We still don't know if god exists or not. Stop being so fucking retarded.

>>3625143
but it is neither politics nor science. It has been suggested that it is theology but there is no /theo/ board and the quasi /phil/ board is /lit/

>>3625156
The argument between theists and atheists is politcal. Not philosophy. It's purveyors don't want to discuss philosophy, they want their side validated.
They want a shiny gold "I'm right." medal.
You're not being oppressed. You can still argue, just do it somewhere else. It takes nearly no effort to make these threads elsewhere.

We're not demanding too much by drawing the line between philosophy and theology.

>>3624082
>refute the problem of evil while you're at it.
Not that guy, but this one is easy.
God's an infinitely loving and compassionate nihilist. No evil exists in his eyes, only in those of humans.
All pain and suffering in the world is caused by the way an individual perceives his existence, not by the actual circumstances. All pain and suffering is relative. All pain and suffering is temporary.

How is this not the act of a good and loving God? Evil is simply projected ideas and fears coming from your mind, not a reflection of the existing world.

I suppose I'd have to be sympathetic to the existence of God with the whole being a Catholic thing.

>>3625293
Can't debunk a benevolent God coexisting with the problem of evil, debunk evil.
That's a harder lift, but I like that it's at least a fresh angle. I'd be willing to entertain the argument.

But that kind of God is going to have to be completely Deistic and not concerned with the beliefs of humans for his own sake. I know theists like to claim any deism as a win for them but if they stop to think about it, I doubt they're really comfortable with a God whose stance on "should you believe in me?" is "eh you can if you want, I'm not going to force you"

>>3625064

The only things I posted were in response to the one guy's request for "logical disproofs of theological claims", dunno who you're trying to address or what you're talking about.

>>3625337
>a fresh angle
It isn't. The "problem" of evil has already been
solved from the metaphysical/esoteric perspective.
http://www.sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf

>>3625337
That's a problem that theists have to deal with then. I seriously doubt any God that exists would truly place that much care on whether or not someone believed in them, and I doubt that any human would be able to understand the thoughts of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god.

In fact, I doubt such a God would even have thoughts in the sense that you and I do, because our thoughts are mainly evolution's way of exploring unknowns and testing ideas/actions. Such a god would have no unknowns to explore, and would have nothing to test it's actions/ideas against (being all powerful). Thoughts and opinions are strictly human flaws, and a truly all mighty God would be above such things.

>>3625467
No, I know, but I meant it's going to be deist. Sort of connected to the idea that if a supernatural being is "beyond what we can perceive and beyond our understanding" then it's his business, it's not our fault if we can't see us.

Only this would be the argument that if a god "can't recognize the idea of evil" and doesn't judge things as evil. Then that's his prerogative, because as humans we do.

But I like acknowledging things that are fresh, at least to me, though I know somewhere else this has probably been addressed, this is the first time I've ever had someone argue the God/evil problem by disputing the existence of evil.

And at least the "Is there such a thing as evil" is in the jurisdiction of philosophy, and belongs on this board.

>>3625487
The point of view expressed in the link isn't "deism", nor would Schuon consider himself as such. Did you even read it?

>>3625493
I skimmed it yeah, but I wasn't referring to the link but to the post that inspired it.

whenever the magical tripartite of 'atheist, theist, agnostic' is heard, 90% of the time the discussion is bound to be stuck in the anti-intellectual framework of darwinism vs. religion.
the participants of anti-intellectual discourses are the intellectually lazy, and the uneducated and ignorant; that is to say, the information is simply not available to them; thereof, in both cases, they are unable to comprehend the complexities and implications of much deeper, philosophical topics; and that is a shame. discussing anything of that matter, when the demography of /lit/ constitutes 18-23 year olds, is a fucking joke.

tl;dr this thread is disgusting

>>3624664
I get the feeling that Hitchen's views and polemics weren't because he hated religion or religious, but more accurately because he feared what it could make people do and it's totiltalitarian objectives. We must remember he was a lifetime opponent of totiltalitarianism and he said himself he began to write of religion due to the 'Islamofacism' he saw displayed on 9/11. He only really hated it because he thought at its seed was totiltalitarian ism

>>3625557
Ugh I agree, you can't use that simple divide to make sense of pantheists, Buddhists and the vast majority of 'spiritual but not religious' people

also the thread has finally gone to shit

>>3625756
He was deeply ignorant of middle east politics and pretty much only embarrassed himself anytime he spoke of it. I'm glad he's dead, because he poisoned the well for atheism and gave religious fanatics ammunition to try to frame it as a secular religion.

>>3622402
Einstein was a deist. retard

>>3626174
"spiritual but not religious" aka theists riding the fence and worm their way out of feeling guilty for not attending church.

I'm sick with /lit/ and philosophy, don't you idiots realize that no serious philosopher negates God, it's impossible to decline something we do not know enough about. No serious philosopher has ever negated God in ontological sense it would be childish.

>>3626223
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

This is pretty close to a pragmatic negation.

>>3626206

He wasn't a deist either.

>>3622271
This, extremism is unwanted.

>>3626232
*Apart from militant agnosticism.

>>3626241
Let's not forget the utilitarians and hedonists that claim to be nihilists

>No one understands the difference between negative and positive atheism
>People think agnosticism is just 'lol I don't know if God exists or not'
>Science has become an ideology unto itself
>Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Grayling are getting more and more attention; popularizing the problems mentioned above
>No end is in sight
>All is lost

>>3626319
Who the fuck are Dennett, Harris, and Grayling?

>>3626319
Sam Harris is a fucking ignorant shitbag and overall terrible human being too.

>>3626328
Dan Dennett and AC Grayling iirc

>>3626332

Paul and Patricia Churchland are worse. They make Harris look like a sane non science worshipper.

>>3626360
Yeah, wow, you are right. Eliminative materialism is the wave of the future for misanthropic spergs

In the short run Harris is always drumming up support for Israel, torture, /x/ bullshit, and perpetual war with "Islam" and exterminating people with "dangerous ideas".

>>3626360
>The Churchlands

>>3626360
>Along with his wife, Churchland is a major proponent of eliminative materialism, which claims that everyday mental concepts such as beliefs, feelings, and desires are part of a "folk psychology" of theoretical constructs without coherent definition, destined to simply be obviated by a thoroughly scientific understanding of human nature.
>Just as modern science has discarded such notions as legends or witchcraft, Churchland argues that a future, fully matured neuroscience is likely to have no need for "beliefs" or "feelings" (see propositional attitudes). Such concepts will not merely be reduced to more finely grained explanation and retained as useful proximate levels of description, but will be strictly eliminated as wholly lacking in correspondence to precise objective phenomena, such as activation patterns across neural networks. He points out that the history of science has seen many posits once considered real entities, such as phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, and vital forces, thus eliminated. In "The Engine of Reason" Churchland hypothesizes that consciousness might be explained in terms of a recurrent neural network with its hub in the intralaminar nucleus of the thalamus and feedback connections to all parts of the cortex.


Western scientism has finally gone full retard hasn't it?

>>3626360
>The Churchlands

>The Churchlands

>The Churchlands

>>3626447
I don't know about their theological stance, but that excerpt makes a lot of sense to me.

>>3626477

Careful... you might have the 'tism.

These edgy atheists and egdy theists think that these are the only two stances in the world in the history of ever.

They think you either have a hard on for Dawkins or a raging boner for William Lane Craig. Of course, if you've started with philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science, you quickly finbd out that it's much more complex than either "YOU BELIEF IN SKYDADDY YOU STOOPIT" or "YOU HATE GAWD AND EVERYONE YOU AR HITLER".

You quickly realize that the real debate has more to do with stuff like propositions, rational justifications, differing kinds of evidence etc.

>>3626501
>You quickly realize that the real debate has more to do with stuff like propositions, rational justifications, differing kinds of evidence etc.

Except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity or any other supernatural being.

>>3626501
Reductio ad absurdum

>>3626505
empirical evidence is for queers

>>3626505

True, but that's not my point. My point is that I think that epistomology is more important than whatever stance you take on something. Intellectual discussion should not be about what you believe, but why you believe it. Also, it should not be based on any form of absolute certainty, because that destroys any debate.

For me, it's very simple. I will be an atheist until someone shows me empirical evidence for the existence of god. That doesn't mean they can't have their own opinion, they just can't have their own facts

>>3626538
"The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. This is consistent with scientific evidence."

>>3626541

this is just a meaningless private definition of god.

>>3626477
it shouldn't, you can't just think you can explain everything without including an internalist explanation of the world, thinking you can explain everything with the scientific method is like thinking you can explain a painting through EM spectrum analysis.

>>3626551
"Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Don't imagine that our latest ideas about the Big Bang or the human genome have solved the mysteries of the universe or the mysteries of life. The subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of the senses and understanding."

>>3626551
>this is just a ... private definition of god.
One which is consistent with empirical evidence.

"So blank and bizarre would be the human life that tried to live outside belief in belief." - Aristotle`

>>3622296
Still, most analytic philosophers are atheists, so your argument is shit.

>>3627497
>argumentum ad populum
You must have seen this coming.

>>3622265
I think it's mostly just a reaction to idiotic Leddit atheists. You know, the ones who blame all the world's evils on religion, promote shitty historical revisionism such as "Jesus never existed, period" or "Thomas Jefferson was an atheist!", constantly belittles theists, and thinks all religion is the same as fundamentalist christianity.

>>3627497
But that's wrong, most analytic philosophers are theist or at least the top ones are.

>>3622296
>Analytic philosophy has more theists than continental philosophy does.
>has more theists

>Still, most analytic philosophers are atheists

>>argumentum ad populum
>You must have seen this coming.

On the subject of philosophers and theism/atheism:

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.6%)

Of course, this is just representative of the philosophers surveyed, and doesn't actually prove whether or not God exists.

I don't know whether god exists
in the same way I don't know that the flying spaghetti monster exists
in the same way that i don't know dragons exist

The only way I can prove that they don't exist is through never having seen them/seen concrete evidence for either. If i was to see this evidence, I would be far more inclined to believe in them.

as for the whole "respecting theists" thing, I think If you're posting on /lit/ you are (generally) a more intelligent person than the shit-flinging retards of /b/ and thus are more respectful of others so long as they are aswell

>>3622265
Because /lit/ realizes that just as there are no hard facts proving the existence of God, there are equally, no hard facts disproving the existence of God.
One cannot simply close their eyes to a scientific discovery just because it doesn't expose itself at the present moment.

I once told a group of people I was agnostic, as I thought this is what described my belief system most effectively, although, supposedly this is a terrible thing to do.
Have I misinterpreted Agnosticism?
My understanding of it would lead me to believe that most people in their privacy would be agnostic.

>>3622307
You are too sentimental for my liking.
I believe as you have said, a hard atheist is constantly trying to prove his atheism and in his despair feels he's found things no one else could have ever found, obviously unschooled in the study of epistemology.

>>3628075
"unschool in the study of epistemology"
Yeah, because that degree is worth its salt in the real world...

>>3622358
Oh, look at you. Mr. Thread Closer.
How are you?
Oh, by the way;
Fuck you and your girlfriend.

>>3628085
You don't need a degree in order to study epistemology.
And there are things to learn from it.

>>3628106
Yes, yes, and there are things to learn from Medieval Art History as well... moving on...

>>3628111
I apologise.

>>3628141
Thank you, kind sir.

>>3622265
....That weird because as someone with a BS in biology AND a BA in philosopphy; it has not been my experience at all that there is a consensus on there being no God.


Also the only people on that poster who didn't believe in a God are Hemingway and Sagan. Your post stinks of stupidity; or you have trolled me....

>>3625293
learn2ontological argument. And not the ontological argument as posed by Descartes or Locke, but the real deal as posed by Anselm. Both Kant and Russel were responding to the articulation by Descartes which is not nearly as logically robust as Anslem's which is basically a modal logic argument.