/lit/ - Literature

Serve yourself

Why did it leave an emptiness inside?

>>3644230

>>3644226

1. It sucked monkey balls.
2. There's none.

Go back to the flock. You completely misunderstood God.

>>3644231
Because I grew up with Christianity, and it isn't only about believing in God, it's a whole philosophy, a lifestyle, a moral code, a thing which sets life's absolute and also the base for my life since it was the main part of my identity (I was really intense about it, not a moderate Christian who goes to church then leaves the Bible on the table to gather dust for the rest of the week).

And when you lose something like that it really turns your world upside down.

>>3644237
Explain it then.

If you're disillusioned by a bunch of cunts' interpretation of god then you're probably as stupid as they are.

>>3644249

Nothing's stopping you from living *as if* your religion is true.

>>3644258
Except that I don't believe it's true anymore.

>>3644249
Not that person. There are over 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Within those Christianities there are a number of Christologies that can range from or combine, gnostic, adoptionist, and pauline. Church, biblical, and mystical Christianities. Christianities.

There is no 'moderate' Christianity or what you've probably been told and still believe is a 'proper' Christianity while you bitch and whine about how awful it was for you. Lots of different ways to be Christian; no-one gets to say their version is 'better' simply because they can parrot a bunch of biblical passages.

>>3644268
I never said it was awful, I loved my life as a Christian and yes there are wrong ways to be a Christian when the Bible says that you ought to live God's word everyday and that you forget it as soon as you step out of the church then you aren't being a good Christian.

Yes.

>...not only because we believe it, but because we know it, and we know it because we are it. We are it in our transpersonal Intellect, which intrinsically is the vehicle of the immanent presence of the Absolute Real, and without which we would not be men.

>>3644274
>...not only because we believe it, but because we know it, and we know it because we are it. We are it in our transpersonal Intellect, which intrinsically is the vehicle of the immanent presence of the Absolute Real, and without which we would not be men.

Lol'd. Hogwash.

Nah. I don't believe in god and I don't see any reason to.

Look not above, there is no answer there;
Pray not, for no one listens to your prayer;
Near is as near to God as any Far,
And Here is just the same deceit as There.

>>3644284

My nigga. The Le Gallienne translation rocks.

"To all of us the thought of heaven is dear--
Why not be sure of it and make it here?
No doubt there is a heaven yonder too,
But 'tis so far away--and you are near.

Men talk of heaven,--there is no heaven but here;
Men talk of hell,--there is no hell but here;
Men of hereafters talk, and future lives,--
O love, there is no other life--but here."

>>3644273
Bullshit. The only requirement to be a Christian is to be baptised. You don't even need a statement of faith if you decide you don't want to belong to a congregation. That is the great genius of Christianity and sits at its very core and before you come back with more of your misguided indoctrination and argue that no, you should read the bible and say your prayers and pay your priests or whatever other shit it is you've been brainwashed with, I'll remind you that if that wasn't true, then the secessionary churches that broke off from the Catholics could never have called themselves Christians at all. They could call them lapsed, heretical, apostates, launch crusades and inquisitions at them but they could never say they weren't Christian. You can be an atheist and be Christian. 40% of Quakers identify as atheist. True facts.

Just because your particular, no doubt Baptist or some other Calvinistic abomination of a sect decides that to be a Christian means knowing the bible off by heart like a brainless cunt doesn't make it true. You're here crying about your upbringing and want to talk shit about Christianity but you don't know the first thing about it.

>>3644268
>Lots of different ways to be Christian; no-one gets to say their version is 'better' simply because they can parrot a bunch of biblical passages.

They get to say their 'version' is 'better' if it represents a faithful, uninterrupted continuation and elaboration of the tradition established by the first Christians and the Fathers of the Church.

Some churches better fit this description than others do.

>>3644249

Dude. Read the Gospels again. You don't "understand" God. You feel and think like Jesus and just go along. Love God, love others. Do the will of the Father and forget about "getting it": Along the way, you will suddenly stop and have an enlightening moment and realize your life has been better with God than without Him. And you will believe in Him.

If you're not a troll and you really, really were a Christian and went "deep" into the Scriptures, you will know that it is NOT through reason, it is NOT through deeds, it is NOT through human wisdom... it is by Grace.

>>3644298

>>3644289
You don't have to belong to any church to be a Christian. But by all means, enjoy your Augustine and Tertullian and that silly cunt Paul. What you mean is 'first Catholics'. Don't get confused on that.

>>3644301

I do not understand your "inside lingo" through movie caps. Perhaps you should grow up?

>>3644284
>Lol'd. Hogwash.

Eh, sounding cryptic or using language unfamiliar to you doesn't make it any less true. You can confirm it for yourself through direct experience. But I'll leave you to your deepnedgy poemz.

>>3644298
>grace

>>3644322

I forgot you Americunts equate "Christianity" with those Megachurch merchants, and you are keen on manicheism.

Read a bit, dude. There's a world beyond Texas.

>>3644304
>You don't have to belong to any church to be a Christian

Never said that, only that all churches aren't equal.

>What do you think is the point of life if there is no God to serve?
I don't think there is one. At least, not one filled with all sorts of axioms pulled out of the ass.
Don't get me wrong, we always live with axioms, but we, as humans, intuit that the fewer the better. Not provable, but very effective.

>>3644324

That doesn't matter. The underlying problem of the picture is the problem of evil (why on earth does god even allow this nonsense?).

How exactly do you refute the picture? How can you explain that these kids who will most probably never even hear about your comforting beliefs and your god in their lifetimes (naturally it is short) dying like this?

It's not I who needs to do the reading. I've read plenty of christian arguments, ranging from Boethius and the stoics to Aquinas and Kierkegaard to modern-day apologetics. To me it sounds like you're the one who's never read any arguments against your position ever.

>>3644337
>the problem of evil (why on earth does god even allow this nonsense?)
B-but without evil there would be no good, right?

>>3644337
>Implying evil is a problem

>>3644337
Ex religious guy here.
The issue of theodicy was never a big deal for me. It can easily be explained away as a lack of understanding of an intellect working far above what we can understand
Of course, at that point it becomes harder to discuss God as "good", since his (presumably) righteous concept of "good" doesn't square with our own. But it does deal with the issue of theodicy itself.

>>3644337
>How exactly do you refute the picture?
Job?

>>3644340

What are you talking about?

I like this quote. "With or without religion you would have bad people doing bad things and good people doing good things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

>>3644326
As far as I'm concerned no church even comes close to the heart of one true believer. I'll leave it there but I'll just point out this >>3644298 is what I'm talking about. Forget your indoctrination, read your gospels, look for God in your heart, be kind, help where you can, live a good life and enjoy it. That's all I have to add. Good luck, OP.

>>3644349

I don't want to believe in a god like that, and it's even worse when it's done on people who never even get to know *the* "truth-"

And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.

>>3644349
I don't think that statement does justice to the book. It's generally agreed that there's far more to it than "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away".

>>3644357
>don't want to believe in a god like that
Did you really understand Job then? Because if you did, you would appreciate a God like that.

>>3644362
>justifies the suffering of millions of children who haven't even heard of his god

Le religion face

>>3644351
How could you choose between good and evil if there was no evil?

>>3644369
>Justify
>Job
Come back again when you have a reading comprehension beyond a high schooler

>>3644337
>It's not I who needs to do the reading. I've read plenty of christian arguments, ranging from Boethius and the stoics to Aquinas and Kierkegaard to modern-day apologetics.

Any Augustine? Theodicy is silly. The 'problem of evil' is only a problem if we assume, as those who formulated it did, that God is highly anthropomorphic and that 'evil' is something that exists intrinsically.

>>3644226
Points are for statements, not for the sum of all. Just flail about sickly like a caught cob on a prickly pier.

>>3644337

Oh my, how old are you? This point has been debated ad nauseam and it has been theologically debunked.

Do you know what free will is? Do you know the theological definition of evil? It is pretty clear why evil exists in the world and if you base your skepticism of God based on physical human suffering, you're pretty much far from the meaty part of a life with purpose.

That said, I am not trying to put you down or anything. I am just acknowledging that there is a time for planting the seed and a time for harvesting the fruit... and you're not in that point yet, so I won't force.

How do you choose which God to believe in?

I used to be a Christian until my grandma got cancer twice, then I decided it doesn't matter if you have believed and done well your whole life, God won't prevent the cancer anyway.

>>3644445
>theologically debunked.

Hahahahahah.

>free will
Another topic that hasn't even been concluded and is still fiercely debated.

>>3644445

It has been debated "ad nauseam" because religion has not and cannot deliver a satisfying explanation for it.

And if it had been "debunked" (theologically, lol) then it would not be debated anymore. It is. For a good reason.

>>3644469
>bawwww, lyfe is no fair

>>3644484
the selling point of religion is that it makes life better

>>3644491
>the selling point of religion is that it makes life better
No, the selling point is eternity in paradise after death.

>>3644469
It's an imperfect world. We are all imperfect. I'm sorry for your grandma.

>>3644476

Why would "religion" have to explain anything?

I get it, you're one of those militant atheists, which is cool, good for you, bro, but there is no counterpart to "debate" with. There is no such thing as "religion vs. atheists" debate room, lol

With whom you're going to debate? Billy Graham? Imam Ahmed? Dalai Lama? Tell me. I am very much looking forward to reading your smart reply :)

>>3644507

What? What exactly are you trying to say?

>>3644470
>Another topic that hasn't even been concluded and is still fiercely debated.
You actually wait that someone will say "there is/isn't a free will" and everybody will agree with him? Well, good luck then.

>>3644526

Did I even imply that?

Besides, who knows what neuroscience will tell us in the future?

>>3644369
holy shit, no where in Job does God say, "hahaha suffering's kickass, lets justify this shit"

Job serves as a reminder that human reasoning is finite, god's reasoning is infinite.

I believe in God cause Atheism is too mainstream.

>implying a real atheist exists

>>3644542
>god works in mysterious ways

le religion face 2.0

>>3644484
No, but it shows believers have no privileges in life whatsoever, while Jesus himself said 'Ask and you shall receive' and that God will never forget his believers (like the shepherd and his sheep). My grandma didn't lose her faith though, but what do you expect after 70 years

>>3644580

Dude, we all have to go to His presence one day or another. What did you expect? That she would live forever?

And this is coming from a 32 year old who survived cancer. I also thought that God had forgot about me, but He did not. And I would believe it both ways: if I would have died, I am convinced He would have explained it to me. I did not, and I see the purpose of both getting hit by cancer and healing from it.

I do NOT have the answer for what she and you suffered. But I know He does.

>>3644445

>It is pretty clear why evil exists in the world

I'm guessing you're referring to either Augustine's theodicy, Irenaeus' theodicy or you have little actual understanding of philosophy and you want to re-affirm your faith.

Augustine's theodicy is based on the fairy tale that is Genesis 1-3, that is, the creation story; which he interpreted literally and has its routes many thousands of years before that in ancient Pagan religions. Augustine's theodicy essentially revolves around the constant re-statement that because Creation is good and harmonious, so is God. Although I like his free will defence, his ideas are laughable. The idea that natural evil occurs through angels turning their backs on God and falling to Earth is implausible; why would moral choices lead to natural evil?

Modern scientific understanding of DNA has debunked Augustine's classical view of biology that the male parent passes on the life-giving force to the baby, and thus all of humanity was "seminally present" in Adam's loins when he committed Original Sin. Even if all of humanity were descended from Adam, each person is an individual so God appears unjust for punishing humanity for Adam's mistake.

The idea that the Earth was created perfect and then spoilt through free will cannot be accepted as true in any literal sense. Once again, science has proven that the Earth developed over billions of years. The Fall cannot be explained from the belief that there was a perfectly good Creation just a few thousand years ago if that fundamental belief is wrong.

Schleiermacher questioned why a perfect world would go wrong in the first place. And most importantly, you can't escape from the fact that Augustine firmly places the blame on God for the existence of evil ("evil comes from God" -- Augustine). Even theists, like Mackie, questioned why God didn't create humanity so they would right choices instead of opting for those which cause suffering.

Cont next comment.

>>3644589
cont.
Irenaeus' theodicy is potentially worse. He seems to disregard that God is presented as good and omnipotent in Christianity throughout his justification for evil, though since the Irenaean theodicy has been taken and used for so-called "modern Irenaean theodicies", reference should be given to those who developed it after Irenaeus (I'm looking at you, Hick).

First they say that creation is embryonic; which goes against the creation story they apparently "literally" interpreted. They then chirp on about humanity's evolution from the "image" to the "likeness" of God; two vague concepts which do nothing but justify their arrogance to place humanity in the same legion as gods.

Most disgustingly of all, Hick in particular suggests that the suffering of the world can be justified because it is "soul-building" and universal salvation is guaranteed. This comes from the observance that because humans are intelligent, they are rational; rationality is a trait of God; therefore humans are "religious animals". We must, therefore, become spiritually mature in order to achieve the likeness of God; what better way to do that by being his guinea pigs in this sadistic world? It's this thinking which make people go to church when they are ill instead of getting a doctor. Although I personally agree with teleological ethics, the ends simply don't justify the means here, when the ends are not guaranteed in the slightest. If anything, Hick just gave teleological ethics a bad name.

In order to make his theodicy more appealing, Hick et al include universal salvation and the epistemic distance.

The intellectual problem of suffering does not exist. God is mercilessly debunked by it because ultimately, humans have created both the concept and problem of evil; nature is piteously indifferent to pain or pleasure. It's up to us to make our own lives better.

>>3644587

He as in the christian god or some other god? You shouls specify this and not assume that everyone around you thinks that "He" is Yahweh.

>>3644590
>>3644589
nice pasta

>>3644603

Wasn't pasta.

>>3644608
Sure, you wrote and sent second part in less than 60 seconds... You're certainly a genius my friend.

>>3644590

I know my theology well, no worries. And, as such, both Agustinian and Irenaean theodicy are lacking, to say the least.

Agustinian conception has been furthered by St. Thomas, though, dissolved (not solved) the riddle by defining evil as the absence of some good which belongs to the creature.

What do you make of a slightly less dichotomous definition?

I did for a time but the older I get the more cynical I get about the whole concept. Many of the successful people I know are either atheists or religious only for the public eye. And by contrast coming from a poor neighborhood means that most of my family and friends growing up were actually religious. And then you see studies linking religion with wealth and education and it all sort of clicks together.

>>3644620
Welcome to 4chan. Remember, after your first twenty-four hours here, you're stuck here forever.

checkmate atheists

>>3644646
In all seriousness though, the problem of evil is ridiculously easy for theists to explain when one assumes that 1) free will is a good thing and 2) there is life after death.

>>3644469

Same here. It was the pivotal moment in which I decided to actually question what I really believed in instead of feeling fearful or feeling like a traitor to be considering idea from "the other side".

I think the idea of serving isn't focused on god as much as it's focused on the servant.
If the only way to go to heaven and not hell is to serve god, then by serving god you'd be serving yourself really.
Even though atheistic arguments are often on solid basis, I have to say that I believe in god and in meaning.
It seems to me that almost everyone once believed in god, and those who claim to be atheists probably passed through a very powerful journey to accept a belief that was alien to them for long periods of time, as if it's not in our nature to claim that god doesn't exist.

>>3644659
Well, go ahead and explain it.

And go ahead and give me some evidence for life after death too.

>>3644659

>implying a freewill universe necessitates evil

You know. Life could be me an you, playing a game of Go for a few days. There isn't an evil involved nor would evil make the experience any better.

>implying you can actually assume freewill without proving it at first

>>3644673

i love this meme.

If life has no external significance or meaning, are the religious themselves really any worse off for thinking that it does?

"Themselves" being the operative word here. I don't care if you think that the religious by virtue of their existence ruin life for everybody else.

Because that's silly.

>>3644687
>If life has no external significance or meaning, are the religious themselves really any worse off for thinking that it does?

>bringing to the attention of the court: millions of repressed homosexuals throughout the ages

>>3644673

Do you not read what he wrote?
>1) free will is a good thing and 2) there is life after death.

>not being deist

>>3644673
>And go ahead and give me some evidence for life after death too.

If you think that this is about evidence then you're already approaching this argument from the wrong angle.

>>3644679
>determinism

No.

>>3644673
I don't recall it saying anywhere that Adam and Eve weren't forgiven, just that they were punished first.

Forgiveness =/= letting on off the hook.

>>3644681
>scumbag god.jpp

Oh look I found your picture.

Also that meme sucks, the only good one is the foreskin one.

>>3644690

Right, you're supposed to blindly obey and have 'faith', gotcha.

>>3644692

It was ridiculously easy to explain and he didn't offer an explanation.

>>3644690

This.

>>3644689

Do you realize that Intelligent Design is a fundamental pillar of deism?

Do you realize that fundamental design had been abandoned by mainstream religions because it was debunked so heavily in the last few years?

>>3644691
Try reading the second sentence of the post you're responding too, sperglord.

Yes religion has been used to suppress people and cause suffering, but that doesn't mean that religion is in itself intrinsically evil.

Currency and government and science have also been used for the wrong reasons. Are those things evil?

>>3644693

>choosing my opinions for me

Not cool. I'm just saying nobody has yet any idea one way or another and no it's not "le obvious". That's just ignorance on your part if you think so.

What the fuck do you mean "what do you do"? You act according to the categorical imperative, you dunce. Have you read no philosophy before?

>>3644694
>Fedora with le epic meems xD on it

Wow. Time to abandon thread >>3644673 guy. You lose.

>>3644694

You know, being a militant atheist isn't a bad thing in light of all the shit religion does.

It's not only the philosophical arguments they go against, it's mostly the social consquences of religion around the world, which are mostly terrible. A militant atheist is usually just against the catholic church's child abuse, muslim degrading of women, christian anti-intellectualism and creationism/intelligent design, homophobia, educational issues, equal rights, and so on. What is wrong about fighting for these things?

>>3644602

I will not tell you because I am not here to convert you into anything and I do not have a moniker or tag. I actually have no religion, if you go after the sociological definition of it.

We are all searching for meaning. All I ask from you is not to give up, a.k.a. claiming not to believe in God. Take this from a dude who felt exactly the same your granny felt when she was dying... just younger. I also know how you feel, because my whole family felt like you when they came to see me during those 11 months, getting chemo, bald, vomiting, getting pieces of my body removed, etc.

>>3644691
One could argue that repression of homosexuality has been beneficial for our species.

>>3644698
Epic may-may dude.

>>3644703

You asked if the deluded theists themselves would be worst off?

Are you saying, that repressing your sexual desires and love unnecessary is not being worst off? Of course it is.

>>3644701
>Do you realize that fundamental design had been abandoned by mainstream religions because it was debunked so heavily in the last few years?

Since when was the notion of an unmoved mover debunked by religious groups?

You're not mixing up intelligent design with creationism are you?

And keep in mind that creationism and the biblical literalism which inspires it is a fairly recent development in the history of Christianity.

>>3644698
>It was ridiculously easy to explain and he didn't offer an explanation.

Free will and life after death is the explanation.

We have the freedom to cause suffering to others because God wanted "real men not toy soldiers" as Lewis would say.

And if a child dies after a short miserable life, well sure their short life sucked but what is that compared to a blissful eternity?

>>3644716
>One could argue that repression of homosexuality has been beneficial for our species.

Are you fucking kidding me?

So first you go ranting about how effects on society don't matter and then when I provide a reasonable example of self harm due to religion suddenly it's all about social effects. That's blatantly dishonest.

And since when is some "beneficially for our species" equivalent to being morally good?

>>3644712
>What is wrong about fighting for these things?

Nothing. But there's a point when one gets the idea that religion can't do anything right.

And keep in mind that Catholics themselves are opposed to clerical sexual abuse and you won't actually find many Muslims who want to stone rape victims and so on.

>>3644718

On the off chance that the christian heaven is real, sure, let's just let all those kids in Africa starve. I mean, why not? Their miserable, short lives where they are ignorant of christianity, even.. what is that, compared to blissful eternity?

This is the argument William Lane Craig actually makes too. In one part of the bible, I forget, god kills a whole bunch of kids, and when asked if this was good and just, he basically just said, "well, da'a, they r in heavun nao so of corse its okay!1!"

>christian morality
Absolutely disgusting.

>>3644726
>So first you go ranting about how effects on society don't matter and then when I provide a reasonable example of self harm due to religion suddenly it's all about social effects.

He isn't me. Chill your tits.

>>3644718

>Since when was the notion of an unmoved mover debunked by religious groups?

Deism is more than just the primal mover. It also requires some sort of intelligent design.

>You're not mixing up intelligent design with creationism are you?

Intelligent Design has been debunked as much as creationism has. Heck even the freaking Catholic Church spoke against it FFS.

>>3644728
>yfw you realise they run all that shit and at the same time advocate not using condoms

As a result, the catholic church is responsible for far many more deaths than they save.

This is like saying a serial killer is a good person because he buys his grandmother nice presents for her birthday and is a nice person besides being a serial killer. The good things a bad institution does *does not help* and does not really matter.

>>3644730
>In one part of the bible, I forget, god kills a whole bunch of kids, and when asked if this was good and just, he basically just said, "well, da'a, they r in heavun nao so of corse its okay!1!"

That's probably hard for biblical literalists to justify. But if you knew your Christianity or Judaism 101, you'd know that not very man Jews or Christians take the Bible literally.

The precedent for Christians not doing so goes back at least as far as Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the fourth century.

>>3644730
The strawiest of strawmen

>>3644726
>only one poster on /lit/
That was my first post in the thread.

>And since when is some "beneficially for our species" equivalent to being morally good?
Because there is no objective morality and only thing which really matters in larger scale is our species' survival.

>>3644738
>The good things a bad institution does *does not help* and does not really matter.

And you make a big difference, sitting on your ass arguing if God exists or not on the internet.

>>3644737
>Heck even the freaking Catholic Church spoke against it FFS.

The Catholic Church has never objected to evolution, not since the day Darwin published the origin of species.

>>3644738
Rates of AIDS are lower among Catholics in Africa than amongst other religious or ethnic groups, as I recall. And they're the only ones actually listening to what the Vatican has to say.

>This is like saying a serial killer is a good person because he buys his grandmother nice presents for her birthday and is a nice person besides being a serial killer.

Oh for fuck's sake, are you literally 14?

When the Vatican says "don't use condoms" they aren't actually preventing anyone from using condoms. You can still get fucking condoms in Africa, the Vatican isn't stopping anyone, they're just not giving them out themselves.

You melodramatic little twat.

>>3644744
>Because there is no objective morality

OK

>and only thing which really matters in larger scale is our species' survival.

Not really. Most people disagree making that viewpoint null.

>>3644737
>Intelligent Design has been debunked as much as creationism has

How so?

Intelligent design just stipulates that an unmoved mover created the universe and that this being then used evolution to create humanity.

>>3644712
Probably worth pointing out here that the Catholic church is the world's number one charity organisation. In terms of child abuse, just remember that if you put together 100,000 or more people in an organisation, you're going to have a statistical certainty that paedophiles, rapists, psychopaths, etc. are going to turn up. This constant implication that Catholicism and by extension Christianity is somehow responsible for these kids getting abused is tiresome and utterly illogical and especially for people who keep grandstanding about how 'rational' they are. Put together 100,000 atheists, I guarantee you you will get paedophiles.

I was also educated in a Catholic school by nuns who taught us evolution, they had MScs, got all excited by taking us on field trips to natural history museums or the planetarium, whatever. Never once did they talk about conflicts with Genesis stories. Religion was for religion, science was science and they loved it. Your problem is basically that you suffer from a massive case of confirmation bias which is kind of amusing because I bet you think of yourself as the very paragon of reason.

>>3644738
>yfw you realise they run all that shit and at the same time advocate not using condoms [because they advocate instead fighting against cultural sexism that leads to the normalization of rape and for education in family planning]

>>3644745

I never said I made a difference either. But the debate is an important one, and it's not coincidental that as society progresses more and more it becomes less and less religious.

And I have never really said that GOD does not exist. I am saying that the christian god does not exist, yes, but not god in general. I don't know that. I can't propose to know that. That would be an absurd arrogance of me. I do know, though, that every single religion is a fabrication by humans. Whether or not god exists, I cannot say, but I don't think so. What I do argue against, though, is religion as an institution, and a predominantly cruel and backwards one at that.

>>3644749
>The Catholic Church has never objected to evolution, not since the day Darwin published the origin of species.

Sorry what? I'm not even talking about evolution. I'm talking about intelligent design. ID was proposed and thought by the Catholic Church up until very recently. Around the time JPII was in charge support for ID plummeted and many Catholic theologians (the majority in fact) now call it bunk.

>>3644768
>as society progresses

Just become an otaku OP.

>>3644762

So, how do you defend the church's affiliation with Nazism and other totalitarian regimes?

>>3644771
>Arguing about science in a religion thread in a literature board on 4chan

>>3644768
>What I do argue against, though, is religion as an institution, and a predominantly cruel and backwards one at that.

Do you think that the institutions of government and currency should also be abolished? They also tend to be misused an awful lot.

Never mind that, like religion, they're not always misused.

>>3644767
>Intelligent design just stipulates that an unmoved mover created the universe and that this being then used evolution to create humanity.

Not really. That's definitely not the mainstream definition. ID made all sorts of arguments about how everything is so finely designed from the solar system to the human eye. ID is great in that it was scientifically testable, and then proven false.

>>3644783

Actually, I'm pretty heavily influenced by Peter Kropotkin and other anarchist thinkers, so yeah...

>>3644781

>science

Emotionally burdened statements about nature are hardly science.

>>3644694

I think these images are kind of interesting. it's the new 'hip' way of attacking the atheist position.
nothing bothers an anxious teenager more than the possibility of being linked to these edgy internet atheists who are seriously super uncool. just look at them, don't they look dorky? why take the risk of belonging to the same group as these fedora knights when it's much easier to just maintain a moderate, totally cool and socially acceptable belief in god. you're not an edgy try-hard, are you?

>>3644754
>Not really. Most people disagree making that viewpoint null.
No, not really. It is still the only viewpoint that you can defend scientifically.

>>3644778
anime is dead

long live rotoscoping

>>3644796
>he think that the only alternative to that fedora guy is a totally cool and socially acceptable belief in God

Why do I bother arguing on this board anyway.

>>3644796
>>totally cool and socially acceptable belief in god

dude, the "cool and acceptable" thing nowadays is precisely to be an atheist.

>>3644805

are you one of those new cool internet agnostics who are totally level-headed and seriously cool about people thinking whatever man
or even worse, a buddhist

>>3644808

that depends on where you are, I guess

>>3644796

>who is the banana guy

Sorry to break this to you but people these days are a tad bit more open mined when it comes to these issues.

>>3644780
Nice strawman. I accept your concede.

>>3644780
I think you're grossly overestimating the relationship between the Vatican and the Third Reich.

Try reading Hitler's Pope. The author says right in the foreword that Hitler and Pope what's his name despised each other. The point of this book is just that, for Hitler's purposes, Pope what's his face had an odd sort of syncretism going with Hitler, even though he didn't like the man or Nazism.

>>3644820

What?

Do you even know what a strawman is? I asked you a completely unrelated question to the previous topics, you dolt.

>>3644815

Well, here in Europe those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian God are considered profoundly uncool and backwards.

>>3644796
Because you totally don't do the same thing when you equate all Muslims with suicide bombers or all Christians with the Westboro Baptists, right?

>>3644800
>No, not really. It is still the only viewpoint that you can defend scientifically.

How so? Science can only say what effects some things might have. People still need to decide whether they care more about the future of the species or their own immediate future and families and friends.

>>3644620
That's because I had previously written it in a single comment, realised the entire comment was too large to post, and cut it out into a separate comment.

>>3644815
>not being daoist

>>3644826
Typical atheist tactics of stupidity. Say something stupid, get responded to, realise what you said was really stupid, try something else. Dumbarse.

>>3644621

Yes, I'm well aware of evil as privation. Not to mention McCabe's supposed "furthering" of Augustine's work by giving that the bad grapes and deckchairs example.

You really didn't respond to anything I said.

Why does everybody feel the need to engage in these heated debates over what is probably the most useless circlejerk that humanity will ever come up with?

What do you all stand to gain?

>>3644843

Are you legit retarded?

>>3644843

That's called debate. If one part of your argument hasn't worked, then you move on to the next part, or another argument.

>>3644849
We are bored bitter people. I rather observe you guys talking about books but hey that never happens here.

>>3644849
Fun.

>>3644850
No, I'm just bored and waiting for my supper to be brought to me. I doubt you have as good an excuse, though.

>>3644869

Waiting for my girlfriend[/girlfriend] to get here.

>>3644869

Waiting for my girlfriend.

>>3644869
Waiting for my qt gf.

>>3644878
Chicken actually.

I am unsure about whether some form of intelligent prime mover might exist. I mean, one would think it intuitive that the prime mover (which I'm also unsure about) is intelligent but then again for one if we take the scientific theory of evolution as an example we find that the most complex and intelligent think that we are currently aware of, originated from a primordial soup of pathetic simplicity.

That said, as far as organized religions go I can't really condone or support any. They seem like the most implausible way in which a deity could possibly operate. It makes no sense to give unnecessary power and coagulate unnecessary risk for abuse when you could rely on consciousness from within. If the holy spirit or similar entities, enlighten the clergy, they can equally well enlighten all of us directly.

The problem of evil can be solved if you think that the evilness is just the lack of goodness, like the darkness is the lack of light presence, I think this argument comes from Aquinas.
Well, I've been working in my own interpretation of the Gospels and I came to some conclusions; the first was that there is no Devil, no ontological deity that represents the evil, and I came to this conclusion thinking about how is possible for an angel to make any moral decision, they do not have free will as us. The Devil is only a pictorial representation of our own bad decisions, he does not exist.
The second conclusion is that evil comes from our free will, and therefore, from the very goodness of God. His love for us is so great that He gave us the the choice of following what He wants us to be or not, The Fall is all about it. Look, the whole history of Adam and Eve can be seen as if it was about every man's life. First, everybody is a kid, there is no good and no evil to worry about, we live in a great paradise. Then comes the adult life, when we eat the prohibited fruit (aka sex) and we face the terrible world of moral decisions. What you makes with your life in adulthood will result in where you'll be when you get really older: a paradise or a hell.

I know my interpretations are silly and I wish I could explain them better but I did not think about it very well until now and my English is so terrible that I am afraid that I can not explain nothing very profound here for you guys; I'm sorry.

Also, I don't know if I am a Christian or not, I used to be an Agnostic but sometimes I feel my life so deeply empty that I want to believe in something greater than me.

>>3644845

I believe I did. I cannot really respond defending positions I do not hold. If we kick off from Aquinas perhaps I could give it a try.

I feel that if we can concentrate on the 3 main "breaks" between an Aristotelian view and the Judeo-Christian theology something interesting could arise, not that we would convince each other but it could be fun to debate; i.e. (1) Aristotelian refusal of "chance" or "accident" in its "science" of "natural" necessity vs. providence; (2) spontaneity of "natural" phenomena in the impersonal view of growth vs. the "super nature"; and (3) change and return of the same vs. the denial of "walking in circles".

Shall we? I warn you, brother, I shall discuss theologically while you will likely are philosophically strong, so you may become frustrated. But in a civil way I never refuse a debate from a brilliant mind, and you seem to be one because I may learn something.

>>3644916
>The problem of evil can be solved if you think that the evilness is just the lack of goodness, like the darkness is the lack of light presence, I think this argument comes from Aquinas.

Great, now let's get back to the real universe where evil is what hurts humanity directly and no some sort of make up crap to suit some particular theodicy.

And as I stated before, freewill does not presuppose evil. You have have a freewill universe in which evil doesn't exit. A universe in which we solve puzzles and compete in amicable competitions.

>>3644942
>And as I stated before, freewill does not presuppose evil. You have have a freewill universe in which evil doesn't exit.

Of course it presupposes, if not we would not live in a moral world. Morals arise from the freedom of will.

>>3644957
>Of course it presupposes, if not we would not live in a moral world. Morals arise from the freedom of will.

I did not deny freewill. I denied evil. I don't see why the lack of morality would be a bad thing at all with the absence of evil.

>>3644971
>I don't see why the lack of morality would be a bad thing at all with the absence of evil.

It would not be "a bad thing" since nothing would be good or bad at all.

>>3644977

Exactly. Yet in that same universe we could still have freewill. Freewill would be necessity to make the "amicable competitions" fair game. So we have a freewill universe without evil nor morality.

>>3644989
But freewill is the very possibility to follow the God's way or not! There is the beauty of the thing, and in it reside the goodness of God. Our freewill faces no "internal" necessity at all!

I wish I could understand the Gödel's proof, but I'm too newbie in modal logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GC3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

>>3645000

Freewill does not have an inert "God clause".

So we are really talking about the freewill-to-worship-God rather than just freewill here.

Now put like that I can actually see reason for why God would setup our universe with an element of evil. That kind of makes sense. I still think it's a dick move to setup what is essentially a hunger games, dog eats dog, blood show for His amusement especially when some very innocent people get pathetically short sticks and only exists in a perpetual state of suffering.

>>3644989
I'm just interjecting but I don't think the orthodox Abrahamic religions argue that free-will necessarily lead to evil, but that we live in a world in which we have free-will and a world in which we live in the consequences of actions born of free-will.

>>3644226
Not necessarily, I feel that the scale on which a God would operate is so large that it makes the concept irrelevant to everyday life

Having said that, I like the application of the concept to practical ethics, and do apply the idea when nessecary

>>3645147
Where is it necessary?

>>3645040
Explain how could freewill be possible without the worship of God?
According to the laws of physics the world should be causally closed, therefore, there's no place for such things like freewill since our "decisions" should be a simple consequence of electrical discharges already doomed to happen on our brain cells, nothing free/deliberative happens in it.
Accept such thing brings severe consequences, such as the end of morality.

how about we all stop being assholes about our religion or atheism because we're all going to die one die and life's no fun if you're just arguing and not having fun.
If religion makes you happy, cool
If atheism makes you happy, cool
Just don't be an asshole about it.

>>3645521
Arguing makes us happy, we are not fighting here. This is not a [religion x atheism] thread on /b/. We are respecting ourselves, at least until now.

>>3644288

No, he's right. There are numerous passages about "Not all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" and other such warnings about false Christians. You can't be a "moderate Christian". It's something that requires your all.

Your subjective "call yourself a Christian and you immediately are one, yay!" doesn't stack up. Atheists are not Christians. They do not follow the teachings of Christ = not Christians. Plain and simple.

>>3644288
The ceremony of baptism isn't that important, what is important is that you accepted God in your heart as your Lord and Saviour.

Once you accepted him as your Lord you want to stay in his ways as much as possible and avoid evil because well it is evil and you don't want evil if you accepted God. But you also still know that if you slip up, God has forgiven you and as this guy >>3644298 said it's God's grace, love and forgiveness that grants you eternal life in the end, you just have to accept it.

Also Catholic baptism is a joke, they just hang around in the maternity wing and as soon as a new batch comes out they jump on the baby throw some holy water on him and say "Praise the Lord, we've got another follower!" even if the kids ends up as a Satanist. Protestant baptism is the best one, the Christian gets baptized when he is ready to follow God's path and that can mean that he gets baptized in his heart early on then has the ceremony to show it to the world.

itt: edgy teens

>>3645910
Sure. Says you and your baptist tradition. The Catholics and some Protestants have something called Confirmation that should probably read up on.

Apatheist.

>>3645557
Who cares? I can just as easily throw Peter 1, 2;9 back at you. I also never said 'call yourself one', I specifically said baptised. That's all you need to be to be a Christian and it's directly analogous to the blood rights of Judaism so it is very, very important. And yeah, there are groups called Christian Atheists who consider the teachings and lessons of Christ to be significant and worth following but cut out the god part as being either unnecessary of disproveable to the point of irrelevant. It all depends on your christology and sadly for evangelical biblical fundamentalists and all the rest of the dogmatists, gnostic christologies have been a constant thorn in the organised churches for a very, very, very long time. That's the great genius of Christianity; you can make it as easy or as difficult as you like and you'd be right both ways.

>>3645911
Just hide the thread, my friend, you don't have to come here and post if you think that the discussion is uninteresting.

>>3644923

I would, since I would probably also learn a great deal from you, but I really don't have the time. :( Sorry.

>>3647861
Cool. It's basically a ritual whereby kids get formerly inducted into their parents' churches. Catholics do it when they're still pretty young (about 12 iirc but could possibly vary). The protestants that do infant baptism do theirs at about seventeen/eighteen. So not too dissimilar from baptists and anabaptists like the Amish et al (which is why they categorize themselves as such which basically proves just how important baptism is as a defining aspect of Christianity). That's what it is in a nutshell basically and is those Christianities' ways of ensuring the kids do want to go in and can take part in congregational aspects like communion and so on.

>>3644322
Because this was the best possible world God could create.

>>3647916
if it is not omnipotent, why call it god?

>>3648496
got a better name?

>>3648519
nah, giving names to non-existant things is pretty retarded

>>3648625
>implying assigning names to concepts isn't usefull

What is God?

>>3648647
Something beyond your rational capacity to grasp.

>>3648641
the whole idea of god is borderline insane

first, there is a failure of not having define what it is beforehand
then, in the face of catastrophic first failure is the second one - pretending that lack of definition is an issue and diving deeper into the bog with mythology and bickering about, irrelevant at this stage, details

assigning names to non-existent things is a fallacious, self-defeating, neverending task

Yes and No

>>3648668
first prove to me that it is possible for anything to be beyond rational capacity of being grasped

having failed that look in the mirror and ask yourself how can anyone argue for anything which he doesn't understand

you don't even have to argue for that god thing since you will inevitably fail with the first task

>>3648693
>first prove to me that it is possible for anything to be beyond rational capacity of being grasped

Try to imagine the things out of time-space, you can't. But this doesn't mean that the time-space is mandatory for any ontological existence.

>>3644226
Nope

>>3648668
>Mfw

>>3648876

>Schilick
>2013

I grew up atheist. I used all the same arguments you guys use right now, when I was younger and immature. Now I am a Christian, due to reading literature, specifically Dostoevsky and Mark Twain's biography on The Maid of Orleans. Twain himself said it was the best book he had ever written, and after a life of making anti-religious statements, Twain converted to Christianity. Much like myself.

It's funny, because atheists quote Twain all the time.

>>3648647
Think of this as a pyramid, with God at the top:

God: ????
Humans: Reason
Animals: Instinct

God has something that is beyond reason, beyond our ability to grasp. If you listen to God, you can hear him seeping through the cracks of pavement in the form of plants, winking at you in a moment of blissful synchronicity as a person you haven't spoken to in months suddenly calls moments after you were just thinking of them.

>>3648895
>2013
>Not having a point to back up your incredulity

You have to look for God, respect God, and not be skeptical of him. That is what it means to have faith: 0% skepticism.

Say you wanted to be friends with someone. What's the first thing you do? Take out your magnifying glass, your ruler, your scales, and start measuring him? Do you flick him on the nose to see if he gets angry? Do you immediately ask him for favors? "Give me the love of my life. Give me a car. Give me money. Give me fame." Absolutely not.

>Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Luke 4:12)

Furthermore, this passage from Matthew only becomes true when you are not testing God, and when you are reaching out to God out of a true love and compassion for His Great Work.

>"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)

>>3648896
>Implying animals can't reason
How can you prove the phenomenology of animals?

You can be a scientist and a believer in the Lord. But you cannot reach love with science. You must love thy Lord. He loves you already, and is just waiting for you to love Him back.

Make the gesture this angel is making when you pray.

>>3648693
Things that you can not grasp and aren't God: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force.
As Wittgenstein once said in his Tractatus, you can say something about the things, but not what they are.

>>3648896
Exactly. Not the birds, nor the sky, nor the fish, nor the sea. Inside.

I am going to read this book you speak of. Maid of Orleans. Thanks.

yeah, i do believe in god, and in the christian one at that. it's an immensely beautiful religion. i would never consider leaving it even though i do have doubts since the alternatives are just so barren and dull.

>>3648914
Why should I? Is more logically acceptable that there is a God than there is none.

>>3648934
Emily Dickinson also had complete faith and proper understanding of God, so try her poetry too.

>>3648942
>this is what american actually are made to believe

>>3648954
Ok. What else? I study this but I'm tired of theory works, I want practitioners. Don't care which branch.

>>3648958

I am not American and I am grading on logic and philosophy at university.

>>3649003
Tell me why the existence of a God is more logical then.

I believe in God and even though I have issues with the Church and never go to Mass and shit, I still identify as a Catholic. It was so much a part of my life growing up that I cannot distance myself from it.

>>3649041

There are some reasons that supports God's existence:
>intelligent design
>causality law
>consciousness (aka matter self-reference)
>morality

>>3649073
>expecting things to naturally do what requires the most energy
>2765 AVC

Captcha: Carthage delendest

>>3649127
Sorry but you did not refute any of the supports with your statement. I was taught that the religious people were the ones without any justification.

>>3649142
What do you mean by intelligent design then?

>>3649156
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

Have fun.

>>3649186
K, going by that first quote that by linking you agree is your belief, why do you list perceived intelligent design as a reason to believe in a god when everything can be explained as being made by natural processes? To believe in god because of that would not follow logically. What do you think could not have been made by natural processes?

>>3644230
Edge.
Not that I didn't expect some in a thread like this.

>>3649222
Of course it could, I haven't said that the from the fact that the universe is logically/rationally organized it could not be the result of "natural" processes, I haven't said that universe organization entails God's existence . What I said was that this fact supports the assertion that an intelligent agent created the universe.

>>3649252
So the universe being rationally organized works in your belief system to increase the force of the argument? That's not an important reason to believe in a god, its just another thing that fits and supports god after you already found a better reason to believe in him. What is that reason?

>>3649288
>So the universe being rationally organized works in your belief system to increase the force of the argument? That's not an important reason to believe in a god

Of course it is, what do you expect? That we find something in the universe that directly entails God's existence? Such kind of proof doesn't even occur in science, my friend. We are discussing ontological entities not mathematical theorems.
How would you explain conscious, morals, freewill, the universe existence without appealing to God? The latter maybe can be explained (I don't know, but I doubt so), but what do make with the others? Accept a materialist monism trows all our freedom, consciousness and morality in a garbage cage. There is no reason, even science would be product of irrational meaningless impulses.

>>3649339
If the argument does not prove one way or the other it has zero weight. The existence of free will, the universe, and morals proving god does not follow. Free will is not a set in stone proven thing either. Morals can easily come from brain chemistry and evolution. We don't know where the universe comes from but that does not follow that god made it.

I don't decide what I believe to be true based on what would be best or give the most meaning to life. Aren't you the same one talking about his logic classes? Why mention them if you do not care for logic?

>>3649364
>If the argument does not prove one way or the other it has zero weight.

Prove gravity. You just can't. You only have evidences of its "existence" as a force.

>>3649364
>Aren't you the same one talking about his logic classes? Why mention them if you do not care for logic?

I think that you aren't understanding my arguments at all, I was supposing that you know some basic philosophy, that's why I am not explaining nothing deeper.

>>3649364

>Accept a materialist monism trows all our freedom, consciousness and morality in a garbage cage. There is no reason, even science would be product of irrational meaningless impulses.

Alson, in logic it is called redctio ad absurdum. We know that morality exists, that we make free decisions ans that we are conscious. If not, whats the point of you debating here?

>>3649383

>>3649435
Well, that's the recompense for debating with a probably neo-atheist.

>>3649073
lel, i thought you were serious

>>3649073
>idea created by man
>idea created by man
>idea created by man
>idea created by man

>mfw faggots still require meaning and structure year of our _ 2k13

No.

>>3649538
Discordianfag pls

>that germanic feel when you have been an atheist all your life

>>3649549
I've yet to check that out actually, some anon recommended it to me as not even being one of the stupid tongue in cheek semi-religions.

Worhwhile you say would?

>>3649550
misc?

>>3649383
That analogy does not apply well. Gravity is the name we gave to the observed force, god is not the observed part here
>>3649400
I never said morality doesn't exist. Its existence has no relevance to whether god exists or not when it could be in the brain chemistry or evolutionary. We are not sure at all if we make 'free decisions', and whether we did or not we could still be on here (either by choice or just going through the illusionary steps) and I never said consciousness did not exist, but I don't see how it's a mystery when it can easily just be the complicated machinery of our brains working similar to an organic computer. And its existence doesnt have any relation to gods existence either
>>3649388
I'm not saying anything about philosophy, only about logic. I'm talking withe the person who claimed the existence of god was more logical than god not existing, right? If you decide you can take the 'evidence' for god you listed, that does not actually prove god, but in your philosophy agree with those small jumps of 'faith', that's fucked up to me, but I have less problems with that than with the supposition that god existing is more logical when the reasoning does not follow

>>3649552
Me personally, no. I put it on the same tier other eclectic philosophies like Thelema. You're better off checking out what they derive from.

>>3649552
Different guy but I would say yes. And you get to be a pope

>>3649553
What?

>>3649570
eh, don't worry about it

>>3649571
haha bodybuildre