/lit/ - Literature

Because muh "hurr God iz ded" look at me im so edgy and smart

I haven't really seen that much of what you describe. In fact It's been months since I've seen a thread about atheism started with a positve slant on it, or a thread attacking christianity that wasn't a blatant troll thread. In fact it almost never comes up unless someone starts bad mouthing richard dawkins, and even then the support for him is pretty lukewarm. Sure you have the right board?

But why would you be religious?

>>3830875
Atheism strikes me as a bit of a fad these days (not that there aren't legitimate reasons for being an atheist), religion has been around for most of human history and its not going to go anywhere soon.

>>3830880
It's rapidly dwindling, though. Only 2% of the UK population regularly attend church/ religious congregations.

>>3830877
Its just the odd post here and there like
>>3830879

and stuff like 'only mentally ill people would believe in god hurr'

enough ironic shitposts like that and legitimate retards will start posting around here

/lit/ is like the most religious community I've ever encountered on the net. Not including forums actually dedicated to Christianity and shit.

>>3830870
if you really think placing the word "edgy" before something counts a refutation of it, don't worry things get better after high school.

>>3830880
It seems odd that it's something people would claim on a literature board. I mean, what does it matter?

"I'm an atheist, republican diabetic transgendered eskimo juggler!"

"well, thanks anonymous poster on an image board. How is that relevant to this discussion of Trollope?"

>>3830884
I'm from the UK but even I don't think we're particularly relevant in the world anymore. I think a lot of this anti-religious stuff is caused by the media.

>>3830885
You didn't answer the question, though. Why would anyone be pious?

If you fob me off, I'll assume you have no argument.

Both atheism and theism have obnoxious believers (err disbelievers). I'm a theist myself and it does get frustrating when atheists immediately assume I can't spell my name. So pretentious sometimes. Though theism has its fair share of morons.

>>3830870

Why is /lit/ full of onion-skinned christfags?

You pretend to be free-thinking and intelligent and critically minded but you just end up believing any religious sentiments shoved down your throat without question. Is it really so hard to believe you can be intelligent, well-read and still reject Bronze Aged fairy tales?

>>3830889
I used it because its the kind of buzzword that makes teenage atheists angry. Plus i'm lazy.

>>3830898
The thing is, Theists care about what the read. Atheists will cling to every unreliable source possible if it means they assert their superiority over religious people. You don't get a sensible Christian saying that jonah was literally eaten by a whale and survived, its just a parable.

>>3830889
I guffawed. It's been a while since I had that experience, thank you, anon.

>>3830904
it was a fish.

>>3830900
Wow, trying to make edgy atheists angry? Now that's... edgy

>>3830896
I think piety, if not carried to an unsupportable extreme, is a virtue, whether religious piety or the more generalized type. It shows steadfastness and commitment to ideas.

>>3830911

Whales are fish.

>>3830898
I happen to think some of the best fairy tales are from the Bronze Age. What's with all this Mycenean playa hatin'?

>>3830904

>atheist will cling to every unreliable source possible...
Sources like science, you mean?

>You don't get a sensible Christian saying that jonah was literally eaten by a whale
I LOLed. I'm sure sensible Christians also don't believe Genesis was literal or that Leviticus quotes are fantastic for morality today.

>>3830896
People would be religious because it improves relationships between people and betters society as a whole. I promotes selflessness and gives people something to live for; hope that they can go to heaven, and can cure loneliness by providing a feeling of being at one with God, not alone in the universe as well as creating bonds through the church, forcing you into contact with other people.

>>3830919
Consider me corrected.

>>3830923
>le science versus religion huehue

only an ignoramus such as yourself still thinks science is incompatible with religion.

educate yourself nigger

>>3830913
Even when those ideas are more likely to be wrong than right? I don't see what you obtain with religion that you can't obtain without.

The only thing I could accept is the social implications like >>3830924 said. But is that really enough for you personally to believe in it?

>>3830926
How isn't it? Just because you don't have explanation for something yet, doesn't mean you can patch up your current lack of knowledge with a bullshit religious narrative.

>>3830919

This is a joke, right?

>>3830935
The problem is that people should be able to acquire these things without a reliance on religion. If you need religion to obtain enlightenment and happiness, then there's something wrong with you.

>>3830923
>I'm sure sensible Christians also don't believe Genesis was literal or that Leviticus quotes are fantastic for morality today.
They.. don't? Is this a ruse?

>>3830939
Like the Higgs Boson? Relativity? And why does mass cause gravity?

>>3830935
What gives you the feeling that religious ideas are more often wrong than right?

You can say the whole 'no sex outside marriage' idea is archaic and restrictive, but then how come arranged marriages have less of a divorce rate than marriages between men and women who have previously slept around?

If contraception frees women, then why does it make it harder for them to turn down sex? If there are no consequences to sex then men can more easily coerce women.

>>3830923
I'm pretty sure they do. Why wouldn't they? They call themselves Christians, after all. Why call yourself a Christian if you ignore Biblical doctrine? Can I believe in Allah and still call myself a Buddhist?

>>3830945
well, yeah, you aren't enlightened and happy....

>>3830885
Even that post you quoted is hardly over the top.
In general this board seems quite open to accepting the religious, if not the religion itself. I've even seen one or two surprisingly open minded and informed threads on Islam.

I think you're just seeing what you expect to see.

>>3830923

Yes yeeeesss. Science has proven that god doesn't exist. You are correct. Very much correct. You are not a child.

Believe it or not, Southern Baptists don't encompass all of Christianity. Intelligent Christians do actually consider the stories to be parables.

>>3830935

Some people feel the need to clinge onto something when they realize that nothing matters. I do.

>>3830948
It's true, but the majority of non-clergy Christians selectively choose what Lev quotes to agree with, as long as it confirms their bias. If every Christian had even a fraction of the knowledge of a Theologian, then we wouldn't be having these arguments everyday.

You could say the same things about science and secular philosophy for atheists. The public often doesn't fully understand their own beliefs, which is why this is even an issue.

>>3830951
I'm pretty sure particle physics are much more credible than simply 'God did it', even if it is a somewhat tentative confirmation. You can experiment with science, but with religion, you can't. Biblical narratives have zero evidence.

>>3830953
Those aren't religious ideas. They're the policies of certain denominations, and some of them are bolstered by religious arguments, like lots of secular policies. Remember there are more than twenty thousand religions in America alone. some of them are going to have weird ideas.

>>3830926
>only an ignoramus such as yourself still thinks science is incompatible with religion.

Follow your own advice, faggot.

>>3830955
Well I can't speak for protestants or anglicans, but being a Catholic we leave the readings and interpretations of the bible to better read, wiser members of the church. If you want to see what catholics believe and take from the bible look at the catechism.

If just anyone could take whatever meaning they like from the bible it would be chaos. That's why there are so many obscure denominations of christianity.

The human word is flawed in a sense because you can never just imply one idea, there are always multiple readings.

>>3830967
>posts a comic

seriously??

/lit/ pretends to be religious because atheism is too plebeian.

>>3830964
So the solution is either to make people think, or make them shut the fuck up.

Perhaps both?

>>3830953
You've completely misinterpreted history for the purpose of your argument. Also, you're making assumptions like "divorce is bad" without considering the circumstances that lead to a divorce. If a woman is miserable in her arranged marriage, but can't get divorced because of social pressure, how is that better than having the freedom to divorce?

Not to mention, initiating divorce was literally illegal for women to do for hundreds of years.

>>3830955
Biblical doctrine only plays a major part in the Protestant denominations, and even then, the OT doctrines are usurped by Jesus' edict of a new commandment.
For the largest denomination, doctrine is based elsewhere (as the anon above points out, catechism is far more important than Biblical interpretation, and personal interpretation can even be considered a sin).
And yes, you can be Buddhist and believe in Allah, since certain strains of Buddhism don't preclude any god(s). You just can't be a Muslim and believe in Buddhist or other deities.

>>3830975
Yeah, e/lit/ists are basically meta-hipsters. Contrarians among contrarians.

>>3830888
Agreed. Especially when compared to rest of 4chan. I've seen dozens of threads accusing /lit/ of being too too tolerant and apologists for religion. Obviously, alot of them were troll threads, but the impression OP has is just wrong.

>>3830980
There is still arranged marriage going on today, I'm not talking about a hundred years ago, or hundred.

Why is it so wrong to expect people to take marriage seriously? If there's abuse obviously you should be separated from your spouse, but why should that allow you to go and remarry?

>>3830967

>>>r/atheism/

>>3830955
Because if you obey Biblical doctrine down to the letter, you'll be known as a gigantic douchebag and you'll end up in jail.

>>3830904
Seriously? Where the fuck are you living. Literally, every christian I've ever met literally believes that. Except for maybe one or two. I think whatever community you have surrounded yourself with is disconnected from mainstream christianity.

>>3830968
>"God did it"

Who said this?

>>3830980
>Not to mention, initiating divorce was literally illegal for women to do for hundreds of years.

source? certain denominations of Islam have always allowed divorce (some are as simple as telling people He didn't bring me coffee, or saying I divorce you three times), and annulments which go even further than divorce would have been considered legit for thousands of years.
While this isn't true in every legislative/religious set up, sticking to only the places and practices which don't allow divorce to prove your point is pretty specious.

>>3830994
The thing is the bible isn't a doctrine. Its a kind of artefact that hold a record of the most important person to have ever lived. Jesus Christ. That's why Christians are fascinated by it; not because it holds the exact rules of how to behave.

>>3830998
god

>>3830989

So you're saying a woman that got beaten by her husband and gets divorced because of that should not be allowed to remarry?

>>3830997
I'm living in London.

Do you live in the deep south of america?

>>3830989
>but why should that allow you to go and remarry?
Why shouldn't it? You should suffer the consequence of a single life just because your spouse beat you? This is why people look at religion with disgust today.

And arranged marriages are primarily an upper class thing now, and religion is usually just a side-factor, whereas politics is the main one. Unless you're talking about Islam, which is clearly unequal with all the power shifted to the man.

>>3831000
Seriously. What society are you guys are part of. I want to join. Christians there sounds signifcantly less dickish. And yes, the uniformity I have come upon religious thought in my society warrants that broad-reaching generalization.

>>3831001
>'"I did it', said the G-Man" Chanesis 4:34

>>3831004
Marriage is a one time thing imo, its not that its her fault for being abused, but when you make a sacred promise to love that person 'until death do us part', you should mean it. Doesn't mean you have to be in contact with that person necessarily, just don't remarry like they never existed.

>>3831003
It's America in general. Sure the southerners louder about it than northerners, but many still hold those beliefs.

moot really needs to make a religion/atheism board to quarantine all these stupid faggots who think religious debate makes for good conversation

>>3831005
Why is leading a single life suffering?

>>3830971

>The human word is flawed in a sense because you can never just imply one idea, there are always multiple readings.

Surely then there would be some divine text, created by god, that could only be possibly interpreted in one way?

>>3831021
It is if you don't want to live a single life. What a stupid question.

>>3830999
Source: The Bible

>>3831022
You might as well ask why evil exists and why we have free will. If such a text existed no one would hold any contrary opinions.

>>3831003
South Carolina represent. 99.9% percent of Christians are pretty much the stereotype of asshole Christians here. Unquestioning, fundamentalists. It makes me sick when I look at the influence it has on our culture. We have a right to be angry when we see the influence it has our daily lives. On the internet, people from other places don't realize how uniform it is.

>>3831025
Which version? Chapter and verse also would be nice. I'm assuming you know how to cite a text.

>>3831000

Pardon me, but if I'm not mistaken, the Jesus Christ/redeemer concept didn't appear in most of OT, which was about God being vindictive and genocidal.

>>3831026
You don't always get what you want though. If a guy loses his legs in an accident should he suffer and blame God or just get on with his life?

Suffering is a part of life, but you can choose how much it affects you.

>>3831031
Do you not even know your history? Women were essentially considered property of men. It was the fucking middle east, before western culture watered it down. What would you expect? And even if he did cite it exactly, would it change your mind? Your just being an ass.

>>3831033
Then what Messiah are the Jews waiting on?

>>3831015
That's why annulments exist for Christians. The husband clearly didn't love her if he was beating her, so why should she hold onto some ceremonial vow after the fact? And if the marriage was arranged, who's to say the woman even loved the man in the first place? Or that the man loved the woman? Being made to repeat a few lines in a officiating ceremony shouldn't bound you to some lifelong social limitation.

And it's not like "they never existed". You're arguments hold little water, and if you can't offer anything with substance, I'm going to stop replying.

>>3831033
The Old Testament is necesary to understand the origins of christianity; that is judaism. Its valuable because it catalogues some of the most important events in human history. that doesn't mean the people who wrote it were 100% reliable.

>>3831034
Wow. I'm at a loss as to how you think that's a valid analogy.

>>3831043
The problem is its hard to argue specifics in an abstract situation. I'm sure there are ways of annulling a marriage that allow those involved to remarry without it going against their religion, but it really depends on whether they were forced into it or made a free decision.

ITT: Edgy Christians

>>3831034

That's just a dumb statement. Suffering is a part of life and it literally makes you suffer so you should try to minimize suffering time. As for the legless man I'm sure we cann build great artificial legs the if we progress just a little more.

>>3831039
So, no source then. I'm aware that sociopolitical history of the First World developed into that, but if you want to claim that divorce or other forms of marriage dissolution didn't exist, then you really don't know history. Name calling won't change that, or history itself, or my knowledge of history.
Good luck with vehemence as a way to change reality.

>>3831059
Good with faithless to a lie to change other people's minds.

>>3831043

Annulment as described in the comment sounds like a pony show of "god hath joined, can't unjoin srry"

>>3831047
Its not really, I was stupid.

I am just trying to explain that once you make a sacred vow, depending on whether you realised the consequences of what you were doing, you can be wrong in divorcing someone, even if they are abusive.

I am not saying anyone deserves what they get, but promises like that are important to keep.

>>3831053
>The problem is its hard to argue specifics in an abstract situation.
Exactly, which is why it's ridiculous to apply strict rules encompassing all marriages. Socially constructing handicaps specific to women and then just saying "well, deal with it, not everyone gets what they want" laughable irresponsible and selfish.

>>3831060
I think God is a DJ too. Got any more pills?

>>3831066
I'm by no means saying religious law should be enforced. People can do whatever the fuck they like. However, I still believe divorce is essentially wrong and damaging to a family, and I shouldn't be chastised or mocked for holding that belief.

>>3830982
>Biblical doctrine only plays a major part in the Protestant denominations, and even then, the OT doctrines are usurped by Jesus' edict of a new commandment.
God couldn't make up his own mind.

>>3831065
>I am just trying to explain that once you make a sacred vow, depending on whether you realised the consequences of what you were doing, you can be wrong in divorcing someone, even if they are abusive.
And I'm saying you have no basis for this. You're holding onto arbitrary institutions for no reason other than that they are institutions.

>you can be wrong in divorcing someone, even if they are abusive.
I'm sure you could come up with singular examples where this would be the case, but overall, this is grossly irresponsible and selfish to say.

>>3831079
Well, He had three of them. Wonder if they all died...

>>3831019
I concur.

>>3831080
You're probably right. I am thankful actually that you arguing this because its really an issue I need to look into more.

I don't think i'm at all qualified to continue this argument, Good discussion though.

>>3831075
Do you believe other contacts can be voided, secular or not, by the actions or awareness (or lack thereof) of those involved?

>>3831075
No doubt, but in that end, matrimonial divorce can be substituted for 'breaking up'. Yeah it sucks for the kids in the case where they weren't suffering any emotional/physical abuse, but that's not enough of a reason for a woman to go on living in a household where she's suffering abuse. Chances are, if the kids are aware of this, they would rather opt for the divorce, I know I would have, though my mother never married, so I can't say for sure.

If the woman just wants a divorce because "muh sparks" then no, that's not a valid reason, she shouldn't have gotten together or had kids with this person in the first place. In this case, you should at least wait until the kids move out.

>>3831065

>your Bible belt offspring married an abusive redneck
>offspring becomes daily punching bag
>offspring says sacred vow, naw divorce
>keep on punching

>>3831089
You mean if say the bride was drunk or mentally ill for example? Of course, its entirely based on the situation and the factors behind their decision.

>>3831088
Agreed, sometimes I need to articulate my thoughts about this as a way of organizing them.

>>3831091
No in that case they would get the wife away from the husband to prevent her getting abused. Then they would look into the legitimacy of the marriage to see if there was valid grounds for annulment.

>>3830870
>worshipping a dead jew on a stick
>any year

>Is it really so hard to belief that you can be intelligent and well read and still be religious?
Yes.

>>3831100
>dead jew on a stick
my sides

>>3831104
spam this on /pol/, they go ballistic

>>3830983
This. Anyone actually well-read should notice the problems in all religions and oppose them.

>>3831102

Funny, intelligent atheists believe otherwise. In fact, intelligent people in general don't associate religion with stupidity. Though I understand the phase you are going through. Evangelical atheism is fun for a time.

I'm an atheist but not anti-religious. In fact, I find those on the cusp of religion or just recovering from it to be the most antagonistic to it. I'm a reminded of a girl at work who said of those who believe in God, "how can you be that stupid," to which I remained silent, only for her to self-identify as a believer not long after.

Religion is fine when kept in moderation, and not taken to absurd extremes (I have a cousin whose estranged herself from much of my family for being an extreme sort of apocalyptic Christian). It's probably better than crippling alcoholism, for example, and we all have our addictions, or things we use to cope with the world. If religion does that for you, then fine, it's perfectly rational. I just can't do it.

>>3831110
>intelligent people in general don't associate religion with stupidity
They should. Religion has ran it's course and is only malicious these days. The world would be a much better place without it. It increases racism, violence and ignorance.

I don't see how anyone claiming to be an intellectual has time for being religious.

>>3831108
Anyone well read should have got to Wilde by now.

You're all atheists to other gods, why are you so oblivious about your own?

The religious texts in all the monotheistic religions are the same anyway.

>>3831119

Not even religious. If you think religion will ever run it's course you're fucking retarded. Territory disputes and power hunger yield just as much violence.

>>3831099

Annulment is the farce used by the religious to insist their concept of sacred vows, not that there's no actual legal use for it.

>>3831122
>>3831119

ITT: Highschoolers

>>3831135
>Territory disputes and power hunger yield just as much violence.
Yeah, but religion has always been (and still is) used as an excuse for this. Some might say it's the only reason religion was constructed (and to control the masses), it's so obvious that it's hard to take anyone seriously who doesn't see this.

>>3830870
>Is it really so hard to belief that you can be intelligent and well read and still be religious?
No. And that is the biggest source of bewilderment.

>>3831143
Good work, ad hominem always works, keep at it.

>>3831119
> racism, violence and ignorance
>yfw you realize Stalin and Mao were atheists
>ytw you realize they killed 22 million and 30 million respectively
Behold the fruits of atheism

>>3831143
ITT: Community collegers.

>>3831091
In a better society the wife's family would get together and kill the husband so she can marry again

>>3831148
So, with the decline if religion, we will see less tension and violence in the world? You actually believe this?

>>3831134
WHY READ BOK THEY ALL HAVE SMAE STORY ANYWAY

>>3831153
They didn't kill people for the cause of atheism, unlike religion does. (and even if they did have, no people have ever been killed or tortured more than for religious purposes)
Seriously, using all these old arguments? It's like you people don't even read.

>>3831153
>Cult of Reason
>Cult of The Supreme Being
>maybe Robespierre's just a massmurdering dick

>>3831148
>the only reason religion was constructed
you're pretty dumb if you think religion itself was "constructed," though you've given me good perspective on how mindlessly materialist ignorant atheists are

>>3831163
Yes (atleast with the (upcoming) decline of Islam), other major religions have been already calmed and watered down enough, to not be of any major concern.

>>3831170
So whenever someone believes in something you like it's rational thought, but whenever they don't it's belief? Do you think America is a "Cult of Freedom"?

>>3831172
Because Islam is on the decline.

So, uh, what about Korean tension and both World Wars?

>>3831167
They killed those people because they had no reason not too. If there is no hell, fuck it, gas em. Also,

>OH YEAH?!? WELL ALL THE RELIGIOUS MURDERS IN HISTORY ARE MORE THAN THE MURDERS OF TWO GUYS IN RECENT HISTORY

is not a valid argument. please try again

>>3831171
>you're pretty dumb if you think religion itself was "constructed,"
As it is today ruled and regulated, it was pretty much constructed. Ever since the adoption of christianity by Rome, it's only been there to serve the rulers. I understand the human need to have something to trust in and to explain things, but we can do better now than religion.

>>3831176
Which one do you think I like?

>>3831177
There will always be violence, I didn't claim otherwise, but religion has always been a major source of it.

>>3831183
What about the belief that your beliefs aren't beliefs? :-)

>>3831179
>They killed those people because they had no reason not too. If there is no hell, fuck it, gas em. Also,
So now you're going with the ridiculous statement that there's no morality without religion? So you think that before the ten commandments the Jews thought it was OK to murder eachothers as do all atheist think these days? Please.

>>3831189
ZOMG YU'RE PSYCHIC
(and might I posit, out of your league)

>>3831187

No. It just hasn't. Human nature has been the source of it. The yearn for power and territory has been the source. While they may have claimed to do it in the name of religion, it all amounts to the desire for more. If religion disappears (it won't, rulers will simply make more excuses for war. Religion isn't the cause. It's an excuse.

>>3831153
>Mao
>killed

Bureaucratic mismanagement and famine are not the same as systemic political suppression, nor centuries-long warfare for existential supremacy (eg crusades). A small side-point but I thought I needed to chip in this 0.02. People who think one can compare Mao with Hitler and Stalin have an extra-cheap knowledge and understanding of history.

im probably being trolled doe

>>3831179
>yfw when you realize that all your precious morals are a result of religion
>yfw your beliefs are just Christianity with the theistic elements removed
god you are dumb, are you a teenager by chance?

>>3831199
>Religion isn't the cause. It's an excuse.
Yeah, but that annoys me even more. They use it to make it seem ok with the normal people, to have a reason to do it, to control and to manipulate. And some people take the excuse seriously (9/11) and actually then kill people for no reason at all, other than being manipulated to trust the excuse more than the actual cause.

Well, this thread spiraled into shit pretty quickly.

>>3831203
>Mao
>not the same as systemic political suppression

Well, let's let a thousand flowers bloom, ten thousands schools of thought contend.

>>3831210

What are you talking about?

>>3830870
/lit/ is full of take that and rewind it back, Lil' J got the beat to make ya booty go clap Kierkegaardian scum.

>>3831203
>implying dead is not death
>implying method matters
>implying you knew his intentions
its not funny anymore, please stop

>>3831215
>>implying you knew his intentions
Yeah, I'm sure his intentions were to kill millions of his people and to stay in history as one of the worst leaders ever.

>>3831222
Poor Mao, he just wanted to make a sammich.

>>3831210
The point is that ignorance and violence will still exist in the absence of religion.

>>3831208
Any atheists care to answer this? Whenever I point out that your morals and values were stripped right out of Christianity you always leave

>>3831180
It's ignorant to ignore the history of Desert Fathers, mystics, and other radical believers in favor of the "true" religion, which is the religion that has presented itself to you as true. Luther rebelled against Constantine in a sense by rejecting apocrypha, even. It seems like you're taking the most constructed aspect of Christianity (one which, admittedly, fundies adhere to to a problematic extent, but I'm unsure if Hitchens and Dawkins haven't been driving them closer to fundamentalism with polemics [though of course there are other more unscrupulous Christians doing the same]) and equivocating it with all Christianity. Anyway, if you're talking about structure Foucault would maybe tell you that post-Enlightenment structures are highly influenced from developments in the way people related to scripture around the Renaissance, which is to say that it's the same as saying "I understand the human need to follow leaders, but we can do better now than with government [or traditional government, if you like]." It's a mess that's much harder to get out of than people suggest.

Occam's razor proved over half a millenium ago that there's no god.

>>3831222
Strawman didn't read

>>3831230
tl;dr

>>3831198
>I can't defend my belief so I'll call him retarded
question still stands, if you'd like to answer it more adequately. If it's so ridiculous it should be very simple, shouldn't it?

>>3831231
>proved
I think you don't know the meaning of this word

>>3831229
And Christianity stripped them from everything that happened previously.

Christians themselfs only strip away all the morals from the bible that don't apply anymore.

>>3831233
is this why atheists have so much trouble with the Bible, they can only look at the funny pictures and decontextualized quotes in the Skeptic's Annotated?

>>3831236
>And Christianity stripped them from everything that happened previously.
[citation needed]

Did you even study ancient history?

>>3831234
I'm a theist, I'm aware I hold beliefs, it's part of the package. Even beyond that, I'm a human with flawed perceptions, even just the fact my car's side mirrors need adjusting should be a hint.

Now, let's get back to whether or not you know enough about the Enlightment to get my point. Do you? And which was I supposed to like, since you've not answered that either?

>>3831231
Occam's razor was a theological argument you catamite

>>3831235
Anything that can't be proved can be ignored -> there's no god.

>>3831240
Dawkins is actually a difficult and rewarding read.

>>3831245
hahahahaha

Can you prove the limitlessness of the universe? No? Fuck it lets ignore it hahahaha

>>3831240
Most atheists know more about the bible than most Christians.

>>3831242
You seriously think that humanity didn't have any ethics or morals before about a few hundred AD? Do you even know how the bible was assembled?

It's not.
Because we recognise that there are a lot of versions of religion. Being for or against religion makes about as much sense as being for or against philosophy, or any other massive entity of thought/feeling.
It'll probably just impoverish your view of the world.
I say this as a non-religious person who doesn't believe in the sky-tyrant/favour-doer combo-gods of popular religion. I'm a complete theist though. You're aware of god or you're not. It's a shame intelligent people get turned away by versions of religion that uphold a more-or-less absolute separation of god and individual people, free will, and god as a ruler you can curry favour with. Also using god as a rationale for your collective identity as a nation/ethnic group/religion is pretty pathetic.
It's meant that as religion's died we've ended up with a bunch of people incapable of accepting anything god-like in them, doomed to be free without necessity, existing as bare individuals without the serene blurring and vanishing of self in ego-death to replace identification with a group, and thrown by change without a feeling of serendipity or ultimate purpose.

>>3831243
I'm a Kierkegaardian existentialist who holds nothing but flawed perceptions and I think the Enlightenment was more dehumanizing than the Holocaust

I don't know where you're trying to lead me with this, though

>>3831247
>Can you prove the limitlessness of the universe?
Atleast you can apply logic and think about it. And in any case, it doesn't really matter.

>>3831248
Never said that, they didn't have CHRISTIAN ethics or morals. Those predating Christianity where much different.

You have got to be a troll. No one is this stupid

>>3831250
you might not be samefag who thinks I like either the Cult of Reason or Cult of the Supreme being then. if you are though, that's kind of odd. =/

>>3831251
>You're aware of god or you're not.
But you're not. Nobody is. You just want to be because:
>, doomed to be free without necessity, existing as bare individuals without the serene blurring and vanishing of self in ego-death to replace identification with a group, and thrown by change without a feeling of serendipity or ultimate purpose.

>>3831253
>detects he has lost the argument
>W-WELL WHO CARES
Excellent. Apply a trip so i can filter the rest of your posts please.

Also,
>implying one cannot consider the existence of a supreme being with logic and reasoning

A typical atheist ladies and gentlemen

>>3831254
>Those predating Christianity where much different.
And those that are found in the bible are even more different than the ones we have now. I don't have christian ethics, and neither do you. Don't claim that we both have.

You have got to be a troll. No one is this stupid

>>3831248

That's just a lie fed to you on r/atheism. I grew up in the Bible Belt. They know the Bible. A majority of them may be uneducated, but they know the Bible. Some atheists do read it in it's entirety but there are also the atheists that just spew out whatever they view on the Internet and consider themselves to be enlightened. More often than not, these are the atheists claiming that they are more educated on the Bible

>>3831262
You can measure and see the universe. Proving an attribute of it's is completely different than proving a supreme being, which there is no evidence of. It doesn't matter, in the same scale, you can still see the universe.

>>3831265
I just read it for the Canticle of Canticles.

>>3831007
Intelligent Catholics are the good kind of religious people.
I don't agree with Catholic doctrine, but it makes more sense than the Protestant 'go fuck intelligent analysis of scripture and theological ideas' way of doing things.
The generalizations people make about 'religion' without going into which branch of which religion following which holy text or whatever just make my eyes roll
>RELIGION CAUSED THE CRUSADES
Ok, the Nazis were state atheists and WWII was worse than the crusades. The Soviet Union was an atheistic state and they did all kinds of shitty things. Your arguments about what religion has done that wasn't beneficial aren't really making the idea of God seem any less real, they just make organized religion look terrible, which it absolutely has a tendency to be, but so do all organizations of any sort.

>>3831258
I remove "or ultimate purpose" and replace God with dao for a minor amount of clarity.
It's possible I just feel this way because it helps. But, it helps. And it doesn't make me waste my life or tie me down or make me delusional the same way religion or rationalism do.
I don't mind riding the line between nihilism that goes beyond rationality and spirituality that starts past it.

>>3831265
Well, statistically the average atheist knows more about it. This is pretty much true even because of statistics (there are just so many christians).

>>3831269
I applaud you. You can't, however, speak for all atheists. You're a minority.

>>3831248
What do you think about the killing of children by she-bears? What is the moral of the story? Or if you just want something factual, what are the conditions of Christ's crucifixion, what signs accompanied it? What is the general role of Herod in the Bible? Of Esther? Can a man bear children? These aren't questions I really want answered, just a personal understanding of ignorance, since so many atheists seem to relish in that of others.

>>3831017
Cool, American Christianity is full of shit. Should this be news?

>>3831264
>I don't have christian ethics
>thou shalt not kill
lol

>>3831266
>You can measure and see the universe
Stopped reading right there.You cannot measure its boundary.

>>3831276
Fuck that I'm Catholic. Minorly agnostic, but I might as well earn hell.

>>3831027
We don't have free will.

>>3831266
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"

>>3831285
I was sick that day

>>3831272
>Nazis were state atheists
[citation needed]

>>3831033
The Messiah was foretold in a prophecy in the book of Daniel.
When Jesus came along the Jews were expecting their 'messiah' a military leader to free them from Roman oppression. Most of them didn't accept him. They're waiting on the Messiah that the original Disciples accepted Jesus to be.

>>3831280
Do you still use the tooth for tooth, eye for an eye punishment? If not, you don't have christian morality.

And even after Moses had presented the ten commandments, he pretty much ordered a genocide when some people didn't confirm to the rules. Hows that for thou shalt not kill? The bible is so contradictious that how can anyone be a christian after reading it?

>>3831286
I'm sure that flippant attitude gets you by very well when facing other questions you can't answer, too. Too many atheists scared to even answer questions these days, much less ask them.

Some may consider this thread cancer but I'm finding it pretty interesting

>>3831279
Well it contains one of the largest Christian populations in the world, so you can't just ignore them. Choosing only to acknowledge the educated followers and ignore the lowest common denominator isn't an option when talking about Christianity as it stands today.

>>3831272
>Nazis were state atheists
Hitler was raised as a catholic, as were most nazis.

>>3831292
...Catholic. I'm hoping it works at the judgement as well as it did in school.

>>3831291
>If not, you don't have christian morality.
Stopped reading right there. Christians of yesterday and today have many of the same morals. Discrepancies don't matter because it is from the early Christians that the modern Christians' values evolved.

You are rrreeeeallllyyyy dumb kid. Enjoy having your values come from the very thing you hate

>wah, why doesn't my supreme religion permeate everywhere

>>3831287
Nazis believed that the state was of a higher authority than the church even in religious matters (v. Barman Declaration) and in any event the actions of Ahnenerbe aren't really things Christians are supposed to believe in. Blut and Boden, muh mystic white race etc etc. I personally wouldn't really call them state atheists, but certainly on a personal level most high ranking Nazis had no respect for God FWIW

>>3831287
>>3831296
I may be wrong there, it's something I've heard a few times. I take it back.
The Soviets were state atheists or something, right? They tried to eliminate religion, IIRC.

>>3831303
it needs more fairy cake

All christians are hypocrites. Why aren't you jewish or a muslim? Just because of geography. They all have the same proofs and reasonings otherwise.

>>3830884
Really? They seem to have a large population of devout Muslims.

>>3831294
Yeah, you can't ignore the, but you can't hold them up and say 'LOOK WHAT RELIGION DOES TO EVERYONE' when that isn't the case.

>>3831302
>Christians of yesterday and today have many of the same morals.
And people before the christians had many of the same morals as we have today. As had the jews before the christians and the romans and the greeks before that, as have all the humans had allways.

>>3831306
Soviets were yes you are correct. They banned religion

>>3831306
>The Soviets were state atheists or something, right? They tried to eliminate religion, IIRC.
That's true, but it didn't affect the reasoning of Stalin or others of their leaders, and people were still pretty religious, even when they banned it.

>>3831308
>They all have the same proofs and reasonings otherwise.
Confirmed for edgy teenager that hasn't actually studied religion, just read Dawkins

>>3830904
Nigga your only experience with Christianity must have been with the Unitarians. Most Christians (at least Catholics) haven't read the Bible at all.

>>3831322
>people were still pretty religious, even when they banned it

probably because there seems to be a gene which activates towards or away from theism.

>>3831316
>And people before the christians had many of the same morals as we have today.
Wrong. Go study ancient history. We've been through this. JESUS ITS LIKE IM TALKING TO A LITTLE KID

>>3831324
So what proof do you have that christianity is the one true religion, as opposed to say the Islam?
I have read enough to know that you can't answer this.

>>3830923
Science really hasn't done much to disprove Christianity. Philosophy has done more.

>>3830880
>religion has been around for most of human history

Even during the early period of the Abrahamic religions 'athieists' in the traditional sense who simply did not believe in God existed.

One might argue that athiesm has existed in tandem with religion and has been around just as long.

>>3831329
>gene which activates towards or away from theism
[citation needed]

only peer-reviewed journal articles will be accepted

>>3831322
And maybe there were atheists or non-Christians or people who didn't really give a shot that went to take back the Holy Land despite not believing the Trinity.

>>3831332
Never said that. Sorry, I don't reply to strawmans

>>3831330
>Wrong.
I'm not. You're completely retarded. People have valued not-stealing and not-killing and not-raping since forever, like do all animals that live in packs or families.

>>3830888

I wouldn't say 'religious' but rather more tolerant of religious views and expression - quite a difference.

It's nice at least that on this board religion threads though admittedly sometime veer into troll and flaming territory maintain a level of discussion quite a bit higher than that you'd find just about in most other casual sites or the other boards on 4chan.

>>3831330
Do you think breaking down someone's door and raping them as a manly show of force is unacceptable? This is something that Christianity worked against in the Roman Empire, or at least the virtuous sense of it. Read Adelphoe or at least a book.

Of course when you think that people from the past were all savages with basically the same morals it's easy to fudge genealogy as such

>>3831313
I didn't say anything even relatively close to that. I'm saying that you can't just pigeonhole a specific region as holding beliefs you disagree with when they are held by many of the people belonging to the category in question.

Also, your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove that London is somehow full of educated Christians. Europeans may not be as loud about their beliefs as American's are, but like I said, many of them still hold it. The American south is one of the few places where it's still fashionable to be a Christian, so people are more open about it.

>>3831346
fudge, that should be directed at
>>3831342

>>3830967

bbback to redddittttt.

>>3831333
There's nothing to disprove since there has never been any evidence for any religion. Lack of evidence isn't a proof, but in the case of atheism, it is, since it's just the non-belief in gods.

Russell's teapot anyone?

>>3831354
If lack of evidence isn't proof for anything but atheism, why is atheism special in holding no proof but still being right?

>>3831179
Hitler and Stalin didn't individually murder all those people. Their followers acted on their orders. Just as the Crusaders acted on the Pope's orders.

>>3831346
>Of course when you think that people from the past were all savages with basically the same morals it's easy to fudge genealogy as such
Aren't you the one thinking this?

Anyways, there's always been a consensus on a law of morals even without religion (even if the christians tried to hide this fact by burning a lot of philosophic texts)

>>3831337
It's far from definitive, and probably only accounts for some religiosity.
http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2005-vol08-num01-winter/reviews/doughty3.html
Zimmer on further doubts:
http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177190905&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&

I still find it interesting that there could be (even though unproven) a physiological basis for faith or lack thereof. But maybe I am just tired of metaphysics.

>>3831356
Because atheism doesn't claim anything that needs proof. Just like if I say that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Theists have the burden of proof.

>>3830939

Because it's quite possible to be both religious and a great thinker/scientist/philosopher etc.

Consider that for Mendel the monastic life and religious discipline which came with it more than likely aided him in his research.

The two are not mutually exclusive in a persons life. For some religion can be a social or personal bedrock with which they deal with life and from that they live their life as a scientist etc.

It is not some black and white 'you can't be both at the same time!' dichotomy like has been shoved down your throat by the likes of Dawkins et al.

>>3831360
>always been a consensus on a law of morals even without religion
their origin is Christianity

christians tried to hide this fact
>citation needed

>>3831365

While you make a valid point, you just sound too damn arrogant and smug. Sorry, go back and try again, but with more consideration for my fragile feelings.

>>3831308

>all Christians are hypocrites

Holy shit

>>3831354
You can't disprove the existence of God, but you can disprove the Christian concept of an omnipotent, benevolent God (and I understand only some denominations believe in this God).

Atheism is as faith-based as Christianity.

>>3831370
>their origin is Christianity
God you're actually retarded, I didn't realise. I'm sorry.

>>3830870
>Is it really so hard to belief
Believe.
If you want to be a part of the congregation, you've got to learn your conjugation.
"Is it really so hard to believe that you can be intelligent, well read, and still be religious?"
FTFY

>>3831375
>Holy shit

Yea, that's exactly what they are; and hypocrites to boot.

>>3831377
Is this Epicurean philosophy? Because if so, what is ultimate benevolence defined as?

>>3831377
>Atheism is as faith-based as Christianity.
No it isn't. I don't have any evidence for god, therefore I don't believe in one. How's that faith based?

It's like saying that your lack of beliefe in Zeus is faith-based.

>>3831377
>Atheism is as faith-based as Christianity.

1/10 for making me respond, also when were you first lobotomized?

>>3831378
>loses argument
>ill attack his spelling!
It's okay to feel inferior, you are

>>3831386
This makes the exoplanets disappear.

>>3831388
It is, you guys make a claim with no proof.

>>3831381
No I was just appalled at your retardation. Generalizations are fun though. Keep going I'm loving this thread

>>3831370
>always been a consensus on a law of morals even without religion
>their origin is Christianity
What about the Code of Hammurabi from 1772 BC? There, I just disproved you, you should try the same.

>>3831393
No proof for what?

>>3831386
Moreover, It's like saying their lack of faith in one of the hundreds of gods they have never heard of is faith-based.
They've never heard of the great striped fish spirit. but they're great-striped-fish-spirit atheists.

>>3831397
Now, now, some generalisations aren't fun at all.

>>3831393
But it's not a positive claim.
Where's your proof that Zeus doesn't exist? Then why don't you believe in him? You make the claim, where's your proof!

god is real as fuck

>>3831404
fuck israel as god

>>3831392

Until they are discovered of course via observation...

>>3831403
I dont. Im agnostic. You atheist faggots are no better than bible thumpers. Both of you make claims that you can never know for assiduity.

>>3831409
My coffee ceases to exist regularly before being reborn into existence by this method. Also, my glasses. Think I can start a magic act at least, if not a religion?

I'm getting nostalgic for that Buffy episode where they wrote off invisible girl as physic now.

>>3831413
I'm ignostic myself.

>>3831416
But you have proof of observed things staying there even if you don't observe them all the time you retard.

>>3831420
u so fanny

At least I'm not so arrogant that I can admit not knowing. Atheists are the worst.

>>3830870

>Is it really so hard to believe that you can be intelligent and well read and still be religious?

No.

>>3831422
>u so fanny
But it's a real thing, wikipedia it.

>I can admit not knowing.
Atheism means also only the lack of belief, not only the positive belief of that there is no god.

>>3831421
Man are you on the wrong board. You've a lot of faith in your perceptions for someone on the internets as well.

>>3831426
>t's a real thing
>wikipedia it

>>3831369
Yeah, and Isaac Newton was a believer in alchemy, doesn't make it any truer or better.

>>3831426
You believe god doesn't exist.

Had you been indifferent, we wouldn't have this argument. You insist there isn't a god, yet you have no concrete evidence to support your claim. Thus, belief.

Indifference is not atheism. You are making a claim with atheism.

>>3831426
Pardon me, I thought you were that asspained kid. What is a ignostic?

>>3831413
Agnostics are atheists who don't know what the fucking terminology means. But they want to feel neutral and superior to two sides.

Atheists can't disprove the existence of God. That is because of the inherent logical impossibility of proving a negative. You can't argue that there doesn't exist something that can't be measured. It's intellectually honest to say that. But that's not a third position between atheism and theism. Because the only qualifier for atheism is lack of a belief in God. It's a binary state. Either you believe or you do not.
If you haven't ruled it out, if you're open to the possibility that a God exists, but you don't believe, you're not in a third state. You are an Agnostic Atheist.

>>3831439
>You insist there isn't a god, yet you have no concrete evidence to support your claim.
I don't have evidence for many things that don't exist. When someone presents evidence, I might think otherwise. Not believing in something I don't perceive is the initial state. Not believing is not a positive action, like actual beliefs are. Religious people have the burden of proof.

>>3830897

How can you possibly defend being a theist without being intellectually dishonest?

I like religions like Gnosticism which are infact not religious at all and are more philosophical and introspective. Gnosticism seems to me the most perfect type of amor fati and fatalistic type of religion ever to exist.

>>3831444
My position is the third state. There may or may not be a God. I am not an Atheist. I am undecided

>>3831440
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (for that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

>>3831449
Its gay as fuck dude.

"OOOOOO SECRET KNOWLEDGE GETS U INTO HEAVEN"

>>3831450
>There may or may not be a God. I am not an Atheist. I am undecided
If you don't currently believe in a God, you're an atheist.

>>3831452
it does tho

>>3831451
What the fuck does this mean?

>>3831452

It's not secret at all you fool, it's a collection of various texts but with the same underlying theme.

>>3831448

A man tells a story. He asks another man if he believes his story. He says he does not. He believes the man is not telling the truth. He has no evidence, he just chooses not to believe. He believes the story is false.

>>3831457
If your definiton of God is unfalsifiable, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. Therefore your God can also be ignored, for he is meaningless per definition.

>>3831413
Are you also agnostic as regards Mormonism? Because if you aren't, then you better give some solid evidence that Jesus never roamed Detroit and also prove that black people have souls.

>>3831466
Fuck, I'm a theist, but I want to have your logic babies.

>>3831450
You are undecided, then you are an atheist,
It is the decision that there is a God that makes you a theist.
Without that you are an atheist, no matter what impression you have of other atheists.
You don't get to decide what terms mean.
You don't get to pretend you're in a special category apart from the whole when you are a subset.

Having a car makes you a car owner.
You can't say.
"I don't own a car, but I don't own a negative car."
Atheism isn't the positive existence of a negative belief. It's not an act of disbelief, it's not a force of will. It's not a club, it's not a counter-culture, it's not some kind of association you join with by laws and a hierarchy

Atheism is everything you are when you are not a theist.
You can't create any theological or philosophical position that is not atheism or theism. You are either a theist, or an atheist, and asserting that you are neither just means that you do not understand what they mean or how definitions work.

>>3831473
Mormons have never believed that blacks have no souls. They just refused their priesthood to them dude to their supposed lineage.

I'm done speaking with you, you are clearly and ignoramous

>>3831291
>an eye punishment? If not, you don't have christian morality.
>And even after Moses had presented
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[a] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.-Matthew 5 38:42

>>3831479
>You are undecided, then you are an atheist,
Stopped reading right there

>>3831452
No more than any other religion.

>>3831485
You shouldn't have. Go back and read it all like a good boy.

>>3831438
Is that all you got from the list?

>>3830870
Summertime

>>3831474

If you talk about something which cannot be conceived in vognitive terms then whats the point talking about it? Not only do we not have evidence of God but the very definition of God is problematic as an infinite all powerfull being that tranceds the human mind.
This leads to the question why ponder the existance of God at all if his very definition makes no real sense cognitive wise?

>>3831481
That is even worse. Don't resist evil, let them extirpate your families, etc. Try again, Bible.

>>3831485
What do you want, a cookie? you want a medal for not reading? on /lit.

Because what you think you're saying is "Your argument was unsound, so I just dropped it"
But what you really come of as is. "I was insulted by you asserting something about me, so I stopped reading it. Because when I'm offended, I stop listening. I'm proud of my ignorance."
I supported my statement, I backed up my assertion, and it all came after the point where you stopped reading.

Congratulations, you don't understand and you don't want to understand.

Looking forward to the next buzzword after you hivemind le meme culture fags get tired of "edgy".

>>3831489

No, but the point is that smart people can believe stupid things, just as there are people who get the god-question right and just about everything else wrong. And filling up a list of some 100 smart or influential people who were theists is pretty ridiculous considering the massively different religions they all had and the different gods they believed in, only further making the whole thing seem even more illogical and stupid, and not to mention that one could fill up a similar list tenfold with people who all don't believe!

>>3831497
Nope, I'm back to wanting Aquinas' babies more now.

>>3831493
Yeah man, it's not like school kids can post during any other season. Everyone knows school is a 24/7 three-season obligation where students have no internet access. God damn that summer season!

>>3831507
It burns my skin :(

>>3831480
Well, sorry for not knowing the finer points of Mormon theology. But you're still making a huge leap of faith by not believing in the preachments of Joseph Smith. Just convert, it's much easier.

>>3831503

You've missed the point entirely...

It wasn't even illustrating that 'here! Look! Religious people can be intelligent too!'

Rather that the perceived notion of the two being fundamentally antagonistic and impossible to lead a constructive life without conflict between the two erroneous and ignorant.

>>3831510
>implying that is a finer point
your ignorance is showing

>>3831501
>get told his argument is so shit that I couldn't finish it
>flip the fuck out
>type a wall of text
>being this mad

God cannot be disproved,
and they don't understand why this isn't a good thing,
Knowledge is what is left over after we have found ways to disprove them and they've stood up to the test.
"God cannot be disproved" doesn't mean he exists, It means he cannot be tested for.

moreover,
theism= having a belief in a god.
atheism=not having a believe in a god

http://youtu.be/1xBHFP2s6dk

person 1: "I know there is a god" =Theist
person 2: "I don't know if there is a god, but I believe there is"=Agnostic-Theist
person 3: "I disbelieve in God" = Atheist
person 4: "I don't know if there is a god, but I don't believe"= Agnostic-Atheist

Some atheists are pricks, some are cool, some theists are pricks, some are cool,
but their behavior doesn't change the definitions of who they are. If you don't believe in the existence of a God,
If you can ask yourself "Do I believe right now at this moment that there is a God," And you get any other answer then "Yes" then you are an atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist and say, "I'm not actively disbelieving, I haven't made up my mind, I'm researching, I'm still studying, I don't know, and I don't want to commit," But you're still an atheist.

>>3831521
Your cowardice is showing. Are you or are you not agnostic as regards Mormonism?

>>3830885
If you think the post you quoted intimates feigned free-thinking and intellect, and complete disregard for religion, you may be handicapped.

>>3831519

Oh, I don't really disagree with the notion that people who believe in a deity can live a constructive life. I just think that belief and reason are inherently antagonistic. At some point you are forced to take a leap to faith, which simply cannot be logically or reasonably defended. I can understand believing in a deity that created the universe (although this too runs into the problem of who created the deity), but people are really pushing it if they think I'm going to think that their specific notion of a god, or their specific god, exists.

>>3831524
>Pretending not finishing something makes you anything other than ignorant.
You're literally ignoring something. You're literally claiming to not be paying attention to information that you do not wish to be confronted with.
You literally admitted to dismissing the argument without reading it.

You are really trying to pretend that being smart means not paying attention, means not allowing yourself to be questioned.

You are ignorant.

TL;DR....You can't claims something is wrong because it was too long and you didn't read.

The intellectual value of your judgement of things you admit you didn't consider, is zero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rg7HBmGQx0

>>3830870
You could say that literature is an intellectual hobby. Statistics show that there is a correlation between education/intelligence and atheism. Simple as that. It is entirely possible to be well read and intelligent and still be religious, it's just relatively unlikely in this day and age.

Truth be told, I find this "edgy atheists" agenda some people seem to have to be rather sad. It's being repeated over and over as if discrediting atheists with accusations of angst and immaturity was the best argument religious people could come up with right after "you can't disprove God".

Personally, I accept religion for what it is. I think it has no place in a developed society, but we are still very far from developed. We will get there someday hopefully, but in the meantime you gotta accept that religion is here to stay. In any case, you won't get me into a religious argument. I have better things to do than to engage in a philosophical "I'm not touching you" with strangers.

>>3831028
>South Carolina represent. 99.9% percent of Christians are pretty much the stereotype of asshole Christians here.

I've lived in SC for ~7 years, am not a Christian, and have never been accosted (verbally or otherwise) for my beliefs. Nobody I know there talks even talks about religion very much, though many are privately devout. Are you an annoying yankee or something?

>>3831585
>There are objective moral values because, deep down, we know there are

HAHHAHAHAHAHA

Hooooooly shit

>>3831595
Seconded. I've lived here 10+ years. People are pretty accepting of your beliefs and I rarely meet any pushy Christians

>>3831595
Not him, but the effect is not consistent everywhere along the south, deep south, bible belt or whatever the term they're calling us. I've been to places where it's stronger and places where it's weaker, it's not even a state by state thing, You get patches here and there, because the truth is that assholes are everywhere. I've seen altercations and have heard anecdotes from reliable sources. So I can tell you that it's true that you can be confronted, at least verbally, "accosted" if you prefer that term. But it's not the norm. Most of us are friendly.
And some of the anecdotes I've heard came from up north. So they have their dicks too.
(If you don't mind a North Carolinian speaking for you I don't think I qualify as a yankee but I could be wrong)

>>3831636
>because the truth is that assholes are everywhere

I think that's the essence of it.

>caring about what people may think of your belief
It's called Belief for a reason, guys.

>>3830870
sersha please, you look like a man

/lit/ is pretty goddamn hostile to atheism, op. Fuck are you on about.