/lit/ - Literature

>>3847592

Spot on, OP. You are on the right path towards enlightenment.

>>3847592

Congratulations!

>>3847592
bravo my fellow man
also, that girl dancing is cute

>>3847606

She is outstanding, isn't she? I would make her my bride just to have her dance to me everyday.

>>3847617
that would be a great life

Can you post it?

OP: samsara

>>3847592
What's the gif from?

OP can't into effective moral calculus. This is why humanities fags need to take more math classes.

>>3847831
When you find a way to commensurate private utilities, tell the nobel prize committee.

>>3847873
The truth of the world is inequality. An understanding of thermodynamics might lend some illumination.

>>3847785
Her you go Depresso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6b2GbsS5lY
The Goodtimes Kid

>>3847592
I do agree.
But God won't exist just because he is desirable.

This looks like a lot of same fagging. OP makes claims to publication, provides no evidence of paper's contents or existence, and is praised for this "contribution"?

>>3847893
>This looks like a lot of same fagging.
It does, doesn't it?

>>3847831
lol there is people that really believe that is possible?

please post it then.
What is the point of saying you got something in a journal if you just want to discuss the matter at hand?

>>3847893
I praised mostly because Op's the conclusion every real atheist should come to.
Doing away with God and keeping moral realism is just another way to be christian.

>>3847893

The irony is that the paper basically seems to be "how theological studies are a valid form of studies", I think this entire thread is an elaborate exercise in a meta-critique of theological studies.

>>3847904
>What is the Euthyphro dilemma?

An all powerful creator god is what is incompatible with moral realism, you peon.

>>3847592
ugh, why couldn't pascal have just drowned...

Nice man

>>3847904
>Doing away with God and keeping moral realism is just another way to be christian.
Now wat the fuck are you on?

why doesn't someone w/ jstor access just look it up and post it if it exists

>>3848134
Read Leibniz, dick-splash

But ethical anti-realism is platitudinous
More interesting is noncognitivists arguinh about Sentimentalism vs Moral rationalism

>>3848230
>nietzsche was right

>>3848318
>being this analytic

>>3848288
If you want a philosophy built on ridiculous, unprovable axioms that limit God's power then why not?

>>3848285
Anyone can search Jstor, you just can't view the articles themselves without access. I just checked and can't find anything that matches this recently published.

if OP is still here, how long was the paper? I've gotten some awards from Catholics for some art analysis and people have suggested I should get it published but the idea upsets me

good on you, though, I think Ratzinger goes over post-theist stuff quite a bit in Dialectics of Secularization but I haven't been able to find it even in more 'serious' Christian bookstores in my area

>>3848285
Doesn't JSTOR not put up most articles until five years after they're published?

>>3847886
FUCK.

I've seen this gif for years and never known it was from a movie.

"Journal of Theological Studies of..."

*VERY* few journals carry their institution's name anymore. Even the most storied ones--Critical Inquiry, October, Grey Room, Velvet Light Trap--don't carry their university's name. Exceptions are there: Yale French Studies, Yale Journal of Criticism (no longer published), and others.

But in general, I am skeptical about OP's claim. Also, were the journal not high-profile it would not receive "a lot of praise."

EBSCO/Project Muse archive faster than JSTOR, by the way.

>>3848685
>Doesn't JSTOR not put up most articles until five years after they're published?
Depends on your access if you can read them, but no you can get recently published articles there.

I have a PhD in bathtubology.

Could I get my hands on this?

I wrote a book about a young bathtub and his adventures in the bathroom.

>>3849267
Where could I find a copy?

>>3849267
i want 200 copies

>>3849275
>>3849285
That's the ghost of Jonathan Swift you fools, show some respect.

>>3847592
>simpletons in theology couldn't live without a meaning

I like theology but a lot of people are just looking to validate their utopian realities.

>>3847592
Oxford, eh?

>>3847592
How did you prove this?

>>3848357
>not being this analytic

>>3848318
It's both bullshit.

Sentimentalism does not tell you anything about how correct are your intuition. Moral rationalism has to assume either openly or surreptitiously a teleology in nature (which is impossible).

Seriously there is nothing more stupid than the analytical debate in ethics.

OP, post link or fuck off

>>3849565
paper doesn't exist
just a reddit troll

>>3849416
>prove
>philosophy

Oh dear

Op is apparently a fan of sucking his own dick. Seriously, just go in front of a mirror and give yourself compliments rather than shitting up the board.

>>3849404

:)

>>3849627

Sucking cock is the way to go.

>>3847592
> objective moral rules are unattainable in a post-theist society.
Bitch! Please!

>>3850470
Well they are. Anyone who says otherwise is just deluded.

>how objective moral rules are unattainable in a post-theist society

And this is bad because?

>>3850248
There is no other Journal of Theological Studies, son, so it was obvious.

>You may access this article for 1 day for US$25.00

Praise the currency!!

What god are we talking about?

The fact that we ignore the terrible parts of the bible/koran/whathaveyou shows that we are moral creatures without any outside help. Hell, in the US we even give kids edited bibles so they won't see all the blood and the slavery and savagery.

no but seriously though, people still take theology seriously? i thought we were past that.

>>3847592
>objective moral rules

Is this some kind of satire?

>>3850711
>implying objective morality can't be derived from property rights

>>3847592
>how an existence without God and immortality is pointless and how objective moral rules are unattainable in a post-theist society.

You must've made an eloquent fucking article to get it published because that is probably the most unoriginal point in the entirety of 20th century philosophy

>>3847592
Which journal? Because unless you are Leuven I don't recognize that from the Oxford Journal (unless it is upcoming).

>>3850624
The fact that *some* 'ignore' parts of the bible they don't understand reveals their shallowness of understanding.

>>3850624
>being an edgy atheist

The new testament is the central part of the bible for christians.
Some parts of the old testament don't apply because Jesus said so.

>>3848685
I think it sucks that everyone will remember Ratzinger for his papacy (if even - I mean he was the guy that came after John Paul II and before Francis) and not for being one of the most intelligent theologists ever.

>>3850635
Priests do. Also theology tends to look at the massive 1000 year gap that philosophy hypocritically ignores. If you are a Christian or interested in the history of ideas it is a perfectly valid subject.

>>3850769
Actually Jesus says the exact opposite.

>>3850769
Matthew 5:17 called.

>>3850769

Jesus said he came to make sure people followed the old testament.

And really, is the point of these journals basically to say that "my god is more real than your god"? "Without my god there can't be any objective morality."

I hate how religious people think that everyone agrees with their definition of god, or that it's a given that when "god" is mentioned, it's their specific and personal god. In reality they don't even agree within their own community. Pathetic.

>>3850785

It's not that philosophy 'ignores' it, it's rather that there isn't a whole lot of useful things to find there.

>>3850795
>is the point of these journals basically to say that "my god is more real than your god"? "Without my god there can't be any objective morality."
not the point at all but I hope that doesn't stop you from projecting, you look like you're having fun.

>>3850799
No, it is just intellectual dishonesty. The renaissance/enlightenment philosophers are just as theist as the medieval all the way up to Hume/Kant (and often beyond), there is just a hypocritical insistence that Descartes formed a "year zero" for philosophy, which is utter nonsense. Descartes himself doesn't make the slightest bit of sense without the background of scholasticism.

>>3850815

Well, for philosophers who are after truth that period is pretty useless. For those 'philosophers' who only seek to justify their irrational beliefs it's a goldmine.

>>3850819
>Philosophers after truth

Are you people for real? Only if you have no understanding of the history of philosophy you could say something like that. I'm no fan of scholastics.

>>3850812
>projecting, you look like you're having fun.

talking of projecting, all gods are mere expedient projections of the human mind. i'm sure YHWH roared with laughter when he gave a thumbs-up to genocides, massacres, rape, etc. and then watched the events uncurl. or when he slew those children via bears for laughing at the bald guy. good times.

>>3850848
>when he gave a thumbs-up to genocides, massacres, rape, etc. and then watched the events uncurl
It's not God's job to make people kind to one another. You've heard of this thing called free will, right?

>>3850819
You've never studied philosophy at any level, and know nothing about what is being discussed.

>>3850848
get out of here Feuerbach no one likes you

it's good that you mentioned the children via bears part because it demonstrates your total ignorance of the Bible other than what the Skeptic's Annotated spoonfeeds you

What do you think >42 young men were doing wandering around the outside of a city? Why do you think they were mocking Elisha by insinuating he was going to go to Heaven? What do you think would happen to Elisha if the bears hadn't come?

OP here.

Well, guys, it is just the way it is. Ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are, well, too good to counter.

Besides, atheism is an impossibility. Even atheists grab themselves to some absolutes, turning them automatically inconsistent.

>>3851794
>Ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are, well, too good to counter.

>>3851794
>Ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are, well, too good to counter.

Go to bed Descartes.

>>3851821
>>3851931

I think you fellows have been rused

>>3851794
Bitch please.

Find me your "god". Present to me your "god". I want to meet it in person before I start going on praising the living hell out of it.

If you can't satisfy the lowest common denominator, I don't want to hear or read about all the spooge you and your friends came up with when you were intellectually masturbating.

I might be wrong but didn't Neitzche already address morals in a post religious world with the overman.

>>3851939
Lol. LOL. "If I can't see it, it isn't real!"

>>3851936
Well, I hope so

I like this quote. In light of this fact religion seems pretty stupid.

>>3851939

You will never meet Him. And that will be your loss.

>>3851794
>Ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are, well, too good to counter.

oh, really?

lol @ you if you seriously consider the ontological a meaningful argument for the existence of god

>>3854029
not meaningful, just impossible or contradictory

>>3851794

>Ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are, well, too good to counter.

Mr. Hume would like to have a word with you.

That dancing girl makes me want to vomit. I guarantee she smells and has a disgusting vaginal area

>>3854113
She's an actress playing a role in a film.