/lit/ - Literature

You do know that pretty much all the smartest writers and philosophers were religious, right?

>you could leap of faith into all sorts of irrational and unethical positions...


like modern progressivism

That's kind of the definition of faith, OP. Belief without reason.

>>4093495
>You do know that pretty much all the smartest writers and philosophers were religious, right?

They weren't smart like Kierkegaard

>>4093503
Fuck off, Dawkins.

>>4093503

But typically the christian argues about how reasonable and true their religion is because of bible evidence, prophecies, blablabla.

None of them straight up say "this is literally bullshit, and I'm going to believe in it because it is bullshit."

>>4093481

could you? could you really?

>>4093510
But everything is bullshit.

We create the ground we walk on.

>>4093511
>could you? could you really?

yes you could, to a point.
you could fake it till you make it anyway.

people convince themselves of all sorts of stupid shit

>>4093503
*tips fedora*

protip kierkegaard was full of shit

>>4093510
Well I think most learned believers base their faith instead on the whole "noble lie" thing, you know, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". I for one call myself a Christian, not because I believe in-of-itself that Jesus was the Son of God, but that I believe so strongly in the principle of nonresistance that Christ first preached, that if he also said he was the Son of God, and if believing that helps others to follow his teachings, then I should be inclined to believe as well.

>>4093518
>>>/sociology department/

>>4093523

He didn't first preach it.
It was preached prior by Jains and much more coherently and concretely.

The idea of a passive Jesus is still a matter of interpretation and debate.

Jains are like 48x more passive and less violent, some even wear face masks to prevent involuntary killing of bacteria/bugs.

>>4093495
With an understanding of context I wouldn't say Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Kant, Or Hegel were religious.

Nietzsche, Hume, Russell, Comte and many others were certainly atheists.

>>4093523

So you show open disdain for truth?

>>4093550
What is truth?

>>4093495

That was the single most pleb tier post that I've read in a long time. Did you just arrive from /pol/?

>>4093519


to a degree, solipsists will rationalize bullshit if it has positive feedback, but even then there are limits (such that, the ability to exceed the limits of rationalization is contingent on ignorance of contradictory evidence, see for example; denial of human biodiversity). certain things of course maintain, theres no getting around the immanence of judgment (judging judgment as wrong is self refuting) in our affairs, and by extension no getting around the ultimate reliance on transcendent ideals by which action in any given context can be derived (repudiate of such of course merely means defaulting to frameworks of judgment that the user is not necessarily aware of, namely existential impulses and insecurities, essentially devolution to an id robot [ie, even more solipsism]).

>>4093558
I agree with Nietzsche. That was the best line in the bible. Based Pontius Pilate.

As far as truth concerned? There are an infinite number of prime numbers. Mathematics is the one true religion.

>>4093564
Nietzsche also said Christianity was Platonism for the masses, which isn't something I'm opposed to.

>>4093546
Actually, I'll cede you Leibniz. He's just a little too Christian to be on that list.

>>4093481
>what is the point?
basically that a leap of faith is always necessary to focus one's will. and that it produces a meaningful experience of life within the bounderies of it's irrationality. Smart people also make intellectual commitments. Don't get fooled into thinking smart people are implacable logical machines

>>4093566


the solipsists obviously are not as transcendent as the brahmins they follow, but without the tradition, a social super-structure to provide feedback, they are undone. the fetishizing of identity is simply a natural result of the contemporary state of affairs. this is of course dysfunctional, as without a higher purpose or ideal to relate to, devaluation of self becomes a devaluation of existence, which is unconscionable. hence we see, narcissism is simply the simulation of identity without actualization, with little to no tools for changing to overcome adversity, to move beyond internalized traumas that contradict the simulation, to deal with pathological insecurities.

>>4093600


contemporary states of affairs of course being value as a mere relation with ones peers.

At this point my struggle in faith seems to be a battle between whichever I find less ridiculous: the assumption that nothing exploded into a coherent, incredibly organized universe or the assumption that nothing exploded into an infinite God capable of creation

>>4093503
Read some scholasticism. Please. It physically hurts me to hear people say things like that.

Because even irrational things can bring joy and purpose to people.

>>4093520
I was literally counting the posts to see when it was gonna go there

>>4093546
>Leibniz, Descartes, Hobbes

Is this nigga serious?

>>4093642
The Christian conception of God is that he is eternal and incaused, not that he came from nothing.

Op you've obviously never been to a church service for children. They are literally brainwashed from a young age by those who introduce them to the world to believe. For someone brought up in that environment to lose belief to something as flimsy as 'proof' would be akin to one finding proof that their own elbow does not exist and then believing it. It's just a fundamental part of their world ingrained from childhood that's difficult to break out of.

Because he felt like it.

Ultimately some people NEED these things to be true. For others it is simply debilitating and harmful.

The former will defend their theories till the end of time, and the latter will destroy and shatter them till then as well.

>>4093685
atheists tend to retrospectively determine people to be atheists. I'm not really sure why they feel they need to do this.

>>4093685
You think Descartes and Hobbes were pious men of scripture? Read what that post was replying. In fact, read the post.

>>4093642

Do you believe in scripture? Let's not even talk about a 'philosopher's god'. Just ask yourself:

"Is religious scripture worthy of belief? On it's own merits and by comparison to other scriptural traditions and intellectual critique?"

Maybe you can reason and form some entity, cause, event or unknown factor which may be referred to as 'God', but the question of religion is not one of philosophy, but primarily of scripture. Philosophy only follows after as a henchman for the truths of scripture as expounded by the theologian.

christianity will be defunct in a few years

prepare for edge god to usher in a new era of edginess

>>4093712
>"Do you believe in scripture?"
Of course I don't, I'm not a fucking protestant heretic.

>>4093717
>I'm not a fucking protestant heretic.

What do Catholics even believe? What's their point? They just seem to give themselves a free pass to sin whenever they want.

If faith was rational it wouldn't be faith.

If believing makes you feel good, why not do it? Chances are it'll make you act better towards other people and make them feel good too.

>>4093720
catholics supplied the foundation for the edge lord to thrive and flourish

>>4093720
The scripture was creared by the Church, not the other way around, you idiot.

Jesus didn't write a book, he founded an organisation.

>>4093726
I still don't understand why most of them are less pious than real Christians, aka protestants.

>>4093733
bc islam is the one true faith

>>4093481
when you reach the existentialist position in the evolution of your life outlook you simply realize it doesn't fucking matter either way

>>4093736
Are you the Great Unifier?

>>4093481
anti-rationalist school of thought has produced a lot of smart men, even if they were convinced on being irrational

>>4093495

Well, that's just blatantly untrue. How biased can you possibly get? Retard.

>>4093720
What about Lutherans who are convienced that no matter what sins they commit, they will not be even punished for it as long as they believe? Is that not a free pass?

>>4093758
duhhh but im not ready yet

>>4093768
bc that's what the bible says

>>4093564
how can you say this? you are doing what you blame those for doing. not for labeling it religion, but for simply asserting something as absolutely certain

>>4093821

Mathematical proofs are the only absolute truth.

>>4093835
>thinks math is absolute

lr2skepticism

>>4093720
>What do Catholics even believe?

Not eating fish on Friday, and an idolatrous love of the virgin Mary. Also no birth control, to ensure the propagation of more Cathoics.

>you could leap of faith into all sorts of irrational and unethical positions...what is the point?

That's the point though.

You can take a "leap of faith" into thinking that the Free-Market will fix everything.
You can take a "leap of faith" into thinking that the Materialist Conception of History is true and that the revolution of the proletariat is inevitable.

But those are all worldly things.

You can take a leap of faith into believing that Thor, or Baal, exist and will compensate you for sacrificial offerings.

But those are only pagan idols that give you things in return for material offerings.

The Christian God isn't like this. Believing in the Christian God is a much higher belief - it puts you in a situation where you are constantly before the eyes of God, and fearing this conception of God is the beginning of wisdom (Solomon's proverbs), because all of your actions now have eternal consequences and you can't "let yourself go" in the moment or in vain pursuits. Believing in the Christian God means that you no longer have to worry about the morrow, that you can put your faith in Him and do good for others and not worry about yourself.

The point isnt to claim christianity is right, but that he is going to acknowledge it as his basis, unconditionally. If you have to take something on a condition, then you really dont have faith in it, you have faith in the condition. The point isnt to advocate christianity, just to acknowledge it for what it is to him. Kirkegaard even said you could be a faithful pagan

>>4093848
What axioms are you working with there? Sweetly poetic, btw.

>>4093495
Spinza, Hagel, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Wittgenstein? Seriously, how retarded are you?

Some men need God in their lives and they'll go to the extreme make sure God remains in their lives.
A theist sees God in everything and everywhere, because God resembles meaning.
Kierkegaard, I believe, wanted Christians to believe in Christianity not because of any rational and logical reason, but because of faith.

>>4093852
Basically Kierkegaard's proposition that "subjectivity is truth".

He condemns "indifferent learning" (science) in the beginning of "The Sickness Unto Death" as an "inhuman curiosity". Kierkegaard appreciated science, but he held this kind of "objective learning" in contempt.
As Wittgenstein put it -
"We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all."

That the Earth orbits the Sun, the structure of an atom, how to conduct electricity through a wire, how to send and receive signals from places hundreds of miles apart - these are all fine things to know, but what do they say about how I should treat my mother? the best form of government? what career I ought to pursue? whether 'x' is a vice or a virtue? etc.
Science is an "inhuman curiosity" about the natural world, wanting to know about it for the sake of knowing about it, but it teaches us nothing on how to live (at best it can furnish us with technologies, but how we ought to incorporate those technologies in our lives is still up for us to decide).

Kierkegaard often compared having Faith to falling in love. Somebody in love can say, "this is my beloved, she is everything to me", and the world can give him a thousand objections, "she's not THAT pretty", "there are plenty of women better than she is", "you ought to be concerned with things other than falling in love during this time of your life",

>>4093878

>All the objections to Christianity – what are they, after all, to the person who in truth is conscious of being a sinner and who has experienced belief in the forgiveness of sins and in this faith is saved from his sin? One conceivable objection might be: Yes, but is it not still possible for you to be saved in some other way? But how can one reply to this? One cannot. It is just like a person in love. If someone were to say: Yes, but you could perhaps have fallen in love with another – then he must answer: To this I cannot reply, for I know only one thing, that this is my beloved. As soon as the person who is in love tries to reply to this objection, he is by that very fact not a believer.

This applies to when people say things like, "if you were born 2000 years ago, you would believe in Thor, not Yahweh", "if you had been born in China you wouldn't believe in God", it's just like if some bitter person went up to two lovers and said, "if you had been born a few years earlier and you a few years later, you wouldn't even have taken a second glance at each other."

>>4093879
So subjectivity is truth, but what does that mean? When Christ was put on trial he said to Pilate "I am the truth", and Pilate's reply was, "what is truth?" This is the relationship between somebody who believes and somebody who doesn't. Somebody who believes knows that he is loved by God, knows that it is his duty to love his neighbour, etc. The unbeliever can shrug is shoulders and say, "what is truth?", but for the believer the existence of God is an immediate reality.

>>4093880
You can object to the believer in two ways - by saying that his belief in God is unsupported by all evidence, has no objective backing, etc. But then the believer will just behave like Christ did when he was accused - by being silent. He will say, "they accuse me because they have hard hearts and so cannot accept God's love, but it is still my duty to love them, even if they think my having this duty is a complete fiction." Or, they will accuse the believer of having a false God or having a God that is evil (you hear many atheists criticizing the God of the Bible for being jealous, petty, dictatorial, etc.), and again, the believer can't make much of a reply, because it is impossible to communicate in ideas and thoughts for what for the believer is something of an immediate, self-evident reality. He can only say, "well, you might think that my God is evil as you hear him being talked about through my mouth or the mouths of other believers, but God as I know Him intimately is anything but evil, in fact He is the very standard of good."

>>4093881
"What is truth?"
That Christ was able to pray for the souls of those who crucified Him, that is truth. The scientists have an inhuman curiosity towards Christ's crucifixion - whether or not it actually happened, how long He was on the cross for, how many were crucified beside Him, what He actually said, etc. But for the believer none of these historical facts are important, the important part is that you can conceive of a man who would be absolutely good even when evil is abounding and he is being cruelly treated, and then you take a leap of faith and say not only can this man exist, but he does exist, he is God, and it's my duty to follow his word.

>>4093882
You can be a scientist and have not the least bit interest in existence, that's the conflict.

You can be more interested in the formation of stars or in the molecular structure of a material than in the suffering of the poor, or the nature of the good man, or the political threats and conflicts in the world, natural disasters, the love between two people, etc.
You can be a scientist and be absolutely indifferent to almost everything in life.

This is not an objection to science or scientists, but to the primacy of objective knowledge.

Belief in God puts you in a world of commitment, good and evil, justice and injustice, obedience and rebellion, etc. You are infinitely interested in the soul of your fellow man, and are dedicated to serving them and by doing so serving God.

>>4093890
The best quote from the Bible that I think highlights this conflict is this -

>"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The truth will set you free? What does the truth have to do with freedom? Truth is an indifferent thing that needs to be pursued for its own sake, and has no inherent value beyond it being the truth - so the scientists and lovers of indifferent truths say.
But a believer KNOWS that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away", he knows that though evil and suffering is rife in the world, that the good ultimately triumphs - and this is freeing and it's also empowering, because it gives you the absolute courage you need to face the cynicism and pessimism and hardness of heart that follows from seeing so much evil in the world, and to be good and to rejoice in God despite it.

>>4093897
And so when a believer hears the sighs of the pessimists and cynics, "the human race is vile", "it's profits you more to be evil and devious in the world than good and honest", "sometimes I think it would have been better if I had never existed" - there's aren't just expressions of dejection and faintheartedness, they are evidence that they don't know the truth about God - that all this is justified and "that he who endures to the end will be saved". If they knew this their hearts would be set free, they would be free to love God and wonder at his creation, and it would be like when they were still children and naively believed that good did always win, and that the prince did slay the dragon and get the princess - with his added observation, that it is not naive, that they know that is not how it always turns out in the world, but the difference is that they have the heart to believe that in the end everything will be set right anyway, despite the appearance that evil is winning everywhere in the world.

>>4093898
If I could sum up what the Christian feeling is, it starts with the naive feeling I had when I was a child - that human beings are ultimately neighbours. If you think about it even from a scientific view - we exist on this small world in this extraordinarily large Universe, and our existence is lasting for only a tiny blip of time - so how insane is it that we hate each other and cause each other so much grief? Surely in the end we are all allies? Surely if from the "bigger picture" we are all brothers and sisters belonging to a single fraternity? A man might be about to shoot me in the head and rob me of all of my money, but surely in the end this was just a fatal misunderstanding between two people that ought to have loved one and other?
This might even be the Humanist point of view, but it is not complete - it is childish and naive. This is where Christianity comes in with the doctrine of Original Sin and about the world being evil and belonging to the Devil, and about the world distorting reality and deceiving us of the truth and God's grace. Christianity knows how powerful evil is and how it can obscure from us the ultimate truth about us being neighbours, and that's why to be a Christian not only means having this naive love for other human beings, but also having the resolute faith to look pass the evil deceptions that make us doubt it is true.
Humanitarianism is undeveloped in this sense - it doesn't properly account for the existence of evil.

>>4093880
Someone who is a believer knows that it is his duty to cut off his daughter's clitoris. To question with this would not be a "shrug".

>>4093882
Many believers have spent extraordinary amounts of time sincerely defending those details.

>>4093890
You can also have a religious belief that is solipsistic, this is entirely possible - unless you're denying the subjective value of the faith of spiritual solipsism.

>>4093898
Is it better to have faith that everything will come good just because or to know that you can make the world better through your own actions alone?

>>4093481
Gods in religion, or religious figures, are representations of the highest capabilities of men. To believe in this power you'd essentially be manifesting a constant reminder of your own potential.

>>4093564
>there are an infinite number of prime numbers

>>4093697
>Op you've obviously never been to a church service for children. They are literally brainwashed from a young age by those who introduce them to the world to believe.

Nigger, please.

>>4093914
is your argument against faith really that "some faith is bad"? people who cut of their daughter's clitoris aren't even doing it out of faith; they're doing it to prevent her from being promiscuous. it's as dumb to take that as a paragon of faith as it would be to take nazis as the greatest scientists of all time. I don't know why this disingenuous broad-brushed rubbish is only acceptable when we're talking about faith

>>4093546
By that same argument I could probably say Luther and most Protestants aren't "really" religious. You can say that these people weren't particularly "normative" Christians, but it's really really misguided to say that someone who believed one of the irreconcilable facts of the universe was the existence of God could be "non-religious"

>>4093510
Entirely false. I can link it if anyone wants, but there was an article in the New York Times or something similar that suggested that most fundamentalists think that the definition of faith is essentially to believe in something they know is ridiculous. I think this is because they're intelligent enough to understand that the form of Christianity they're given is incoherent and absurd, but they don't have any way of critiquing it beyond blind belief. That might be rude or something.
Someone in the article even said something to the effect of "I don't believe in it but I do it anyway; that's the definition of faith."
o tempora etc

>>4093947
i don't get it

ITT: OP, knows nothing about what Christianity actually is. His knowledge is completely based on what he's read on 4chan and watched on Christopher Hitchens debates.

Read a book a book, OP. You may be surprised that what you think Christianity is, is something different entirely. http://www.strangenotions.com/books/

As for this specific topic? Check out the recent encyclical letter called Lumen Fidei: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

I don't expect you to understand it, yet. But you may appreciate it.

>>4093481
Have you not ever committed yourself to something on face alone? Take a chance sometime, OP; You might find your life is at the very least more interesting for it.

because to deny Christianity is also a leap of faith. if there were irrefutable evidence available the argument would've been done a long time ago. but there are still lots of gaps in our understanding of the world that people can fill in with whatever.

I have a genius IQ, but I do "dumb" shit all of the time and entertain ridiculous and irrational ideas all of the time. At a certain point you realize that it doesn't matter which frame you use, as long as you have one.

>>4094053
>caring about IQ

>>4093685
I guess you could say Descartes was a Deist.

>>4094058
>pretending IQ is worthless because I have an embarrassingly low one

retard detected

>>4094096
IQ can easily influenced by training or stress whilst making an IQ test
It's something for insecure people to seek validation

>>4094053
>I have a genius IQ
lyl

>>4094053

> i have a genius IQ

insecure fag detected

>>4093481
>He explicitly argued that Christianity is irrational, unverifiable and internally contradictory--yet despite this he still took a "leap of faith"
You'll have to do this if you want to believe anything. You either irrationally believe or you go full Pyrrho.

>>4094115
Yeah. He's the one who's insecure.

>>4093481
>Kierkegaard
>smart
too obvious

bustas hatin on the kierk, he a real nigga
y'all just haters

>>4093481
All thought is inherently irrational, unverifiable, and internally contradictory.

>>4094123
how can you believe if you're aware that you're choosing to suspend disbelief

makes no sense

Smart Christian is an oxymoron.
People who are smart have their own religions (or none).

>>4094218
*nods from across the bar*

>>4094218
*raises wine glass*

>>4094218
*fire crisps in fireplace*

>>4094218
*tips fedora*

>>4094233
Is tipping a fedora reference to when people used to say "I tip my hat to you sir." That shit was always so corny.

>>4094218
*puts on Miles David - Kind of Blue*

>>4094236

Every pseudo-intellectual edgy atheist nowadays wears fedoras because it's 'classy'.

>>4093546
Are you actually suggesting that Hegel, Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes and Nietzsche weren't religious? If so, you are without a doubt on of the most dense motherfuckers I've ever seen on this board, and that says a lot.

>>4093546
>>4093869

>Kant
>not religious

really, guys? really? where do you even get this shit

>>4093869
This the most retarded thing I've seen in months, and I saw a tard-group on tour today

>>4094236
People didn't used to say that. People used to actually tip their hats. Maybe they'd say it for emphasis, but it wasn't the rule. Then idiots tried to bring it back but were too attention-whore-y and actually said it to show how sophisticated they were.

>>4094290
reddit was saying it and 4chan satirized it

>>4094292
That's who I meant when I said "idiots."

>>4093600
>people actually write like this

>>4093481

Because he wasn't that smart.
Neurotic, yes.
Ability to think deeply, yes.
Ability to think clearly? Hardly.

No wonder /lit/ loves him.

>>4093733
define piety

>>4094292
Reddit and Tumbr satirized fedoras before 4chan. The 'in this moment I am euphoric' quote originated on /r/atheism were everyone made fun of that Aalewis guy

>>4094321
4chan was already satirizing that before that quote

>>4093882

god bless you anon

>>4094313
his lack of clarity is a parody of Hegel but it's hard to understand that when you've never read anything of substance in your life

>>4094325
lol no

>>4094218
*raises mead flagon*

>>4094321
>implying 'faces of atheism' was insincere

>>4093723
>Chances are it'll make you act better towards other people and make them feel good too.
How is that inherent to faith at all? The faith in the inferiority of other people has led to genocide and prejudice throughout human history while allowing the aggressors a clear conscience. Faith, as defined by belief in the absence of evidence or against contrary evidence, is not limited to religious belief.

>>4093882
That still doesn't answer why anyone should take a leap of faith toward Christ compared to anyone other religion or idea logy. You say the existence is inherent to the believer but by that stance the nonbelievers have no knowledge of that existence. Why should they make the leap at all? Because you said you had truth? All of the values you state as being on a higher state of being are simply higher because the belief system instructs as such. It is circular. It is if you are saying Christianity is good because you are scrutinized for being good which is determined by what god says is good, and god says Christianity is good, end of statement.

>>4094290
>People didn't used to say that.

People used to used to type "I tip my hat to you sir" on old ass Something Awful when people were actually somewhat civil to each other.

>>4093481
Hopelessness?

>>4093881
>It is impossible for me to explain to you why you should have faith in this system, other than to tell you if you DID believe you would know yourself.

This is nonsensical. If course if you believed you would think you know, but there is no REASON to believe in your case unless you already do.

>>4094425
Sorry, I was trying some kind of a pun, but I just noticed that the book "Traité du désespoir" is translated in English as : "The Sickness Unto the Death". So, the post isn't really relevant now.

>>4094389

>Why should they make the leap at all?

because they want to

>>4094440
>I want to believe
The statement of a weak will, and a genuine disinterest in actual truth. Desires have no bearing on truth. I want to believe that I can fly. But no amount of faith would ever make that true.

I mean you could always actually read the work...

>>4093546
None of those aside from Kant and Hume are even worth mentioning.

>>4093559
Newton was religious. How does it feel knowing the single most important scientist was Christian? I feel bad for you fags going to hell, but hey it's your choice.

>>4093882

Solid.

What is the point? It rang true to his heart. There is more to life than intellectual understanding and rationality. Daily I feel most of you need to go out and try and experience simple joy with other people.

>>4094237
>*puts on Miles David - Kind of Blue*
>Miles David - Kind of Blue
>Miles David
>David

>>4094473
more like he was a crazy occultist fucker

>>4094454
>I want to believe
>The statement of a weak will

yet every accomplishment begins with it.

>>4094474
admittedly, d and s are right by eachother

>>4093879
Lovers don't claim everything their lover says is true and able to save our soul.

>>4094475
No he was painfully Christian. Enjoy hell pleb.

>>4094454

>>4093508
it's not dawkins, you dumbass. it's kierkegaard's philosophy.

fuck off, aquinas.

because extremely relativism and subjectivism

>>4094218

>>4094008

>>4093978

You forget that it could be an article of faith since faith doesn't have to be rational...it could even seem unethical to a normal human...like Abraham being ordered to murder his son for no reason other than a 'test'...

There is no guarantee that true faith will jive with our human rationality and ethics......unless we simple make up our own faith and make it suit our values

>>4094478
Belief and wanting to believe something are completely separate. Ask a rational man why he believes something and he'll give you a reason, he will show you why his belief is sound. If he tells you because he wants to believe, that is irrational and non-reasoning. Example: NASA didn't WANT to believe they could go to the moon, they DID believe it was possible because they did the math tests, and training to do so. Wanting to believe something is self-indulgent and contrary to people who seek and accept truth regardless of what they wanted to believe previously. This is the fundamental law of science. You may form a hypothesis, you may even want it to be true, but when the evidence is compoundingly contrary you are compoundingly intellectually obligated to discard want you want to believe in favor of reality.

>>4094008
Why make baseless assumptions about. op? This is a decent thread and his questions are fine

>appeal to authority
>appeal to consensus
>ad hominem

Why do Christians always do this? None of the skeptics itt have been at all insulting.

>>4094485
>deists are Christians
>pantheists are Christians
>religious non-conformists are Christians
>agnostics are Christians

Are we just going to start saying that atheists are Christians at some point, too?

>>4094555
>authority and consensus mean nothing

Skeptics are insulting themselves if they believe this.

>>4094601
Explain.

>>4094505
You know what I meant. Flying without wings, levitating an aided, telekinesis. Many of these thing may be possible in the future without technology but I'm talking about irrational beliefs. Plus, faith didn't make the wright brothers craft fly, it was their continuous testing, and re-testing. Try this, no amount of faith would cause the earths gravity to reverse.

>>4093852 #
"Basically Kierkegaard's proposition that "subjectivity is truth".

He condemns "indifferent learning" (science) in the beginning of "The Sickness Unto Death" as an "inhuman curiosity". Kierkegaard appreciated science, but he held this kind of "objective learning" in contempt.
As Wittgenstein put it -
"We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all."

That the Earth orbits the Sun, the structure of an atom, how to conduct electricity through a wire, how to send and receive signals from places hundreds of miles apart - these are all fine things to know, but what do they say about how I should treat my mother? the best form of government? what career I ought to pursue? whether 'x' is a vice or a virtue? etc.
Science is an "inhuman curiosity" about the natural world, wanting to know about it for the sake of knowing about it, but it teaches us nothing on how to live (at best it can furnish us with technologies, but how we ought to incorporate those t"

Ya know, that is a very dated position. Today's modern philosophers take into account what the sciences has brought us.... Is their a faith gene? If I don't have that gene, I am incapable of knowing God? Chemical imbalances in my brain may affect my behavior, making me more of a believer...
Modern philosophy is leaps and bounds ahead of the dated ideas of the past due to science and biology research.

Why is everyone so hostile to fideism? Fuck you papist scum.

>>4093481
Upbringing and societal influences combined with the times he lived in. He struggled with religion all his life.

>>4094612

Science was called natural philosophy. They aren't necessarily separate entities. Physics is basically philosophy using the language of math.

Ya dude

>>4094614

Day by day fideism is becoming the only possibility, but Catholics have this delusion that they will still be able to convert people with brute facts and relics of logic like st. Anselm's argument.

>>4094624
Yeah, where have facts got us? NOWHERE, that's where.

>>4094566
Zizek said only an atheist can be a true christian

Christianity has more to do with doing what Jesus taught than subscribing to a particular idea about gods nature

>>4093674
This seems like it. His "knight of faith" can only be happy believing in that which is untrue

>>4094632
There are no verifiable facts in scripture. Many disproof able 'facts', too.

>>4094652
I was joking. I'm the due arguing against faith

>>4093674
Joy and purpose are for fags

>>4094648

>>4093481

There's no rational reason to do anything.

>inb4 mouthbreathers who think darwinian mechanisms are moral imperatives.

Why everything is bullshit and why some things are more bullshit than others:

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node41.html

>>4094689

He looks like an old scruffy dog. Does he bite?

>>4093481
...what does Kanye have to do with Kierkegaard?

>>4094689
top kek m8 le filename my sides check dubs

>>4094697

>Time for the ol' banana, but a boatload of bananas won't suffice to Enlighten the unprepared mind.

This guy is hilarious. Great link.

>>4094603
I'm not sure there is anything to explain. If you refuse to believe something because others believe it, or because you did not think of it first, then you are a fool.

There seems to be this idea floating around that being a Catholic is taking the easy way because all of the answers are given to you, rather than you finding them yourself. The fact that this idea is championed by Neil deReddit Tyson, is even more disturbing in my eyes.

The only way we can know any truth in this life is if it is given by God. In order to learn this truth for ourselves we must be humble enough to accept it.

>>4094752

You just tried to flip the tables. Why should I believe something on the basis of such appeals?

You assert that I disbelieve something purely on the basis of the fallacious appeals and that I should consensus and authority? Remember when Socrates asked what consensus and whose authority we should respect or be swayed by?

Hume's fork: Are we talking about 'facts' or ideas within a system (math, logic, etc.)? No? Then what are we talking about?

What are you talking about?

>>4094778

>should respect consensus and authority**

Typo

>>4094778
>what consensus and whose authority we should respect or be swayed by?

God's authority and His revealed knowledge is the only thing that is worth a damn, in my opinion. And the consensus surrounding that.

>>4094814

>>4094829

>>4093947
There are though... There is a proof.

>mfw God is raped by angry pack of infinite primes

Who is your God now?

>>4094814
Consensus determines gods authority? Fucking lol.

>>4094697
I don't even believe in intelligent design but his retarded critique of it made me believe less in evolution

>>4094867
>Consensus determines gods authority

Who said that?

>>4094870

How was it retarded?

>>4094870
>made me believe less in evolution
lmao

ITT: I lost faith in /lit/. I thought you were smarter than this. God damned Christians everywhere. The skeptics/agnostics/atheist ask important questions to believers and all they get is "hurr durr fedora tipping"

>>4094886
that's because all "believers" here are only trolling/posing

also
> important questions
*tips fedora*

>>4094880
OK, retarded is rude and I just woke up, but it doesn't really get into the meat of the intelligent design argument. It feels like the author spends paragraphs going over the basic argument of ID, the universe is too complex to be randomly assembled and so on, and only quickly brushes over scientific discoveries w/r/t the beginning of the universe and concludes with a heuristic "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" as if believing in ID were more of a religious proposition than not believing in ID. Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, but it feels like it gets really close to expressing something and breaks off right at the end with an easy "obvious" answer.

>>4094905
Or maybe more accurately it's that the conclusion given isn't that ID is a religious proposition; it's that ID and not-ID are equally religious propositions. I know "that which is asserted without evidence...," but it's an unsatisfying dismissal, personally

>>4094886
>skeptics/agnostics/atheist ask important questions

>>4094814


i dont think that captures the whole picture, gods truth is written into all creation, any given starting point, plane of action, or field of study eventually elucidates the necessity of transcendence, not even materialism implies materialism.

>>4093481

I'm a smart Christian too. It's really not that hard to understand: he just knows way more about life, Christianity, God, than you, and has far more living experience than you've had.

We don't all stay stuck on 15 years of age.

Stay euphoric, bro.

>>4094928
>any given starting point, plane of action, or field of study eventually elucidates the necessity of transcendence

Materialists don't seriously still exist, do they?

>>4094928
>elucidates the necessity of transcendence
Not at all, it simply extends into unknown territory. Which some are content to place god in, and other intellectually honest individuals understand that it is for the moment unknown and don't need to resort to any idolized ad-hocks.

>>4094201
All belief works that way. Believing that your mom exists depends on suspending disbelief.

>>4094942
>le god of le gaps

>>4094936
Any remotely smart person would be aware of the fact that your own judgement/opinion of yourself has no value in a discussion.

So no, you're not smart.

>>4094969
>le I'm a monkey that can't trust his own rationality

>mfw I take theist arguments to their logical conclusion and become a solipsist

Reality is masturbation

>>4094977
>2013
>being rational

You better get on the empirical train while it's in town, kiddo.

>>4094989
>not requiring rationality to deduce empirical observations

>>4094964
I'm pretty sure your mom was real last night when she sucked my dick

There's probably a difference between tacit beliefs that a person has been indirectly or directly inculcated in (i.e. your mom is real.. the earth is round etc) and the types of beliefs where you have to actively suspend disbelief.... like a religious belief system in the contemporary west.

>>4094995
>2013
>deductive reasoning

You better get on the induction train while it's in town, kiddo.

>>4094995
What is Audrey doing with Laura up at the cabin in the woods?

SERIOUSLY

>>4095049
but Audrey's a virgin
I'm pretty sure it's implied Laura fucked a horse in supplemental material or something so who knows what she's up to

>>4094997
get out of here shitbird you can't respond to a Twin Peaks photo like that

>>4094936
as much as I like calling narcissistic internet victims autistic, even the term Asperger's gets thrown around in a way that dilutes the meaning of the word and is disrespectful to people who suffer from it or something idgaf
at the same time people diagnose themselves with it all the time so it's a mute point

Do you believe that your perception is accurate? The only thing that can confirm the accuracy of your perception is your own perception. Even if someone else confirms that (s)he sees the same thing you do, aren't you relying on your perception of that person to know that (s)he is in fact confirming what you see?

>>4095075

That's why practical skepticism > severe skepticism.

>>4094008
You're a condescending twit.

>>4094008

>2deep4u

Why are christfags always so edgy? And then they post pictures of GK Chesterton and monks while admiring their 'classy' outfits. You guys are the real fedoras.

>>4093481
>How can someone as smart as Kierkegaard be a Christian?

Because being smart is completely unrelated to christianity. Therefore, you can be a christian genius, or a christian idiot, or all the shades of grey in between.

You can replace the "christian" for "atheist", "mandean", "sufi", or whatever you want.

How can someone be stupid enough not to understand this simple fact?

>>4093481
As someone who's never even heard of him (I'm not that well read on philosophers), I think, as humans, we can find something that makes no sense to us, and will never make sense to us, but still choose to believe in that thing that doesn't make a lick of sense, solely because it makes us feel better.

It doesn't mean you're weaker than someone who doesn't believe that belief, or even less intelligent.

It just means you need something different than what that other person needs.

Maybe????????

Idk fuck you guys.

>>4095281
the thing is that you could argue that believing in something because of some personal need or wish, instead of because it is likely, is ridiculous

>>4095288
Clarify?

Are you saying that arguing for something because you "need" it to be true, rather than it actually being true, is ridiculous?

I can agree to that, on most issues.

>>4095299
not even arguing for, but believing it yourself

or rather that it's illogical, and that one could say logic is the only tool one has to determine what should be believed

>>4095325
This is true, but people can become serial killers and be completely logical in all their conclusions.

>I just used a fallacy but you get what I'm sayin'.

Logic is highly useful in determining your belief systems, but sometimes, you really do have to just take a leap of faith and try your hand at something for it to even work.

Pretty much anything involving emotions or intense feelings or whatever is going to involve some leap of faith.

>>4095353
I'm not capable of putting faith in something that blindly with no evidence, so I fundamentally disagree, that's why I'll never be religious without some major change first

I also find it sort of silly that a god would create me that way and then demand that I believe despite it, but that's just incidental

>>4095248
>Because being smart is completely unrelated to christianity.

>How can someone be stupid enough not to understand this simple fact?

Kierkegaard's intelligence was mainly in the realm of philosophy and Christianity, he was smart enough to see that Christianity was absurd and irrational, and yet still believed it.

It's like a Mathematician proving that a theorem is wrong, and then just choosing to believe it is true...

OP was asking a more subtle question about the basis for Soren's "leap of faith"...

>>4095281
>>4095248
>Because being smart is completely unrelated to christianity.
>How can someone be stupid enough not to understand this simple fact?

Kierkegaard's intelligence was mainly in the realm of philosophy and Christianity. He was honest and smart enough to admit that Christianity is absurd, irrational, and doesn't have a reasonable basis to be believed....and yet he still made the leap. Strange, no?

It's like a Mathematician proving that a theorem is wrong, and then just choosing to believe it is true...

OP was asking a more subtle question about the basis for Soren's "leap of faith"...

>>4093481
he was raised christian also he was kind of a nutball so he felt the need to rationalize his faith

/thread

>>4093481
*tips fedora*

>>4093546
>DESCARTES WAS AN ATHEIST HE WAS JUST AFRAID TO SAY SO IT'S OBVIOUS FROM HIS INTELLECTUALLY ADVANCED PHILOSOPHY

This is disgusting. It's not up to you to determine whether someone was truly religious or not. From his writing it is apparent that he was a Christian and defended the catholic faith.

>>4096247

Tipping one's fedora is the ultimate non-response. Is this the best that jaded atheist hipsters can respond?

>>4096512
*tips fedora euphorically*

>>4095750
>It's like a Mathematician proving that a theorem is wrong, and then just choosing to believe it is true...
Mmmhh. Maths are about abstract constructions. I get your point, but I don't truly like the comparison.

>OP was asking a more subtle question about the basis for Soren's "leap of faith"...
How do you know it was that? I think he was asking what he asked and not what he meant to ask according to you.

>>4096512
Wow. Just when I though fedorism couldn't get any more absurd.

Newton was a Christian

>>4096794
>not fedoraism

Atheism is effectively just a new age religion built on a contrarian principle, at least in its popular contemporary manifestation.

>>4096797
That's what I mean. Whoever made that image is clearly against the fedora stereotype (unless it is a well constructed ruse), but in doing so acts out the pertinent aspects of the stereotype.

Can someone point out a identity or set of beliefs, that's free from any negative stereotyping?

>>4095750
The math analogy is flawed because in mathematics you can just verify your theorem to know if it works. I think it's more like any scientist that has no way of being sure which theory is the good one and still he believes in one more than the other. Not having proof does not mean he disproved it.

>>4096819

>>4093481
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you haven't read much Kierkegaard. You should definitely do that.

>>4096823

>>4096836

>>4093510
Apologetics didn't come into vogue until several decades after Kiekegaard wrote the bulk of his work. If you just wanted a short summary of one of the prominent philosophers of the 19th century, then posting on a message board seems superfluous. If you're really looking to understand the man and his work, you should read it. Isn't it convenient that he wrote volumes explaining his thoughts?

>>4096819
>>4096823
>>4096836
did you actually get these from r/atheism
don't you have edgy facebook comments to be making

>>4096836
>>4096828
>>4096819
Grownups are talking about Kierkegaard.

>you could leap of faith into all sorts of irrational and unethical positions...what is the point?

The point is that human inner life is often like this, Kierkegaard often compares it to love and marriage. There is no "rational" choice and faith is pretty much arbitrary at that point. But we still have to make choices about how to live, for Kierkegaard, having faith in the Christian God is the ultimate expression of subjective free will and courage.

>"The only possible objection would be: but you might possibly have been saved in another way. To that he cannot answer. It is as though one were to say to some one in love, yes, but you might have fallen in love with another: to which he would have to answer: there is no answer to that, for I only know that she is my love."

I'm an atheist but I can see how some of this applies to other things in my life. When you've seen that the foundations of all political, philosophical and ethical positions are really unfounded, you are faced with either nihilism, or putting your faith in a set of axioms that will help ground you better as a subject. Those axioms are themselves arbitrary even if you can't get rid of them. I hold that the life of philosophical contemplation is a great life, why? To that I cannot answer.

>>4096850
>>4096851

I'm basically doing essentially what every angry and angsty christfag does here. Instead of replying with substance I post things to ridicule christians. This is what you do in EVERY thread about atheists so you can't critique this shit without being incredibly hypocritical.

Annoying, isn't it?

>>4093510
At that point natural religion was pretty much dead, Hume had destroyed it. So you had people like Kant arguing for religion on practical and ethical grounds and people like Hegel arguing for god and religion on metaphysical grounds.

Kierkegaard thought all of this was a waste of time

>>4096857
You're a fucking fag for using the same tactics as those you belittle.

>>4096857
>I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog!

capcha: kgeopme calvin

You know, how someone can believe in a personal god in this day and age is beyond me. So what you are essentially thinking is that some 14 billion years ago god created the universe so that you could grace this earth with your presence for roughly 80 years (if you're lucky, and for most of human history the average age was a lot less than that), and then, after not existing for 14 billion years, you have suddenly started existing and now you will exist forever in some non-material way once you're dead. And also, to belive that because you were born into one corner of the earth you somehow have monopoly on truth and know some deep secret about the universe that is hidden to others...

This kind of thinking just.... how intellectually dishonest can you possibly get in order to circumvent uncomfortable truths? I read this thing in Kierkegaard too that people who don't believe are simply "refusing to submit" or some nonsense like that. What about the humans who lived without ever knowing about jesus and the christian conception of god?

It's really baffling to me how coming up with a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo trying to justify an inherently unjustifiable belief can earn this much respect and how one can view such a person as intelligent.

But hey, of course I'm just some stupid atheist, right? What do I know. This is all probably 2deep4me, right?

>>4096878
>>4096867

Way to get the point, retards. I was deliberately acting juvenile in order to show how stupid this "fedora-wearing leddit atheist" fad is. Ironically I got responses like.... >>4096851 >>4096850

>>4096857
Yes, it is annoying, and you are so annoying that you can't help but to make it worse. There's a good discussion here, where interesting arguments are being given from different sides. The atheist anon on top of you being a great example. By acknowledging that you're acting as every other angry and angsty christfag you should realize that you are as cancerous as them. You're interrupting an interesting thread with your boring shit, and the fact that there's a billion christfag in this planet, and that any of them could suddenly appear and fuck this thread wouldn't make you better, and doesn't change the fact that you're acting like an idiot

There are enough boards on the internet, even on this website, that could benefit from your stupidity. But /lit/ is not one of them.

So yes. It's annoying. You got your reply. You're a succesfull troll, and now, please, go back to reddit.

>>4096902

to be fair though this is how christians fuck up other threads where there are reasonably good discussions going on. just face it, you can't have that level of discourse on the internet, let alone over 4chan.

>>4096892
>. I was deliberately acting juvenile in order to show how stupid this "fedora-wearing leddit atheist" fad is.

The *fedora-tip* has a purpose on /lit/. Your pictures are just boring and poor trolling, as you are.

>>4096913

Sure, because the wall of fedora-jokes that shows up every time an atheist posts something has a purpose and isn't just shitposting on the same level as mine.

Sure.

>>4096885
Well most human beings have believed in some sort of God or gods or at least heavenly beings/ancestors. IMO the fact that there are people now who don't believe in the supernatural is the historically significant and unusual fact, not the other way around .
Our minds are pretty much wired for that type of magical thinking, seeing agency where there is none. Religions are also more than just beliefs, they are social and cultural glue, psychologically empowering systems of symbols and narratives and life practices which enframe our otherwise insignificant human lives. It is natural that all cultures from the largest to the smallest develop some form of religion. Religion isn't a "virus" like Dawkins says, it is a culturally advantageous adaptation.

Besides, a God is really not that silly of a thing to believe in, I'm sure after spending a lot of time reading stuff about atheism, it seems completely ridiculous, it did to me (I'm still an atheist too). But while a God might seem improbable, it isn't irrational or impossible.

>>4096885
>This kind of thinking just.... how intellectually dishonest can you possibly get in order to circumvent uncomfortable truths?
>>But hey, of course I'm just some stupid atheist, right?

Aaccording to you, if someone believes in God, he is intelectually dishonest.

So no. You're not a "stupid atheist". You're just a stupid.

>>4096921
Oh yes, of course, they're much worse than us those fucking christfags. Even when trolling, we atheists are much better than them.

*Tips fedora with style.*

>>4096892
>I was deliberately acting juvenile

go deliberately act juvenile somewhere else then

>>4096921
are you next going to post /pol/ infographics claiming that /lit/ doesn't give measured responses to racists?
we get this shit all the time and I'm not sure why you think it's your privilege to make us put up with it, then cry that we aren't "serious" when we don't

>>4096921
Anytime there is a fedora joke, it's because some atheist is being edgy and annoying, it's a way to tone their shit down because people on /lit/ don't really give a fuck about their bullshit movement.

Don't assume all fedora jokes are by theists either, I'm thrown a few around myself and I'm atheist/agnostic. I just hate Dawkins atheism.

>>4096943

Have you read a single book by Dawkins? He writes pretty good books. His followers are the annoying ones, not him.

>>4096885
>I read this thing in Kierkegaard too that people who don't believe are simply "refusing to submit" or some nonsense like that. What about the humans who lived without ever knowing about jesus and the christian conception of god?
Kierkegaard's primary concern is bourgeois fallen Christians of his time; there's a reason he wrote in Danish, beyond the nuance of the language
it's not 2deep4u if you haven't even gone below the surface

>>4096944
not him and Dawkins' writings aren't that bad but I don't know what could make up for this garbage
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/824
I don't care what you think about postmodernism, but the retarded pissing contest between British and French thinkers is the dumbest thing to hit modern academia and Dawkins doesn't even really have any stake in this

>>4096945

I read it in Danish. To me, I didn't really see how he was any better than any of the other modern apologetics, and they are all pretty horrendous.

>>4096944
The God Delusion, and I've seen a bunch of his interviews.
I agree that God is a philosophically difficult thing to argue for (none of those arguments are new) but I completely disagree with his view on religion, he has a very primitive and unfounded understanding of what religions are and how they work. Truly pathetic. It makes atheists look bad, and we don't need this shit.

Harris is terrible too, his babby's first utilitarianism is just philosophically juvenile.

New Atheism is philosophically bankrupt, the whole atheist movement really needs to die.

>>4093481
kim looks really cute here.

>>4096961
I don't know, in that case, why not rail against all grand narratives? Why be a citizen when your state is an impermanent construct, though perhaps that isn't a good comparison (maybe I could say something about gender roles, I don't know). It seems like all of these things come from a person's particular "sitz-im-leben" and aren't something one can simply cast off - he originally wanted to be a pastor, after all.
I'd argue that Kierkegaard's "truth" is one that's internal and not one he attempts to impose on others, but can we really say this of any polemicist? Very few philosophers are really consistent, anyway: Kierkegaard thought Schopenhauer was a charlatan, but feared that he was only a sort of dark mirror (e.g. SA [Soren Aabye]/AS [Arthur Schopenhauer]). And you could argue that Kierkegaard's writings only serve to further the disingenuous Christian imperialism he was afraid of, but pretty much all philosophers do stuff like that in some way or another.

>>4095228
>b-but i dont want to do research on what Christianity actually is
>f-fedora

>>4096989
and her tits look great.

>>4093848
Nah. Nieztche sustains this conception of GOd and everything surrounding Christianity was falsified. Jesus wasn't like this. Jesus claimed happinness now for everyone. It's his followers who distorted it all.