/lit/ - Literature

It doesn't really say much about religion, but it says enough about you.

Spiritual knowledge is completely neglected in the modern world. So you're not really making any progress there at all, maybe you're even regressing.

Before any of the HURR DURR EGDY starts, I just want to say that Abrahamic religion presents a ready-made vision of the world that offers instant salvation.

The problem with this is that the people who will subscribe to this instant salvation won't bother with investigating any further on what they actually believe. For instance, on /pol/ (not really a good example, I know), you have tons of so called firm Bible believers who know absolutely nothing about the history of their own religion. They don't search in their religion, often they just cite verses. In other words, they only repeat what has been told to them.

>>4126849
>Hitchens again.
Let's get metaphysical: this guy has a very powerful aura of butthurt and euphoria that spreads all over /sci/ and /lit/.

Religion as an institution is an oppressive thing, but the initial ideas of religion are something science should have never forgotten.

>>4126877
According to the Islamic tradition, education is a must for every capable individual, and it's stated several times in simple language in the Koran that all people should try to explore the world. I don't know where you're getting your information.

>>4126883

>education is a must for every capable individual, and it's stated several times in simple language in the Koran that all people should try to explore the world.

Yes, but only in service for the faith. It's not knowledge for the sake of knowledge. You're not searching for the truth and going where ever the argument leads you. You've already started with a conclusion and adapted your whole argument to this conclusion. That's not learning, that's repeating

>>4126889
there are 2 kinds of knowledge.
1-every day knowledge (medicine, math, .....etc)
2-the last world knowledge which can't be explained with our limited mind powers, so we need someone to tell us about it.

note:the first type of knowledge can't be limited of any way.

>>4126895

>the last world knowledge which can't be explained with our limited mind powers, so we need someone to tell us about it.

If it can't be explained with our minds, what good would letting someone else explaining it to you do?

>>4126889
Imam Al-Ghazali was one of the most knowledgeable people of his time, and some say that he mastered all fields of knowledge, which was possible in his time but some might argue otherwise. He noticed that he was becoming arrogant and full of himself and he passed through what we might call today 'existential crisis'. He realized that he was only learning and acquiring knowledge for the sake of becoming smarter and full of facts of the world, but he felt that something is wrong. He left his home and started wondering in places where people only knew about him but never saw him. He worked in jobs like cleaning mosques and such hoping to lessen his ego. He wrote then 'Revival of the sciences of Religion' (I hope I translated it right). He came to the conclusion that one must seek knowledge not for any worldly satisfaction, but for the sake of god; as in, you seek knowledge because god said that you must, and not because you want to become that smart fellow or what have you. I only stated the story to reach this point, so bear with me. It's not about faith or fulling your head with meaningless information, it's about seeking knowledge for the sake of god.
I've got another story from Al-Ghazali's life, but I'll spare you the boredom you might be feeling now. I hope I made my point clear.

>>4126849


funny, it was the opposite for me.

>>4126897
>our limited minds
means the common people not the prophets.
and even them they were guided by our god not depending on themselves only.

>>4126849
it's more of a loop (a torus?)
for serious:

>>4126853

>>4126902

And how do you determine that they are truly messengers of God?

I think it is only natural that organized religion loses its power over us. It is as much as growing an interest into politics but thinking that the principles preached match the reality. People dealing with people.

The subject of religion itself does not become more nonsensical, on the contrary, the more you learn about different religions and mythologies, the easier it is to comprehend the language in which religion speaks to us.

>>4126905
by the immortal miracle the qoran.

>>4126877
Orthodox Christianity doesn't offer instant salvation. The word "salvation" has the same root as "salve" and refers to a healing of the soul, through a rejection of sin and what you might call spiritual therapy through the sacraments.

It's much more mystical than other forms of Christianity.

>>4126909

And how do you know anything in the Koran is true?

>>4126916
Not that anon but you just changed the discussion from "does Islam encourage learning" to "convince me I should become a Muslim."

>>4126900
same

>>4126889
It's not a conclusion, it's a starting point.

>>4126883
>I don't know where you're getting your information.
I don't think it is a matter of information. He is talking about masses of people and how a lot of them lost touch with religion, despite being labeled as religious. Because, afterall, they are not really into it, not really studying it or living it. Of course the Bible says this and the Koran says that, but I believe his point is that not everyone is listening to it, despite having them in their homes.

>>4126900
me2

>>4126899
There you have it.
Religion is like philosophy:
it's all about a few wise people and millions of retards misunderstanding their words.

Captcha related: pottery account

>>4126905
They did so through miracles. That's how they made people convert.

>>4126918

It had already changed here >>4126895

>>4126899

>He came to the conclusion that one must seek knowledge not for any worldly satisfaction, but for the sake of god

But isn't God supposed to be outside of space and time? Why should learning knowledge for the sake of God be relevant to reality? Furthermore, how do you properly determine this without reasonable doubt? It seems to me like you're just cutting the branch your sitting on if you say that science and reason isn't good enough and should be disregarded in favor of some kind of 'higher' knowledge. How do you determine this?

>>4126921

>It's not a conclusion, it's a starting point.

That's an awfully loaded starting point. You started with assuming a good portion of things out of thin air without backing up anything without any sort of justification. Don't you think that this will hurt the validity of any of your conclusions that follow?

>>4126927
>Ancient Chris Angel
>Becoming a messiah
Oh, wow, that's weird.

>>4126927

And how do you know that they were really miracles? Is any of this demonstrable?

>The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ...

>For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, Theoretical Physics and recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement

>>4126934
>But isn't God supposed to be outside of space and time?
Yes.
>Why should learning knowledge for the sake of God be relevant to reality?
Acquiring knowledge is what people should do. By 'for the sake of god', I meant not for the sake of any worldly reason. Your intention should be 'for the sake of god' and that's what god wants. I think I made that clear, I hope I did. It's basically what many do, but instead with the intention (niyya) that you're doing it for god. Say, one person is learning Arabic because he hopes to reads Arabic literature in the future, while another person is learning Arabic because it widens his accessibility to future knowledge (something god wants) and also it allows him to read Arabic literature. Both of these people are learning Arabic and the end product would be the same for both, but one of them has the intentions that god wants.
Furthermore, how do you properly determine this without reasonable doubt? It seems to me like you're just cutting the branch your sitting on if you say that science and reason isn't good enough and should be disregarded in favor of some kind of 'higher' knowledge. How do you determine this?
I never mentioned 'higher' knowledge. I don't understand what you're aiming at here.

>>4126945
Forgot to add the last maymay arrow. Forgive me.

>>4126934
>That's an awfully loaded starting point
My point is that it doesn't have to be. And you don't have to be overly skeptical about it either, it is a matter of trying to comprehend what it means.

Consider how loaded is your question of "isn't God supposed to be outside of space and time?" and compare to the sort of question you make when you don't understand what a teacher said. Think of the tone. These questions itself is what makes theology and any religion study for that matter. But you don't ask them in order to try and disprove it, that is, from the assumption that it doesn't mean anything, but with the same respect that you ask a teacher that might perhaps know more about a subject than you. Except you ask, mostly, yourself.

>>4126945
>I never mentioned 'higher' knowledge. I don't understand what you're aiming at here.

What I meant was, if this divine intention (an intention that was given to you by God) is from outside of space and time, and we can only perceive the world of space and time, how do you know it's from God and from outside space and time in the first place? It seems to me you're cutting off the branch your sitting on.

You know this to be true, after you've said that this can't be known by your mind

>>4126958
The intention is set by the person. As in: "why am I doing this?" There could be several reason, but the main one should be "for god".
We can only perceive the world in space and time, so we seek knowledge while accepting this reality, there are no problems here. I hope I understood your question. I'm sorry if I'm being slow or something or if I'm not expressing myself properly.

>>4126958

To clarify, I meant "You said that you know this to be true, after you've said that this can't be known by your mind"

>And you don't have to be overly skeptical about it either, it is a matter of trying to comprehend what it means.

Why shouldn't I be skeptical? You present this as the most obvious thing in the world. Questioning it should be no problem

>>4126963
Oh, man. I'm not all those you quoted, I only posted here (>>4126899)

>>4126962
>We can only perceive the world in space and time, so we seek knowledge while accepting this reality, there are no problems here.

But how can you perceive anything outside of that? Isn't anything outside of space and time simply an unknown and unknowable?

> For instance, on /pol/ (not really a good example, I know), you have tons of so called firm Bible believers who know absolutely nothing about the history of their own religion. They don't search in their religion, often they just cite verses. In other words, they only repeat what has been told to them.

There are lots of Bible believers on /pol/?

>>4126849
Religion will never go away because it is an answer to people's fear of growing old and dying. If believing in a higher, loving being will get you over your fears and help you live your life then more power to you. Whether a religion is true or not is not as important as the effects it has on peoples life.

>>4126938
That's stretching it by a lot and is nothing but apologetic. Why don't you go read about the history of the bible and Sumerian mythology.


If you guys want a philosophical religion without all the horseshit why don't you go and read about Buddhism.

>>4126968
>But how can you perceive anything outside of that? Isn't anything outside of space and time simply an unknown and unknowable?

Not the same guy, but you can easily imagine what a being outside time would be. I imagine it as a sewing person, weaving in and out of time at will and at the same "time" observing the whole pattern. It's a bit a lot more complicated than that, though.

The ideas of everything become more nonsensical, but you also get more from them.

>>4126968
9dubs here.
Yeah, we can't know, unless it's mentioned in the Koran in a clear way that leads to one interpretation only, or if Mohammad said it in hadith that is narrated a lot of times (I don't want to go in details). Other than that, you can't really. Some scholars might hypothesize based on koran verses or hasiths, but they aren't treated as facts like the koran's. To give an example: The Barzakh world, where you go when you die, but I don't know a lot of this subject so I'll stay shut on this.

>>4126849

>What does that say about religion? Is it just the devil trying to confuse us?

Talk about contradicting yourself. Only a religious person can say things like "it's the devil trying to confuse us".

>>4126879
>Religion as an institution is an oppressive thing, but the initial ideas of religion are something science should have never forgotten.

>Religion as an institution is an oppressive thing

This is totally redundant. Religions is an institution is an oppressive thing because it is an institution - all institutions are "oppressive", even Liberal ones. In order to guarantee things like "Human Rights" you have to have institutions to protect it with dogma and perhaps even with force.

The idea that "oppression" is inherently bad is a Modern ideal. It comes from the Modernist hate for all authority. It's evil, and those who fall into this error must be condemned.

>>4126996
Well, it's a misleading manipulative association that no longer has to do anything with the pirpose of religion, if ever.

>>4126989
I think OP means "What does that say about religion? Is the aforementioned tendency to become less religious just the devil trying to confuse us?"

Ambiguous antecedents.

>>4126980
>Yeah, we can't know, unless it's mentioned in the Koran in a clear way that leads to one interpretation only, or if Mohammad said it in hadith that is narrated a lot of times

Why?

>>4126899
This is the difference between cleverness and wisdom. Cleverness is abhorrent if it is used indecently. A dumb fool is bad, but a clever fool is absolutely intolerable - a modern society is FULL of clever fools, especially kids and young adults.
Check out this kid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCr0AVe_dzo
A 9 year old who can repeat the soundbites of modern philosophy with extraordinary eloquence for his age - reminds me of what Kierkegaard said, that child martyrs typified the Middle Ages, while child prodigies typified our age - mere intelligence is now more highly praised than wisdom (hence all the adults who become obsessed with finding out if their kids have high IQs), and when you worship intelligence for intelligence's sake you end up with extraordinary displays of wit that are ultimately empty and vain.
That man you referred to is right in saying that cleverness ought to be put in service of God. Everything ought to be put in service of God. It's as soon as you put all of your talents and powers in the service of God that your actions become serious and not full of vanity and hubris.

>>4127006
What if I'm a panentheist and try to serve others?

>>4127003
Because, according the Islamic tradition, the prophet only spoke the truth, and the Koran is a book written by God and it contains no mistakes though it's open for interpretation.
>inb4 arguments involving fundamentalism.
I won't participate in these. Fundamentalism is as new as new-age atheism.

>>4127011
Fundamentalism is a simultaneous backlash against modernism and corruption among their own leadership, leading to a unique combination of aimlessness and extreme social conservatism.

>>4127011

Fair enough, I just think that it seems like that's an argument that is circular. I also think it's best to suspend judgement about things that are unknowable

>>4127017
I agree in the general sense.
I was just stating the Islamic tradition's view on this case. One can theorize and hypothesize only.

>>4127013
>Fundamentalism is a simultaneous backlash against modernism and corruption among their own leadership, leading to a unique combination of aimlessness and extreme social conservatism

Aimlessness? They seem to have pretty straight aims, as straight as a plane gliding into a skyscraper.

>>4127027
What I mean is, they don't have one big shared aim. They lash out against anything that seems remotely threatening because they have a desire for tradition but have rejected actual tradition out of distaste for the current leadership.

Look at Fundamentalist Christianity for a closer, if less blatantly violent example.

>>4126975
>If you guys want a philosophical religion without all the horseshit why don't you go and read about Buddhism.
>Buddhism

Could you be 16 any harder? Buddhism is the most incoherent, incompatible religion out there, buddy.

>>4126877
>They don't search in their religion, often they just cite verses. In other words, they only repeat what has been told to them.
Sounds like most politicians, scientists, historians and artists to me.

>>4126975
>Why don't you go read about the history of the bible and Sumerian mythology.

What are you getting at?

>So we all know that as you become more learned throughout life, the idea of religion becomes more and more nonsensical.

maybe if you're 17. Wait till you're 30+ and try again.

>>4127038
Buddhism is confusing because you don't have the cultural context. What's worse, 99% of what's written about Buddhism in English is a shitty misunderstanding of Zen Buddhism designed to appeal to hippies first, and more recently edgy atheists who still feel a need to be "spiritual."

>>4127032
>Look at Fundamentalist Christianity for a closer, if less blatantly violent example.

That's not a good example.
The disunity of the Fundamentalist Christians is not because of their fundamentalism, its because they are already disunited - there are many Protestant denominations already, and if you want to name many of these denominations "Fundamentalist" you can only say that they are being fundamentalist towards their own traditions separately, and it would be nonsensical for you to accuse them of being in disunity through keeping with tradition when they had separate traditions to begin with.
The popular idea of a "fundamentalist Christian" is of somebody who is "homophobic", among other things. Of course, there are many difference Protestant denominations that can be accused of being "homophobic".
I suppose this is comparable to the popular of a "fundamentalist Muslim", which is of somebody who is "misogynistic" and a "terrorist".

To be honest, I would avoid these popular conceptions altogether. You say that a fundamenatlist Muslim is somebody who cleaves to tradition, but many Muslims who would claim themselves to be cleaving to tradition would probably call themselves something like a "conservative" or "orthodox" muslim.

It might be reasonable to disregard the word "Fundamentalist" as a scareword used in the media to promote a political agenda.

>>4127053
It's incoherent. It can't possibly function in the real world. Just look at the Dalai Lama for a perfect example. I don't think there is much to be confused about, unless you want to further explain what westerners don't understand.

>>4127038
>>4127053

buddhism is pretty straightforward and practical
specially zen

>>4127062
>It's incoherent. It can't possibly function in the real world.

It actually lets you function very well in the real world, it's a way to become sane, most people have many marks of insanity in them.

What confuses you about it?

>>4127067
What's wrong with insanity? Most awesome people were also a bit 'tainted'

>>4127064
if you told that to a zen master he'd probably hit you in the face and say that there's no such thing as zen or buddhism

>>4127067
>Removing yourself entirely from the real world

I don't want to be sane then. And apparently neither does your Dalai Lama.

>>4127071
I'd say: you ain't got no inner peace you triplenigga.

jest to let you guys know (it seems many of you are not aware) there are 2 main branches of buddhism
therevada - no gods etc. meditate and shit whatever
mahayana - a bunch of gods, most popular form, worship buddha
vajrayana - weird shit by tibetan rednecks that includes attempting to make yourself hallucinate demons and you fucking your gf in front of your master so he can tell you how to properly fuck her to achieve enlightenment

>>4127076
>all of this bullshit
>a coherent worldview

>>4127083
>meditation
>bullshit
>not the perfect way to master the brain

>>4127076
>mahayana - a bunch of gods, most popular form, worship buddha

No form of buddhism advises to worship the buddha, specially not mahayana.

>>4127072
>Removing yourself entirely from the real world
Buddhism doesn't advocate that. Not in the Mahayana, Tibetan, or Japanese forms at least. Theravada maybe.

>>4127076
in every single line of buddhism there are variants with worship of sages, monks, boddhivastas, mysticism etc.
the idea that buddhism is void of any idol worship (an Indian religion devoid of idol worship is kind of hilarious in itself) is pretty stupid and a western idea of a pure atheistic/secular buddhism, which doesn't really exist.

>>4126849
A line of division I would make, is between mocking religious methodology and mocking religious ideas. The ideas of blind-faith, superstition, pointless adherence to tradition or authority, and stubborn self-righteousness totally devoid of any kind of ethics. That is stupid and idiotic and we all benefit from people giving up those ideas.

However, ideas like monotheism, immortality of the spirit, objective ethics, and the like, shouldn't get thrown out with the bathwater just because some people are morons. Its a damn shame that someone who saves they believe God exists because of the Five Proofs would get regarded as being just as superstitious by New Atheists, as Westboro Baptist Church.

>>4127095
>in every single line of buddhism there are variants with worship of sages, monks, boddhivastas, mysticism etc.

the sutras don't advise people to worship a monk or buddha, it's more of a cultural thing people like to do

>>4127100
>Five Proofs
What's that?

>>4127104
Summa Theologica, written by Thomas Aquinas. He begins the book with the Five Proofs of God. Not all of them are valid, or true, but a few of them I'd say are, or at least are a starting point to proof.

My point however, was that alot of atheists and agnostics presume that because many religious people are stupid and irrational, that religion itself is. Or that because many religious methodologies are irrational, that religious subject matter cannot be handled with Reason.

>>4127095
Surely a pure secular Buddhism exists, if people follow the teaching and worship nothing. Unless you require a line that has lasted more than a hundred years, but I don't see why that would be important.

>>4127110
>atheists and agnostics presume that because many religious people are stupid and irrational, that religion itself is.

The best theologians and religious thinkers would argue that religion is irrational and should only be come to by faith. You can only have faith when faced with the irrational/absurd/contradictory

if it was reasonable it wouldn't be religion, it would just be commons sense, science, no different than putting your socks on or brushing your teeth -- defeating the whole point of religion (at least in the Christian sense)

>>4127116
I would argue that that is heresy. The early Christians were a decidedly rational people. They believed things on the basis of proof or testimony or philosophy, avoided blind-belief and false-evidence/miracles like the plague, and weighted everything in their holy book to see if it was coming true as it was written.

So no. I would argue that all "religious" methods, such as blind-faith and superstition, are in fact later additions and heresy.

The early Christians practiced by a more rational mold. My idea, is that the ideas of Christianity, are to be proved or disproved on the basis of philosophy and science.

To put it bluntly, "Faith", in the modern sense, is heresy.

>>4127110
I just read them now. I didn't remember. Yeah, some of them are pretty reasonable, even though it's "dangerous ground".

>>4127144
The point being, that Christian ideas can [and ought to] be handled philosophically and rationally. The modern idea that religion is blind-belief, is a mental cancer.

>>4127095
The four noble truth is the only thing the original Buddha taught. There's no authority figure to decide what is canon or not like there is in the Abrahamic religion so things tend to get added over time.

>>4127095
Do you often just say things as though they're fact?

I have a vision of a room with a thousand mentally retarded men, wearing "debate me" shirts. Anyone entering this room would be terrified of this sight. This room is /lit/.

>>4127128


its important to remember that the christian tradition, as such, was not *of* the west, the capacities and particulars of the people who came up with it and it was suited towards were different. hence, the effort to coopt it into a western tradition (that its, to divine what elements were more transcendent and universal, then rebuild, synchronize, and extrapolate) was possible only by the very elite (a process i think was not wholly successful or uniform either, id say). its important to keep in mind that it was the church fathers who decided what would be gospel, protestantism is essentially an attempt by solipsists who lacked the same transcendence as the setters of tradition to grasp something simple enough for them to conceive of (at this point i would say the catholic church is hardly better though, mfw vatican II).

Christians can't even decide whether they should eat pork and which parts of the 7000 different versions of Bible should be bogus. And they wish to worship that.

Muslims actually kill apostates in countries they fully control like Iran. Full retard mode reached.

I won't exclude the possibility of, say, reincarnation or karma. But organized religions are all SHIT.

>>4127170
Karma as I understand it is self inflicted. You've behaved according to a flawed idea of the world, and know you're dissatisfied with the outcome.

>>4127170
>But organized religions are all SHIT.
Amen

>>4127167
I would argue that that also is heresy. Nothing is beyond our comprehension, and there is no such thing as mystical or nonsensical knowledge that goes beyond Reason.

Karma means action. It works the same as responsibility. That's the response. You kill someone, that makes you a killer. That's the comeback. To work on your karma is to work on your actions, from your own conscience. What you do leaves a mark on the world and you need to take responsibility for that.

>>4127180


except our limited perspective is a matter of course, hence, greater understanding is contingent on a more transcendent perspective. those who have less capacity for transcendence, solipsism, have less agency, they rely on the leaders and traditions of the leaders to give them direction. for them the principle or causality of thing is incidental (this may come as a surprise, but reasoning what is right in a given context is hard), what matters most is the validation a thing receives, and if so, it becomes their principle.

>>4127202
Nigga I have no idea what you're saying, but your suggesting blind-following of an authority, and mysticism. And thats bullshit.

I don't care if Reasoning is hard. Everything can and ought be Reasoned. There is no such thing as "Transcendance".

>>4127206


no i wasnt, im saying not everyone has the same capacity for reason, which is patently obvious (wherefore this authority you speak of, after all).

you want to know why autism is correlated with self professed 'atheism'? autism is what happens when pathological solipsism combines with higher iq. the well condintioned autist has a simple set of principles, ideals, or code, that they reffer to in all matters. they are effective in the pursuit of their vocation, but lack the capacity, transcendence, to reason or conceive beyond whatever narrow paradigm theyve adopted, essentially walking meat computers.

the more beta observes social conventions, the more alpha sets them. the beta does what will quantitatively get him the most money, the alpha manipulates the quantitative framework. they can do so because they understand and follow a more transcendent ideal, a higher purpose. naturally groups that followed such beings would find more success than others, and thus survive to pass their traits. we have an instinctive sense of respect and deferral to those who are willing and able to give direction, and it is a very strong selection, hence how even a boorish cad can retain followers and lovers merely by approximating how an alpha would conduct itself.


just look at this:
http://www.postmodernize.com/2013/05/crime-and-unpunishment/

what kind of person would this be were he raised in a more transcendent society? this is the mindset of a *crusader*, a *moral guardian*; "if it were not for [tradition], people would justify anything!".

indeed. the solipsist may not understand the traditions of the brahmins they follow the same way as the brahmins, but without the tradition, they (ie, society), are undone, they cannot create it on their own.

>>4126849
The devil is really really smart. Education is his forte, and is dangerous.
Too much book-learning will keep you from heaven.

>>4127234
You're using a very specific and odd terminology. I have literally no idea what you are trying to say. To restate my ideas

1. All information is comprehensible.

2. All men have the Reason to determine the factuality [or lack thereof] of that information.

3. That the matters of the Christian philosophy can and ought to be interpreted in light of that. No blind-faith or superstition, and no deference to authority or tradition.

If you think any of that is false, say so, but stop this spiel on your own philosophy, because your using alot of terminology and I have literally no concept of what you're trying to say.

>>4127238


i agree on 2.5, it would be a sin NOT to point those without the same capacities in the right direction through validation (the solipsist reasons only so far as to rationalize).

>>4127237
>Too much book-learning will keep you from heaven.
kek.
PRIDE on knowledge is what keeps you not from heaven but from being a decent fella. That's why /sci/ is so full of condescending pricks who think their science is harder than the others.
Now seriously, quit that empty preaching.

wrong i'm about to read the quran oh god pls dont turn me into mudslime

>>4127237
Lel I think you have misinterpret the fall

>>4127006
>child martyrdom as an ideal
Kill yourself.

>>4127243
Again. What? Who is "the soliphist" here? I'm confused, you're using alot of terms here.

>A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

-Francis Bacon

Looks like you only have a little bit of knowledge opie.

>>4126849
*tips fedora*

(I hate this but it had to be done)

also: SAGE!

>>4127259
One more reason to say Bacon is awesome.

>>4127006
>extraordinary displays of wit that are ultimately empty and vain.

Stop ragging on Wilde man.

There should be a /fi/ction board for all these christfags raiding 4chan.

>>4127267
Shh, we discussing here.
No, seriously, this is a pretty civilized thread for now. /lit/ seems to be the master race in this aspect.

>>4127234
>but lack the capacity, transcendence, to reason or conceive beyond whatever narrow paradigm theyve adopted, essentially walking meat computers.

Nice job equating thinkers who you disagree with with autists and solipsists, and others with transcendent setters of traditions.

Meanwhile people will keep reading books, learning from other great thinkers, debating differences, expanding their minds and advancing humanity like thinkers have always done, while you are, ironically, stuck with your own simple set of ideals that they
> have a simple set of principles, ideals, or code, that they reffer to in all matters. they are effective in the pursuit of their vocation, but lack the capacity, transcendence, to reason or conceive beyond whatever narrow paradigm theyve adopted, essentially walking meat computers.

What a highly compartmentalized mind, to allow for such hypocrisy. You could do the world a (very small) favor by keeping your bigotry to yourself and actually engaging yourself with books that the average college students read.

>>4127259
The 16th-century version of "my taste > your pleb taste NO U".

>>4127259
>argumentum ad auctoritatem

shig

>>4127274
Eh, I'd raise you a /tg/ on that probably, but I haven't been on /lit/ long enough.

Knowledge individualizes. Learning breeds self-knowledge, if it's done correctly. Organized religion heaps people into a big group all meant to
follow the same rules and commit the
same sins before ending up in 1 of 2
places. It's the least individualizing
thing ever. So, the more a person learns about themselves the less they like the idea of organized religion.
Also-- true learning breeds critical
thought. They're bound to apply critical thought to both the religion itself and the IDEA of organized religion-- which will always come up short.

Note: spirituality can grow/change with learning. Very dif than religion

>>4127281
>relying on your Latin master debaters for telling you what is or isn't a logical fallacy.

Shiggin so hard

>>4126899
>He left his home and started wondering in places where people only knew about him but never saw him. He worked in jobs like cleaning mosques and such hoping to lessen his ego. He wrote then 'Revival of the sciences of Religion' (I hope I translated it right). He came to the conclusion that one must seek knowledge not for any worldly satisfaction, but for the sake of god; as in, you seek knowledge because god said that you must, and not because you want to become that smart fellow or what have you. I only stated the story to reach this point, so bear with me. It's not about faith or fulling your head with meaningless information, it's about seeking knowledge for the sake of god.

It's worth pointing out that he spent these years not only as a vagabond, but in pursuit of experiential knowledge of the absolute. His faith was shaken by his existential crises so he set out in pursuit of certainty (via Sufism), and by his own account was successful. All other forms of knowledge are subsidiary to this Knowledge.

>>4127296
Except that logic can be verified. Lorentz, Hilbert etc. weren't respected just because they had an awesome beard.

>>4127296
>non-sequitur

shig

>>4127310
Self-delusion: the megalomania who longs for certainty.

>>4126900
Same.

>>4127321

>>4126849

>implying we know what's going on right now
>fucking moron
>ethnocentric as fuck

>>4127145
Its not blind belief and its not reached by reason or evidence. There's no syllogismm that ends in: therefore this historical figure is God.

That's too silly

So whose gonna go see this movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PWFEeRApA

>>4127352
Holy shizzle that looks awesome!!
kiddin. I'm not watching that shit

It's because we realize that religion was made up to explain natural phenomena and give people hope. Now we are smarter and understand why we have lightning and rain and shit so we realize it's much more sensible to believe in life evolving than being breathed into by some supernatural being that exists but we can never contact

>>4127352
>Using new-age atheism as a form marketing attracting both Christians and Atheists, which are, I think, the majority of the US.
Nice

>>4127234
Mmm, I don't think so.
I think the only real corollary is that aspies and autists and etc, etc don't into emotion and feelings very well, and the basic foundation of religion or mysticism is feeling.
How else do you know that your religion is the right one?

>>4127352
I'm interested to hearing the movie's argument as to how the hell religion supports the existence of god...

>>4127396
Youfellforit.jpg

>>4127251
>mfw my mother actually told me she was raising me to be a martyr.
>no face conveys the horror
Religion is for adults. Stop brainwashing kids. It just takes advantage of their trust in you.

>>4127276


i regularly engage with contemporaries that are all about 100% socially constructed reality, i felt that this position is (or leads too) patent nonsense, so i sought outs that still accounted for the observable facts of the effects of validation in the way people acquired values, knowledge, and the zeitgeist in general.
(autists are a special case of solipsist, by the way)

>>4127256


when i speak of solipsism, im not so much referring to a definite intellectual position, but a pathology (which can incline one to such a position).

to illustrate, what do we mean when we say someone is a 'narcissist'. someone who is self-absorbed? or in otherwords, someone whos perspective does not create values beyond the impulses of the id (hence the assertion: the solipsist acquires and changes values and convictions through the validation those convictions receive). naturally there are practical implications of this, lacking a more transcendent ideal, a super ego, to place things into context, the narcissist has few tools for dealing with pathologies of the id (that is, insecurities). metric for value then becomes more a mere provincial relation with ones peers. in a debate, principle or causality are incidental, what matters most is 'winning', for if they were wrong, that would be a devaluation of self, which is unconscionable. likewise in competition, the narcissist will go to any lengths it can to rationalize away responsibilities for failure, for the same reason. to the narcissist, change is death.

the obsession with identity politics today is the natural result of attempts to deconstruct more transcendent ideologies/value systems in public discourse. Sartre once said that we are our choices, narcissism is a repudiation of this. the narcissistic ego is a simulation, an identity without actualization. and indeed, the process of actualization, acquiring matter, can be very hurtful to the narcissist. internalized traumas are difficult to overcome un-aided for the narcissist, because the only means they have to deal with contradictions to the simulation is denial. or in other words, introspection will not save the narcissist, as there is nothing to look into.

>>4127388
True. In my experience, most rabid atheists demonstrate all the usual sighns of autism, too. What's concerning is they seem to be posing long term social risks as well seeing as there is such a high premium nowadays on particularly technical skills.

Google Glass, as per one exampe, is a classic case of autists with too much money imposing their limited view of how humanity should be on humanity. Interesting parallels with the 'salvation' technologies of fundamentalist religious types. And just like them, they'll viviously defend it as well. Nothing changes. People think we've got rid of religion brought to us courtesy of small groups of 'right thinking' men who have 'answers' on a 'good life' but Google et al are just the same shit in different packaging.

>>4127406
it's a real movie...

>>4127426
see
>>4127371
I meant you fell for their cunning strategy.

>>4127423
Wow, it took you so long to say that the I examined life is not worth living.

>>4127347
This is true

>>4127431


'examining life' rigorously with an extremely solipsistic narcissist is something of a futile gesture, because in a way you are facilitating his defense mechanism. regardless if the topic concerns him or otherwise, he can say to himself that hes 'the sort of person' that can have such intellectual conversations, and thus defuse the psychic motivation for change (further example, someone linking you a funny text or picture and saying 'thats so me', is essentially narcissistic behavior, it doesnt matter if they actually are x or have done y, only that they know that they are 'that sort of person').

in such a case, a simple, explicit, and emotionally charged discourse would truly be the more rational and/or expedient choice. particular discourse can come only after first principles are set.

>>4127352
>'murrica

>>4127432
At least they're doing something right

>>4127492
Meh, The Simpsons's movie about the rapture was more convincing.

>>4127403
The adults who do it believe it's true and that they're just teaching their children the truth.

>>4127352
Am I on crack or did that freshman introduce himself as Joss Whedon?

>>4127352
But, but... "God is dead" means something different than "God has been proven not to exist." That's a misrepresentation of Nietzsche.

>>4127352
>A Philosophy Professor actually debating students.

>>4127352
>and then an eagle named low taxes flew in and shed a single tear

>>4127557

I somehow doubt that the average American Christian fundamentalist knows anything about Nietzsche or even philosophy other than the "God is dead"-quote

>>4127567

>>4127352
>professor is an "angry at god because his kid died" atheist
>Student: why do you hate god, why do you hate him??!??!?

Lel shitty christfag propaganda.

>>4127352
>Freshman being smarter than a professor
>Even if the professor is a jack-ass that obviously likes to provoke people for no reason
What the fuck? Is this trying to portray philosophy students/professors as atheist dickwads or something?

>>4127575
>being a Christian and not knowing based Gregory of Nissa
I am nauseate.

>>4127466
Is this being a shitty person kind (lying, stealing, immoral behavior etc.) or I want to live up to somebody's expectations (work, chores, kindness, etc.) kind of change you need from introspection? Or is it both intrinsic and extrinsic?

>>4127587
Yes, it's trying to portray philosophy teachers (and philosophers in general) as bitter new-atheist pseudo-intellectuals who like to try and use big words to confuse people and convince them God doesn't exist.

>>4127675
Which is about right.

>>4127675
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Fundies feel the need to make shit up all the time. And actually believe it. They will keep on believing. Even if FSM descends on Earth they will think it Satan trying to trick them.

>>4127675
>teachers are bitter pseudo intellectuals who like to try and use big words to confuse people and convince them God doesn't exist.
Nope, teachers don't do that.
but lotsa people do

>>4127722
>pulling things out of their ass and believing them despite knowing that they themselves made it up
Sounds like neopagans.

>>4127727
>Nope, teachers don't do that.
ya, every philosophy teacher that i have had has shown us philosophers from both sides of the argument and encouraged us to come to our own conclusions. But that's just my own personal experience.

This movie might as well be called Strawmen.

>>4127727
I didn't say they did or didn't. I said the movie was trying to convince people they did.

>>4127170
>apostates killed in Iran

I don't think so, Tim.

>>4127607


efficacious introspection is naturally contingent on perspective. what use is it for a narcissist to reflect when he knows a priori that he cant do wrong? there is no more transcendent ideal by which they can judge such things, the unconditioned solipsist *is* their own ideal.

>>4127743
http://www.csw.org.uk/apostasy.htm

And those are high profile cases. There are even more waiting to be saved by international outcry.
The thinking that led a nation to this is retarded.

>>4127550
I know.
I personally believe that religion should be a choice.
Children are not aware enough to make that choice. Guess I kinda agree with the Anabaptists there.
Teach your kids to be nice, generous, helpful, hardworking people: fine.
But don't start teaching them about religion until they are at least 14. That should be taboo.

>>4127771
Actually, teach them about religionS and the lack thereof, at an early age. Help them know the world is not decided and us vs them.

>>4127783
Hmm. I dunno. Haven't really taught my kid any religion, but have done many mythologies and lives of Jesus, Buddha, etc.

>>4127783
I guess I mean religious people should hold off on indoctrination ubtil kids can actually reason and form their own opinions.

>>4127771
What? Like the Amish? Those paragons of openness and information and not in any way being a brainwashing cult? Ok.

>>4127800
>agree with them there
>there
>specified practice

>>4127742
I didn't say you said, I said even though the movie was trying to convince people they did...
they would have a point if they talked about regular people.
A good teacher always tells the goods and bads of all perspectives.

>>4127806
Nice backtrack but you clearly haven't the first fucking clue what anabaptists are.

>>4127816
Actually, he's not backtracking.

>>4127850
Sure he is.

>>4127757
>In some of these countries, apostasy is a crime codified in the civil law. However, this is not the case in Iran, where apostasy is currently undefined in law and where there is no specific punishment stipulated for convicted apostates

Your own source proves you wrong dude. Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism are all protected religions under Iranian law and all have representative seats reserved in the Iranian government.

Your premise is absurd. As I've learned more, I've only gained a greater respect for religion in all its absurd intellectual abstraction and complexity.

There are hundreds of theological essays and tracts about all manner of detail in the western religious tradition, which utilize that careful method of logic laid out in Euclid... you can't help but respect it, even if you think the axioms are strange.

Furthermore, I've come to find that religiousness is not even remotely related to intellect; that the religious mindset (which I should like to call mysticism) has inspired an outrageous variety of artwork, architecture, literature, philosophy and all the rest of it.

Like it or not, the philosophical tradition of the west is born out of mysticism, even if only insofar as the analytic atheists are in response to it. Even Pythagoras and the early mathematicians were profoundly spiritual.

Enough of this nonsense!

And for God's sake, Christopher Hitchens? Are you mad? That man is a skilled debater but a pathetic and horrendously inconsistent thinker.

His second phase of political writings are almost completely founded on an irrational hatred and fear of Muslims. How can a former Trotskyist who declared the first Gulf War an act of imperialism end up declaring the 2003 invasion of Iraq as "both necessary and just"?

The answer: irrational, dogmatic atheism.

PS: I'm an atheist.

>>4128400
Finally. The kind of atheist I dig enormously. Reasoned, fair, informed, calm, logical. Have all my internets.

>>4126849
How old are you?

>>4126849
Frankly, I don't care. There are many religious organizations that do lots of great work for charity, and most churches promote values such as spending time with your family, getting involved with your community, and caring for others. There are people who draw a lot of comfort from religion, but can still carry out an intelligent conversation, and are very invested in the sciences.
It really has no effect on me what beliefs other people hold. What we really need to stop is the stereotype of all religious people being uneducated bigots and all atheists being "fedora neckbeards". Ridiculing/judging someone for their beliefs, whether they're religious or not is much dumber than holding/not holding beliefs at all.

>>4126889
Not necessarily.
Different religion, I know, but let's take Buddhism for example.
Siddhartha repeatedly told his students he didn't want them to just blindly follow him. He urged them to question what he was telling them, and to draw their own conclusions.
Religion and research are not mutually exclusive.

>>4126908
I can understand this. When you look at all the different religions, you realize that they all pretty much tell the same story, just with different characters.

>>4126972
Oh my, yes. Or at least, they're pretending to be. It's hard to tell with /pol/ whether they're joking, serious, or if it started as a joke and people started taking it seriously.

>>4127352
This looks like it'll either be interesting or will horribly, horribly fail.

>>4127403
I agree with this. Children shouldn't be brought up with religion and indoctrinated into something before they even know how to walk. It's something that they should learn about and decide for themselves when they're older.

>>4126849
>So we all know that as you become more learned throughout life, the idea of religion becomes more and more nonsensical.

The only intellectual valid way to be into religion is by being a solipsist or phenomenologist. Meaning you simply say reality is not real but a fake. After that, all bets are on again.

>>4128960
>Meaning you simply say reality is not real but a fake.

Nope it means you look for the reality in the illusion, it's actual manifestation in the real. Only autists discard something on the grounds that it's a social construct.

>>4126849
>So we all know that as you become more learned throughout life, the idea of religion becomes more and more nonsensical.

I disagree - as one becomes more and more invested in only what they can see and directly experience via the senses does the idea of any external idea such as religion seem nonsensical.

>>4126849

I live in a place where non-religion is pretty much the default. When you grow up as completely irrelegious, and you are then as an adult faced with all these different religions, I cannot begin to tell you how ridiculous it all sounds. (Also, pic related, in a way. How the fuck am I supposed to 'choose'?)

And all the philosophy of religion only sounds like ornamentation designed to make religious people's position look a lot more impressive and well-founded than it is - elaborate, but ultimately useless.

For example, William Lane Craig jumps back and forth between arguments for a generic deistic Prime Mover God and arguments for the specific God of the Bible, while pretending that they’re the same thing. It’s a deception meant to disguise a simple religious argument as a sophisticated philosophical or scientific argument. Of course, it ultimately fails because William Lane Craig and other apologetics suck at philosophy and science.

>>4128996


>How the fuck am I supposed to 'choose'?

if you have to ask, you probably dont know how, and need someone to induct you into a 'tradition' for you.

>>4128996
what on Earth is that chart supposed to convey? None of the wedges seem to have any relation to populations or anything else that a pie chart could sensibly depict

>>4128996
Someone should ban this picture from the internet

>>4129052
the amount of believers a religion has isn't a measure of it's likehood of being true.

>>4129052
>>4129056

the picture isn't supposed to account for the amount of people. it's just what theism consists of. there's nothing stupid about it. the point is that with atheism you only have one option, with theism you have countless.