/lit/ - Literature

ignostic master race

>mfw a christian can't define the God he's believing in

>>4286748
>implying the metaphysical existence of God has anything to do with a specific religion

>>4286738
>yfw you can't define a hippodactyl
You already have the face.

>>4286753
>Implying metaphysical claims are interesting, meaningful or falsifiable in any way and thus worth the time of anyone who is not completely retarded

>>4286748
I lol'd

god is the big daddy in the sky. god is the alpha male of the entire universe. god is the excuse you use when you can't deal with the idea of a universe without purpose.

god is "wibbley wobbley timey wimey" as a reason for everything.

>mfw people still haven't transcended the theist-atheist dichotomy

>>4286762
the lack of god is the excuse you use when you can't deal with the idea of a universe with meaning.

t. nagel

>>4286762
Nice definition of imaginary creature.

>mfw these threads are pointless and only goes to show that OP is a cock sucking machine.
>mfw I hnf

>>4286748
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catechisms
:)

>hurr durr you can't prove a negative: therefore unicorns exist

>>4286779
Truth exists independent of evidence.

>mfw proof of god can't exist
>mfw proof against god can't either

>>4286784
You are a figment of my imagination.
Prove me wrong.

>>4286766
>mfw an army of faerie princesses are titty fucking me right now

>>4286738
>implying theists can define their God

>>4286748
Don't you know? He is fear itself -- the terror hidden in your darkest dreams. He is the tigerforce at the heart of all things. Darkseid Is.

>>4286789
You... you have no face!

>tfw you can't wait for the new sincerity because atheism and postmodernism is genuinely worse than religion

>>4286801
lol

>>4286787
That would be impossible to prove either way.
For one, he could respond to you, but that isn't to say he is really truly there.
Also implying he is actually real, what stops it from actually being in your head.
This entire website could be a manifestation of your deepest thoughts.
The world in which you are posting is not all too dissimilar to mine, however that isn't to say that we are all created by you.

hurr flying noodle creature

>>4286830
Ipso facto, I am God.
Accept my existence.

Maybe because I don't deny the existence of one, only evidence of one.

>>4286852
Then you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

>>4286861
You are literally retarded.

>>4286862
I choose to believe you mean this figuratively.

>>4286867
maybe he mean that sarcastically

>>4286867
You can't be only agnostic. It doesn't work that way. Agnostic means you don't claim absolute knowledge on a subject. You can be agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, but not just agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist, I don't specifically believe there is a god, but I don't deny that one could exist.

>>4286738
Really? Who is this one atheist who believes in all gods but one, yet can't define it?

>>4286878
ur mum

rekt

>>4286874
Don't fucking do that.
Literal does not now and will never mean sarcastic, godammit!!

>>4286883
Literal means whatever you want it to mean, so long as the listener understands what you mean by it.

Such is the nature of words.

>>4286883
But you can use the term literal sarcastically.

>>4286875
what if I deny the existence of a dichotomy between abscence/presence of god or the whole validity of the property of "existence" when referring to god
>do you believe this apple is chumpi
>what apple?, what is chumpi?
>THE ONLY REASONABLE ANSWERS ARE YES CHUMPI OR NOT CHUMPI OR AGNOSTIC CHUMPI OR AGNOSTIC NOT-CHUMPI

>>4286887
That would make you an idiot, because something either exists or it does not.

>>4286886
>>4286885
This is how it begins.

what is it called when you just don't give a fuck?

>>4286875
>you don't pointless special snowflake terminology just to make autists feel better
>you're retarded

the epistemological nature of faith does not fall under the umbrella of faith

there is no point in appending agnostic/gnostic

unless agnostic means the lack of an assertion either way

which is why anyone who isn't fucking stupid uses agnostic that way

>>4286896
Enlightenment

>>4286891
>because something either exists or it does not.
in the same way that everything is chumpi or not-chumpi?

>>4286897
>unless agnostic means the lack of an assertion either way
In layman's terms, yes.

>>4286898
Literally?

>>4286903
Theoretically

>>4286901
cool, so there are theists, atheists, and agnostics

glad we cleared that up

>>4286907
No, because you have to have a belief either way. Either you believe there is a god/gods, or you don't. The gnostic/agnostic label determines whether you claim to know or not.

"I believe there is a god," is an entirely different statement from "I know there is a god."

>>4286748
God is Love.

>>4286915
No, because Schrodinger's God.

god resists definition

>>4286921
Okay.

>>4286919
DEFINITION RESISTS GOD
I changed the order of words in a maxim
where is my philosophy PhD?

>>4286915
No, because some of us really don't give a fuck.
Believe it.

>>4286941
I refuse to believe it
Im fuckagnostic

>>4286738
These two post
>>4286917
>>4286797
show why an atheist can't define the God s/he's denying. God can mean two (and surely endless more) completely different ideas at the same time.

>>4286955
But, is it possibly that all the ideas god represent refer to a single reality?
like the idea of good?

If something can't be defined, you don't need to refute it, it's simply incoherent and can be ignored.

>>4286960
everything is incoherent anon, are you going to ignore everything?
I apologize beforehand if you happen to be a buddhist

>>4286963
>everything is incoherent anon, are you going to ignore everything?

If everything were incoherent then we wouldn't be able to have this discussion. Ipso facto, I'm right and I win.

>>4286965
>>4286963
#rekt

>>4286915
>you have to have a belief either way
I don't. You appear to not understand what agnostic means, try the dictionary next time instead of inventing a definition in your head.

>>4286968
You'd better have a belief one way or the other, if you know what's good for you.

>>4286965
>If everything were incoherent then we wouldn't be able to have this discussion
no, if everything were incoherent this conversation would be meaningless, which it is

>>4286968
choose sides idiot, there is free cookies for the new converts

>>4286955
b/c the more complicated you make an imaginary being, the less likely it is to exist. #Okkamsrazor

>>4286959
you mean, the single reality as in god being the ultimate form of reality or do you mean that everything god does converges on the Good?

>>4286995
God is like the 3D version of reality.

>>4286999
"God is like, kitsch, man." -Buddy Jesus

>mfw /lit/ can't post about the Literature it's intended for

>>4287007
literature is undefined
we are doing literature right now
embrace postmodernism

>>4287010

Define 'undefined'.

>implying you can out-pomo me.

>>4287012
undefined cannot be held or contained. it is all things yet seems like nothing. it is the 3-d version of reality. it is kitsch. like po-mo. meaningless without conext

God is the essence of what we believe in.

>>4287012
You just did. In fact, "Define 'undefined'" is the only definition there will ever be.

> mfw theists and atheists alike are genuinely retarded in the arts of discussion between each other
> mfw neither party can know for sure the meaning of the universe or our existence
> mfw both parties throw shit at each other pretending that they do
> mfw Socrates rolls in his grave everyday

>>4287351
i wish i could sit on the fence as hard as you

it must take so much brainpower to lazily stay out of the discussion

how would you define something that doesn't exist?

>>4287553
As an abstract.

Thread over

>>4287553
How do you define a unicorn?

Theological non-cognitivism is the only logical position on the matter.

All educated people agree on that.

>>4286896
>>/hell/

>>4287560
you're really fucking stupid
oh my god you're so fucking stupid
i fucking hate you

do you even know what non-cognitivism means? it doesn't mean you can't know the answer, if that's what you think it means.

fucking pseuds with their neoliberal induced obsession with isms

>>4287568
what

>>4286939
>>4286919
definition god resists
What do I win?

>>4287573
the "i don't actually read, so i dismiss anything remotely challenging as pomo nonsense award"

>>4287557
If my unicorn has 30 legs and a big red nose, it's not any more incorrect than your definition of an unicorn. If you asked for the definition of the globally accepted idea of an unicorn, though...

>>4287007
literature simply means the written word
you are reading words right now
IE, everything on /lit/ is literature.

>>4287572
non-cognitivism would be the assertion that there is no answer to the question of god's existence. not that we cannot know it, but that there is in fact no answer. that whether or not god exists is not a feature of the world. which is ridiculous given the traditional conception of god, and even given a very metaphysical "god is the condition of being" conception, god would still function as the foundation of our world. so to deny that there is a truth status to the question of "does god exist?" is patently ridiculous, and you obviously were just showing off, and did so in a fashion where you condensed your stupid opinion into two words, the way neoliberals have been teaching children to function for years, with neat cookie-cutter operations of reduction on every thing under the sun.

fucking dumbass

>>4287586
>2013
>IE

Definition is contained within God. Trying to define him is wasting your time.

>>4287557
however i want. mary shelley writes about sparkly femboys and calls them vampires. there is nothing stopping me from defining a unicorn as a bald dog.

>>4287586
>implying
everything is a text now stupid

if you're going to pull some stupid shit about what counts as literature

at least stay current with developments in literary theory

>>4287593
I'll define your mom as a ho

The only argument for a god is: "In an infinite universe everything will happen at least once".
Check mate theists.

>>4286738

>mfw even 0/10 troll threads get infinite responses.

>>4287595
considering the fact that a mother is someone who has concieved after sex, you're probably right, but it still doesn't prove anything about god's existence.

>>4287601
>considering the fact that a mother is someone who has concieved after sex, you're probably right, but it still doesn't prove anything about god's existence.
>having sex makes you probably a ho

yup, atheists are still kissless virgin fedoras

>>4287594
So enlighten me. What does 'literature' currently mean?

>>4287590
First of all you have chosen to construct this weird straw man, and I have absolutely no idea why. You're tilting at windmills m8.

Second, this is made hilarious because you yourself have absolutely no clue what non-cognitivism is.

Par for the course on /lit/ I suppose.

>>4287601
Oh well.

All things have causes.
Ideas are things.
Your idea has a cause.
You have an idea of the infinite.
This cause is infinite.


All things have causes.
Ideas are things.
Your idea has a cause.
You have an idea of God.
This cause is God.

checkmate atheists

>>4287605
either what we commonly consider literature and call literature

or if you're doing the "look at me so clever" thing, it's been established for a while that pretty much everything is a text which can be read, tv shows, billboards, currency design, etc

discourse is everywhere

>>4287596
>implying god exists within this universe and exists by the same laws as everything else
>implying this universe is infinite
C'mon dude, think harder

>>4287605
If it's older than 50 years old, or written by Ellis/Houellebecq, it's literature. The rest is shit.

>>4287615
You are missing so many nice things in life.

>>4287619
At least I'm not missing on good literature.

>>4287612
So your definition of literature is 'what we commonly consider literature'
If I describe a tree as 'something I commonly consider a tree and call a tree' then is that a good definition of a tree?

>>4287611
i'm a theist, but

>you have an idea of the infinite
>this cause is infinite

this does not follow from the first three premises

we just know that their idea of the infinite, not that this cause is infinite

my ideas about the mathematical infinite result from the fact that you can always just add one to any number

also, "things" in the sense you use it seems to mean events. a chair does not have a cause. it's existence has a cause, in that it was made. but the chair itself has no cause. ideas are events, but only strictly in the sense that chemicals interact in your brain. and the cause of this is something very finite and material, prior chemical interactions. of course, there were other ideas and events on a less biochemical level which caused this idea, but causality functions primarily on a material level.

>>4287620
I couldn't live with such a low bar. Good luck not enjoying everything literature has to offer.

>>4287611
>all things have a cause
>god has no cause

>>4287625
YOU JUST GOT DESCARTES'd

>it's existence has a cause, in that it was made
Causa materialis
Causa efficiens
Causa formalis
Causa finalis

>wood
>four legs, a wooden plate and something to rest your back on I don't know how it's called
>a hammer, nails and a saw beating some branches
>sitting

>>4287632
And your point is?

>>4287628
I'm enjoying all literature has to offer. The rest is bad, it's shit, it's pleb. I leave what's pleb to the plebs and stick with the masters.

>>4287624
>good
oh, you have so much to learn

a dictionary definition of tree describes what "tree" is generally understood to mean in english. this would constitute a "good" definition because you would have the same understanding of the word as most people speaking english.

however, there is no objective meaning to the word "tree". it is an arrangement of symbols which we have associated with the material objects we refer to as trees.

similarly, literature could either be considered, in various contexts, the sum of all text produced which either had artistic intent or has been evaluated as art, rigorous and academic works, works which have generally been considered of a higher caliber (canon), etc

if you want to consider literature more broadly, as texts which can be interpreted, you can't restrict yourself to written texts. movements, images, everything is text

>>4286896
apatheism

>>4287615
>Ellis

>>4287639
his point, i think, being that you're assuming all things have causes because all things you know have causes (the problem of induction)

>>4287639
>>4288314
go back to your meme classical threads you cunts

>>4286738
/b/ thread in /lit/ the fuck?

>>4286767
that's dumb as shit.

>>4287615
you don't even have an idea of how many good books you're discarding

>>4287639
>The rest is bad, it's shit, it's pleb. I leave what's pleb to the plebs
How do you know it's bad if you're leaving it for the plebs?

>>4287637
was he talking about destiny putting a chair as example or I'm the retarded?

>>4286787
he's talking logical retarded

>>4286840
shut up suppahuman

>>4286885
as hemophilia?

>>4286952
no, you are a dumb

>>4287615
>I'm so alternative

>>4286885
>muh postmodernism!
no

>>4287611
>all things have causes

....

>>4287577
>original post referenced derrida

at what point was this reply chain not PoMo nonsense?