/lit/ - Literature

In what sense? Cultural or universal?

Well, I'm pretty much a talentless perma virgin.

I have no idea why I didn't kill myself yet

>>4385259
I suppose it depends on the person, but I'm not really sure what you mean by universal

>>4385250
I haven't. I continue to existence partially because I might find something that makes it worth it, me dying would bring too much sadness to people I love and I'm frankly too scared of death.

>>4385250
I don't. I live it.

My culture is dead and my purpose is none

>>4385280
Love your fate. That is it. How many before had such crises before? In the times of Caesar, Trajan, napoleon and today... All of them are unheard and nothing but a breeze in time soon to be forgotten.

You don't. You just stop being a faggot and live with it.

>>4385268
Cultural existential crises are what >>4385263 is thinking of. Existence in reference to outside factors, usually humanistic. A universal existential crisis is independent of outside factors such as culture and other life and deals with self-contained existence.

I didn't kill myself because i actually had stuff to do today

>>4385250
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oZWpqtNi4

Why exert the energy required to bother with such petty things?

>>4385250
I visit my therapist once in a week.

>>4385250


i never really had one.

get on my level scrubs.

>>4385360
Must be nice to have settled on such a anti-intellectual persona that plays off basic human elements as psuedo intellectual nonsense

I had one once. Wasn't really that bad. Was an interesting thought for a little while then I continued doing what I was doing.

i hunt men

I'm pretty sure the high suicide rate has to do with isolation from your family and culture in first world countries. How is every some one supposed to solve an existential crisis without this important template?

>>4385422
It's not like it's that hard to achieve. I've been a hikikomori for almost 3 years now, so I'm isolated not only mentally but physically, and solved all my existential problems pretty quickly. Just become a NEET or something and spend all your time reading and thinking.

I just deal with it.

>>4385250
I fap alot.
Leaves me too tired to complete my suicide.

I became a yoga zen buddhist taoist practicing feng shui

>>4385620
Let me guess: white, middle class American male in his 20's.

>having an existential crisis
>having an existential anything
>existential anything
>existentialism
>any year

Drop it like it's Kin Jong Un's genitalia.

>>4385620
what if i'm an ubermensch political buddhist taoist absurdist?

>>4385620
loving it

I don't kill myself because of the spontaneous little joys that occurs everyday just barely keeps me going. At the end of the day I'm still often filled with nihilism, but I usually had some good chuckles that day, so I guess that's it. Also, death is the most terrifying thing I can imagine and I can't even fully imagine it.
Also, some art I like.

>>4385250
You start by going to the gym, and then fucking a bitch. and you accept that being happy is a simple chemical process that you can control, you're just too afraid and too much of a bitch to do anything about it. then you read dostoevsky and laugh

>>4385653
wow dude so deep

>>4385634
is that even possible?

>>4385250

Every day. I become more and more of a asocial asshole every day. I'm too edgy for the world.

>>4385368
Existential crises are inherently pseudo-intellectual. They display a lack of control over one's emotion and a lack of resolve in general. There's a reason they are associated with edgy teenagers.

>>4385250
>'dealing' with your crises and not just learning how to live with them

>>4385250
>How did you deal with your existential identity crisis?
with this handy flowchart of course!

>>4385250
>How did you deal with your existential identity crisis?
I didn't/haven't. There's nothing to deal with in my opinion. I am, so I'll be, til I'm not.

>all these people referencing babby's first existential flowchart: picture book edition
I rarely visit /lit/ but are most people here this uninformed on philosophy and existentialism?

>>4385781
The flowchart is a joke.

Do you get jokes?

>>4385787
Ironic stupidity doesn't translate well on the internet, and especially 4chan.

>>4385795
This one is actually obvious.

>>4385795
It says "baby's first" right at the top.

Art, philosophy, and bonding with people over the former.

>>4385653
>tfw have reached the natural level of patricianhood to sincerely appreciate that painting instead of being smug and sarcastic about it

someone post that d&e picture about how only degenerates and losers have existential crises.

>>4385801
I assumed it was just self-depricating humor pointing out that it wasn't comprehensive. Especially considering that it came from reddit and wasn't made as a joke.

But maybe I'm just autistic or something.

>>4385825
You've probably just spent too long on 4chan today, take a break and come back tomorrow.

>>4385809


dont be confused, the virtue is in you, not the painting.

>>4385835


but dont get me wrong or anything, youre still a fag b-baka anon

>>4385250
By embracing materialism.

>>4385850
why would you do such a thing

>>4385850
Jesus. That's worse than committing intellectual suicide.

>>4385854
Because everything makes me unhappy.

>>4385599
nofap will change your life

>>4385865
Not really.

>>4385850
You're the reason the internet age is a devolution.

>>4385858
>implying that would be a bad thing

by not being a douche

>>4385878
>destroying the search for truth in favor of momentary solace
muh nihilism

>>4385875
You can't stop it.

The only way to deal with life is to be more materialistic.

And then you'll understand why everyone hates you for being a fat slob who doesn't lift.

>>4385909
Not exactly. The problem is that people on /lit/ are trying two things at once: they ARE materialistic because they like having a place to live, they like having books, internet, etc.

However, they've given up on the struggle of getting more. They're living a life of discontentment because no one here can honestly criticize materialism.

In reality, they're just mediocre at materialism and therefore they treat the whole scenario with sour grapes.

TL;DR accept your pampered life and work hard.

>>4385955
You win laziest philosophy of the year award

>>4385961
thanks it takes finesse to be as lazy as this

I have fun with my mind's malleability and do my best to retain some consistent moral code.

>>4385998
How are experiencing malleability and morality compatible?

>>4385250

I dropped out of college and moved to a commune.

>>4385966
cute and all, but are you serious?
not the guy you replied to btw

>>4386125
yes.

>>4385250
this pic reminds me of houston only not as fat

>>4385758
You must be rather arrogant to continue to spout your opinion without any reflection on how I was so easily able to determine it in advance

>>4386050
How'd you find the commune? Looking to just find some place to lay low and read after I graduate next semester.

Drugs and Books Op. Drugs and Books.
P.S it doesn't work very well

>>4385758
>>4385818
>>4385319
>>4385360
Your ubermensch mentality is only the result of Nietzsche's existential crisis, but I wouldn't expect retarded nihilist to understand hypocrisy

I really don't know OP. I don't get how people do it. How they just know what they want to do with their life. How they can just pick a single thing and just stick with it.

I graduated this past may and the idea of choosing a single career and just doing that my whole life terrifies me.

I'm afraid there's nothing I'll love enough to be very good at anything.

Absurdism.

By becoming a sort of fly on the wall. I take control of my own life but find a strong purpose in just watching. Watching the world around us change and develop is entertaining to say the least. The primary reason I want to live long is because I want to see what happens. It's like a really interesting story that I won't be able to ever read the end of but I still want to see what events happen along the way.

>>4385250
I've had two. I recently got over the last one. The first one was in high school, i started reading books and making friends and i got over it.
The second was when I went to college. I started smoking pot, fucking bitches, partying and got a 4.0. Crises solved.

I invented the "fedora" stereotype.

I realized meaning is subjective. Only you can give meaning to your life.

Acceptance of my position but without genuine resolution (absurdism, I guess). I try to delude myself with spooks, but at the end of the day I'm just too cynical.

>>4386530
So übermensch according to the chart, that's me as well. Though, pretty sure in philosophy and English that übermensch is actually only mentioned like once and isn't necessarily the word Nietzsche chose to define the master morality business. I wouldn't know because I haven't directly read his works, only works influenced by him.

Though I find myself contradicting myself and wanting to believe in universal or at least global or at the very least life morality that follows at least some sort of trend because of some sort of specific reason that is good enough to live by, that being the concept of good. Or at the bare minimum, not killing things for absolutely no or little reason(or thought, bare bare minimum).

>>4386518

George W.S. Trow theorized why fedoras were humiliating in 1980, and he's dead now.

>>4386553
I meant the stereotype of a "fat atheist who thinks he's intellectually superior." I'm sure I didn't invent it, but I've long assumed that I connected the hat with the lifestyle.

>>4386546
>universal or at least global or at the very least life morality that follows at least some sort of trend because of some sort of specific reason that is good enough to live by, that being the concept of good. Or at the bare minimum, not killing things for absolutely no or little reason(or thought, bare bare minimum).
We're social creatures, for starters. This means so much more than "needing to be around others". It implies that there's an instinctive basis for morality, the most obvious being "don't do harm unless you want to get into trouble". This culture-generating behavior is essentially what puts us above mere animals.

>>4386562
I can see that being very true. Though I wouldn't be so quick to seperate us from animals, they can be social too. Bats lend each other food when they need it and remember who does or doesn't pay back the favor or just mooches. And clearly apes are very social. As are whales and dolphins (the cries between babies and parents is heartbreaking, and is obviously indicator of language). I mean yes there's something different about us. But we're still in the same category still animals. And killing animals for no purpose offends our morality, perhaps that's reason enough to realize we can respect them (basically life) because they are not cold and unfeeling machines.

>>4386303
>The primary reason I want to live long is because I want to see what happens
Fuck, this 1000 times. I'd love if after death I could exist like a conscience watching shit unfold.
"spectator" mode.

By reading? Seeing what those countless dead men have to say? Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche , Freud, Jung and many others, all have their stupid parts on their philosophies (Hue spock, women and ubermensch [not that the concept of ubermensh is stupid it's that people who read it now make it sound stupid (edgy teens), Dicks everywhere] Each one of them teaches me something or completely ruins my previous view of the world and I'm forced to build another one.

>>4386623
Go read Star maker.

I feel life clawing away at my death
Time to be harnessed; time a tool from the infinite
I feel happiness crawling into my brain from the infinite darkness
It is full of life here.
The only place where life lives.

- Repeat and smile, insignificant observers of a wonderful cyclical self-consuming design.

Realize it's not the world that is meaningless, but its your perception of the world that is meaningless. The universe is a strange place and there are many ways to find meaning, rather in religion, the little joys of life, or by simply embracing the insanity. The important thing to remember is that you are a REAL, sentient being and that you are effecting the universe you exist in.

Good luck, OP. I sincerely believe in you.

>>4386664
You're saying the world does have a meaning?
Then, please, enlighten us.

>it depends on u bro, u gib it the meaning
Then it does not have a meaning, but interpretations.

Believe in God, it is necessary.

Without God life is meaningless and the best that you can possibly hope for us a buddhist detachment or a stoic wall of apatheia. This is because a creator with an intellect is necessary to give man a telos (a meaning, purpose). Just as men create hammers and cars and give them a telos, so God, the creator of man, has endowed him with a telos. Being an existentialist and "creating your own meaning (telos)" is as nonsensical as saying that a hammer or car can create its own telos. This is why the existentialist philosophy is unsatisfying psychologically and nonsensical logically.

If God does not exist then neither do you, you are nothing at all, you have no identity. The best you can hope for without God is to give up trying to find an identity and be content with nothingness. This is because God is the foundation of being - all things, all beings, have their being by participating in the ultimate foundation of being which is God. "I AM THAT I AM" is what God is called in the bible. God is that which says "I am", without God there is no "am", no being. This is why Nietzsche was right, when he abandoned God, to go back to Heraclitus and deny being altogether in further of "becoming". If there is no God there is no fundamental, eternal identity (no soul), there is only "becoming", "flux" - you are changing every microsecond, never the same person you were a moment ago and the best you can hope for is a Humean "bundle" self.

Without God your life will always be a riddle. You'll always have questions without answers. You'll always look up at the night sky and be met with total silence. Without God your life will be quicksand, you'll never have a solid foundation to build upon, you'll never even get started in life. Every effort you make in life you'll be able to look back on and say, "I didn't need to do that", or, "I could have done something else", every goal you set for yourself can be overturned at a whim, every identity you form for yourself can be overturned at a whim - because you build your goal and identity based on whims and not on an eternal will, God.

Believe in God, it is necessary.

How old are you guys?

I'm 23yo and sometimes feel like I should have gotten over this crisis already.

>>4386674
Unless you found God you did not get over the crisis. Ninety nine times out of hundred it'll be the case that you just found comfort in worldly pleasures and popular culture and took your mind off of reflection because it was becoming too much and you realized that it was getting in your way of "becoming something in the world".
The same crisis will return to you sooner or later, even if you have to wait until mid-life. One day that same question will pop in your head again, "why am I doing all this? what's the point of my life?" Then you'll be back at where you where as a teenager when you first had your existential crisis.

>>4386674

I'm 23 man. Honestly, >>4386670 is mostly right, though his tone might be presumptuous we all know he's right.

consciousness is an infinite living through finite form - the body.

As space-time is an infinite form living through a finite form - material

And so the experiences that magnetise to your Self; your memory and perception, your ego. All transient - all will disappear - by the time you're where you should be spiritually this should matter none.

Do not disregard the finite, for we are intrinsically connected to it via the skin sack compost system - but again don't be afraid to consider the infinite of which we are of equal part (finite being divided into finite, or rather, finite being a product of infinite and all)

>>4386670
I agree with you fully.

I still dont believe though. Thats probably a bad thing.

Existential crises are actually a good sign though. They're a sign that God is looking for you.

>An old, time-honored, and trustworthy devotional book declares that God deals with a human being as the hunter deals with game: he chases it weary, then he gives it a little time to catch its breath and gather new strength, and then the chase begins again.

If you're an atheist then existential crises are a sign that you have some spirit in you after all.
It's like what Pascal said: that he could understand an atheist that was searching for God, but not an atheist that isn't searching for God. If you are having an existential crises it's because you are searching for God, whether you've realized that yet or not.

>>4386681
I don't believe you need to believe in god to arrive to a meaning.
I however do agree about how most of the times you feel you're over the crisis, it's just that you're very well entertained/distracted.
I consider that the only thing that could pass as being god, are the collection of chemical and physical laws that govern reality. They determine what is or what isn't, and when you have such elegant ideas predicting and molding what exists, you have to be amazed. But again, god would be the laws, not the "creator" of the laws, since they just are.

Just to be clear, when you say "God", do you mean a mythological god from a religion, or something more philosophical?, the way you write makes me think it's the former.

>>4386694

>when you say "God", do you mean a mythological god from a religion, or something more philosophical?

Watch those semantics, buddy.

>>4386668
I'm sorry. I should not have posted. I'm not very well read in philosophy, so I'm not sure why I felt the need to add my two cents..

>>4386690
Refusing to believe is sin. Believe that you can believe, and you will believe. Have faith that God will increase your faith, and you will have faith.

>Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. (Mark 11:24)

People like to say, "just because you believe it, doesn't make it true", this is true but at the same time its false. Spiritually, whatever you believe IS true. "To believe is to be", as Kierkegaard puts it. This is the foundation of Christianity, actually, this very simple statement that whatever you believe you have you have.

>For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

>>4386698
Often I see arguments like "If god exists why do so many people suffer in life" and "If you pray why doesn't god listen to you and fulfill your wishes". Is it possible to counter this argument?

>>4386698
oh, you meant the christian god. Rightrightrightright.

That one doesnt work theodicy-wise. I think for myself having any chance of closure in this life is to submit myself to a greater concept of omnipotence, of beginning and end, as much it may seem to me that there just is no such thing, but the christian god with all the retcons and popal bulls (or worse, the straight up biblical mess) does not meet the criteria of this greater concept.

>>4386698
Sorry to butt in with this, but I've been hearing a lot of people quote Kierkegaard lately and I am not familiar with his works, but am interested. Where is the best place to start with him?

>>4386701
that last sentence is fucked up at so many places, but I think the point still gets across. Sorry for that.

>>4386698

>For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

He was certainly one cryptic man. Did he really mean we can manipulate the physical world with our minds? Or is he speaking allegorically? If he's speaking allegorically, what might it mean? Hyperbolic message of the effect of prayer?

>>4386696
Come on, you know what I mean.
Also fuck you and your high horse.

>>4386694
Here

>>4386698
welp, so it's a mythological god (christianism).
Interesting points, however thanks but no thanks.

>>4386694
>Just to be clear, when you say "God", do you mean a mythological god from a religion, or something more philosophical?

Both. He is "philosophical" in that we define Him in philosophical term, and He is "mythological" in that He has left His mark on history.
There are things that can be said about God from a purely philosophical standpoint, but there are things about God that you just have to believe.
This is a good analogy - there are things you can know about me purely philosophically ("a priori" if you like) - you can derive, logically, the fact that I know the English language to some extent, that I can use a keyboard or some other input device, that I have access to the internet, etc. But there are some things you can only know about me only if I REVEAL them to you. Like how my favourite colour is red and how at school I liked a girl called Jade when I was 4 years old.
It's the same with God. There are some things we can only know about Him if He reveals them to us - and that's what the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, all claim to be - revelations from God. There is an important concept in the tradition of the Abrahmic Religion, the concept of "authority". The prophets have "authority", because they have received a message from God and so they have the right to instruct others and correct them. Moses had authority to give the Israelites the Law because he received those laws from God. One of the things that the people said about Jesus during his earthly life is that "he speaks with authority", i.e. he speaks like a prophet, somebody who KNOWS. This concept is totally outside of the Greek philosophical tradition where things can only be known through rational means, through principles and deductions.

>>4386714

Socrates resembles a prophet in many ways - he has a voice in his head that tells him to live a life of poverty, he goes about and tries to correct people's mistakes, he is put to death because the people reject him (many of the prophets were put to death in the Jewish tradition, because the people did not like to hear that they were sinners offending God). The thing is, Socrates lacks that solid authority, and so the way he instructs people is by doing his clever verbal games. That's not how the Jewish prophets instructed, they didn't have to play a very subtle game of words in order to lead the "opponent" into contradiction. They just said, "this is what I know, blessed you are if you believe me, because I know what I know because God has revealed it to me". Of course, the concept of "false prophet" arises out of this - somebody who claims to have authority from God but does not in fact. The question one wants to ask at that point, "How do I distinguish a false prophet from a true one? If I have no way to prove one is true and the other is false, I might as well refrain from making any assumptions and remain skeptical of them all". The answer to this riddle is given by Christ, "by their fruits you shall know them". A true prophet will bear good fruits, because God only does good and so if a prophet is truly with God then his effects will be good. A false prophet will bear bad fruits, because he is a liar and will deceive people concerning God.

>>4386710
See, you can stick to a purely "philosophical" God but it is not enough. A purely philosophical God cannot give you a law/commandment, it cannot say "love thy neighbour", it cannot found a Church. It can only remain inside a book (and the book that I recommend is Summa Theologica).

>>4386715
>>4386714
It' refreshing to come into contact with a religious person like you.

>>4386717
I agree with you.

>>4386715
Also, remaining skeptical has its own faults. I mean, if somebody really does speak with authority given by God and you ignore him then you are missing out on the most important wisdom that man could ever hope to have, because surely knowledge given by God is more efficacious that knowledge derived merely through logic and deduction, human faculties. I know we have borne much good fruit out of the exercise of our reason (science, technology, architecture), but we cannot, with our reason, give our life ultimate meaning or purpose. We need God to tell us that, which is why we would need a Holy Book where prophets of God tell us what that purpose is.

I am a Christian (or more accurately, I'm trying to be, I'm a complete novice). Read the gospels, consider what Christ says and does. IMO it cannot be denied that Jesus of Nazareth is the best man that has ever lived. Even if you say that His life is a fabrication, it is the most compelling story that man has ever told. I think it is Glaucon, in Plato's republic, who wants Socrates to prove to him that it's better to be a just man than an unjust man, and so he gives Socrates an argument to refute, saying: if there's an unjust man who everybody believes to be just, and he lives a great life of fame and luxury, and there is a just man who everybody believes to be unjust and he is tortured horribly and killed, surely the unjust man lives the happier life? And much of The Republic is Socrates trying to answer this. Christ is precisely that just man - only I think he is more just than even Plato could imagine, I don't think Plato could imagine a man going so far that he would even pray for his persecutors as they are giving him a brutal and humiliating death. But Christ did live the happiest life there has ever been lived, and the proof of it is in his last words, "it is finished". Almost nobody else gets to say these words. Many at the time thought Socrates was an astoundingly just man, and his last words were "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Do pay it. Don't forget." See, Socrates had left something undone in his life, and so he was unhappy. He did not have a clear conscience when he died. Christ did have a completely clear conscience when he died, which is why he was able to say, "it is finished". There are few people that can say that at the end of their lives, most people will have left at least some small thing undone, some tiny regret.

>>4386703
Depends.
Works of Love, Sickness Unto Death, Fear and Trembling, The Present Age (a literary review), Concluding Unscientific Postscript. I recommend all of these.
Here's an excerpt from The Present Age http://www.historyguide.org/europe/present_age.html

A quote from Works of Love:
>Is it an excellence in your love that it can love only the extraordinary, the rare? If it were love’s merit to love the extraordinary, then God would be — if I dare say so — perplexed, for to Him the extraordinary does not exist at all. The merit of being able to love only the extraordinary is therefore more like an accusation, not against the extraordinary nor against love, but against the love which can love only the extraordinary. Perfection in the object is not perfection in the love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love of one’s neighbor is determined by love. Therefore genuine love is recognizable by this, that its object is without any of the more definite qualifications of difference, which means that this love is recognizable only by love.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Works_of_Love_.281847.29

>>4386700

>"If god exists why do so many people suffer in life"

the rain falls indiscriminately

>"If you pray why doesn't god listen to you and fulfill your wishes"

if you pray for a new mercedes you will probably not receive a new mercedes. alos consider the fact that what you want is rarely what you need. also consider that if you ask for the right things you can recieve them instantly. are you in pain? pray and ask for strength to endure, and believing that you will endure, you will endure. i think there is a part on prayer in meditations by aurelius that goes over this.

>>4386704
I believe "move a mountian" is an old Jewish phrase. Christ's words are full of references to the old scriptures and he uses many terms from them.
I believe "move a mountain (by faith)" means to remove something spiritually very difficult. For example, an existential atheist who cannot believe in God - that is a mountain that he could remove if he had faith. A women who has lost her husband and son and is in despair - that is a mountain that she could remove if she had faith.

>>4386723
But why don't I pray for the pain to stop? Or for someone diagnosed with cancer to survive?

>>4386700
I'm not instructed in theology but there is an argument that I like - God created the physical laws of the Universe, and he likes those laws. Most of God's will is played out through the motion of matter according to those laws, as he had complete knowledge when he first layed the foundations of the Universe where those laws would lead. He knew exactly where each atom will end up. Most of the time God does not need to break these laws, the times that he does are very rare and he only does them so that people will believe in Him. There is another concept in Jewish tradition called "sign". A "sign" is something that points towards God. When Jewish healed the sick, restored sight to blind, raised Lazarus from the dead, etc., those were "signs", signs that God was with him. God only performs these signs when he absolutely has to according to his greater plan. Most of the time he is content with doing his will through the "natural laws" because he is very satisfied with them.
>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen 1:3)
>And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:10).
Plus, it also protects our free will to keep the Universe running by physical laws most of the time. If miracles were happening willy nilly all over the place all the time then our reality would be a mess and we wouldn't be able to shape and till the earth and make cities.

>>4386726

nature will not bend to your will. you must bend your will to nature.

>>4386723
>if you pray for a new mercedes you will probably not receive a new mercedes.

This is the point though. You believe you have already received the mercedes, and so you have. What did you want out of the mercedes? Clearly, luxury, and the pleasure derived from having such a luxury item. But if you believe you have it then you already have that pleasure - in other words, the contentedness that you sought from acquiring a worldly item you got instead by prayer. You sought to assuage some thirst through the world but instead your thirst was satisfied through prayer. Instead of saying, "God, give me a mercedes", what you end up saying, if you have faith is, "God, thy will be done. If I am not to have a mercedes, then that is for the best, because everything that you do and permit us to do is for the best."

>>4386729
But God isn't nature, is he?

>>4386723
>the rain falls indiscriminately
Elaborate


Sorry I'm not too good at this

>>4386731
>But God isn't nature, is he?

No, He absolutely is not nature, and don't let a pantheist convince you otherwise!

>>4386720
Thanks, friend!

>>4386730

Mark 1:23 - 28

Explain that.

>>4386681
Maximum trolling.

Atheism brought calm to my life

>>4386738
You should probably read this book first:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm
Pascal's "pensées" - "thoughts". He's a precusor to Kierkegaard, and his language is very clear. Kierkegaard uses quite esoteric language at times in order to parody Hegel, a German philosopher that Kierkegaard despised.

>>4386670
This is the utter bullshit of a distressed mind.

What you are saying is the equivalent of rich people locking themselves in gated communities so they never have to see the world.

What does God give you? A FALSE SENSE OF ETERNITY. You don't have to worry about anything in the face of eternity. You don't have to grieve when your family isn't really dead.

Face it. You will die and your consciousness will be gone for eternity. It will be like before you were born. You will become a memory only in your loved ones, unless if you are a particularly talented person, in which case the fruits of your labor will be remembered.

You don't have the time to sit there like a fat stupid fuck, which is why you should work on your physical and mental health constantly and waste time sparingly.

>>4386741
Not all things are allegorical.

>Two errors: 1. To take everything literally. 2. To take everything spiritually.
from Pascal's pensées.

Some times Christ is really casting out unclean spirits from men, and believing that such spirits exist is part of the faith. If you can believe in God, then you can also believe in angels - as angels are the messengers of God (that's what "angel" means), and it is not hard to believe that God would have his messengers. And if you can believe in angels then you can also believe in fallen angels, devils.

>>4386729
>nature will not bend to your will
Except I'm human nigga

>>4386714
No religion hasn't created a god that isn't patently hypocritical. There's no reason to believe in a god that we can't interact with or know exists. Saying an ethereal god created the universe is unfalsifiable so it's a ridiculous claim to make. I might as well say that a magical leprechaun sends impulses to your brain and rewrites your memory, and is impossible to see or interact with. Of course that's not falsifiable.

"God" is a tool of public control

>>4386757
>I might as well say that a magical leprechaun sends impulses to your brain and rewrites your memory, and is impossible to see or interact with. Of course that's not falsifiable.
Yes, and?

>>4386750
>What does God give you? A FALSE SENSE OF ETERNITY.

God gives you the only sense of eternity that one can possibly have. Without God, nothing is eternal.

>You don't have to grieve when your family isn't really dead.

Look, the dangers of believing in spirit and greater than the dangers of pure materialism. According to materialism the greatest evils in the world are things like wars and poverty. Those are bad, sure, but you don't have to worry about evil spirits and temptations and occult rituals and possession, and you certainly don't have to worry about Hell. Being a materialist you think that at the bottom of things are particles, little balls whizzing around whimisically. That's a very soothing view of the world, it's just that it isn't true.

>Face it. You will die and your consciousness will be gone for eternity. It will be like before you were born.

There is more to the religion than comfort, although comfort is certainly a part of it. Why do you begrudge me my comforts? Because they aren't true? But of course they are true, they comfort me. But they are based on wishful thinking and delusion? It's not like I've abandoned my reasoning falculties, I am not insane. I would find it very hard to believe in something that I thought was untrue and even harder to find comfort believing in it. If I didn't think it was satisfying logically as well as spiritually I would have nothing.

>You will become a memory only in your loved ones, unless if you are a particularly talented person, in which case the fruits of your labor will be remembered.

This is one of the things about the secular humanist view that strikes me as well. If you are a secular humanist then 99.999% of the entire human race are living absolutely pointless lives because their memories fade fast, and the only reason they are alive is so that they can prop up the "heroes" and the "geniuses" who represent all of mankind. That's a pretty depressing view, to think that unless you can climb to the top of the mountain of skulls you are worthless. What do you say to a person born in Africa or in a poor neighbourhood, "yeah, your life is meaningless, totally without value. It wouldn't matter much at all if you died, it's not like it would be hard to replace you." This is one of the clues that the secular humanist worldview is totally without wisdom and is completely unsatisfactory and cannot be held. It would make suicide more or less favourable for the majority of mankind, which is something that seems to me self-evidently immoral.

>>4386719
>if somebody really does speak with authority given by God and you ignore him then you are missing out on the most important wisdom that man could ever hope to have, because surely knowledge given by God is more efficacious that knowledge derived merely through logic and deduction, human faculties

Given that even the basic instructions of god are unclear, and require the interpretation of the logic of humans should be a sign of their patent falsehood (there's no reason for god to not beam the perfect instruction set into your head). Of course you're going to insist that god works in mysterious ways which is utter trite, because god causes or at least holds responsibility for all wrong doing and misunderstanding

>>4386761
>
This is one of the things about the secular humanist view that strikes me as well. If you are a secular humanist then 99.999% of the entire human race are living absolutely pointless lives because their memories fade fast, and the only reason they are alive is so that they can prop up the "heroes" and the "geniuses" who represent all of mankind. That's a pretty depressing view, to think that unless you can climb to the top of the mountain of skulls you are worthless. What do you say to a person born in Africa or in a poor neighbourhood, "yeah, your life is meaningless, totally without value. It wouldn't matter much at all if you died, it's not like it would be hard to replace you." This is one of the clues that the secular humanist worldview is totally without wisdom and is completely unsatisfactory and cannot be held. It would make suicide more or less favourable for the majority of mankind, which is something that seems to me self-evidently immoral.

Also, on this point, I have to bring up Shelley's "Ozymandias", which depicts how centuries after the fact nobody cares at all about this once great man who called himself, "king of kings". So even your great heroes and geniuses that live on in memory will eventually fade. "Vanity of Vanities, all is vanity". And so, ultimately the human race has a pointless existence (something I said is an attribute of atheism from the start) and antinatalism is quite logical.

>>4386723
>the rain falls indiscriminately

Actually the rain DOES fall discriminately, that's why deserts exist. The rain falls based on complex but measurable and somewhat predictable patterns. Shitty analogy courtesy of a shitty mind

>>4386723
>if you pray for a new mercedes you will probably not receive a new mercedes

But if your pastor drives one from the money you gave to the church, it's gods will.

>>4386762
> because god causes or at least holds responsibility for all wrong doing and misunderstanding

Yes, God permits evil so that he can bring a greater good out of them.

>For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.
-St. Augustine.

>>4386728
>God created the physical laws of the Universe, and he likes those laws.

He's a negligent psychopath.

This is how you are coming across right now.

>>4386762
>Given that even the basic instructions of god are unclear,

Things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour" aren't that unclear. Sure, some might interpret it differently (it's OK to kill under certain circumstances) but the basic instruction is quite clear.

>>4386766

And yet you'd still curse the rain, albeit it is required for organisms like you to grow.

>>4386759
He tells me that you're a faggot. By decree of the church of leprechaunism, your are a heretic. And kind of a faggot. Enjoy an eternity of Christian hell (I cross religions lol)

>>4386769
>He's a negligent psychopath.

By definition He is not. God is good, by definition. You just have incomplete knowledge of the good (as do we all), and so there are things which appear to be unexplainable and unforgivable to you which God has a purpose for, a purpose that you, in your limitations, cannot see.

>>4386761
>But of course they are true, they comfort me

Of course that comfort you. So does jumping on train tracks, closing your eyes and praying that a train won't hit you. That has nothing to do with what will happen

>>4386779

>So does jumping on train tracks, closing your eyes and praying that a train won't hit you

Don't worry friend, I think about it too.

>>4386761
>It wouldn't matter much at all if you died

Everyone has effects in the world, even if they dot persistence in conscious memory.

Now you're saying that you believe in god because you can't handle the existential crisis of accepting that your grandiose dreams will never come to fruition.

>It would make suicide more or less favourable for the majority of mankind, which is something that seems to me self-evidently immoral.

Except that people are driven out of instinct, and they want to live a certain life. Expecting people to act rationally within your poorly conceived world view and perception of humanity is not a proof of god, it's proof that you don't understand why people do what they do

>>4386765
>delusions of importance are healthier and better than a realist view

In the light of that, manics are literally saints.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHh8UmtEhdU

>>4386768
God permits evil because he's a sadist, he'd rather let people suffer needlessly than be a benevolent ruler

>>4386773
Yes, there's actually this huge legal system dedicate to determining what theft and murder are because there is no clear boundaries and they are very hard to understand fully

>>4386786
It's quite sad that people thinking that their lives have meaning and aren't utterly pointless constitutes "delusions of grandeur" to you. You have quite a low opinion of what is grand.

>>4386788
obviously there has to be a duality in god. He has to be both evil and good, in his entirety respectively. Which is something he of course CAN do, because yeah, omnipotence.

but there, solved theodecy

>>4386774
Curse or no curse, it's a provable physical event which is required for life. I'm thankful it existed and exists, without it we would have not evolved

>>4385250
>did
ha.

>>4386777
Excuse me, you are recycling the allegory of the cave, however the Bible warns you on Colossians 2:8 that you cannot reuse humanist philosophy because they draw you away from God. Please follow your own religions teachings.

>>4386784

I thought you could do with this.

>>4386792
Atheism doesn't preclude meaning, and in fact prescribing such a meaningless word as "meaning" to life is irrational and an artifact of times past. Life just is, there is no meaning.

>>4386793
Oh so god is good and evil but only good and not evil?

In that case I'm right because you said so.

>>4386787
I disagree that faith is incompatible with reason. Faith does not rely on reason, true, but it is not incompatible.
See what I said here:
>There are things that can be said about God from a purely philosophical standpoint, but there are things about God that you just have to believe.
>This is a good analogy - there are things you can know about me purely philosophically ("a priori" if you like) - you can derive, logically, the fact that I know the English language to some extent, that I can use a keyboard or some other input device, that I have access to the internet, etc. But there are some things you can only know about me only if I REVEAL them to you. Like how my favourite colour is red and how at school I liked a girl called Jade when I was 4 years old.

Would it be "unreasonable" for you to trust me when I say that here was a girl named Jade in my childhood? It depends on whether or not I'm a trustworthy person. However, you cannot deduce that I did like that girl purely from evidence or reason. You can go back and look at old school records and find her and my name on the same list, but you cannot deduce that I "liked" her as I claim to, because knowledge comes purely from within me (it cannot be known by any other means because now it only exists in memory, perhaps at the time, when I was 4, an observer could see that I liked this girl). It's the same with faith in God. There are things you can only know about God if he chooses to reveal them to us. One such thing would be our purpose for existence - we can't derive the meaning of life purely by reason, we have to know what our creator intends for us and that would require faith in His revealing that to us.

If you want to know what can be known about God purely through reason then read Summa Theologica.

>>4386777
so why the fuck did he not make the world a system where we could have complete knowledge of the good no problem?

Is omnipotence even omnipotence or do we have an incomplete view of what is all and there is something beyond the everything that is not accompassed in omnipotence, such as having things exactly like they are and ALSO us being always happy? I mean come on.

>>4386804
yes, you are right. God is only good and not evil and only evil and not good.

The academic terminus for this is 'the state of everything sucking major balls for most of the time'

>>4386793
>obviously there has to be a duality in god. He has to be both evil and good, in his entirety respectively. Which is something he of course CAN do, because yeah, omnipotence.


This is Manichaeism, an old philosophy. There are other philosophers that have these kinds of elements. St. Augustine was a manichaen before he became a christian. If you want to see why this view is bad then read his Confessions. Suffice it to say that God is not both good and evil, and there is no "war between good and evil" going on in reality. Evil is simply the privation, the absence, of good (of God).

>>4386771
>stop pressuring my beliefs

Your shitty beliefs effect my world. It is my duty to disabuse you and as many ad possible from it.

>>4386811
But God is everywhere (proverbs 15:3)

So evil then doesn't exist

>>4386811
wait, are you telling me that the stupidest thing I could pull out of my ass in that moment is an actually used philosophy?

This whole afaire is so stupid.

And God is omnipresent, isnt he? how can there be an absence of him? And if an absence of God is evil, why does he allow that? And if we cant grasp why, why didnt he made it so we can grasp it? That last one you can repeat ad infinitum by the way.

>>4386807
>so why the fuck did he not make the world a system where we could have complete knowledge of the good no problem?

Having complete knowledge of the good would make us God. That kind of knowledge requires as an infinite intellect. God cannot create God, he can (logically) only create things that are less than Himself.
God created us so that we could participate in his glory, in his goodness. We rebelled from this glory, choosing rather to worship darkness.

>And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

This is the source of our ills.

>>4385250
ITT: Buzzword General?

>>4386819
>Having complete knowledge of the good would make us God. That kind of knowledge requires as an infinite intellect. God cannot create God, he can (logically) only create things that are less than Himself.
>God created us so that we could participate in his glory, in his goodness. We rebelled from this glory, choosing rather to worship darkness.

who made that system then? Where complete knowledge makes you god? Was it not god? Why did he not make the system in a way were this doesnt happen?

So if good only comes from god then why did literally every society of old have laws against theft?

>>4386818
>And God is omnipresent, isnt he? how can there be an absence of him? And if an absence of God is evil, why does he allow that? And if we cant grasp why, why didnt he made it so we can grasp it? That last one you can repeat ad infinitum by the way.

If you really want an answer to these questions then read Summa Theologica.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

I am not a theologian and if I tried to answer I would make mistakes.

>>4386823
oh great. Appeal to Authority.

"You cant argue in this discussion anymore because you havent read a thing I want you to have read. I cant explain it to you because the thing is so good and important. Welp, looks like I'm right. The thing you gotta read says so."

>>4386823
Theologians can't even address the most basic atheist arguments (epicurean paradox) without bending definitions or making contradictory statements. God is clear falsehood

>>4386818

>Your shitty beliefs effect my world

>It is my duty to disabuse you

>atheism

>>4386822
Probably because humans all participate in God's goodness to some extent, even if they are fallen from it in totality.
Interestingly though, I think Jews had Laws long before any of the Gentile civilizations had, and that nations like Greece (and subsequently Rome) only had laws by more or less copying Jewish tradition. That's a matter of history though so we'd need to look it up, but that's what Pascal suggest in pensées (aphorism 619).

>>4386827
>>4386824
>oh great. Appeal to Authority.

Of course I appeal to authority.
If I ask you to explain all of quantum physics and you cite Niels Bohr am I to respond, "ahah! APPEAL TO AUTHORITY! You know nothing about physics and you base your delusions on infatuation with an authority!"?

>>4386824

>epicureans paradox

>Questioning God within the realm of God using God's word and concepts with the pretence proving no-God. (No what?)

Semantic butt-fingering, just like russel's teapot or your insane babbling invisible unicorns.

If god is so good why does he allow the existence of fedora tipping assholes who cite the appeal to authority improperly

>>4386837

They can display the idiocy of the Godless. And they are shining examples.

Why do I get the impression that nobody ITT actually has a firm grasp of what they're talking about?

>>4386832
well I dont fucking discuss Quantum Physics, because I cant at least give a quick overview about Bohr's works, or of Heisenberg or Einstein for that matter.

I dont claim that I follow Quantum Mechanics with the absolute certainty that it is the only right thing to do in life. So yeah, there is a bit of a difference here.

You dont cite anything. You give me a link and say thats what I have to read. I mean, I can do that too, I cant really explain to you how this is disproven, but if you read the satiric work "Towing Jehova" you'll get what I mean.


Brilliant discussion.

>>4386832
That's literally the opposite of what appealing to authority is.

>>4386843
>because I cant at least give a quick overview about Bohr's works, or of Heisenberg or Einstein for that matter.

Yeah, and that's exactly what I've done with Aquinas. So is it improper for me to refer back to Aquinas when I've reached the limits of my understanding?

>I dont claim that I follow Quantum Mechanics with the absolute certainty that it is the only right thing to do in life. So yeah, there is a bit of a difference here.

Yeah, and I don't claim to have full knowledge of theology, but faith and religion require only basic theology to function, and more complete theology supports the faith and religion and the understanding of it. It's like, you don't need to have full knowledge of Newton's Principia to recreate the experiment where light is refracted through a prism to create a rainbow / separation of wavelengths/colours, and I don't need to have full knowledge of the Summa in order to pray or attend a church.

>>4386835
Now you're just driveling

>>4386841
He's talking about you, idiot

>>4386844
But like D&E said, he was using it improperly in the first place, and so I only continued his usage of it.
"Appeal to authority" is a fallacy that I did not fall into in the first place.

>>4386846
You can repeat newtons experiment, you can't repeat divine experiences.

>>4386849

>Now you're just driveling

Ad hominem, bad reading comprehension

>He's talking about you, idiot

Ad hominem, lack of evidential correlation

I atheism now

>>4386854
>fallacy of the fallacy

You TL;DR the fallacy page on Wikipedia?

Are you an American, btw? It's seems to be an unfortunate side-effect of being an American atheist that you are aggravated with believers because you are surrounded by them and they are unlike you. In Europe nonbelief is so common that if you are a nonbeliever you don't need to get irate with believers, because they aren't a threat to you demographically. Basically, what I'm accusing you of is being emotional, and a lot of atheists on the internet are primarily emotional and rely on scanty proofs/arguments to support their case (hence, the fedora meme).

>>4386853
> you can't repeat divine experiences.

Pray, listen to Palestrina, attend a Latin Mass.

>>4386855

I'm talking about you, you idiot.

>>4386856
Yes, I am. I live in a Christian town. I hear about "fags" and how wrong Darwin was etc. all the time

>>4386857
cont. if "divine experiences" weren't common religion would not be as popular and widespread as it is and has been throughout. We have a dearth of those experiences in modern technological society because it is so overbearingly human all too human, without even a glance heavenwards to God.

>>4386859
I know exactly what you're saying. I haven't even used the word fallacyuntil now. You're just being stupid

>>4386856
I'm not, and I'm the guy who fucked up with the fallacy.

>>4386866

You're being stupid

>(mummy have i won internet battle yet)?

>>4386861
Don't let your arrogance and feelings of superiority over the ignorant and supertitious and bigoted make you ignorant, superstitious and bigoted yourself. The reason why they speak in a way that is offensive is because they don't have much wisdom and aren't God fearing enough, if they were really God fearing they'd be a lot more careful about what they said because they'd know they would have to rend an account of it to God in the end.

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

You have no excuse. You can't just say, "these people look foul to me therefore God must be foul", or, "the people of this church are foul therefore all of Christianity is foul from beginning to end". That's like a religious person seeing your typical fedora stereotype and concluding that all atheists are completely unreasonable and driven by resentment. Not all atheists are completely rotten, even if atheism itself is completely rotten. Not all the religious are holy, even if the religion itself is holy.

>>4386850
>But like D&E said
watch it with those appeals to authority, how many times do you have to be warned

>>4386873
please mercy, I yield, I yield!

>>4386871
cont. I totally sympathize with you that there are some who preach ignorance and bigotry in the name of God. I detest it as much as you do, if not more, as I see it as an abomination offensive to God. You can't let the imperfections of the people against the perfection of their creed. If a man went out and killed people in the name of natural selection and survival of the fittest it would not mean that Darwin's Origin of Species is a complete lie/fabrication (although it does say something about Herbert Spencer).
"By their fruits you will know them". If somebody is ignorant and practices evil then clearly he is not of God. The Bible says this (1 John, James). The Bible also says that people are fallen from God and are liable to sin. Do not condemn the religion because there are hypocrites who claim to be of it. First of all, look at the lives of the saints and martyrs. Look at the BEST examples, not the worst. You would expect me to go to the best of the atheists, like Epicurus. And so I would expect you to go to the best of the christians, like Augustine.

>Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree.
- Pascal. Francis Bacon (the guy who pretty much founded modern science) said the same thing

>>4386873
WATCH IT, KID!

226
Infidels, who profess to follow reason, ought to be exceedingly strong in reason. What say they then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. (Is this contrary to Scripture? Does it not say all this?)

If you care but little to know the truth, here is enough of it to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart[Pg 64] to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. This would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where it concerns your all. And yet, after a trifling reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.

227

Order by dialogues.—What ought I to do? I see only darkness everywhere. Shall I believe I am nothing? Shall I believe I am God?

"All things change and succeed each other." You are mistaken; there is ...

228

Objection of atheists: "But we have no light."

229

This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied; wherefore I have a hundred time wished that if a God maintains nature, she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow. Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty. My heart inclines wholly to know where is the true good, in order to follow it; nothing would be too dear to me for eternity.

I envy those whom I see living in the faith with such carelessness, and who make such a bad use of a gift of which it seems to me I would make such a different use.

230

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist; that the soul should be joined to the body, and that we should have no soul; that the[Pg 65] world should be created, and that it should not be created, etc.; that original sin should be, and that it should not be.

---
Pascal might be the best place to start for a true agnostic.

Here you can see how "Pascal's wager" is more beautiful and subtle than how it is presented, so crudely, in places like Wikipedia and Youtube and others on the internet.

233

Infinite—nothing.—Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, time, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God, as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast, and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?[Pg 66]

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite, and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

>>4386900
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;[90] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not then reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

>>4386901
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake,[Pg 67] your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.—"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much."—Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.

>>4386903
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainty of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the[Pg 68] proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?"—Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.—"But this is what I am afraid of."—And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

>>4386906
The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know[Pg 69] that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.
234

If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on religion, for it is not certain. But how many things we do on an uncertainty, sea voyages, battles! I say then we must do nothing at all, for nothing is certain, and that there is more certainty in religion than there is as to whether we may see to-morrow; for it is not certain that we may see to-morrow, and it is certainly possible that we may not see it. We cannot say as much about religion. It is not certain that it is; but who will venture to say that it is certainly possible that it is not? Now when we work for to-morrow, and so on an uncertainty, we act reasonably; for we ought to work for an uncertainty according to the doctrine of chance which was demonstrated above.

Saint Augustine has seen that we work for an uncertainty, on sea, in battle, etc. But he has not seen the doctrine of chance which proves that we should do so. Montaigne has seen that we are shocked at a fool, and that habit is all-powerful; but he has not seen the reason of this effect.

All these persons have seen the effects, but they have not seen the causes. They are, in comparison with those who have discovered the causes, as those who have only eyes are in comparison with those who have intellect. For the effects are perceptible by sense, and the causes are visible only to the intellect. And although these effects are seen by the mind, this mind is, in comparison with the mind which sees the causes, as the bodily senses are in comparison with the intellect.

Pascal was eloquent.

236

According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost.—"But," say you, "if He had wished me to worship Him, He would have left me[Pg 70] signs of His will."—He has done so; but you neglect them. Seek them, therefore; it is well worth it.

>>4386913
lol omg he should have gotten laid instead lmao

>>4386913
tldr^^

>>4386623
i feels u

>>4386670
>I believe in god because I can't face existence without one

You realise how childish that is, no? It's the equivalent of an imaginary friend because you're lonely.

>>4386925
Do you also believe in getting rich to be able to freeze your brain and be revived in the future with advanced technology?
I can't be the only one

>>4386929
You talk like I've never been an atheist. I have been an atheist until very recently.
I have faced existence, and have found that behind it all is God.

>>4386670
Except hammers and cars aren't conscious beings with free agency

>>4386933
What was the proof to convert you?
Surely you converted on grounds more solid than "faith" and a silver-tongued brainwashers.

>>4386694
>chemical and physical laws that govern reality

>implying various things, but most pertinent is the existence of an objective reality (false)

>>4386933

I was an atheist until very recently too. I am still learning about Christianity. I had no idea how ignorant I was. That said, I can't explain the journey I've been on over the course of my life, I can only say that I have always felt the presence of God, even when I explicitly rejected him, and that only now am I bringing myself more in line with Him, and I am more aware of Him than ever. I cannot explain it, but the virtue of faith is proof enough to all who have known it.

>>4386946
>implying various things, but most pertinent is the existence of an objective reality
>existence of an objective reality
>implying it doesn't exist
Dude, this would open a whole new thread of discussion.
Why do you deny the existence of an objective reality?
Are you saying our discoveries regarding laws are bullshit?

>>4386954
You can't prove anything except solipsism without a leap of faith.

>>4386956


>implying you are wholly united in of yourself either

>>4386956
Cogito ergo sum

>mfw teenagers convert from atheism to theism after reading kierkegaard
>mfw teenagers always believe in the ideals of the last book they read

>>4386936
True, but it's still the case that one would require a higher intellect to give man a telos.
I mean, man can give himself a temporal telos, or at least he can give his flesh a telos (insofar as his intellect is master of his flesh), but man's whole being cannot be given a telos by a part of that being, by the intellect that it has.

>>4386937
>What was the proof to convert you?

>Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.
-Augustine.

It's not that I fully understand God and then decided to have faith in Him, that would be preposterous because one cannot fully understand God and if one could then what would be the meaning of the word "faith"?

>18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him are clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; so that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

It's not that I have direct knowledge of God so much as I see clues everywhere, and mostly in myself through introspection.
I remember, after reading some Kierkegaard and other snippets of Christian philosophy/theology/scripture, sitting on a step in my house and saying to myself, "there is no God". It's the most bitter I've ever felt. Since then I've known what it really means to say that there is no God. Most people haven't any idea what is meant by God when they say that there is no God.

>>4386966
cont.
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

God is light, God is love, God is truth, God is spirit - the Bible says all these things explicitly. If you do not believe in God then you do not believe in light, love, truth or spirit. You are a forsaken nihilist staring into the abyss. That's what being an atheist qua atheist means. Most atheists don't really see what's at the BOTTOM of their atheism because they have in their lives small lights that are derived from God, even if they do not recognize where those lights come from. Atheism isn't light, it's darkness, complete and utter darkness. Most people are not total atheists at all, you are only an atheist when you say IN YOUR HEART that there is no God, and as I said above, saying that to your heart is the bitterest thing that can be felt.

>>4386947
God bless you and guide you down the right path.

>>4385620
"Take a calligraphy class" made me laugh.

>>4386961
>Cogito ergo sum

Non sequitur

>>4386962
I'm 21, as a reference, so not far off a teenager. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. I think I'm over that phase though. I didn't come to these convictions lightly. I read Kierkegaard because he talked about despair and I was in despair. I have not so much an infatuation with Kierkegaard and I do not think that he is free from error. but I came to a crossroads where I saw that I had to either be a pagan or a christian, either faith or no faith, either worship the things of the world or worship the creator of it. When ever I went towards paganism I felt an extreme pride, haughtiness, a bitterness against those who had wronged me. When ever I went towards Christianity I felt peaceful, forgiving, and assured of myself. I was going down the road to either becoming a suicide or a really indignant and proud man. The only way I could find it in myself to forgive all the things that I thought had been done wrong to me in life was to believe in Christ. I haven't even had that many wrongs done to me, it's just that my colossal pride would take small wrongs and stretch them to fill the entire Universe.

>>4386930
na. i dont really care enough about anything to want that, but it is a cool idea and i support your cause, comrad.

>>4386974


ill show you a non-sequitur

*whips out dick*

>>4386968
It sounds to me like you're projecting your insecurity onto everyone else.

There is no God, there is no ontological evidence there ever was a God, there is no objective evidence here.

Whats the alternative? There is the Judeo-Christian God.

1. Hell exists, which is completely unacceptable. No single individual is worthy of the 'gnashing of teeth in a fire for eternity' described in the bible.

2. An omnipotent deity exists alongside cancer, pre-natal deaths, plague, and birth defects. This is also unacceptable.

3. Some sort of Uberwelt exists, where people worship this God for an eternity, when he has done absolutely nothing to warrant it. So be it for them, I would rather turn to dust in my desert home and have no part of it.

Maybe despite everything God exists, I am not the arbiter of that (luckily for you), but he does not live up to my moral standards, and there is absolutely no justification for his inaction in the face of suffering. If your God actually exists, then he is the biggest waste of 'Omnipotence' conceivable, a child could do a better job of being God.

So keep your God, stretch him over the abyss you run from so ardently, hes a paper mache idol thin as linen. Ill take my absurdity over your God's insanity.

>>4386995
>1. Hell exists, which is completely unacceptable. No single individual is worthy of the 'gnashing of teeth in a fire for eternity' described in the bible.

I used to think this too. The reason that you think this, and that I used to think it, is because you do not know the extent of man's evil. You probably think men are decent on the whole, but now and then make blunders like thievery and murder due to their passions. Yeah, that is evil but it is forgivable, and does not warrant eternal hellfire. What does warrant eternal hellfire though, are the people who know exactly what God is and what he stands for, but rebel against Him anyway by doing satanic rituals and worshipping false idols.

>28Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; 29but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness;

The materialist view is quite naive. It doesn't really understand what evil is. It thinks evil is just an accidental effect of people's biology and circumstances that they end up doing the wrong thins sometimes. Evil is much more abominable than that.

>2. An omnipotent deity exists alongside cancer, pre-natal deaths, plague, and birth defects. This is also unacceptable.

Again, if you knew the extent to which man had sinned you'd be infinitely grateful that God has any interest with us at all. That He sent His son to die for our sake is so extraordinarily merciful it defies comprehension.

>3. Some sort of Uberwelt exists, where people worship this God for an eternity, when he has done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

God laid the foundations of the world. He deserves eternal praise. Without Him nothing would be. We have Him to thank that we can live and breath in the first place.

>>4387008
>it defies comprehension
Then why the fuck are you talking about as if you comprehend it?

I had an affair and read a lot of Umberto Eco.

>>4387008
So you're a pessimistic misanthrope who thinks God is better than people. Alright.

Here is an experiment: take the last person you saw face to face and talked to. Make them God. How does the world change?

Does cancer exist? Do children die in the womb, or get strangled by their mother's umbilical cord during birth? Are they born mute, deaf, or maimed?

I don't think so. No matter what your God's goodness is, it is sufficient to warrant being omnipotent. The very idea of your God leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

>>4387011
I'm not saying that I have comprehended it. Mystery is a part of the religion.

>>4387024
>who thinks God is better than people.

Of course I think God is better than people. That's extremely obvious. If God was not better than people He would not be called God.

> The very idea of your God leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

That's because you don't have an idea of my God at all, because it's impossible for Him to leave a bad taste in your mouth. Satan is taking away your understanding.

---

1 And that [same] day Jesus went out from the house and sat down by the sea.

2 And great crowds were gathered together to him, so that going on board ship himself he sat down, and the whole crowd stood on the shore.

3 And he spoke to them many things in parables, saying, Behold, the sower went out to sow:

4 and as he sowed, some [grains] fell along the way, and the birds came and devoured them;

5 and others fell upon the rocky places where they had not much earth, and immediately they sprang up out of [the ground] because of not having [any] depth of earth,

6 but when the sun rose they were burned up, and because of not having [any] root were dried up;

7 and others fell upon the thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them;

8 and others fell upon the good ground, and produced fruit, one a hundred, one sixty, and one thirty.

. . .

19 From every one who hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand [it], the wicked one comes and catches away what was sown in his heart: this is he that is sown by the wayside.

20 But he that is sown on the rocky places—this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy,

21 but has no root in himself, but is for a time only; and when tribulation or persecution happens on account of the word, he is immediately offended.

22 And he that is sown among the thorns—this is he who hears the word, and the anxious care of this life, and the deceit of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

23 But he that is sown upon the good ground—this is he who hears and understands the word, who bears fruit also, and produces, one a hundred, one sixty, and one thirty.

You are the one that has been sown by the wayside.

>>4387036
>O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet: blessed is the man that hopeth in him.

If you had tasted of God you would know that he tastes sweet. Seeing as it's a bad taste you have in your mouth, and can only presume that Satan has placed himself in your mouth and has deceived you into thinking that he is God.

>>4386995
#shotsfired
#TakeCover
#Rekt
#TheSoup

>>4386871
>>4386882
No shit, not every Christian is a raging asshole. I'm just toxic toward them because the ones who are quiet and passive support the ones who are assholes.

>>4385250
I didn't, I just keep myself distracted so I don't have to think about it. I find myself halfway in some shallow form of nihilism and still hoping there is some sort of meaning because I can't bare the alternative. I suppose I find some meaning in answers, for instance the answers to the question of how the universe works, and while I won't likely ever be able to know the answer because of my limited lifespan I suppose living brings me imperceptibly closer to those answers. Even if I never reach them that is better than offing myself and not even having that.

But what do I know I am just some dropout faggot on an anonymous image board so I am sure someone better than me has already thought about this.

>>4387008
>The materialist view is quite naive. It doesn't really understand what evil is. It thinks evil is just an accidental effect of people's biology and circumstances that they end up doing the wrong thins sometimes. Evil is much more abominable than that.
Is it as abominable as the snowman?

>Again, if you knew the extent to which man had sinned you'd be infinitely grateful that God has any interest with us at all

Stop it with the Plato's cave bullshit. You're repeating ad nauseum "you're just too stupid, you don't understand, you can't see the whole picture, etc"

I used to be a devout Christian, I know the whole thing. It's 100% grade A bullshit. I've seen "the light", I've been "enlightened". It was all delusions, all bullshit. I liked the idea of eternity and a dude who always loved me and I liked have a codified and simple (but not actually so) set of rules to follow.

It's how to live life: for dummies. Except it's still full of iron-age garbage about killing witches. You can't reconcile these beliefs with modern society. THEY CONFLICT AT A CORE LEVEL. CHRISTIANS LITERALLY HAVE TO VIOLATE THEIR OWN LAWS AND DOCTRINE DAILY TO SURVIVE. If you don't comprehend why this breaks the whole religion, then you shouldn't try reason, you should pull a Luke 18:17 or a Psalm 100:3, accept what your preacher tells you, and stop pretending there is any academic, reasonable, or compatible "interpretation" of Christianity that stops it from being a barbaric doctrine. There is none.

>>4387111
>It's how to live life: for dummies.

But that's what men need, because they ARE dummies.

>Except it's still full of iron-age garbage about killing witches.

I find it easy to forgive people for burning witches. If I ever got my hand on a witch burning it would definitely cross my mind.

>You can't reconcile these beliefs with modern society.

I agree with you completely. Modern Society has been built on the French Revolution, with its Freemasonry motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". Did you know that during the revolution they dressed up a woman as the "goddess of Reason" and worshipped her in a ritualistic manner? That's what Modern Society amounts to - gruesome paganism, idolatry.

>THEY CONFLICT AT A CORE LEVEL. CHRISTIANS LITERALLY HAVE TO VIOLATE THEIR OWN LAWS AND DOCTRINE DAILY TO SURVIVE.

They don't have to, they just do because they are sinners.

>>4387119
>But that's what men need, because they ARE dummies.

Yeah, that's why we totally have a legal system and that's why Literally Every Human Society Ever follows a moral code. Morality is a genetic concept, even if it has the capacity to fail.

>I find it easy to forgive people for burning witches. If I ever got my hand on a witch burning it would definitely cross my mind.

You're missing the point. You know those African preachers who do AIDS healings and kill witches? They are closer to actual doctrine than you.

>I agree with you completely. Modern Society has been built on the French Revolution, with its Freemasonry motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". Did you know that during the revolution they dressed up a woman as the "goddess of Reason" and worshipped her in a ritualistic manner? That's what Modern Society amounts to - gruesome paganism, idolatry.

First off, "pagan idolatry" is meaningless to an atheist - first off, establish what makes "worship" of a woman any different from worship of a skydude creator of all or Thor.

>They don't have to, they just do because they are sinners.

So is this you saying that you would prefer a society that actually murdered "witches"?

>>4387111
> You're repeating ad nauseum "you're just too stupid, you don't understand, you can't see the whole picture, etc"

Well what more can I say? Blessed are you if you believe. That's all I can say.

had a j
felt guilty over not surmounting my life's problems without it

>>4387123

Most people find real world punishment a bigger disincentive than a sky daddy they can never be sure exists.

>>4387125
So what you're saying is, "I do not need proof of God's existence, I'm right by my own authority, and I can easily ignore all of the unrealistic and clearly backwards ancient morality in the bible, and ignore hundreds of years of collective, indisputable evidence that highly disputes the character and likelihood of God, and doubt all of the geologic, biological, and astrophysics science and evidence that produces material results, and that's okay because I know more than you because an invisible skyman planted knowledge in my brain that you cannot possibly comprehend because you do not think like me!"

Did I miss something?

>>4385631
too true
people believing shit
lolz

>>4387123
> Morality is a genetic concept, even if it has the capacity to fail.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as a "genetic concept". Concepts don't reside in genes, they reside in the intellect.

>You know those African preachers who do AIDS healings and kill witches? They are closer to actual doctrine than you.

Well I think you can make a case that witches are not to be burned because you are to give all vengeance to God. Still, like I said, I'm not totally against it. I mean, if their is a witch in your community that refuses to give up her occult practices then it is a danger to the immortal souls of everyone in that community. If you don't kill it, you have to banish it - but that means putting it in the hands of other poor souls. So I can see why the practice of burning witches became popular.
As for AIDS healings, that's not something I know about.

>First off, "pagan idolatry" is meaningless to an atheist

And that's exactly what I was talking about when I said that atheists/materialists don't really know what evil is. Idolatry is the ultimate evil. If you don't shiver at the idea of idolatry it's because you don't know what evil is.

> first off, establish what makes "worship" of a woman any different from worship of a skydude creator of all or Thor.

Nothing, they are the same thing. Worshipping a skydude or Thor are abomintions.

>>4387129
Well yeah, you'll also find that your parents give much better gives than a make believe fat dude who lives in the arctic circle and flies in a sleigh.

Santa is a very fun belief, and the lack of Santa makes for a depressing Christmas, but accepting that he's not real is a part of growing up and accepting adulthood. Clearly some people want to take Luke 18:17 literally.

>>4387130
> I'm right by my own authority

Not by my authority, by the authority of the prophets, the saints, the martyrs, the Church and Christ. Their authority. Yes, I do appeal to authority, but you should know that these are the authorities that I appeal to.

>>4387123
>Morality is a genetic concept

No, the capacity to deal with abstract concepts such as morality is genetic. Morals are just vague concepts that break under the scrutiny of individual circumstance.

>>4387129
See, the verses of Scripture in this post >>4386871

It's because most people do not fear God (though God is not a "skydaddy" you ignorant heretic).
And
>The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

>>4387137
> Morals are just vague concepts that break under the scrutiny of individual circumstance.

Read Plato or Aristotle.

>>4387134
>Nonsense. There is no such thing as a "genetic concept". Concepts don't reside in genes, they reside in the intellect.

Nonsense, behavioral psychology is 100% bunk, it's well established that human society and language are formed by internal biological structures, and little comes from memetics. Again, show me a society that doesn't have a basic moral code. Most people haven't encountered the Christian god, and most similarly don't believe in stealing.

>Well I think you can make a case that witches are not to be burned because you are to give all vengeance to God.

But that's literally what the Bible commands you to do - do you understand that their are laws in the Torah, and these laws are extremely strict, and it's repeated many times in the gospels that you are to follow the old laws? If you're not murdering witches, you are literally violating God's law.

>I mean, if their is a witch in your community that refuses to give up her occult practices then it is a danger to the immortal souls of everyone in that community. If you don't kill it, you have to banish it - but that means putting it in the hands of other poor souls.

So you have no independent moral sense, and can't accept that witchcraft does literally nothing and no one should give a shit (about the idea of witchcraft itself, it can lead to other things which would be hazardous)

In any case, I absolutely disrespect your view. You are a barbarian to agree with killing someone for this reason.

>And that's exactly what I was talking about when I said that atheists/materialists don't really know what evil is. Idolatry is the ultimate evil. If you don't shiver at the idea of idolatry it's because you don't know what evil is.

That's because "evil" as a totalizing characteristic of a type of behavior is completely irrational, made-up concept that attempts to simplify behavior into "good" and "bad" categories so it's easier to control people's behaviors.

Explain to me how idol worship is in any way bad, explain to me how Catholicism isn't insanely intertwined with idol worship, explain to me how Christian communion isn't idol worship.

>Nothing, they are the same thing. Worshipping a skydude or Thor are abomintions.

When I said a skydude, I meant your god. What makes worshipping your god any different from another god

>>4387136
Who have literally no authority in my view. So you have to do the work to establish their authority or the debate ends here with you being wrong, again.

>>4387141
There aren't any absolutes, bud. Every situation is a new one where context and the meaning of terms change.

>>4387153
>There aren't any absolutes

That's an absolute statement. You contradict yourself straight away.

>"Only a sith deals in absolutes!"

>>4387151
>. So you have to do the work to establish their authority or the debate ends here with you being wrong, again.

It's not me that has established their authority, it is God. Take it up with Him.

>>4387134
Also, I'd like you to question WHY Christianity? I mean, CLEARLY Islam and Mormonism establish that it's possible for a deceitful human to create a massive and widespread religion that's held when it's clearly falsehood. They even experience the same "revelations" and "divine moral sense" or whatever from their false gods. Christianity doesn't, hasn't, and can't seem to produce any more divine or world-changing philosophy or whatever that Islam hasn't. In fact the defense of both religions is mainly the same.

How do you cope with the fact that your religion doesn't even remotely transcend the other religions that are, as you would believe, patently false?

(Let me guess, these really scary invisible and intangible demon dudes go around and trick millions of people all the time into thinking their god is real)

>>4387160
>It's not me that has established their authority, it is God. Take it up with Him.

I would if he existed.

>>4385955
what's the reason to be in the world, in a materialistic way, but without the implied 'collecting of things'

does materialism exist outside of 'collecting things'

>>4387160
>>4387164
Exactly, what you just said is nonsensical. If God doesn't exist, and doesn't respond in any tangible way, then isn't approaching him futile? How do I make the difference between a true revelation and a delusion? What if Allah comes to me first?

I'm so confused as to how this religious thing works.

>>4387149
>and most similarly don't believe in stealing.

It's easy to speak in generalizations like "society has a basic moral code" but you're abusing language to cover up the reality. Stealing, for example, is a learned concept. You are not born with the faculty to know that stealing is wrong or even to know what stealing is. That some have a moral problem with it is not genetic, but merely something people say which does not correlate with what is going on in their minds (what goes on in their minds is in flux, meaning that they may steal or not care about certain forms of stealing or not think about it at all or care about it...unless they are asked).

At which point is the genetic material which you refer to as "morality" at work in this situation? When they learn about "property" or "stealing" is something unlocked? This all seems to fall apart rather easily.

>>4387129


youed be surprised

http://www.xenosystems.net/in-the-mouth-of-madness/

>>4385955
also do you realise the current of people seeking the truth on 4chan,
and 4chan has become a bit of "go and find and talk to the wise in the wilderness" scenario / cliche

mebe im reading into things too much

>>4387165
not really, and considering collecting useful things is a basic human instinct, then it's only useful to learn how to detach yourself from objects easily. i mean happiness is really simple, guys, but you're not getting it from objects, religion, or whatever. you get it by doing human things and being healthy

>>4387157

Think of it like a hierarchy. Just because it all uses language, doesn't mean we're talking about statements in the same system. An axiom is just a separate system, acting upon another.

I don't care to argue about whether there are absolutes or not, but the argument is logically sound.

>>4387149
>it's well established that human society and language are formed by internal biological structures, and little comes from memetics.

Yeah, and it's well established that those biological structures were formed by God.

> Most people haven't encountered the Christian god, and most similarly don't believe in stealing.

Yeah, because if they didn't stop people from stealing their civilization would have died out. You can have a partial morality that is ignorant of God. I'm not saying that atheists are in practice completely immoral, I'm just saying that atheism itself is immoral. Atheists aren't always atheists in practice, for example, some times they behave according to morals, and insofar as they do that they are theists because morality presupposes God.

>If you're not murdering witches, you are literally violating God's law

Thank you rabbi, I'll bear that in mind the next time I see a witch.

> and can't accept that witchcraft does literally nothing and no one should give a shit

The reason why you think witchcraft does nothing is because you are a dogmatic materialist that doesn't believe in spirit. If you believed in spirit you'd know that witchcraft is more dangerous than murder and rape, becuse the latter kills and harms the body but the formers kills and harms the soul.

>Explain to me how idol worship is in any way bad

Because it makes a mockery of God. Idolatry is to God what adultery is to your wife - fornication.

>explain to me how Catholicism isn't insanely intertwined with idol worship, explain to me how Christian communion isn't idol worship.

because we worship the true God, not an idol.
God is not an idol, he is not a statue or a thing in nature. He is above nature altogether, and so cannot be represented by a statue or image except allegorically. When the pagans worship a statue they literally believe the statue itself is a divine.

>When I said a skydude, I meant your god. What makes worshipping your god any different from another god

You claim to have been a Christian but this is the most basic thing about the Christian religion - that is antagonistic to paganism because pagan is the worship of mundane idols as though they were divine, while Christianity is the worship of the real God.

>>4387157
"If there is nothing, there is still something!" Linguistic troubles 101.

>>4387167
>I'm so confused as to how this religious thing works.

Seek and you shall find. Your confused as to where to start? If you get a little voice in your head saying, "maybe I should start with this book" or "maybe I should start by talking to this person", then follow that voice.

>>4386271
my problem is the opposite

torn in between what my heart wants me to do, and what my practical side says i should do

all very human games

>>4387170
>You are not born with the faculty to know that stealing is wrong or even to know what stealing is

Sorry, I phrased this wrongly. You have the faculty (meaning, the structure to learn is there), but you do not have the knowledge.

>>4387179
>>4387176
Yeah, this is the cowardly postmodernist response. "It's language! Language is getting in our way because language is a bunch of chaotic symbols without rhyme or reason!"
Read Aristotle.

>>4387170
>You are not born with the faculty to know that stealing is wrong

Well, that's actually a very deep question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow

You see, there was this dude who took monkeys and socially deprived them and they were basically antisocial monsters who couldn't interact at all. Certainly there are conditions where a blatant disregard for rights can be developed naturally.

However, animals like humans ARE NOT SOLO ANIMALS. Human society is so intertwined with the individual that they are hard to separate. Humans don't develop right without other humans. So the idea that there are qualities that are "natural to man" is kind of a wrong way of looking at it.

Yes, every single human collective develops a sort of property-rights system and nearly all of them develop anti-murder sentiments. They wouldn't survive otherwise.

>When they learn about "property" or "stealing" is something unlocked? This all seems to fall apart rather easily.

What I'm saying is that humans develop pro-social skills naturally. We are programmed to feel, read emotions, communicate, etc. and many things such as private property and helping others develop very naturally from this, as far as in-tribe relations go (things get hostile when humans compete, but that's a different talk entirely, and one you may consider)

>>4387184
What's cowardly is the fact that you made absolutely no argument against the linguistic proposition.

>>4387163
>How do you cope with the fact that your religion doesn't even remotely transcend the other religions that are, as you would believe, patently false?

They don't in a material sense. I don't care if Islam spread across the entire earth and Christianity was reduced to a tiny chapel on an hill in France. Christianity would still be infinitely more glorious than Islam because it is the Truth. You're thinking in a materialist way.

>(Let me guess, these really scary invisible and intangible demon dudes go around and trick millions of people all the time into thinking their god is real)

Yep.

>>4387191
>>(Let me guess, these really scary invisible and intangible demon dudes go around and trick millions of people all the time into thinking their god is real)
>Yep.

The delusion mixed with confirmation bias is palpable. I hope you are trolling.

>>4387188
True. Postmodernism is too big a beast for this timid soul to do battle with. Which is why I invoked the name of Aristotle - he's the knight I'm calling to my defence against this beast.

>>4387194
Well, demons aren't really "little dudes", that's just how they portrayed anthropomorphically in art.
If you want to know what they really are then read Summa Theologica.

>>4387188

That's the trick, by the time you're done reading a text written ages ago, the liberal jew is shit posting on another thread

>>4387177
>Yeah, and it's well established that those biological structures were formed by God.

Um what? established by whom? The unfalsifiable creationist argument that provides no tangible evidence for anything? I'd trust the astrophysicists first.

>You can have a partial morality that is ignorant of God.

So if you don't need God to have a basic sense of morality, THEN WHY DO WE NEED HIM?

>Atheists aren't always atheists in practice, for example, some times they behave according to morals, and insofar as they do that they are theists because morality presupposes God.

Or maybe being an atheist and being immoral are not correlated.

>Thank you rabbi, I'll bear that in mind the next time I see a witch.

It's time you man up and bear the real cross of your religion, or admit that you change the doctrine yourself because you disagree with your god.

>The reason why you think witchcraft does nothing is because you are a dogmatic materialist that doesn't believe in spirit

I don't believe in witchcraft because it has literally never done anything.

>Because it makes a mockery of God. Idolatry is to God what adultery is to your wife - fornication.

But god doesn't exist so that literally is a non-argument.

>You claim to have been a Christian but this is the most basic thing about the Christian religion - that is antagonistic to paganism because pagan is the worship of mundane idols as though they were divine, while Christianity is the worship of the real God.

I understand this, bud. I know why you THINK that idols are bad, but you can't formulate a rational argument as to why idol worship in your religion is fine but in others it's not, other than you repeating "God said so" ad nauseum.

>>4387180
I'm really inclined now to go talk to my Muslim friends, thank you. Allah will show me the way.

>>4387191
>They don't in a material sense. I don't care if Islam spread across the entire earth and Christianity was reduced to a tiny chapel on an hill in France. Christianity would still be infinitely more glorious than Islam because it is the Truth. You're thinking in a materialist way.

I don't care if literally everyone but me was a Christian, I'd be infinitely more euphoric than all of you combined because I'm enlightened in my intelligence

okay, you're literally just arguing in circles and making the same circular "I'm right because I'm right" without providing any evidence. You're a complete idiot, I just wish I could castrate you or something so you wouldn't produce kids and raise them in a hellhole of your abusive doctrine

>>4385250
can't remember, i was 15

>>4386981
But in all seriousness, "I think therefore I am" is a load of horseshit.

>>4387202
>Um what? established by whom?
see: >>4387136

>So if you don't need God to have a basic sense of morality, THEN WHY DO WE NEED HIM?

You can have a morality without God in the sense that you can drive a car without really knowing anything about engines or mechanics. Morality rests on God, there is no morality without God. Those that claim to have morality without God do not know what they are talking about. They are like a person that drives a car and says that he's doing it without an engine in the car, because the person is totally ignorant of what an engine is and how it makes a car run.

>Or maybe being an atheist and being immoral are not correlated.

There are atheists that are "more moral", more decent, than people who claim to be religious / godly. However, that does not make atheism moral. They are moral DESPITE their atheism, not because of it.

>I don't believe in witchcraft because it has literally never done anything.

How would you not what has gone on and what has not gone on in matters of spirit when you don't even acknowledge that spirit exists?


>I'm really inclined now to go talk to my Muslim friends, thank you. Allah will show me the way.

So be it, may God help your soul.

Just remember Christians:
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

BE CAREFUL GUYS. IT MIGHT BE A DEMON TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO INSIDE. YOU SHOULD JUST TRUST THE BIBLE AND YOUR PREACHER.

>>4387202
read this post that I made earlier >>4381631

The difference between the Abrahamic God and the gods of the Hindus is great.
The greatest sin in Judaism, Christianity and Islam has always been idolatry - the worship of false gods.

The first of the Ten Commandments is "thou shalt have no other gods before Me".
There is a philosophical/theological difference between the Abrahamic God and the pagan gods of the Hindus, the ancient Greeks/Romans, the Aztecs/Incans, the Norsemen, the Egyptians and the Canaanites around at the time of Abraham.

This is the main difference - the pagan gods are many, the "Abrahamic" God is one. God is the creator of the Universe. "The gods" are merely aspects of creation. Worshipping God is worshipping the creator and the lawgiver. Worshipping "the gods" is worshipping a part of creation. God is divine, the divine is God.

"The gods" merely are divine, some of them have beards, some have them have four arms, some of them have animal heads, and they all have divinity. Divinity is just an attribute that they have and that they happen to share. In God divinity is not something that can be divided or shared, because that would imply that it could be diluted.

The gods are like superhumans, they are humans in the sense that they have passions/moods/personalities, and they are super in that they have more power than humans. God is not human, he does not have passions or moods, his will does not change.

The very concept of "God" is different to the pagan "gods". "God" is not one god among many, philosophically or theologically. He is not like Zeus in that he is merely the strongest or most powerful of the gods. No, he is divinity itself, he is godliness. Nothing is god except he. When Moses asked God what his name was he answered, "I AM THAT I AM". He is being itself, he is the thing that says "I am". God is not one being among many, he is the very "thing" (he is not a thing) which makes being or thing-ing possible. Everything that has existence depends upon God for that existence. Nobody depends upon "the gods" for their very existence, "the gods" just inhabit a "higher plane" of existence, they are stronger and have a broader influence.

The reason why God hates the worship of other gods is because the worship of "gods" is the worship of nature, of creation. When a pagan looks at a statue of Venus, for example, and in his spirit bows to it as divine - that's an insult to God, it's applying the substance of God (divinity) to something that is not divine (nature, in this case the nature of femininity/fertility as embodied by Venus). We are part of creation, Venus is part of creation, Ares is part of creation, etc. For us to worship Venus or any other god as divine means that one part of creation is worshipping another part of creation, which is disordered/dysfunctional, as its proper for creation to worship its creator.

>>4387205
>"I'm right because I'm right"

No, I'm saying that I am right because I follow the right authority, named here: >>4387136
I believe in that authority on faith, to see how I explain that see here, >>4386714 and here >>4386806

>>4386974
>subscribing to the dogma of logic

>>4387218
>They are moral DESPITE their atheism, not because of it.
you're not making any sense at all, if a person is atheist and moral, then what does god matter at all?

>How would you not what has gone on and what has not gone on in matters of spirit when you don't even acknowledge that spirit exists?

Plato's Cave, Colossians 2:8. Stop implying that I am only seeing shadows.

>They are like a person that drives a car and says that he's doing it without an engine in the car, because the person is totally ignorant of what an engine is and how it makes a car run.

Or maybe morality just doesn't come from god

>>4387225
What differentiates the right authorities from the wrong ones?

>>4387221
and this post too >>4383974


This is how I explain it. Imagine seeing your wife flirting with a moron that would abuse and leave her if he ever got her hands on her. You are jealous because A. your wife rightfully ought to love you and not be flirting with other men, B. your wife is best off loving you who care for her and not a man who doesn't care for her at all. This is why God is a "jealous god", because we owe Him our love (because He's our creator), and so when he sees us loving false "gods" instead of Him He is rightfully indignant. See, God wants us to love Him, "the gods" do not care whether you love them, they just want to make a transaction with you (like child sacrifice in exchange for a good crop yield). God wants your heart, in the same way that a man wants his wife's heart. And so when God sees men flirting with deities that don't really give a shit about them it "upsets" Him (of course, God being "jealous" and "upset" are anthropomorphisms, but they do express a theological truth - that our hearts rightfully belong to God and not to idols).

>>4387231
see: >>4386714 and >>4386715 and >>4386719
also >>4386900

>>4387228
>Plato's Cave, Colossians 2:8. Stop implying that I am only seeing shadows.

OK, I will stop implying it, but only so I can state it outright - you are only seeing shadows.

>>4387167
You're missing the point. The reason you're being told to embrace religion for your existential crisis is that it is ultimately a cop out, you're masking your world view in a fantasy. I'm not saying religion is inherently evil, it brings about many good moral and cultural elements. But the point is it doesn't matter which one you choose, they're equally based in man's desperate attempt to ascertain deeper meaning and thus equally all made up.

>>4387237
So what if a Muslim lives a completely comparable life to a good Christian, he goes to his church, prays, acts morally in accord to the bible, and then dies. Since he acted morally and resisted sin, why should he go to hell? Because he was tricked by demons and didn't know a god that he never knew existed?

How is it possible to tell the difference?

I'm so flummoxed, and you guys never present a straight answer because you know you will lose. Clearly Christianity has nothing to do with morality itself, because morality doesn't come from God and can be replicated almost identically by Islam or the Mormon church. It must just be a psychopathic god who wanted to set up a world that's full of giant paradoxes that a person cannot ever understand and will be tortured for all eternity for not figuring out something he never could have figured out.

You guys are complete barbarians, and I wish your false sense of moral superiority would die.

>>4386995
5 star post, I liked that last bit a lot

>>4387239
Read Colossions 2:8, you are violating your own doctrine. Be a better Christian, it's what god wants.

>>4387241
No I'm in agreement with you. I can see there is function in religion, but to any sentient and rational being, it's just utter falsehood that's extremely contradictory. In this day and age it's unneeded.

>>4387228
> if a person is atheist and moral

An atheist cannot be completely moral, he can only have the rudiments of morality like refraining from stealing. True morality consists of this:

37 Jesus said unto him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Those commandments are heavens above an atheists vague concept that it's wrong to steal. The reason why "Thou shalt not steal" of the Ten Commandments is more moral than an atheists vague concept that stealing is wrong, is because in the former the person acknowledges that the Law is from God and that it is God's Law that he is submitting to, something that the atheist does not acknowledge. Obedience to God is the foundation of all morality. The morality of atheists is but "castles in the air", they are laws unto themselves. It's nice that the laws that they give to themselves some times match up with God's law, but that does not excuse them from eating of the tree of good & evil and thinking that they have knowledge of good and evil in the first place, thinking that they are equal to God.

>>4387008
As an atheist, did you ever speak against the Holy Spirit? Because as I understand it, you will not be forgiven, even if you devote the rest of your life to worshiping Him.

>>4387253
> In this day and age it's unneeded.

In this day and age it is needed SORELY. It is needed sorely in every day and age. The Truth is the truth in all ages, and it is always needed.

>But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

>>4387257
I've thought about this and I can only conclude that I haven't. The fact that I'm becoming more Christian is evidence to me that God must still have mercy towards me, because it would have been VERY easy for me to remain in the dark about his existence and everything concerning Him. I was born in a liberal household, without religion, in the modern age that is full of blasphemy towards God. That I even have come to take God seriously in this godless age is itself a miracle.

>>4387255
Everything in this post is contrived and false. And as I said, there are plenty of Muslims who live morally comparable lives to Christians, they simply go to hell because they were tricked by demons and many were never given the option to know the real god because he never made himself available. They will suffer for this. This view is entirely, irrevocably, and patently insane and cruel. I'd rather burn in hell than spend a second worshipping a god who would do this to people, at least I'll be with my friends who were deceived by a paradoxical catch-22.

>>4387258
>In this day and age it is needed SORELY
Actually no. There's less crime per capita today than in all of history. Most people are more moral now than ever.

You're just deceived by the retarded Christian right wing "our morals and society are under attack" lies.

>>4387267
>This view is entirely, irrevocably, and patently insane and cruel.

It isn't. The way is narrow. Relatively few make it to heaven. God is just. If our sins weren't so great and offensive to God then he'd have no need to send any of us to Hell.

>>4387271
>There's less crime per capita today than in all of history.

What? In what country? I think there was less crime here in England in the victorian age, not that long ago at all.

>>4387247
The answer to your question rests in what Christ is and what He stands for and how deep is sacrifice is. Study the scripture, and then you'll know why rejecting Christ is such a grave sin and why it warrants punishment.

>>4387277
If you consider crime as in, "an action that violates the legal codes of a nation", then I don't know. I'm talking about moral crimes, like unnecessary wars and murders etc.

I mean, you would know, the church used to send dudes out to kill people for like no reason. Stuff like that just doesn't happen in the world as much anymore. And it's big news when it does happen.

>>4387274
>If our sins weren't so great and offensive to God then he'd have no need to send any of us to Hell.

And what sins would these be?

>>4387282
Christ can suck my average-sized dick. He's not real and there will be zero repercussions for any of this. As I said, I'd gladly spend an eternity in hell than to spend a second worshipping a god as clearly irrational, psychopathic, and eager to cause pain. God can go fuck himself and I'll be suffering

>>4387253
>>4387258
I would disagree with both of you. Yes religion is contradictory and finding actual truth within it is impossible, beyond the ethical and cultural structures there is simply faith, fantasy and speculation. However, it is sorely needed in society, even with an increasingly large amount of people shunning it, simply because it prevents most people from offing themselves due to being too weak to handle an actual existential crisis and helps curb the excesses of modern capitalism.

>>4387286
> I'm talking about moral crimes, like unnecessary wars and murders etc.

Read this post: >>4386761 The greatest evils in the world are not wars and murders. Idolatry is a much graver evil and it is rife in modern society.

>And what sins would these be?

Sins like idolatry, but it all goes back to the original sin of Adam, which is why we have to suffer in the first place.

>As I said, I'd gladly spend an eternity in hell than to spend a second worshipping a god as clearly irrational, psychopathic, and eager to cause pain. God can go fuck himself and I'll be suffering

If you insist on worshipping the goddess of Reason you should know that she is a whore.

>>4387299
>Idolatry is a much graver evil and it is rife in modern society.

Okay, whatever you say.

>>4387294
Your utilitarian approach to religion is more disgusting than those who openly oppose it.It would be better for us to have no religion than to pretend to have religion for the sake of making the machine run smoother, that would make us hypocrites.

>>4387294

A band aid that convinces people not to go to the doctor? Necessary? Really?

Also, excesses of modern capitalism? Those excess calories really getting in the way of humanity huh.

>>4387306
I don't think gluttony is the only sin present to excess in modern society.

>>4387290
ow shit i just cut myself on your post's edge

>>4387303
>>4387306
I'm not saying this is how it should be. Ideally I support a society where religion and capitalism have ceased to be but until that lofty goal can be reached I'm simply point out the reality of the situation. Frankly I hate both sides in this debate, both the muh god and muh moral values people and the muh science and muh rational human nature people. And both approaches are not simply "band aids," they're currently holding up the fabric of society, and until that can be fixed religion in its various forms isn't going anywhere.

>>4385250
I made a list of shit to do, and then started doing it.

>>4387328
After watching My Name is Earl?

>>4386562
The caged boar isn't moral just because he can't break through his bars and kill

>>4387008
>We have Him to thank that we can live and breath in the first place.

Natalist dogma. Fuck being alive, life is suffering.

>>4387098
>implying knowledge exists

>>4387266
You see a miracle, I see a tragedy.

>>4387602
You haven't been around for my brain tumor and awful depression spanning years though.

>>4387622
"Cheers, god! *thumbsup*" -you

This is the main reason why I will never be able to fully empathise with theists. Life is absolutely horrible and anyone with the power to change it who refuses is not only unworthy of our praise, they warrant our damnation.

>>4387633
>"Cheers, god! *thumbsup*" -you

Pretty accurate.

>>4387649
At least we agree you're delusional.

>>4387655
Correction: we each believe that the other is delusional.

>>4387658
Fair point. So what else is new, christboy?

>>4387684
Not Christ, because was in the beginning, co-eternal with God.

>>4387770
Why do you perceive time to be linear?

>>4387818
What's the alternative? This?

>>4387959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

>>4388147
Well I did subscribe to a kind of eternalism when I said that Christ is co-eternal with God.

>>4388284
ya mom subscribes to my dick