/lit/ - Literature

you're pathetic.

>>4504074
I'd recommend reading lots of religious texts.
Once you get over your initial superiority complex and throw away the fedora its interesting to go back and read these books from an objective Historian's standpoint

Yes, it is a great book. Although would you not be more interested in science/historic/political/philosophical books instead of re-reading the same "god doesn't exist" arguments, only redressed?

>instant shitposting by religious people

should have known better

>>4504074
>I'm a knee-jerk reactionary and obscenely uninformed. Help me reinforce my viewpoint.

>>4504096
back'd hard

>>4504074

*tipping fedora*

>>4504091
I suppose, but I'm working full time and doing school; I don't have the mind to read heavy right now. Does Hitchens make a good argument?

>>4504096
Actually, conservative religious people are reactionary. I'm not even close

>>4504103
who cares? You've already decided what you believe.
Read The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. Its one of the best pieces of scientific literature around today and fairly free of his usual self righteous wankery. Alternatively, if you ARE a self righteous wanker read The God Delusion.

>>4504103
>I don't have the mind to read heavy right now

A question like the existence of God calls for some heavy reading; heavy thinking, too.

It's definitely worth reading.

>>4504074
wilson's 'the new inquisition'

>>4504118
If self righteous wanking is a character fault, then why are you doing it?

>>4504122
Oh yes, it's definitely not something I've come to overnight, it's taken about 3 years of not believing even when trying to accept that religion is bullshit.

>>4504136
>wilson's 'the new inquisition'
that looks interesting, i'll take a look at it

>>4504122
excuse me, it took 3 years of trying to believe in religion when having severe doubts because i couldn't cope with how little sense it all made and how retarded i was being to pray at an empty room with the delusion that it would solve my problems. i wanted religion because i was raised that way and was afraid of hell, but i'm a little less so now

>>4504160
>The religion of the masses is all there is to religion

>>4504168
i've been around in some of the theology threads here, and i've tried looking at WLC and some other stuff. it's all garbage, I have yet to find an actual "intellectual" stance for religion, besides maybe Sir Thomas Aquinas, but the Summa Theologica isn't exactly a faultless paragon. It's easy to find faults in his reasoning

Of course, like all believers, you're just strawmanning, shitposting, and try in every sense to try and affect the idea that you're intellectually superior, when in reality you have absolutely no evidence or good cause for what you believe besides it being a nice belief.

>>4504177
But I'm not religious. I was raised Catholic and lost my faith in my early teens. That said, I have a lot of respect for religion and its theologians.

>>4504196
Why is that?

>thinking that the existence of god has an affect on your life and is something worth wasting the few precious moments you have on this earth contemplating
>the goddamn 21st century

Read some literary fiction and have a better time as well as a more valuable insight on life and humans and what meaning, if there is any, there is to being alive.

>>4504205
Why does life have to have a meaning?

>>4504139
>If self righteous wanking is a character fault, then why are you doing it?
>

If the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and reality is not how we perceive it, then why decide that there is no God?

>>4504196
Numerous reasons. As an atheist, I don't believe that the world or life has an inherent or objective meaning. Therefore, if there is no correct way to live your life, why would you be any worse off believing in a god?

While my personal inquiry into the subject has lead me to believe that a god in all likely good does not exist, thousands of intellectuals throughout history have come to other conclusions, which I respect.

Just because not everyone shares your world views doesn't mean they're unintelligent.

>>4504212
>what meaning, if there is any, there is to being alive

Did you even read the post? I'm not saying there has to be any meaning.

>>4504219
Was meant for
>>4504199

>>4504177

I'm not the person with the peasant image, but I'm going to point out that an intellectual approach to faith is predetermined toward skepticism since rationality and proof is a fundamentally different endeavor than that of faith. Also, this is an emotional topic on all three sides of the faith divide, but your 'like all believers' sentence is not fair at all.

>>4504218
Well the point isn't whether he exists in that sense, it's whether he actually affects the world we live in. If he does affect the physical, then there should be evidence. If he doesn't, then he's irrelevant and all religions can be completely ignored.

>>4504074
J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God

>>4504229
But BELIEVING in a god DOES affect your life, and not necessarily for the worse.

The Holy Bible with the supplement of an interlinear literal translation like the one found on Biblehub. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Darwin's Black Box, there are others but that should be good for a start.

>>4504074
>my needlessly provocative title when

>>4504219
Of course it doesn't objectively matter if people are religious, since nothing humans do objectively matters, because nothing at all objectively matters at all. We derive subject values from our biology, and we get meaning from our interactions. Religion causes an unnecessary rift and is very outdated in it's moral sense; I can't in good conscious accept it, and I can't tolerate what it leads people to do.

I think we've got a grade-A troll.
That or a teen who just entered his angsty phase.

i seem to see the same thing from "atheists" on this board all the time. "oh, I tried a bunch of christian churches and none of them worked for me, boo hoo, 'God' doesn't exist." just because a bunch of denominations, which pragmatically speaking aren't very different, didn't appeal to you. why jump into reading books that simply deny everything but science (which is nothing more than religion itself) when there are so many different sorts of spirituality and theological thought that you've never even considered? I bet if most "atheists" who were raised in Christian environments took a look into eastern spirituality or even mid-eastern philosophy (sufism particularly) they'd realize they're not nearly as "atheist" as they think.

>>4504224
But skepticism and rationality has alot to say about faith. Faith is extremely weak by rational standards; if you sit in front of a train, having faith that it won't kill you won't change that it will. Faith can't really trump rationality in that sense, other than having faith that your faith is superior to rationality, which is logically sound but the implications are absurd; clearly no one who is religious is absolutely driven by faith, and if they were they would essentially be vegetables

>>4504229
How can we gather "evidence" that would prove God's immediate involvement with the physical world? That can't be falsified just as his existence can't.

And if God exists, and, in the deist tradition, will not or cannot interact with the physical world, how does that make him irrelevant? Would the existence of God not imply the existence of some afterlife? Heaven or transmigration?

>>4504103
>Does Hitchens make a good argument?

No. None of the new atheist do. They redress older criticism of theological arguments but without any of the flair, appeal, or cunning. And rarely do they even appear to understand what it is they are trying to refute.

Hitchens in particular's only claim to fame is a complete bastardization of history in an attempt to paint any event where someone of a religious belief so much as sneeze as being some cataclysmic event showcasing just how barbaric religion is.

>>4504222
Sorry, I'm tired

>>4504239
Not necessarily, but as Hitch would say, it quite clearly has a *mostly* negative impact on the world

>>4504244
>Religion causes an unnecessary rift
The rifts would exist without religion
>and is very outdated in it's moral sense
Religion has a difficult time adjusting to changing cultures and values but the majority of their fundamentals are good moral compasses. As in, the Ten Commandments.

>>4504258
>Not necessarily, but as Hitch would say, it quite clearly has a *mostly* negative impact on the world
Yes, and that's why "Hitch" is a fucking idiot who seems incapable of even understanding the basics of what he attacks.

>>4504258
>Not necessarily, but as Hitch would say, it quite clearly has a *mostly* negative impact on the world
So now comes the euphoria.

>>4504258
I have not read Hitch, and am therefore not familiar with his arguments, but referencing him is not evidence. Religion is often used a tool for politics and economics, which is not the fault of the religion. Examples being The Crusades, which were much more about economic and military expansion than actual religion besides gaining the favor of the masses.

>all these pretentious pseudo-religous faggots

Only on this imageboard could you make christianity hip and trendy

>>4504254
>How can we gather "evidence" that would prove God's immediate involvement with the physical world? That can't be falsified just as his existence can't.

The same way we gather all physical evidence.

>>4504256
Same with all theologists.. they rehash arguments, often times very poorly. I still don't get why you're feigning this intellectual superiority when it's very clear none exists. Explain to me again how William Lane Craig isn't constantly rehashing?

OP are you a "new atheist" as in the new atheism movement or are you just a person who has recently become an atheist?

Anyway before you take a stance on religion as a whole you should realize that religion and theism is a very broad subject and not just what your local church shown you.

There is a historical/anthropological, psychological/sociological, and a philosophical/theological perspective on religion. Reading books by inherently biased authors, may they be religious or anti-religious, will give you a extremely narrow perspective on a broad subject.

>>4504260
But those values exist with or without the ten commandments. It's not like people murder wily nilly and when you introduce the commandments they stop; implying that is entirely absurd. Morality clearly has a biological basis

>>4504278
I'm not the person you replied to, but stop accusing people of feigning intellectual superiority. You've done it several times and all it does is make you look insecure.

>>4504271
Well yeah, religion in my view is best understood as a tool of social control. Whether it's "good" or "bad" is hard to quantify, especially in history, but that doesn't make it true, just useful.

>>4504278
>The same way we gather all physical evidence
There is no way to gather evidence in such a way that you could disprove God's direct involvement with the physical world, it's unfalsifiable.

>>4504284
Read his posts.
Of course he is insecure.

>>4504284
I'm sorry, but when someone constantly posts things like >>4504168 they aren't trying. They're simply saying, "There's a huge dimension you don't see and I'm not posting it, you're just an idiot for not seeing it" which is a very common trend among the believers/theologists. They love to talk about how much great and profound stuff they have backing up their views, but the only things I've ever got them to post were William Lane Craig and the Summa Theologica, which do have serious rebuttals. And I'm tired of this game; I'm tired of them always falling back on these "Oh you're just a dumbass atheist who never could understand, we're so deep!" without even presenting an argument

>>4504287
That alone shows you haven't done much research, or you're refusing to see things from a different way.

>>4504283
Humans have evolved rational thought which allows them to realize that those biological moral "restrictions" are nothing but that, and can be overruled.
It's also been proven that rape was an important factor in human evolution and that extreme ethnic discrimination is natural, but I find them morally reprehensible.

>>4504229

You know what, I've never seen ANY physical evidence of "joy". A smile might represent "joy" like a cross represents "God", but it doesn't necessarily prove its existence, right?
I don't believe that joy, or love, or passion, or hatred exist. I don't see any physical proof of joy, so it's irrelevant. Hell, I don't believe in any sort of noumenon. Anyone who claims to be joyful is a member of a stupid cult, and I for one am glad I have science to keep me grounded.
right?

>>4504160
>how retarded i was
>I don't have the mind to read heavy right now
You're still retarded and becoming an atheist didn't help in your case.

>>4504091
>>4504088
>>4504168
>>4504212
>>4504219
>>4504235
>>4504242
>>4504252
>>4504256
>>4504283
These are useful responses. The rest of you ought to up your game

>>4504276
>not pretending to be a patrician catholic on /lit/ whilst you are actually an atheist

What are you, a faggot?

>>4504298
I'm sorry, did you expect higher level discourse on 4chan?

By starting a thread with pop-sci garbage instead of maybe an actual compelling argument for atheism made by an established philospoher?

>>4504298
>"There's a huge dimension you don't see and I'm not posting it, you're just an idiot for not seeing it" which is a very common trend among the believers/theologists
Oh and the new atheists don't do this constantly? "I can understand science, the only thing that matters, but you can't because ur dumb lel" isn't the warcry of your shitty movement?
>"Oh you're just a dumbass atheist who never could understand, we're so deep!"
Have you ever thought that maybe they say this because you're being a dumb ass? Anyone like you who parades around shouting how great he is for his intellectually superior atheism that is able to beat all religion ever is obviously going to come off as a fucking retard.

>>4504253
>Faith is extremely weak by rational standards
Sure; also, rationality is extremely weak by faith standards (to the point: the existence of God is unprovable).

>if you sit in front of a train, having faith that it won't kill you won't change that it will
That's not relevant to a discussion about the existence of God, although maybe it gets into the realm of testing God.

>>4504288
Well, I mean, they have done studies on prayer where they had 3 groups:
1. control group
2. group that was prayed for but was unaware
3. group that was prayed for and was aware

Guess what? No significant difference was found for groups 1 and 2. Group 3 got worse. Now, you could say God made group 3 sicker so he could prove the scientists were being too prideful and made a bunch of people sick to troll the results, but the more likely explanation is that prayer has a psychological effect that can be measured.

>>4504299
>muh crusades
>muh inquisition

Yeah we've heard it all on reddit before, you're the one who's woefully stupid if you think you can just calculate the net good/bad religion has be responsible for

>>4504074

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-Selected-Michael-Peterson/dp/0195393597

This anthology is pretty great, although it is fairly skewed towards the analytic tradition.

>>4504313
>Sure; also, rationality is extremely weak by faith standards

No, faith tautologically proves itself but is extremely weak for affecting anything at all. The existence of God is provable by inductive methods, and yes, the idea that you could prove something that is deductively unprovable is contradictory. That doesn't mean anything, it just means that God was written to be unprovable

>>4504278
I was criticizing the "New Atheist" movement and calling it what it is. I don't believe anywhere did I leave an opinion of WLC or, lets just call it, New Theism. You're quite right most pop theologians do just rehash older arguments as well. But I don't see anyone here recommending one of their works as a rebuttal.

The question was about Hitchens and I gave my opinion of him and his work. It's garbage. My recommendation for atheist and theist alike can be found here >>4504235

>>4504315
I can't tell if you're joking or not.

>>4504316
I didn't expect an avalanche of shitposting by braindead children

>>4504323
>Yeah we've heard it all on reddit before
I figured that's where you came from
>you're the one who's woefully stupid if you think you can just calculate the net good/bad religion has be responsible for
I was referring to your idea that religion is a tool for social control. That's why you're a fucking retard.
As for you calling me stupid while thinking I was trying to say religion caused more good than bad, you just did the exact same thing with your
>muh crusades
and
>muh inquisition
shit. You're either a very good troll or a very shitty atheist.

>>4504315
>using scientific methodology to test an noumenon

brb, I'm gonna go see how much I weigh by standing on top of a thermometer.

>>4504334
Not really, I'm trying to figure out whether you're actually making a tangible point of you're being deliberately abstruse

>>4504263

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

>religious people talking about euphoria
my sides.

>>4504160
You are confusing religion with god.

God (an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being) can exist apart from religion.

>>4504337
You're probably going to leave this thread even more dogmatically atheist than you entered it, despite the mounting evidence that you don't really understand theology or the philosophical implications of God.

Keep reading your Hitchens and your Dawkins I guess, that's a religion in itself

>>4504329
>faith tautologically proves itself

Faith doesn't prove anything at all; the notion of proof is entirely incompatible to faith. This is how the Bible itself defines it, for example; Kierkegaard as well, such as in his treatment of the 'leap of faith'.

>>4504344
You don't really have a handle on all the words you're using

>>4504342
>I'm one of those retards who assumes everyone who replies to me is the same person, regardless of context

I don't even know what you're saying

>>4504107

Shit nice fedora man.. looks like it's made with real wool.

>>4504352
Then take the fucking time to explain what I'm not getting about theology. It always is the same bullshit, usually they reduce God to some intangible thing or try to detach him from reality as far as possible, but they never actually affirm a view.

So fucking do it, state your view on God, so we can actually have a discussion about it, instead of skirting each and every prod with another "but you just don't understand, that's not what God is" dodge

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake:

The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity;
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

>>4504354
That's cool man, now you should stop feeding yourself, have some faith in God you pagan.

Does the fact that rationality can explain why faith is wrong, but faith simply denies everything bother you? It should

OP, you're going to have to ask yourself what you thought the result of this thread was going to be. You came into /lit/, probably one of the most pious boards on 4chan (or at least one with a vocal religious denomination), started a thread about the widely dislike neo-atheism movement, then claimed that religion had no intellectual foundation.

You haven't actually given any arguments against god, or anything reason not to believe in one. Even if you did, 90% of the discussions on the matter besides metaphysics usually go along the lines of
>I don't believe in God
>I do
>Neither of us can prove our position, so we will chose either faith or lack of faith

And that's the end of it.

>>4504376
re·ac·tion·ar·y
adjective
1.
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
noun
1.
a reactionary person.

synonyms: right-winger, conservative, rightist

actually that post was correct because "reationary" and "conservative" are practically the same ideology, making my statement nearly tautologous.

>>4504392
What?

>>4504205
>this post in every thread even remotely dealing with religion.
This issue is something everyone has to deal with. It is a burden placed upon every human being to decide whether or not they buy into religion. Whether this has something to do with our nature or a product of the church structure is up for debate, regardless, this question will plague people for centuries to come. In order to reach the more interesting stuff people have to crawl before they can walk. The existence or non-existence of god is crawl material and must exist. It cannot be dismissed so easily.

>>4504398
There's no good reason for it to be disliked, other than it being aesthetically offensive.

>>4504400
If you have faith, then you have no reason to act. Just have faith. Faith causes you to supercede the physical. Just have faith, and everything will turn out well. So stop acting in the physical world.

>>4504392
>now you should stop feeding yourself, have some faith in God you pagan.
>rationality can explain why faith is wrong
>faith simply denies everything

Wow. Everything here is simply missing both coherent thinking and openness to discussion.

>>4504388
this p much puts this thread to rest, methinks.

>>4504403
Religion in many ways thrives on bullying the respect it doesn't deserve out of people; that's why so many atheists aren't vocal and why the atheists who are attract so much vitriol.

I wish these threads weren't raided by people saying >atheism, same as I wish theology threads didn't devolve into >believing in sky fairies shitposting.

>The religious confirmed for the worst posters on /lit/
Please kill yourselves. You do believe in the afterlife don't you?

>>4504412
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of faith worthy of an r/atheism post. You claim to want intelligent discussion, but really you want to reaffirm your belief that religious people are stupid and you're enlightened

The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spake to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answer'd. 'I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in every thing, and as I was then perswaded, & remain confirm'd, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.'
Then I asked: 'does a firm perswasion that a thing is so, make it so?'

>>4504417
>all this samefagging

>>4504376

Shit nice argument man.. looks like it's made with real ignorance.

If you're going to use ad hominem and reddit maymays as arguments then don't bother arguing at all.

People who believe in god are irrational and anti-intellectual.

This should be a fun game to play, since most believers fail to comprehend what these words even mean.

>>4504426
>le euphoria face

>>4504418
Oh, again, the back and forth. I'm not comprehending, buddy, you're literally contradicting yourself and don't get it and placing me at fault. What exactly is faith and why does it matter? Since your idea of faith seems so slippery and ill-defined at this point

He replied: 'All poets believe that it does, & in ages of imagination this firm perswasion removed mountains; but many are not capable of a firm perswasion of any thing.'
Then Ezekiel said. 'The philosophy of the east taught the first principles of human perception: some nations held one principle for the origin & some another; we of Israel taught that the Poetic Genius (as you now call it) was the first principle and all the others merely derivative, which was the cause of our despising the Priests & Philosophers of other countries, and prophecying that all Gods would at last be proved to originate in ours & to be the tributaries of the Poetic Genius; it was this that our great poet King David desired so fervently & invokes so pathetic'ly, saying by this he conquers enemies & governs kingdoms; and we so loved our God. that we cursed in his name all the deities of surrounding nations, and asserted that they had rebelled; from these opinions the vulgar came to think that all nations would at last be subject to the jews.'

>>4504412
>Just have faith, and everything will turn out well

Placing this kind of expectation on faith is sure to lead to disappointment and doubt.

my captcha really is 'pious goolies'.

>>4504435
First post ITT actually. You've got to stop assuming that every anon is one person, it makes you look retarded

>>4504424
>implying the silent majority of /lit/ posters aren't atheist
>implying the religious faggots aren't actively try conduct damage control with fedora may may everytime someone posts about atheism.
When I see religious thread on /lit/, I ignore it and move on. However, when the religious see an atheism thread it becomes shitposting general. Seems like one side is rather insecure.
First time I posted in this thread actually btw.

>tfw you realize being atheist/agnostic doesn't make you smarter
>tfw you start getting into theology and are completely humbled by the methods and your own incomprehension of greek philosophy

Finally, I have started my journey. Atheism is only the beginning.

>>4504436
Ezekiel said; "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

>>4504399

lol stay euphoric dude. I'm not even close to relgious and I grew out of this "religun is evul and I'm too smart for it" phase when I was 14. Maybe someday your mind will mature.

'This' said he, 'like all firm perswasions, is come to pass; for all nations believe the jews' code and worship the jews' god, and what greater subjection can be?'
I heard this with some wonder, & must confess my own conviction. After dinner I ask'd Isaiah to favour the world with his lost works; he said none of equal value was lost. Ezekiel said the same of his.
I also asked Isaiah what made him go naked and barefoot three years? he answer'd, 'the same that made our friend Diogenes the Grecian.'
I then asked Ezekiel why he eat dung, & lay so long on his right & left side? he answer'd, 'the desire of raising other men into a perception of the infinite; this the North American tribes practise, & is he honest who resists his genius or conscience. only for the sake of present ease or gratification?'

>>4504445
>>implying the silent majority of /lit/ posters aren't atheist
What? Why would you assume there is even a "silent majority" on a board based around active discussion?

>>4504445
That was an entirely pointless post and you should probably feel bad about making it

>>4504443
>long chain argument about faith
>you jump in making a similar argument to the other poster
>get angry when i assume you're the same person

>>4504442
What does faith mean then? Be specific, the more open you leave it the less I'll take you seriously

>>4504426

lolol I wasn't making an argument, the poster I quoted is textbook juvenile euphoric delinquent and I just pointed it out.

>>4504450
Some people have been making those comments in thread after the religious came in and flooded it with shitposting. All OP did was ask for atheistic reading material and all he gets is
>lol stay euphoric dude.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?

The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.
For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at the tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt.
This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment.
But first the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do, by printing in the infernal method, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.
For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narow chinks of his cavern.

>>4504450
That's not even my position, I wanted to have a decent thread to talk about, you know, atheist literature and works, and religious people flooded it.

>>4504445
>When I see religious thread on /lit/, I ignore it and move on.
Good for you.

>However, when the religious see an atheism thread it becomes shitposting general.
The same is true for theology threads and smug atheists.

>>4504458
I'm so worried you won't take me seriously

My whole self esteem is at stake here

>>4504458
>What does faith mean then?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11

>>4504465
He's probably a troll, if it means anything

>inb4 OP replies saying he's not a troll

Once I saw a Devil in a flame of fire, who arose before an Angel that sat on a cloud, and the Devil utter'd these words:
'The worship of God is: Honouring his gifts in other men, each according to his genius, and loving the greatest men best: those who envy or calumniate great men hate God; for there is no other God.'
The Angel hearing this became almost blue but mastering himself he grew yellow, & at last white, pink, & smiling, and then replied:
'Thou Idolater, is not God One? & is not he visible in Jesus Christ? and has not Jesus Christ given his sanction to the law of ten commandments, and are not all other men fools, sinners, & nothings?'
The Devil answer'd: 'bray a fool in a morter with wheat, yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him; if Jesus Christ is the greatest man, you ought to love him in the greatest degree; now hear how he has given his sanction to the law of ten commandments: did he not mock at the sabbath, and so mock the sabbaths God? murder those who were murder'd because of him? turn away the law from the woman taken in adultery? steal the labor of others to support him? bear false witness when he omitted making a defence before Pilate? covet when he pray'd for his disciples, and when he bid them shake off the dust of their feet against such as refused to lodge them? I tell you, no virtue can exist without breaking these ten commandments. Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse, not from rules.'
When he had so spoken, I beheld the Angel, who stretched out his arms, embracing the flame of fire, & he was consumed and arose as Elijah.

No I dont see any evidence for god but theism or more particularly deism isnt an automatically invalid point. I think believing in a non specific higher power cant be more or less valid than atheism because both are unprovable and nonrefutable. The point where I cross the line is when people start creating fan fiction and character designs for their intelligent designer. lol

>>4504474
So wait, you do believe then in Yahweh, the God of the Bible?

>>4504470
Answer the question, troll. What is faith?

>>4504486
>>4504474

>>4504465

Uh huh, I think he's a little feeble minded euphoric babby who feels perfectly comfortable making arguments like "without religun the world would be buuuutiful there wud be no warz... remember the crusades", when the reality is that wars are fought for myriad reasons and human history, development, society and psyhology are so complex that noone, ever, has figured it out. Euphorics think they know everything and it's jarring.

>>4504483
Well, yeah, in the pantheistic sense where God is just synonymous with the "laws of nature" or "energy" the idea is okay. But the second you pretend this reduced God answers the prayers of only one species of primate and created a huge, nonsensical universe to place them in for no reason whatsoever, you're stepping into a huge retard zone

>>4504494
>backpedalling
So is it prayer you're railing against now?

>>4504474
>>4504487
>Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

I'm assuming this is it, then? How do you interpret this verse, I hope not strictly literally, you'd probably say "confidence for that which we cannot observe", correct?

>>4504469
Yeah, no. It's not even close to the same level. I frequently browse both of them and there is never ever even close to the level of vitriol and shitposting in threads like this and those like it. They are able to have actual discussion most of the time. There are a few assholes of course, but, mostly it is pretty civil. Unless of course it is directly challenging atheists or a debate thread. I've seen people actually go so far as to ask for material that will make them religious on several occasions and the level of shitposting is normal. A thread like this on the other hand...

>>4504492
Do people really use the Crusades as any kind of argument?

Jesus Christ, we will never be able to discuss atheism and why people chose to not believe again in a more or less civil manner and without the usage of buzzwords, will we ?

>>4504492
http://www.alternet.org/belief/humanity-becoming-increasingly-less-violent-one-exception-religious-violence?page=0%2C1

Keep trying.

>>4504492
You literally know absolutely nothing about him other than he wants some reading material. Kill yourself.

>>4504505
when people stop acting euphoric I'll stop calling them euphoric

>>4504500
Look, I'll let you in on a little secret here. The reason /lit/ is so against Dawkins, Hitchens and their sort is because their arguments were already chewed over hundreds of times here. And they were also chewed over by theologians. So instead of embarking on another pointless argument, people will just say *tips fedora*. Yeah, it's stupid and immature. There's still a reason for it though.

>>4504505
No, apparently not. The religious people sure are insanely hypocritical, despite the teachings of Jesus

>>4504507

lol uh huh

>>4504502

Amongst plebs irl the most common analogies I encounter are 'The Nazis' and 'The Crusades'.

>>4504514
>when people stop questioning my religion, i'll let them

>>4504512
he's been shitting up this thread with his "arguments" throughout

>>4504523
>the atheist actually makes arguments, despite not being perfect
>the religious people dodge every inquiry, shitpost, add nothing of value to the discussion, and avoid formulating an argument at every step

>>4504512

No I read all of his posts itt.

>>4504513

Most people here calling you out as a euphoria baby are probably not religious lol

>>4504520
I'm not even religious, per say, but there is definitely a difference between civil disagreement and the sort of euphoria going on in this thread and others

atheists are not prima facie euphoric, but judging by your buttmad reply, you indeed are euphoric

>>4504515
Funny. I would say almost the exact same thing about the religious arguments. Anyways, an atheism thread shouldn't be about christianity vs. atheism. There are various methods of finding morality, meaning, etc. without god. I would like to discuss these things. But you're a gigantic faggot and you have an army of faggots behind you.

>>4504494

Well an intelligent creator is also what Im reffering to- one that did create the universe. If I were to believe in such a thing it would have had no real omnipotence or careful planning. I mean the beggining of the universe was pretty crude if scientists are right about the Big Bang Theory

>>4504525
I think this may be a case of seeing what you want to see, as opposed to what's really there

>>4504525

God damn you fedora tards. Look this is like going onto mu and making a led zeppelin thread, everyone on mu got over led zeppelin when they were 14 and it is pointless to discuss that band on there. The vast majority of 4channers are atheist lol there is no battle for you to fight here.

it would really be super if athiests could just stick to this thread and Christians their own. That way neither party has to worry about the other.

But no way can any poster on 4chan handle that level of maturity

>>4504566
Yes, that's what we need, an echo chamber for every belief

That truly will usher in a new era of harmony

>>4504571
because the two groups together generate something other than bickering and shitposting.

Neither party goes to the other for discussion but to flaunt their own beliefs and work on their apologetic skills which typically devolves to namecalling on both sides. If we were truly interested in learning about each other we would just lurk.

>>4504581
Seconded.

The Argument.

Rintrah roars & shakes his fires in the burden'd air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep
Once meek, and in a perilous path,
The just man kept his course along
The vale of death.
Roses are planted where thorns grow.
And on the barren heath
Sing the honey bees.
Then the perilous path was planted:
And a river, and a spring
On every cliff and tomb;
And on the bleached bones
Red clay brought forth.

Till the villain left the paths of ease,
To walk in perilous paths, and drive
The just man into barren climes.

Now the sneaking serpent walks
In mild humility.
And the just man rages in the wilds
Where lions roam.

Rintrah roars & shakes his fires in the burden'd air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep.

>>4504581
faggot

As a new heaven is begun, and it is now thirty-three years since its advent: the Eternal Hell revives. And lo! Swedenborg is the Angel sitting at the tomb; his writings are the linen clothes folded up. Now is the dominion of Edom, & the return of Adam into Paradise; see Isaiah XXXIV & XXXV Chap:
Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell.

The voice of the Devil.

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.
1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

But the following Contraries to these are True

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3 Energy is Eternal Delight

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.
And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.
The history of this is written in Paradise Lost, & the Governor or Reason is call'd Messiah.
And the original Archangel or possessor of the command of the heavenly host, is call'd the Devil or Satan and his children are call'd Sin & Death.
But in the Book of Job Miltons Messiah is call'd Satan.
For this history has been adopted by both parties.
It indeed appear'd to Reason as if Desire was cast out, but the Devil's account is, that the Messiah fell, & formed a heaven of what he stole from the Abyss.

This is shewn in the Gospel, where he prays to the Father to send the comforter or Desire that Reason may have Ideas to build on, the Jehovah of the Bible being no other than he who dwells in flaming fire.
Know that after Christs death, he became Jehovah.
But in Milton; the Father is Destiny, the Son, a Ratio of the five senses, & the Holy-ghost, Vacuum!
Note: The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devils party without knowing it.

>/lit/fags too retarded/close-minded to comprehend the existence of viewpoints different from their own, let alone entertain these ideas

Sasuga, /lit/

>>4504618
body and soul are unified and indistinguishable. Some hold that the higher functions of the brain like intellect and will are manifestations of the soul but are still harmonious with the body until death.

Evil is not a force or energy of it's own but rather just a lack of good. Believing it is a force unto itself that parallels good is gnosticism or manichaeism

>>4504118
>best pieces of scientific literature around today
>Richard Dawkins

try harder.

A Memorable Fancy.

As I was walking among the fires of hell, delighted with the enjoyments of Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity. I collected some of their Proverbs: thinking that as the sayings used in a nation, mark its character, so the Proverbs of Hell, shew the nature of Infernal wisdom better than any description of buildings or garments.
When I came home; on the abyss of the five senses, where a flat sided steep frowns over the present world. I saw a mighty Devil folded in black clouds, hovering on the sides of the rock, with corroding fires he wrote the following sentence now percieved by the minds of men, & read by them on earth.
How do you know but ev'ry Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?

>>4504625
God is real

Fuck your sausage

>>4504633
William BLake quote.

Proverbs of Hell.

In seed time learn, in harvest teach, in winter enjoy.
Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.
Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.
He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.
The cut worm forgives the plow.
Dip him in the river who loves water.
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.
He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star.
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock, but of wisdom: no clock can measure.
All wholsom food is caught without a net or a trap.
Bring out number weight & measure in a year of dearth.
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
A dead body revenges not injuries.
The most sublime act is to set another before you.
If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.
Folly is the cloke of knavery.
Shame is Prides cloke.
Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.
The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
Excess of sorrow laughs. Excess of joy weeps.
The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man.
The fox condemns the trap, not himself.
Joys impregnate. Sorrows bring forth.
Let man wear the fell of the lion. woman the fleece of the sheep.

The fox provides for himself. but God provides for the lion.
Think in the morning. Act in the noon. Eat in the evening. Sleep in the night.
He who has suffer'd you to impose on him knows you.
As the plow follows words, so God rewards prayers.
The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.
Expect poison from the standing water.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.
Listen to the fools reproach! it is a kingly title!
The eyes of fire, the nostrils of air, the mouth of water, the beard of earth.
The weak in courage is strong in cunning.
The apple tree never asks the beech how he shall grow; nor the lion, the horse, how he shall take his prey.
The thankful reciever bears a plentiful harvest.
If others bad not been foolish, we should be so.
The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd.
When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius. lift up thy head!
As the catterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
To create a little flower is the labour of ages.
Damn braces: Bless relaxes.
The best wine is the oldest, the best water the newest.
Prayers plow not! Praises reap not!
Joys laugh not! Sorrows weep not!


The head Sublime, the heart Pathos, the genitals Beauty, the hands & feet Proportion.
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible.
The crow wish'd every thing was black, the owl, that every thing was white.
Exuberance is Beauty.
If the lion was advised by the fox. he would be cunning.
Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius.
Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.
Where man is not, nature is barren.
Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd.
Enough! or Too much.

>>4504074

You don't "need to read a bunch of books".

But I'd recommend anthropology or something dealing with pre-civilization humanity and the rise of civilizations.

"Oh you mean a lot of humans base their ideas about the cosmos as a projection of their societal existence!? ZOMG"

"Oh you mean a lot of the 'highest' ideas have their basis in politics and each class' mode of production?"

Read Spinoza's The Ethics if you want to see a demonstration of how patently retarded theists are.

>>4504302

Except neurology has demonstrated literal proof of "emotions" and emotions are actually a big part of GOOD decision making provided they are utilized in their proper contexts.

In a world with as many sub-simulations and relative "distortions" as modern civilization, the connection between emotional reasoning and good reasoning is a bit more tenuous.

>>4504160
>christian religion thinks that
>therefore any other religions do the same
for Quetzalcoatl, how retarded...

>>4504656
Spinoza proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your a faggot

>>4504627
>This is shewn in the Gospel, where he prays to the Father to send the comforter or Desire that Reason may have Ideas to build on, the Jehovah of the Bible being no other than he who dwells in flaming fire.
>Know that after Christs death, he became Jehovah.

That's new.

>>4504637

>>4504218

Because THERE'S NO FUCKING POINT.

LIterally anything that "God" as a mental tool can do can be constructed with other concepts. And even better, you'll probably get further in understanding your world of mechanics as opposed to the autism of a transcendent father figure who performs miracles.

The existence of 144-dimensional demon rapists who rape every neuron at every chemical interval is unfalsifiable, so why decide there are no 144-dimensional demon rapists?

PROTIP: We are limited neurological entities with limited processing power. It behooves us not to get stuck in infinite recursive loops calculating bullshit.

>>4504656
What is "genetic fallacy"

That's some Dawkins level philosophy you got going on there.

>>4504693
mad

>>4504699

It's not a genetic fallacy. You don't respect the animistic and polytheistic belief systems of hunter-gatherer tribes which actually make "sense" because the stories they tell about such figures encodes information they use in their every day mode of production.

In a class society ruled by priests and kings, the dominant stories will be about "heaven" being organized according to systems that suspiciously mirror those on Earth.

It's not a genetic fallacy, it's SIMPLE FUCKING OBSERVATION AND INTUITION OF HOW HUMAN BEINGS WORK.

That once again, the "highest" ideas are probably crap extrapolations of ready-at-hand concepts borrowed from social and material forms of production

bump

>>4504715
You're asserting that the origins of said beliefs is all there is to that message. That nothing else can be derived from ancient religious text outside their historical context.

That's a genetic fallacy.

Ludwig Feurebach - Essence of Christianity

good one here this is

>>4504761

I didn't say "There's absolutely nothing to be divined". Such works are the expressions of a lot of human experience and human heartache, mixed beer and spirits that is hard to appreciate without the kinship of experience.

But I can still talk shit about the structure of reality they present. That there really exists a "Great King" who imposes reality onto its subjects.

But at the same time, in the last few hundred years you've had really serious and dedicated thinkers who have analyzed and used tools beyond the capabilities of the religious minded and have uncovered a world of mechanics that is more powerful than the religious vision in its explanatory and pragmatic power.

Because not EVERY NEUROLOGY HAS THAT "RELIGIOUS IMPULSE". I don't "feel the presence of God" like an actual believer does. So what use is religion to my particular toolset?

>>4504693
>>4504715
>>4504791

Do you have a quota of letters you have to capitalize when posting? It does not stress your point and only makes you look foolish Anon.

>>4504807

Not really. It's a bad habit of random stylization. And the need to ignore my actual argument in favor of some "Look here, this gentleman has an emotional investment and is FOOLISH" doesn't speak greatly of you.

>>4504807
NICE STRAWMAN I DONT THINK YOU EXIST

>>4504685
Not at all. One: it is quote from the time of the napoleonic wars. Two: dogma has it that Jesus is The Lord of the Jews made flesh. He is Jehovah. Just take a gander at messianic Jews. Three : The Lord ascended.

I'm not a theist. I just really enjoy arguing semantics, though I do attend church for the "fellowship".

>>4504840
>The Lord of the Jews made flesh. He is Jehovah

Those two things are specifically two different persons of the Trinity, the Son and the Father respectively.

>>4504859
That is a far cry from the trinity dogma.

>>4504910
You have no idea what you're saying. Jesus is the Son, Jehovah is the Father. Look at your image. Or are you just trolling to keep this post on the front page?

from my edgy phase

>>4504910
the son comes from the father and the holy spirit comes from the son, the holy spirit returns to the father.

>>4504985
...Edgy? Dear sir, it was an unenlightened and immature phase, I hope you have grown. I too was once there.

>>4504985
Reading Feynman, Hawking and Shelley is not edgy, godammit. Reading works that favour or root for atheism is not euphoric.
Hell, even Dawkins Selfish Gene is not euphoric itself.

Being a fucking twat about it is.

>reading about atheism
>reading about not believing in a thing
>reading about nothing

>>4504985
>>4505008
I hope you guys aren't implying that everyone who is atheist is just going through a "fedora phase" and that eventually mature, rational adults accept one religion or other.

The "fedora" strawman has to be one of the most ridiculous runaway fallacies of 4chan. Anything to avoid addressing the issue at hand, I suppose.

>>4504999
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son:
https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

>>4504921
Jehovah/Yahweh is the personal name of God to Hebrews. Jesus was the body of Jehovah on earth to spread the message that all people could have a personal relationship with god. Of course there is also denominations such as Jehovah's Witnesses that teach the trinity is a fallacy made by man in that it is never referenced directly in the bible, and Jesus is Jehovah.

Honestly, OP asked for good literature for a "new atheist", so I contributed William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell with the quote >The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity;
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

Then the shitstrom began, so I pasted more of my favorite sections of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell because it is a beautiful piece of prose attempting to express the perception of theism from the new field of naturalism within a religious context. It's what I use to beat evangelists with their own logic. That, and occultism: check out Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. Shit is wack, and using it as a reference you can see the evolution of Christianity and newage. The whole rocks have magic power and stars define your fate thing is Aristotelian Christianity. The most poetic metaphor for hell I have ever read was C.S. Lewis's The Great Divide. Though I believe the closest thing to an afterlife is the trip of death thanks our old friends DMT, serotonin, adrenaline, and what have you.

>>4505090
>Jesus was the body of Jehovah on earth
No. Jesus was the body of God the Son on earth, not of God the Father (i.e., Jehovah).

Definitely read Hitchens. "god is Not Great" and "Portable Atheist."

Also...honestly, read the Bible. It's such a silly fantasy tale full of such incredible and odd characters. Reading it will help you realize how absurd religion really is.

>>4505044
Not at all. Those are just the ones who didn't voluntarily arrest their own development with a stubborn personality disorder

>>4505048
>in brackets
lol

>>4504235
This is a genuinely good book about the concept of God. You could also read the part of the Critique of Pure Reason when Kant argues against the rational foundation of a belief in God.

>>4504715
>expecting religious people to grasp the naturalistic origins of religion

>>4504074

the bible

The inconsistencies and bronze-age morality will make you an atheist more than any atheist book will.

>>4504715
woah. some new milton should write a religious text where god is democratically elected by angels

>>4504074
Hitchens portable atheist - which is a reader of various historical works on the issue would be helpful

>>4505165

make you an atheist faster*

I don't think more belongs there. Sorry for the shitty grammar

>>4504693
Well yeah, that's the problem of faith.

Believing without evidence, by natural implication, means that the possibility for truth is an infinite set. Literally anything is possible, so I can just make a god who could beat up your god and if I really really believe it becomes true because it cannot be disproven.

With rationalism, nothing is assumed, or possibly you can't have contradictions is true. In any case, when you only have reason and evidence, you're working with a finite set (albeit a complex one). You can produce "definites", at least practical definites.

>>4504670
>pantheism
What a worthless thing to believe

>>4505190
>With rationalism, nothing is assumed
heh.. can't know nuffin, my friend

>>4505100
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

>>4505207
>I read Plato I can ignore your argument

That's not how it works

>>4505165

The Bible read in proper context makes a great deal more sense than it does when read by an ignoramus who takes everything at face value. Even the most bizarre of rules had a likely sensible motive behind it.

The inconsistencies do not stem from the books themselves, nor from the authors. The inconsistencies are wholly the result of historic revisionism which started well before the first bible was compiled as a distinct volume and continues to the present day. If you take each book and read it in its proper context it will appear no less rational and agreeable than any work of literature from Ancient Greece.

>>4505207
I can ignore anything I want, especially your argument, for I am free to fly the winds of my own desires. Don't stop me now (not that you could).

>>4505190
>being afraid of being wrong
that's no way to live.

>>4505239
No, that's horse shit. Moses deciding what color tassels should be? The bible telling you to cure leprosy by sacrificing doves?

There's shit in there that's only explained by an ancient tribal ignorant people trying to make it rain. You're the ignoramus to seriously pretend its all deep or profound

>>4504074
You should read as many religious texts as you can. Instead of reading books to support your own beliefs, you should read books that challenge them and be open to changing them when presented with ideas.

>>4505239
>The inconsistencies do not stem from the books themselves, nor from the authors. The inconsistencies are wholly the result of historic revisionism which started well before the first bible was compiled as a distinct volume and continues to the present day.

Oh yeah? I'm guessing the whole part were Caesar never called a "census of the lands" never slipped by you? Learn to historicity, that isn't the only historical fault of the NT. we all know the authors of the NT knew about the OT prophecies, you think MAYBE they would have had to scribble in bullshit to make sure Jesus was born in Nazareth, etc

>>4505247
*tips fedora*

>>4505266
You're condescendingly making it seem as though OP would have his ideas changed by reading religious texts.

>>4504074
Read Johann Georg Hamann

how come when religious people come seeking similar advice they receive the opposite to what >>4505266 states?

>>4505266
I did read the Summa Theologica and was dumbfounded by how poorly reasoned it is

All relgious people should go read philosophy and Dawkins then

>oh wait the bible forbids it lol

>>4505254

You don't get second chances for "life" in this world. A strong negative tendency towards bullshit is ESSENTIAL.

When some dumb asshole tries to seduce you into a self-serving image of the world ("It's ruled by a neurological entity who happens to have a psychology and mechanics I can intuit and divine for you!"), you tell him to fuck off.

There's been too many actually decent and intelligent people on this Earth to fall into glorified poetry and fantasy as "THE VISION" of the world. Or even "VISION" as the primary means of experiencing the world of mechanics.

And even with all that said, believing in one picture is usually the negation of AN INFINITY OF OTHER POSSIBLE "PICTURES". Are you believers afraid of wrong?

>>4505275
He meant to post that at an atheist, isn't stirner some pro god guy that /lit/ loves?

>>4505285
I actually just came to /lit/ to say "*tips fedora* to any random reply in any thread and didn't even notice this was an atheism thread, it was a very amusing coincidence to me and I think I'll go say prayers and play the lottery because of it.

>>4505281

Read Aristotle's Metaphysics before you read any Aquinas. For some reason, I doubt you've read all of the thousands of pages in the the Summa. Maybe you've only read the 2 or pages where the 'five ways' are stated.

>>4505294
You're right actually, I haven't read the whole thing. Still, when one of the most influential and lved segments of it can be easily laughed at by anyone who is not a moron, you have to question whether reading the 4000 or so pages is worth your time

>>4505282
I think that you highly overestimate the amount of difference between a religious and irreligious person's lives, and underestimate the amount of "bullshit" you yourself intuit just as much as every other person. I am agnostic, and I feel just as happy living with or without belief in God, and I think everyone striving to understand that incomprehensible fundamental nature of being, theologians and physicists included, is of a worthy cause and an admirable life.

Life is beautiful. The subjective phenomenon of being here is immense regardless of whether it can be described in terms of particle physics or some notion of a Soul. Being wrong is such a minute and insignificant part of a life that I just can't relate to scientific positivists.

>>4505282

The Bible does not delve into metaphysical inquiry (which is what you mean through your babbling about an 'image of the world'). So, in your view of the Bible and the religion derived from it, you likely have some presuppositions that you are not sharing. I think many Christians would also take a vastly different view in constrast to the personalist God which you describe in your third sentence.

It also seems that by describing God as 'neurological' you are showing your hand. The statement seems to hint at a materialistic presupposition. You also use this word 'mechanics' frequently, hinting at a Cartesian assumption in regard to the primacy of efficient causes, but that leads you to several problems such as Hume's problem of induction. Perhaps you'd wish to elaborate your mechanical-materialistic weltanschauung a bit because I don't find those types of metaphysical delimitations to be all that compelling.

>>4505311
Yeah, except god doesn't exist so only one of the pursuits is genuinely fruitful

>>4505302

I would recommend reading some Aristotle.

>>4505320
In regards to the Summa how important is the concept of revelation and divine authority when it comes to its justifications and proofs?

>>4505312

>materialist presupposition

If only there was a God to get me rid of these fools!

Neurological simply implies "Information processing entity with a psychology and a variety of mechanics including evaluative and bodily interfacing, etc...".

Because it takes a stone cold idiot to even INDULGE in the fantasy of a disembodied soul. I don't have to play your bullshit game of metaphysics because IT'S A BULLSHIT GAME that attempts to dominate all possible worlds of mechanics with distortions of social linguistic production.

And my intuition is that you don't give this same regards to the variety of religious beliefs belonging to the various tribes who engage in varying forms of the mode of production in which our physiology (and thus our instincts) evolved. As opposed to the puerility that presupposes that a "civilization" somehow represents "progress" in a road to the city of God.

>>4505311

You're an agnostic. You have no right to talk about bullshit.

Mental experiment.

God exists phenomenally either as giant entity or some being which makes you feel fuzzy. You still can't know the entirety of mechanics or psychology behind the actions of such a being.

Our intuitions about intentions and "What other beings want" were formed in response to an evolution with other apes with their own neurologic systems. Some other intelligent entity with a system of an order more complex THROWS OUR INTUITION OFF. Hell, even clever human sociopaths and psychopaths throw our intuition off.

If you wouldn't trust any human to say "This is the meaning of life", why would you be willing to trust the predations of something that can out think you?

>>4505317
l'epic 4:^)

>>4504074
OP, this is one of those scant few books that are meant to be heard, not read.
Link related, from the mouth of the man himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apuKZjTKCO8&list=PL941928D0485BEF94
So much more eloquently put and better argued than The God Delusion. Theists, do yourselves and favor and challenge your believes by reading or listening to it.

>>4505333

The 5 proofs are only metaphysical arguments which are more intelligible if you read some Aristotle. Aquinas is only arguing for a purely actual being, which is a bit too general to characterize the arguments as being sufficient arguments for the specific God of the Bible. However, I've only read some Aquinas, so I can't talk much about his defense of divine revelation which would be a seperate issue.

>>4505356

Or to be more clear, I use "neurological" instead of "mental" to convey the fact that the behavior of "thoughts" and "memory" and "processing" and active and reactive strategies have a shitload of unconscious mechanics running and supporting them. As opposed to the fantasy where we are these vague propositional beings who are connected by strict chains.

>>4505356

You still haven't defended or even etched out your world-view. I'm still interested in what your basic assumptions are and how you arrive at your conclusions.

>>4505311

nice thoughts

this isnt as directly related to the thread topic as possible, but, what if you feel spirituality should transcend this divisiveness?

>>4505419
So, are you a functionalist/computationalist in regard to theory of mind?

>>4505381

I prefer his brother.

>>4505422

Cry me a fucking river. What type of world view does it take to say "There is a personal author to the world of mechanics and it's a paternalistic transcendental figure who performs miracles" as opposed to examining how other humans interact with each other and realizing that a lot of bullshit is created to prop up "order" in a society manipulated by various leaders and power-seekers?

There's no "basic assumption" in running sand through your fingers and being safe from starting a fireball in the sky or jumping in the air and not being picked up by an Arhat in service of Shiva.

I suppose I have to use that all too human intuition but it's failed me less than people seduced by "ready-at-hand" systems which are retarded and clunky for dealing with actual situations which contain far more variables than those systems could process.

>>4505436

I don't even know what those are. I just know you give a motherfucker too many drugs or alter his chemical balance, his mental behavior is severly altered to the point of constructing radically different world views.

I know if you cut or damage certain sections of a neurology, certain mental behavior is damaged.

I know that treatments based on such bodies of knowledge are more effective than treatments that presuppose some weird "homonuculus" that produces mental behavior or some failure of a moral capacity eg: what is usually associated and exists in the hasty judgments of every day priests and social authority figures.

I don't need a totalizing "theory of mind" yet because we're probably in an infancy of the science of neurology and to attempt to dominate all possible explanations of its mechanics seems doomed to fucking failure at this point in history.

>>4504205 - tl;dr
>stop liking what i don't like

>>4505460
Funny how they're like yin/yang opposites of one another.

>>4505428
Depends on by what you mean by spirituality.
Dawkins touches on this in the God Delusion and says that he, like most of us has felt that way at points in his life, difference being from those who believe that he doesn't assign any supernatural meaning to it. And many atheist Buddhists claim to lead spiritual lives.

Atheists respecting theists and vise versa?
One of my all time favorite authors is Philip K. Dick, yet I'm as atheist as they come.
And alternative Christianity is interesting as fuck, wish the bible was still viewed with open source eyes by its believers.

>>4505613
They have to disrespect each other because they're diametrically opposed

Hitchens is a wonderful essayist, but I don't see the point in reading his re-telling of a bunch of religion/theology-debunking arguments which we all innately know to begin with.

Get "Arguably" or any of his essay compilations instead

also his introduction to the Animal Farm/1984 compilation is a good read

>>4505644
Not all of the time.
Your friend can be an idiot that doesn't give black & white, foreign or any film released before the 80s a chance, yet he's still your friend.

>>4505644
>they're diametrically opposed
Not really, Christians just think atheists are wrong and going to hell.

>>4505654
>>4505655
I only dislike religious people for reasons related to their religion if they believe in blasphemy

>>4505655
To be fair, Christians think a lot of people are going to hell, including other Christians and themselves. And to think their hell as such isn't really mentioned in the Bible...
Then again, many Christians don't really believe in hell, fewer still don't even believe in heaven.

>>4505662
Hell is just recruitment propaganda.

>>4505613

"Respect" isn't the highest virtue. When ideologies and ideological stooges gain power and affect your family and friends to the point of affecting their psychologic action and reaction, then the question of world views stops being an academic question and gets personal.

"Metaphysics" (as an invention of Greek elite imposition of distortions of linguistic phrases as stupid 'royal' roads to understanding the world of mechanics) and organized religions were political maneuvers by agents who had to dominate a social milieu and justify a mode of production (in this case, farmers giving up most of their surplus for control by upper castes).

I mean imagine somehow who appreciates the beauty of a vast interlocking world of mechanics which unfold into yet ever more complex world of mechanics discovered by experience and tool utilization. And then some asshole says "I can misuse language and dominate all possible worlds of mechanics with a simplistic explanation that's so fucking transparently self-serving for an upper caste of farming societies". And then they generate worlds of "transcendental" moralities and ethics which demonize those who should never be demonized and exalt those who should never be exalted.

The stupidity of human beings is no mere "stupidity" but constraints on your own freedom and thoughts and production as they pool their stupidities into political tools.

>>4505671
Also bit of scaremongering to keep the congregation in place and of course a place a bard can send his political and ideological enemies to blow of some steam.

>>4504074
Oh boy, well if this is just a circle jerk atheist thread, I'm out of here. Oh wait... all atheist's do is circle jerk

>>4505655
And atheists think Christians are wrong, toxic, are wasting time and energy, and fuck up alot of the small lives we have

>>4505693
Good point 10/10 converted to islam

>>4505696
I'm an atheist and don't think that
Check mate, atheists

>>4505696
Or like, you know, just don't believe in the whole god thing and are perfectly fine with theists being theists if they're free to go on with their lives while retaining the same civic rights people adhering to organized religion do.

>>4505672
You can't reason like that to religious people

They've so self-absorbed that gods existence is true that they mentally block out naturalist theories to explain religion. You can try and try but they will reject you outright because you've questioned their basic assumption

There still is no convincing argument for the existence of god, either in this thread or on /lit/

>>4505693
You implying we don't have Christian circle jerk threads as well?
I'd be likely to doubt god's existence even if he ascended down from the heavens to tell me how much of a faggot I am for not believing in him, yet I enjoy those from a historical and conceptual standpoint. Hell, posted a lot in those, just don't draw attention to myself the way a girl usually shouldn't on 4chan. I'm interested if there are theists here that do this during our circlejerks, if only to test their faith.

>>4505707
No, I have problems when religion tries to make people abstinent and people rush into shitty marriages just to fuck, or have children out of wedlock because they're not educated (direct correlation between religiosity and divorce/wedlock births in America, don't you know?), I have problems when religious people think gays shouldn't have rights because some desert walking Jews from thousands of years ago said it is gross, I have problems when religious people want to take secular places like public schools and turn them into bible indoctrination camps, I have problems with parents who force children into church for so long to indoctrinate the children into a life of confusion and behaviorally-induced faith (which to any true believer should be absolutely reprehensible)

Essentially, I have every problem with how religion is actually practiced

>>4505713
He posted this in respond to my post here >>4505613
So he was pretty much preaching to the quire for reasons that still puzzle me.... I'm not allowed to respect and enjoy theist works just because I'm an atheist and vise versa? Because I also enjoy Batman despite the whole concept being pants on head retarded at its core.

>>4505737
Sure you can, but there's not much point except as entertainment

Also to people who actually believe in the bible; how do you explain Scientology and Mormonism? If you're deluded enough to think religions don't come from man, then you really aren't looking at the world

>>4505317
>genuinely fruitful

too bad without an Absolute Truth there is no intrinsic worth of anything

>>4505735
Thing is, plenty of religious folk have the same problems with all the points you listed.
But of course one could make the argument that theists at that point in their faith are simply skirt holding, though I don't think they'd take kindly to that accusation and those that point out that the last true Christian died c.a. 2000 years ago and all that jazz.

>>4505713

The strategy of "disproving" the existence of God is a bit misguided. What most people seek from God is a sense of "real" and "meaning" provided by something that is in a better position to ascertain "yes, this is your consolation for a life full of trauma and uncertainty and boredom."

As I stated, even IF a "God" existed, you have no access to the possible chains of psychology which motivate its actions. "It" might lead mankind into a million years of heaven before plunging it into a billion years of darkness and torture and suffering beyond anything imaginable

"Bu-bu-but God would never do that"

So you don't even entirely understand the psychology and motivations of another human being and yet you can judge an entity IMMEASURABLY MORE COMPLEX than us?

At some point imposing a "benevolent creator God" is a form of wish fulfillment that alleviates anxieties that accompany the uncertainty of our world of mechanics. But such form of imposition is a TOOL and while as an individual tool it might help in one's one behaviorisms, as a social tool it could be used for the restriction and degredation of the possibilities of human neurologies and physiologies.

>>4505746
Of course not in the objective sense. Humans make the physical abstract to understand it; all meaning just comes from hearsay

>>4505746

Says the idiot speaking for non-idiots.

I have a universe of desires and a universe of satisfactions. What "Absolute Truth" wouldn't be the most vulgar and pornographic expression of an ape physiology and psychology?

When I finish working out, the questions of morality and ethics don't concern me but the behavior of satisfaction and meaning in the moment overcome me. When I listen to music and dance, no teleologies disturb me but the unfolding cybernetics between music, kinesthetics, and neurology overwhelm me.

Where is the room for Absolute Truth in the actual production of behavior? None other than as a testament to Absolute Error and Folly. Only for those whose physical and mental behavior doesn't lead to the behavior of "satisifaction" would grope blindly for something as insipid as "Absolute Truth".

>>4505713
In the case of Christianity, they would probably just dismiss it on the grounds that it equates self-serving adherents of religion with the kernel of religion that they use to justify their actions. And they'd be partially correct, but... the religion wouldn't be around today if it weren't for those supposed apostates, so as much as they attempt to distance themselves from Constantine or Clovis or whomever, they're also themselves adherents to a religion which is the direct descendant of the religion that those individuals fostered

>>4505743
Well, it's more than just entertainment isn't it?
A well written novel can inspire or make you feel despite being total fiction. A far out religious idea can give you an allegorical boner without having you making sacrifices to Zeus. Batman makes Kevin Smith weep like a child twice a month or so. And a hym or a piece of classical music isn't invalidated suddenly even though its composer had a boner for god. I'd like to believe theists extend the same tolerance towards art and philosophy when it comes to us godless heathens as well, though often it must be said they then somehow try to indoctrinate us in some way as a compromise.

>>4505749
>Thing is, plenty of religious folk have the same problems with all the points you listed.

Well, sure, but it's not exactly easy to square off modern morality with the bible. I am not seeing how you can liberally interpret the bible without explicitly ignoring parts

>>4505754
Well, if you're right then in that sense then god is an intellectual dead end

>>4505789
Exactly, that observation is usually one of the first steps in any theist journey towards atheism.
But most modern Christans don't really dive into their beliefs, they just keep to it out of tradition and communal habit, god being dead and all.

Unhid this thread just to say how much I like the hide feature.

Toodle-oo.

>>4505791

It always was! But as tool for modifying individual behavior and manipulating social behavior? It's still rich as long as agents with social and political power create models of mechanics which incorporate religious dogma and sentiments.

As an individual emotional investment, it's probably not a dead end. The solitary monk probably produces behavior of joy and satisfaction as he weaves the experience of the world into a "relationship" with a being in a story he constantly weaves in his head. There's almost no end to such emotional exchange other than the intrusion of a trauma far beyond the ability of the private story to process.

>>4505814
That's very true. I think when you view it in that sense, much more makes sense. I don't see christians coming up with a logical explanation for Jonestown, besides maybe "demon possession lol", but with neurological studies advancing it may be possible to fully understand the religious mental glitch.

>Dawkins
>pseudo-intelectual who bullshits about philosophy, anthropology, psychology and sociology without even reading about it.
Pick two

>>4505864
>religious people
>ever confronting any of his points in lieu of ad hominem attacks ad infinitum

>>4505868
>wiener
>nuts
HAHAHAHAH LOL YOU CAN'T EVEN CAUSE UR BAD

>>4505868
He debated Luther using a website of random decontextualized quotes as 'evidence'. He's clearly mad.
I'm not even religious but the guy is a disgrace

>>4505868
>religious people
>even taking their time to read his works to get the ammo necessary to refute him

Hell, Dawkins isn't even that a good debater. He's certainly no Christopher Hitchens...

>>4504235
This, so much this.

If you're into German Idealism try Ludwig Feuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity"

Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" is fun

>>4505199
Why? If I want to believe in all of the gods, who am I hurting? it can even work with Christianity if you're so inclined as long as you keep the commandment "no other gods before me".

>>4505302
Read the Summa of the Summa if you're that lazy. You have no right to claim you can laugh off a serious piece of theology, philosophy, or literature if you haven't read it.

>>4504160
>and how retarded i was being to pray at an empty room with the delusion that it would solve my problems
That is retarded, insofar as it's a misconception of prayer. I feel I have to defend the Christfags whenever I see this argument, since it strikes me as a misconception on the same level as, e.g. "If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes around?" There is to my knowledge no a priori reason given in the Christian scriptures that God is supposed to do whatever people ask Him to do.

>>4505945
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwWSfHFeYEc

>>4505875
Need I go down the road of talking about religious people abusing shit sources?

Dawkins isn't infallible but you're still literally giving argumentum ad hominem in the worst way. Dawkins is great for evolutionary evidence, and the god delusion has good basic arguments against religion. Why not argue the points instead of incessantly attacking Dawkins?

>>4505974
The way you are makes me want to finger my ass and eat my boogers, man
all this autism

>>4505883
Well, that's what I'm getting at. Religious people constantly as hominem to dismiss him but they never challenge his evidence

>>4505977
>evidence that there's no G-D
LMAO
M
A
O

>>4505974
>Need I go down the road of talking about religious people abusing shit sources?
Tu quoque fallacy. Stopped reading there.

>>4505985
pls put trigger warnings before "muh x fallacy", it makes my wiener shrink and reminds me of my time on /r9k/

You should read into Max Stirner's the ego and its own. Whether you agree with Stirner or not, his work shows the follies of both atheists and religious people. One of his main criticisms being that most of these "enlightened" post-theist ideologies are still basically religious in their thinking, since they've exchanged the idea of "God" for their respective ideologies and thus begin treat them as some kind of unquestionable sacred ideal. I don't know if I've made it clear or not, but you should regardless check it out

>>4505892
Nope, I can. I can laugh at "My Immortal" without reading it all, too.

>>4505885
At that point god has no meaning. Might as well be agnostic

>>4505997
hahah lol OWNED HAHAHAHAHAH OWNENDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>4505983
>G-D
>Giggles building to laughter.

Yes. Evidence. That whole scientific refutation of the theologies. I know Catholics are supposed to overlook these things now and even accept evolution but it just don't wash.

>>4504074
>new atheist
Pssshhh

>>4505945
Yes but he never does anything when anyone prayers ever

>>4505976
>hur hur his points make me mad because he's so right
>ill just call him names and be obscene hurrr

>>4506003
Please describe some of this so-called "evidence" for me, I'm in the mood 2laff

>>4505985
Lol "you can't do it but I can"

Right after that line you have a real argument to, address that instead

>>4505996
I personally don't do that, but I suppose it can happen.

>>4506008
They don't really make me mad, it's another type of feeling, and it has nothing to do with the fact that God exists and you're an idiot, but more with that combative annoying tone and the listing of logical fallacies you read up about on wikipedia. Just fucking let your damn sentences flow naturally without that pompous crap, and think about what you're actually writing.

Every time you say "ad hominem! that's an ad hominem hoc nauseum hitlerist ludwig mises populum!!", you're literally saying "oh wow NAME CALLING, so mature!"
At least by saying "wow NAME CALLING, so mature!" you've got that amusing post-ironic tone that makes you a half-way likable character. Just stop being a fag, man

One of my too good to ever come to fruition ideas is a seemingly non judgmental despite being Richard Dawkin's narrated BBC edutainment show, titled "The Literal Bible", where selected passages are acted out as described with nothing censored or disneyfied.

>>4506009
>not paying attention to anything science has done

To reiterate the same point a million fucking times, it cannot be deductively proven that god doesn't exist because he, by definition, transcends the physical. We can use INDUCTIVE methods to test everything religion says, and INDUCTIVE evidence goes further and further to show that everything "god" had supposedly given us is false.

How about you read Dawkins talk about evolution?

>>4506009
The evidence for evolution? Geology?

Where do you stand theologically anyway?
The bible all meant to be taken metaphorically or not?

>>4505774
i think you misunderstand

i was pointing out that it is silly for someone who doesn't believe in an Absolute to criticize someone for not producing something of 'value' in their life when, without an Absolute, literally every judgment of worth is relative

i don't know why you thought i was talking about the natural impetus of human behavior or why you had to use so many polemic-words

>>4506024
No, you fucking retard. I've ignored millions of fallacies and rarely bring them up, I've only mentioned as hominem because its used EVERY FUCKING TIME Dawkins name is mentioned.

I'm pointing out the fallacy in the premise so the retards making it can reevaluate their argument, not because I'm spamming it

Stop shoving me into tropes, you "sound like a fag"

>>4505961
>This video is not available in your country.

>>4506027
Richard Dawkins is only a cunt in debate, and that's because religious people rely on "faith" and don't even speak in the same language to even have a debate with him

As he said, the religious win when you show them respect

>>4506030
I think you need to replace the word "religion" with "Christianity", m8, even then God's real.
>>4506031
Infinite universes, infinite gods, superman is real, Santa Claus is real, Jews are the master race and Jesus may very well have literally risen other men and himself from the dead using his own willpower but that doesn't prove that his dad is the only God just that Jesus had a very strong belief.

rate

>>4506036
Well value in the traditional sense means what's valuable for the tribe. But society and the world is more cosmopolitan, things are changing

>>4506043
AUTheISM, more like
LMFAO

>>4506050
>[R]ate

-F

>>4506044
Try this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtU5V1b5tGc

>>4506050
Well I'm not saying pantheism is wrong it's just a dead end view, and there's no reason to believe it. All religious texts conflict on many core levels; to reconcile or ignore these differences strips religion and god to being "this invisible dude that does nothing and means nothing"

Since you believe all gods are one, which values does god promote for us

>>4506064
>negative F
so an A?

>>4506048
You don't seem to get it, this would not be showing them respect. It would be calling things out for what they are by just literally presenting them.

>>4506058
>religious person descends into inanity, long rants and trivial shitposting

>>4506070
Yes, to sit on a platform with William Lane Craig is to give WLC more respect than his arguments deserve.

>>4506079
That's true. But it doesn't relate to what I originally proposed: >>4506027
Things like
>Elisha left Jericho to go to Bethel and on the way some boys came out of a town and made fun of him. "Get out of here, Baldy!" they shouted.Elisha turned around, glared at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces.

>>4505997
You can laugh at what I was talking about without reading it, but that just makes you intellectually dishonest with yourself, or simply a faux intellectual.

>>4505999
Nice trips.

I disagree. God has plenty of meaning. Especially if you believe in all the gods, but worship him exclusively.

>>4506030
>>4506031
Not the one you're both responding to, but... many claims of the Bible, including certain cornerstones to the whole system, are completely inconsistent with the best current scientific explanations of observable phenomena in the natural universe. However, nothing in science disproves a vaguely cast notion of a spirit of the universe (or whatever the Unitarian-Universalists are calling it these days).

>>4506068
I do not believe all gods are one and believe that some gods profess different values than others. As for reason to believe it, I don't see much reason to believe anything, but it's pretty fun, and I think some gods are just pretty interesting fellows.

>>4506068
>pantheism
>all gods are one

That's not at all what pantheism is. Pantheism means you believe in more than one. That means you believe in, say, the Greek Pantheon, the Christian God, the gods of Zoroastrianism, and the gods of Hinduism and they are all separate entities.

>>4506100
But by the same hat a convincing argument can be made that such a vaguely cast notion of a spirit or god has no cognitive meaning.

1 "God" does not refer to anything that exists.
2 "God" does not refer to anything that does not exist.
3 "God" does not refer to anything that may or may not exist.
4 "God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.

Like a lot of mythical religious language, it's a unthinkable proposition.

>>4506114
Neat, I'm a pantheist

>>4506005
prayer is about giving thanks, not asking favours

>>4506130
Me too. It's fun.

>>4506117
I don't see where you're getting (1) from, and (3) seems like a stretch. Also, couldn't (1)–(4) all arguably be asserted with 'Love' in place of God? (I came to this thread late, and also my philosophy powerlevel is extremely low, so you'll have to bear with me).

I'm not bothering to read any of this thread, on side or the other. I take it that it's just religious people pointing to neckbeards and saying "Being an atheist makes you like him.", right?

>>4506387
Yup.

>>4504074
It's shit. Even a basic book on Buddhism counters nearly everything he says about Eastern religion in one of the later chapters.

Why the hell is this thread even on here?
What the fuck are reddit dwelling faggots doing discussing atheism on this board?

>>4506153
>all arguably be asserted with 'Love' in place of God?

Yes, Love doesn't have much cognitive meaning as well, though it's easier for us to observe, break down and describe two people "in love" than it is to observe and break down any actual "God". *The key word here is cognitive, as in the psychological sense of being the mental act or process by which knowledge is acquired, including perception, intuition, and reasoning.

Thus, God exists on a conceptual scale, within language, but has no "literal" significance, just like "Batman". And just like Batman, "God" can mean a lot of things that further deride it of any clear, coherent meaning. The closest we've come to it scientifically is by observing reactions when certain centers in the brain are stimulated causing religious visions, either directly or through the use of drugs. But that within itself isn't any literal "god".

>>4507288
batman has more of a tangible existence because he can be drawn, and can be imagined.