/lit/ - Literature

2 inches on ur dick

hopefully an appreciation for faith

You will become a supreme gentleman.

>>4990237
>an appreciation for faith

People believing in things for which they have no proof is not a virtue. It's an embarrassing flaw.

>>4990237
*tips Bible*

>>4990314

then literautre is not for you, firstly because religion is an integral factor in literature, and secondly you're just too simple for it.

>>4990314

>>4990322
>firstly because religion is an integral factor in literature

[citation needed]

>secondly you're just too simple for it.
There is no mode of being that is more simplistic than faith-based living.

>>4990335
*tips fedora so hard his micropenis falls out of his My Little Pony plushie* Rekt him so hard...

>>4990314
I used to be like you. Then I grew a brain, a dick and a heart.

>>4990350
anthen le took le arrow to le knee man face!!!!!

>>4990350
Sounds more like you just became delusional.

God loves you, and you should love him. This means you have to realize that you're not God, and this should in turn help you realize that finite reason alone isn't going to figure out God. Imitate Christ; don't just admire him.

>>4990335

do you really need citation? wtf wow

just get all your books and burn them

>>4990314

you remind me of me, when i was 14

>>4990350
So you had a sex change operation?

>>4990376
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frRQrfp1-SQ

>>4990319
>>4990329
>>4990347
>>4990361
>>4990369

Some stellar arguments here, today, boys. Truly, faith must add that extra bit of maturity and acumen needed for healthy minds and intelligent discourse.

>>4990385
You omitted the "I grew a penis" guy; probably the best one.

“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret it either way; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it; believe a woman or believe her not, you will regret it either way; believing a woman or not believing her, you will regret it both ways. Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”

“What is a poet? An unhappy man who hides deep anguish in his heart, but whose lips are so formed that when the sigh and cry pass through them, it sounds like lovely music.... And people flock around the poet and say: 'Sing again soon' - that is, 'May new sufferings torment your soul but your lips be fashioned as before, for the cry would only frighten us, but the music, that is blissful.”

“In addition to my other numerous acquaintances, I have one more intimate confidant… My depression is the most faithful mistress I have known — no wonder, then, that I return the love.”

“Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

“Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.”

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.”

“The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.”

“Once you label me you negate me.”

“The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have.”

“To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”

“What if everything in the world were a misunderstanding, what if laughter were really tears?”

“To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.”

“The proud person always wants to do the right thing, the great thing. But because he wants to do it in his own strength, he is fighting not with man, but with God.”

“It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.”

“If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin.”

“Many of us pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that we hurry past it.”

“The highest and most beautiful things in life are not to be heard about, nor read about, nor seen but, if one will, are to be lived.”

“How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.”

“It is impossible to exist without passion”

“Where am I? Who am I?
How did I come to be here?
What is this thing called the world?
How did I come into the world?
Why was I not consulted?
And If I am compelled to take part in it, where is the director?
I want to see him.”

“Leap of faith – yes, but only after reflection”

“Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth — look at the dying man’s struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.”

“I stick my finger into existence and it smells of nothing.”

“It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...”

“My sorrow is my castle.”

“Take away paradox from the thinker and you have a professor.”

“A 'no' does not hide anything, but a 'yes' very easily becomes a deception.”

“Happiness is the greatest hiding place for despair.”

“If you want to be loathsome to God, just run with the herd.”

“In my great melancholy, I loved life, for I love my melancholy.”

“Once you are born in this world you’re old enough to die.”

“To be lost in spiritlessness is the most terrible thing of all.”

“Far from idleness being the root of all evil, it is rather the only true good.”

Even if you don't believe if God and Faith, Kierkegaard writes with an incredible passion and literary talent that will completely fascinate you.

It would be foolish to dismiss Kierkegaard simply due to religious reasons.
Whilst it is the base for all his writing, you can still draw many lessons from it.

I was Agnostic when before I read Kierkegaard and I am still Agnostic after reading most of his work. I have a deeper understanding of Christianity and faith, as well as an understanding of the world.

You haven't really pondered Christianity until you've read Kierkegaard.

>>4990404
This one went over my head I think. Why all the needless repetition? Is it meant to signify obsession? And if so, with the paradox of regret or the regretting of the paradox itself, or both?

After reading these quotes I have to say that he really reads like a christian version of Nietzsche (not that Nietzsche wasn't often called an anti-christian christian). I only read Fear and Trembling and wasn't impressed (except for Kierkegaard's writing style and almost aphoristic in-betweens). Maybe I should've tried Either/Or first or a different one.

OP: it doesn't matter. Thinking christian and atheist in simple opposition would be unphilosophical. Also, if you take Kierkegaard seriously he will give you some feels either way. It might sound silly, but before reading F&T the story of Isaac was just "lel mad wargod trying to be wise" to me when in fact the story had a serious message concerning impossible choices, blood bonds and sacrifice (for a loved one, not goat slaughter) that cannot be rationally justified.

What are the Kierkegaard essentials?

>>4990476
>needless repetition

Ugh, you're a pleb.

>>4990515
I meant needless from a boring, rational, "just convey your message clearly and succintly" sort of way. That's why I was asking about the overall idea and/or feeling.

Reading Kierkegaard criticize the Church of Denmark was like reading Brian Michael Bendis criticize Marvel's direction with All-New X-Men. It gives you an appreciation for how one man's belief in something can so strongly influence his actions, but if you have been paying attention to any world event whatsoever in the past couple decades, you should already have that appreciation.

>>4990314
Define proof

You probably won't get anything with that attitude, OP
Just read your modern philosophy, don't bother with those crazy christians, I'm sure intelligent educated people were just delusional for centuries for the fun of it

>>4990644
>f you have been paying attention to any world event whatsoever in the past couple decades, you should already have that appreciation.
What the fuck are you on about?

>>4990648
Do you need me to type define:proof into Google for you?

There are several ways to believe false statements. Kierkegaard has several of them.

At most you'll gain an understanding of how people who are very intelligent can otherwise fall short of being self critical. But if I wanted to read about a smart man reaching the limits of his understanding and falling back on his religious beliefs, I'd read Newton.

>>4991003
>implying that wikipedia definition can be used in such compexed problem as existence of God

>>4990648
here, let me shorten this conversation for you
>solipsism, therefore no evidence is just as good as evidence
>no, because here's why solipsism is bullshit
>well fuck you i'm gonna post more fedora memes

there.

>>4990415
>>4990421
>>4990429
sounds like writing for facebook bitches

>>4991060
You're an idiot. No wonder you would use that analogy.

>>4991060
In these days every philosphical quote "sounds like writing for facebook bitches"

>>4991018
This.

>>4991069
Because philosophy is dead.

>>4991008
>There are several ways to believe false statements. Kierkegaard has several of them.
>At most you'll gain an understanding of how people who are very intelligent can otherwise fall short of being self critical. But if I wanted to read about a smart man reaching the limits of his understanding and falling back on his religious beliefs, I'd read Newton.
You knew this was coming.

>Christians justifying their beliefs to themselves

Not impressed.

>>4991098
>oh no, infidels
>m-muh f-fedora memes, w-where did i p-put them

>>4991114
You'll never understand christian statements unless you're one.
"I don't mind the irrationality of faith, but the people who rationalize it."
Leszek Kołakowski

This discussion is so fucking dumb.

Yeah, I get it. reddit / fedoras / tumblr / etc are dumb, the are predominantly not well read, okay, no problem. I have no association with either one of those groups.

How can my not believing in a higher power make me less of an intellectual? Can we stop with the fedora-bashing circle-jerk already?

>>4990429
>“I stick my finger into existence and it smells of nothing.”
guess which philosopher had scat fetish

>>4991135

Also, Artaud was crazy about poop, I think.

>>4990347

>I'm going to be a faggot instead of trying to refute your arguments

>>4991076
>>4991018
lol
the definition of "proof" doesn't change when you put a certain subject up to the test. but you're probably just joking.

Faith is more important than religion in Kierkegaard. There are secular uses and interpretations of faith.

>>4991193

Do you mean "non abrahamic" by secular?

>>4990314
Pure skepticism drives people apart, and dissects things so thin that there appears to be no real communication in the universe. Applying skepticism in domains it isn't relevant to is an embarrassing flaw. I'm sure there are several aspects of your everyday life that you place faith into, and if you don't, you must be a very low functioning human being.

>>4991191
A proof is conncted with material world. You can prove only material things to exist.
>doesn't change when you put a certain subject
yes, it does. As I said non-material subject doesn't fit into the range of a word "proof". Discussions about how you can prove/unprove the existence of God are pointless, because you can't label God as "(un)proveable"

>>4991205
So I can't prove that 2+2=4?

Alright then, you're the expert.

>>4991191

What kind of proof do you need? There are people who've said they've seen God. But, of course, you wouldn't count that, right? Because you've already made up your mind.

>>4991213
We assume that mathematics exist, because we can observe it in our world. It is material in some way.

>>4991217

Strictly speaking, that is called anecdotal evidence, which is not really evidence.

>>4991217
Somebody saying "i believe x" isn't proof.

>>4991219
Hahaha, what the fuck? Mathematics isn't a testable theory that we "assume to exist", it's an abstract construct.

>>4991225

When you see a red patch, what other evidence do you have that it's in facf a red and a patch outside of faith in your sense-datum?

>>4991231
I've never said it's a theory. It's an abstract construct, as you mentioned, that we assume to exist. Please learn how to read.

>>4991231

>i believe x =/= i saw x

Read the post again.

>>4991235
>that we assume to exist.
No. No intelligent person will say "math exists". Purely abstract concepts are exempt from the test of "proof", because they are IMMATERIAL, and by their definition, do not directly interact with material things.

>>4991236
Something has to be replicatable in order to be proven, and several conflicting reports of "seeing God" do not constitute sufficient evidence.

>>4991240
>Purely abstract concepts are exempt from the test of "proof", because they are IMMATERIAL
this exactly
>>4991205
thank you, you just PROVED my point

>>4991205

>>4991205

(I'm not the guy you're replying to.)

There is no point to the discussion, you are correct, but it is strictly because god is unprovable.

Faith (in god) is the assertion that a physically non-observable, (= non-material) therefore unprovable higher power exists. I am very okay with your asserting it, but this tangential argument about "proof" won't fly.

>>4991234
Science isn't concerned with "is your green my green?" things, but rather those wavelengh spectrum thingies and maybe how they interact with the human eye. Maybe when discussing qualia, but I don't know much about that. Also, unless God behaves in a repetitive and predictable fashion there's no reason to assume that science can prove his existance by studying people He spoke to.

>>4991252
Yeah, I just want to make it clear too that I'm not a militant atheist or anything, I'm just maintaining the definition of "proof", and that it doesn't make accommodations for "special" cases.

>>4991245
>Something has to be replicatable in order to be proven.
My father says he feels jesus everyday at 6:00am when he prays. Is that replicable enough? What else do you need?

>several conflicting reports of "seeing God" do not constitute sufficient evidence
Conflicting how?

>>4990504
Fear and Trembling.

>>4991213
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf

You what again?

>>4991256

Then maybe when talking about God, we shouldn't approach scientificly. Thus why ask for proof where such a reasoning will lead to circular discussions?

>>4990402
But that guy was right. Reading Kierkegaard will indeed increase your penis length by 2 inches (5.08 centimeters)

>>4991264
So the hypothesis would be that the utterance of some specific set of words makes you feel Jesus, which therefore proves his existence. Why wouldn't it work for certain people who do it? It's anecdotal.

>Conflicting how?
>i saw Allah, he said Jesus was not the messiah
>i saw Vishnu, he said polytheism was right
>i saw God, and he said Jesus visited America and that i should knock on everyone's door and inform them of the truth and that any "visions" contrary are false

>>4991279
>certain people
*all people

>>4991271

>>4991279
>Why wouldn't it work for certain people who do it?
Factors. Maybe they didn't really believe. Maybe God is punishing them. Blah blah blah.
>It's anecdotal.
How do you know it isn't true unless you research it? However, considering the nature of God as told to us, it would be particulary hard to research it if you don't believe. Ain't that a paradox?

>i saw Allah, he said Jesus was not the messiah
>i saw Vishnu, he said polytheism was right
>i saw God, and he said Jesus visited America and that i should knock on everyone's door and inform them of the truth and that any "visions" contrary are false
Maybe, there are different gods that hate each other.

Still, theres no reason to feel strongly about it. Doesnt pic related make sense after a spill. Even if you trust the material world unfalteringly, you still won't know if God is real or not. You still have believe something without proof for te contrary.

>>4991302
>it would be particulary hard to research it if you don't believe.
>what is the entire field of theology

>>4991302
>There's a gremlin on the plain but only I can see it and he goes away whenever someone else looks! There, that's sufficient proof.

>>4991305
>Interesting! Please write down all instances you see the gremlin.
>Ok
>Haha! We now have proof of the gremlin!

>>4991302
>Maybe, there are different gods that hate each other.
Then seeing the Christian god in a vision isn't proof of the Christian god, because he's the only one that exists by his definition.

>>4991305
Isn't it?

>>>4991302

That's actually pretty cute but you could argue that he was just lying (about there being no other gods) (also about being very nice and not lying).

(not the guy you're replying to.)

>>4991313
>writing something you see down is "proof" of it

>>4991318
Nope.

>>4991318
>Isn't it?

It's proof of my perception of it. It's not proof of its existence.

>>4991324

Yeah, he could be lying. But, yet again, he could be saying the truth. :/

>>4991317
>Then seeing the Christian god in a vision isn't proof of the Christian god, because he's the only one that exists by his definition.
True, but maybe the christian God is a bitch that just didnt want you to believe in other gods.

>>4991325
>>writing something you see down is "proof" of it
I was being sarcastic. I was making fun off the dude arguing that anecdotal evidence of a person "feeling" God (whatever that means) constitutes evidence for God.

>>4991317
By the way, not an atheist, so I don't know why you're pulling that "you can't disprove it" argument. This is an argument about proof, not the existence of God.

>>4991324
meant for
>>4991317

also god proved via captcha, we can all go home now.

>>4991328
>Yeah, he could be lying. But, yet again, he could be saying the truth. :/
then
wait
then there's
there's no PROOF of it?

>>4991326
>It's proof of my perception of it. It's not proof of its existence.

Theres a difference? Is there anything you can say exists independent of your perception?

The funny thing is that no one can ever answer what would be a sufficient proof of God.
They simply reject the possibility apriori, so it's meaningless to discuss with these people. They'll hold beliefs like the multiverse theory and consider it reasonable, while a God is some "bronze age peasant mythology", like i often hear it.
I don't know, a lot of these lack theological education, some just can't be helped.

>>4991343

Well, proof in this case would be your interpretation of the occurences.

>>4991351
>proof (or lack thereof)*

>>4991344

The physical capabilities of the human brain does disprove solipsism. We don't have the horsepower to simulate an entire universe.

>>4991358

>We don't have the horsepower to simulate an entire universe.

Not a complete one, at least.

I myself don't believe in God, but the only reasonable proposition for his existence is simply the nature of the universe.

When we look at created objects, we know intuitively that they were created by someone or something. They look much different than a natural phenomenon. God can thus be thought of as the artist of nature.

However, even if you believe in a Creator God, there is no reason to believe anything else about him. There is no natural/common morality, negating the idea of a god-bestowed morality. There is simply no good reason to believe in any property of God besides his creating power, and even this is doubtable since quantum physics is moving towards a deeper understanding of the universes.

>>4991347
>The funny thing is that no one can ever answer what would be a sufficient proof of God.

Actually, the working standard for the past few hundred years or so has been "pretty much anything."

You've failed to meet that standard ever since.

>>4991375
>When we look at created objects, we know intuitively that they were created by someone or something.

No, we don't. That's why some people look at everything in nature and conclude that it must have been created. You cannot intuit the origin of anything.

>>4991385
>hey let me set up my own version of naturalist proof that you don't agree with
>oh wait, there's no empirical scientifically verified proof of God? HAHA I WIN

You must really be retarded
What do you expect as proof for Being itself? The proof is all around you, as well as inside you, your sense of morality and guilt, human freedom and kindness, the impossibility of this world coming about by random chance, the more and more apparent fact that the universe had a beginning
etc. etc.

>>4991347
Nope. Sufficient proof was never the issue. The issue is any proof whatsoever.
You have defined it in such a way that you cannot measure its existence, you can provide no argument proving the necessity of its existence, and, what is really the linchpin of this argument, you can't provide any way to falsify the claim that it exists. There isn't anything to argue with. Unless you trot out the tired Kalam cosmological argument, or Descartes' almost embarrassing ontological argument. But at that point we aren't discussing evidence for the existence of gods. We're just talking about an argument from ignorance and a very unfortunate word game.

>>4991417
>maybe if I define 'proof' to be 'not proof' then I can say i'll have 'proof

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

What you are telling me right now is that, because you believe that rain is caused by elves, that rain is proof of elves. I'm sorry Anon. That's not how logic works. If you were not so utterly incapable of considering the possibility that anything could possibly exist without whatever magical entity you have imagined, you would see how retarded your post is.

>>4991417

What makes you think that emotions like morality and guilt are related to God?

There are certain schools that place those inside a metaphysical framework, eg, karmaic or abrahamic beliefs, also obviously your own unique belief system- but do you not think it's kind of a chicken-egg situation?

>>4991417
Alright, kiddo. Put up or shut up time. Write out, in formal logic, how the existence of kindness proves the existence of God.

I'll take a "y-you're all just retards" or you tired old fedora meme as an admission that you can't.

>>4991417
>What do you expect as proof for Being itself?

No one asked for proof of Being itself you fucking moron. They asked for proof of God. Try again.

>>4991451
Logic means nothing in a framework without an encompassing Mind. You're just an evolved ape, what makes you think your logic is of any value? Your only standard is yourself. You know nothing.
Ironically for your position, the only basis for logic to be verifiable is with God, since we are the creations of his Mind and have properties of thought comparable to it.

>>4991475
How about you leave the discussion and read some basic theology before commenting again, simpleton
If you imagine God as another thing in the world, not something that encompasses it, it's not my fault

As an outsider, I think its fascinating, but also sad how much time, a whole life, a person can dedicate to something that is not 'true/real/proven'. Be it a hindu holyman, a muslim, christian, buddhist, etc. Know what i mean? Their whole lives on a concept, something so ethnocentric, dedicating his or her time to just one aspect of the whole bunch of religious beliefs and gods. Fascinating.

>>4991482
>Logic means nothing in a framework without an encompassing Mind.

Then why are you whining when people tell you that there's no reason to believe in gods? Once you've completely removed logic from the conversation concerning the existence of transcendent entities, then you have no logical argument affirming their existence.

>>4991491
It falls on you to prove why logic can be applied to a being that surpasses it in the first place

>>4991493
It doesn't, because I'm not the one making claims about the being. You are.

>>4991494
Claims about it were commonly accepted before the scientific method was even around and the scholastic conception of God was largely what lead to that method in the first place
It's cute how you think you can push the responsibility.

>>4991493

Nope. The only person making claims about any transcendent deity is you.

>>4991500
>Claims about it were commonly accepted before the scientific method was even around

And at some point, people though the moon was pulled through the sky on a chariot.

The mental gymnastics you're doing right here are adorable, but they aren't getting us anywhere. I didn't even mention the "scientific method." I left it open for you to find any reason at all. And you failed. Unsurprisingly.

>>4991493
>god surpasses logic

Oh sorry, I didn't see that coming. I should have.

>>4991500
>i posit that a being that cannot be logically proven to exist exists
>it is now your responsibility to prove that logic can be applied to this being
you don't even read the crap you write, do you?

>>4991487
>If you imagine God as another thing in the world, not something that encompasses it, it's not my fault

This^
God isn't something that exists like a cart or wagon, something you can prove with a syllogism or by detective work: aha! here are some muddy tracks, ipso facto God exists.

You have to understand God as the Eternal, the infinite Good, that which surpasses existence itself but also subsume it. It's totally subjective and immune to proof or disprove.

God's reality (subjective presence to a human) will always be a leap of faith.

>>4991519
>It's totally subjective and immune to proof or disprove.

>>4991491
>Then why are you whining when people tell you that there's no reason to believe in gods?

>>4991519
>It's totally subjective and immune to proof or disprove.

No, guilty and kindness exist. That's proof. The proof is in you.

>>4991505
Ontological, cosmological, teleological, unmoved mover, argument from degree
And so on
I don't know why you feel the need to shit over the philosophical achievements of theism in our culture, it comes off as childish. You could at least give them an inkling of respect. Many philosophers have been convinced by these arguments, and a lot of them sure as hell stand modern scrutiny, like Platinga's formal logic version of the ontological argument.

>>4991526

Are you trolling? If not answer this, please:
>>4991457

>>4991523

Strictly speaking, there is no reason to believe anything fully, all "evidence" can be doubted and all evidence is "incomplete"

Whatever criteria for proof you make will also be arbitrary and subjective.

>>4991519
So much meaningless flourishing. There is no good. There is no bad. There never has been and there never will be.

I'll wait for you to respond with tips fedora rather than attempting to prove a universal and absolute morality.

>>4991534
>There is no good. There is no bad. There never has been and there never will be.

Great, there's no need for philosophy, there's no need for science
Let's give up and jerk off instead
Surely everything was leading up to this!

If people understood that the only God philosophy speaks of as being true, or possible to believe as being true, is a non-interventionist, morally nihilistic God who does not create an afterlife or interact in any way with us, they would not give two fucks.

Because that's what we're talking about here. A completely independent entity. People tend to conflate God with afterlife in their hoping and arguing and humming and hawing. It is almost entirely 99.99999% impossible for an afterlife to occur.

>>4991487
Oops. I missed this little nugget of stupid.

How I imagine your imaginary being is irrelevant. I haven't made reference to anything but your imaginary being's magical ability to be immune from any logical consideration. You can define it as anything you want; It encompasses the world. It is transcendent. It is Elvis. It doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that you have defined your imaginary being to be immune to logical consideration, which means that you cannot possibly logically prove its existence. Crying "But you have to prove that logic applies to my imaginary being" is neither here nor there. I've already accepted your premise that God exists outside of logic. No one's claiming that logic applies to it.

>>4991534
>There is no good. There is no bad.

You say this, but I doubt you live by it.

If you can live by it, then so be it, but I doubt it will be a fulfilling and meaningful life.

God is a totally personal matter and not something we should go around bashing people over the head with. Live as you choose.

>>4991539
No, the post I was responding to was just full of utter meaningless tripe. "Infinite Good" what the fuck does that mean when there is no good or evil? Nothing. It's a meaningless assertion of "outside the circle" reasoning, specious and completely unverifiable.

>>4991547
Of course I don't live by it. There are societal repercussions for the body and mind for living like that which dissuade me, along with cultural conditioning ingraining a guilt complex about certain things in me and everyone else. You don't actually think people acting by a general good/bad dichotomy is anything more than a sociological and psychological development do you?

>>4991548
There it goes again, unverifiable, you keep mentioning it, it's obvious you're a hard empiricist.
Let me ask you, do you think empiricism is the end of all thought? The only way of attaining knowledge? The only standard?
I just can't understand this position, I don't think we can ever reach an understanding with our polar opposite perspectives, so this discussion is pretty meaningless.

>>4991557
A hardline empiricist. Hardly. What knowledge have you ever proven as being true without empiricism?

>>4991533
>muh solipsism

Won't save you here. Even so called "incomplete" evidence is still evidence. You are talking about something for which there can be no evidence. You were in a losing position from the start.

>>4991533

Why are you on the internet right now? You can't believe that you're really sitting at a computer fully, because all evidence you have that you're interacting with someone on 4chan can be doubted.

>>4991561

If all evidence can be objectively doubted and all of it is incomplete then there is no such thing as evidence.

You simply take a leap of faith and decide to "believe" the evidence.

Not much different than taking a leap of faith and deciding God is real.

>>4991570
>, because all evidence you have that you're interacting with someone on 4chan can be doubted.

I decided to believe it, subjectively.

>>4991560
Well there it goes, you can't expect to discuss theology without even considering the existence of anything non-empirical
You're the one who's bringing a complete set of apriori rules into this discussion. That's not how metaphysics works. You've already made up your mind that the scientific method is the standard to judge all claims, so you won't budge on this.

>>4991571
>If all evidence can be objectively doubted and all of it is incomplete then there is no such thing as evidence.

Shut down all the prisons you guys.

Evidence isn't real.

>>4991580
No. You are simply aware that any kind of epistemology that cannot actually verify the knowledge it claims to acquire cannot be verified, and you're throwing your toys out of the pram because you want to keep up this meaningless, pseudo-intellectual charade of actually "thinking" about anything you can just conjure up yourself.

>>4991580
>Maybe if I dodge his question nobody will notice

What knowledge have you ever proven as being true without empiricism?

>>4991592
The knowledge that I'm a thinking being.
The knowledge that murdering someone is wrong.
Logic. Math.

>>4991571
2 reasons why this is stupid.

1) The possibility of evidence being "incomplete" does not negate the existence of evidence. In fact, your concept of "incomplete evidence" is inconsistent with your own claim that evidence does not exist. Something has to exist in order for it to be incomplete. Make up your mind.

2) Claiming that evidence does not exist still doesn't solve your problem of having no evidence for the existence of God.

I think it's hilarious how, invariably, every discussion concerning the existence of god inevitably boils down to "Well, we can't prove anything, so let's believe all of it."

>>4991603
>The knowledge that murdering someone is wrong.

Oh please. Jesus fucking wept. And the fact you're thinking is actually verified by experience, you know, something that's actually INCLUDED in the definition of empiricism, you utter gimp.

>>4991605
>"Well, we can't prove anything, so let's believe all of it."

Indeed. A stupid little get out clause used by faux-intellectuals who want to show off all the flowery romantic unverifiable shit they've spent the day thinking up, and pretending it's real in any way.

>>4991605

Well, simply put, solipsism is the belief that throwing your arms in the air and shouting "WELL THEN MAYBE NOTHING EXISTS" is an acceptable thing to do as a fully grown adult.

>>4991605
>I think it's hilarious how, invariably, every discussion concerning the existence of god inevitably boils down to "Well, we can't prove anything, so let's believe all of it."

The only way to believe something unreasonable is to dispatch with reason. Some people waste thousands of dollars on homeopathy. Some fly airplanes into buildings. Some make Kierkegaard threads.

>>4991605
>The possibility of evidence being "incomplete" does not negate the existence of evidence

it doesn't exist since all "bits" of evidence can be doubted in themselves. The fact that evidence is always incomplete is just a bonus.

>2) Claiming that evidence does not exist still doesn't solve your problem of having no evidence for the existence of God.

Faith is what reveals the reality of evidence. We place faith in evidence.

Faith, likewise, is what reveals the reality of God.

>>4991586
Serious question for solipsists. Evidence no reals. Should we have prisons? Should we even have trials?

I think being able to say that you read Kierkegaard without lying is enough.
>who are you reading?
>Kierkegaard
>say it again
>Kierkegaard
>oh, one more
>Kierkegaard
>ahh

>>4991579

Why don't you decide to believe that you can fly? Or live in a mansion? Deciding to believe that you're sitting on a computer posting on imageboards seems like a pretty boring belief. You could jump out of a window right now and fly to the plane of existence where Kierkegaard still lives and have tea with him. Why aren't you doing this? There can't be any empirical reason.

>>4991640

The point is that evidence doesn't exist without faith. If you doubt X, then X isn't really evidence.

>>4991659

No, his point was that evidence doesn't exist. As soon as you start talking about degrees of certainty, or "faith," with regards to evidence, the solipsist argument dissolves and we're back to a claim being completely faith based with not even the illusion of evidence.

>>4991656
>Why don't you decide to believe that you can fly?

Because I believe I know my limitations and God hasn't given me the power to fly.

>Or live in a mansion?

Because I have faith in my senses. And they don't reveal I live in a mansion.

Unless you mean the mansion of my interior life which is splendid.

>>4990381
fuck off dirty muslim filth

>>4991666
>Because I have faith in my senses.

Oops You just contradicted yourself.

You first stated that your senses cannot empirically affirm the existence of God, but you nonetheless have faith in his existence.

Now you say that you have faith in those sense which cannot affirm the existence of God.

You've done my work for me.

What are your sincere feelings about shifting the goal posts so hard that you end up having to say that you don't believe in physical reality, just to be able to carry on a theological discussion?

How are solipsists getting form "it takes faith to believe in anything because we can't fully trust our senses" to "God exists"?

>>4991686
>You first stated that your senses cannot empirically affirm the existence of God, but you nonetheless have faith in his existence.

I never said I have seen God with my senses, lol...

>Now you say that you have faith in those sense which cannot affirm the existence of God.

Yes, and? I never reached God through my senses, I never said I smelled him.

>>4991692
>>4991694

It always ends up here. And they're going to dodge both of these questions.

Why do fedoras have such a simplistic conception of God? No serious thinker who believes in God thinks of God as an old man living in heaven. That kind of shit is only prevalent in simplified Christian Theology. God has always had a much more complex, difficult to grasp nature.

Spinoza. Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Heidegger and many others all speak of the centrality of God (or in Heidegger's case, "the gods"). I can't think of any decidedly atheistic thinkers who really contributed much to thought.

>>4991694
>"it takes faith to believe in anything"

Yes.

>because we can't fully trust our senses"

That's not why it takes faith to believe in anything.

>to God exists

This is a matter of faith. You can choose to believe it or not.

>>4991707
>Why do fedoras have such a simplistic conception of God?

Because Dawkins, Dennet, Harris et al are dumb as fuck when it comes to actual philosophy?

>>4991710
>That's not why it takes faith to believe in anything.

What is?

From what I've seen OP Kierkegaard isn't for you.
Read some Hitchens or Dawkins, they're more in line with your level of thinking.

>>4991482
stop capitalising random words you freak

>>4991707
>Maybe if I hit my strawman really hard I'll look like I know what I'm talking about

>>4990272

this

>>4991500
>Claims about it were commonly accepted before the scientific was even around
bait

>>4991692
>>4991694
>>4991700
Samefag

>>4991707

what is straw man?

>>4991369
>>4991358
Are you retarded.
How do we know how much 'horsepower' the brain has.
In a solipsistic world we have no idea what it even looks like.

>>4991700
>>4991726

See?

>>4991726

>>4991697
how do you reach god without sense

>>4991715
>What is?

more like the nature of the human mind, being finite, temporal beings subject to change, all measurements have uncertainty and margins of error, we always have incomplete information about a situation or event, the reliability of sources, no one is perfect and all are subject to errors in logic/reason, the nature of memory, and 139 other reasons...

>>4991060

...

>>4991733
Obviously edited in paint.
Show me some real proof faggot.

>>4991734
Magic sense. Spirituality, soul, transcendent revelation, etc. Once we're talking about gods, anything goes

>>4991738

Sorry, you're gonna have to take a leap of faith.

>>4991734
>how do you reach god without sense

Read Kierkegaard.

>>4991707
so just because god is some mystical force instead of a corporeal being he needs no reason to be believed in besides "muh faith" ?

>>4991740
this is all bullshit though

>>4991748
According to this thread, everything takes some amount of faith because of the reasons listed in >>4991736 and, therefore, we don't need a reason to believe anything.

>>4991741
Faith is for faggots.
How do you go from showing me an obviously edited picture to me believing your not some faggot neckbeard with an unhealthy obsession with arguing on 4chan?

>>4991756
I know. But his argument is that we can't say that it's bullshit, because believing in real shit takes faith, just like believing in bullshit. To him, they're equally valid.

Yaaay solipsism.

hold on, i'm not following, why does empiricism require faith?

i like how the defense of theism started with "fuck you you're ignorant go read some theology" and now we're basically denying the existence of physical reality.

So what I should take home from this thread is that it is possible to believe in god and because I don't do just that I'm a fat and ugly manchild that masturbates to fictional talking ponies, don't have the mental horsepower to comprehend metaphysics and philosophy and wear a shitty hat.

I'll just go deal with that and never ever do this again. Good night, fellas.

>>4991771
>hold on, i'm not following, why does empiricism require faith?
You must have faith that your senses are providing you with the correct, objective observation of whatever is in front of you.
That puts an extremely large amount of faith into something that is very fallible.

>>4991771

Because people make mistakes.

Seriously. That's the argument. Our brains are "finite," and not all of our sensory input is indicative of something that is happening outside of our brains. Therefore, all empirical observation is a matter of faith. And not just a matter of faith, but a matter of the exact same degree and amount of faith that it takes to believe in things which have no empirical evidence whatsoever.

>>4991771
>why does empiricism require faith?

because pic related

>>4991776
That's pretty much exactly what you should get from the thread.
Read better.

>>4991779
Induction doesn't require faith: it can be proved correct via induction.

>>4991777
is your brain not a sensory organ? it is literally the cause for sensory deception; the brain causes hallucinations etc. therefore, we cannot trust the brain or any thoughts, and so faith would be misguided in itself because it requires use of the brain

>>4991781

"Empiric truth is a fallacy because a solipsist view of the world means that our perception of the world is incomplete, thus evidence and proof do not exist, which makes accepting anything as a fact a matter of belief, including the existence of god. Some people have faith in the existence of god."

My reading skills are pretty okay. I was just hoping to have an engaging discussion.

>>4991692
>>4991694

Just a reminder that they're still dodging these questions, by the way.

>>4991805
Actually I think they might have just abandoned the thread. There's like 4 of us in here now.

>there are people sitting at electrically lit arrays of tiny liquid crystals arranged to display text, connected to a machine made of metal, plastic, and silicon that translates mechanical input from a board at their fingertips into electrical signals interpreted by the machine to be more text, converting these signals into electrical signals of a different type sent wirelessly to another device, which relays those signals through a myriad of other machines and millions of miles of electromagnetically shielded cables spanning the entire lengths of two continents and an ocean owing its entire existence to the study of electromagnetics and architecture, to another machine that then translates these electrical signals on another liquid crystal display (or, possibly, an arrangement of cathode ray tubes), to be transcoded into text, all to claim, proudly, that empiricism doesn't work

>>4990231

How can people reach such a level of triteness?

Instead of opining and assuming an air of understanding of faith and on the teachings of Kierkegaard - which I must admit none of your simpletons are capable of nor have the erudition for it - why not let your ego's slumber for a moment, take a deep breath and consider your considerations on the matter at hand, instead of name-dropping famous people, citing Kierkegaard, blabbering about theology and different kinds of philosophical movements; as though the inscription of Kierkegaard's ideas were inscribed within those particular branches, and can be definable as a beforehand or post-hoc confraternity of identical scribblers.

What most of you village-cobblers don't fucking seem to understand, is that Kierkegaard's ideas cannot be understood without the reader or student of his teachings shares a consubstantial affiliation of his beliefs.

Kierkegaard did not simply preach about the importance of faith, the importance of husbandry, the importance of religion, the importance of understanding the human being in all it's small variegated parts; he wanted to simulate, or if he could, merely lisper the multitudinious affects of a religious man.

If you guys think that being the devoted servant of some almighty being is just a simple matter of 'believing' in some suprahuman non-sensational being, and succumbing to some otherwordly entity is a thing only ignorant people do, who want's to feel more secure about their existence; I feel fucking sorry for your level of humaneness.

As a Dane and a deep admirer of people who can stroll with such a degree of protracted contemplation as Kierkegaard did, here's my message to this already unending deluge of stupidity that has vegetated in this thread; grow up you fucking faggots.

>>4991841
>that empiricism doesn't work

it does work as long as we put some faith into it's assumptions to get it going

>>4990231
Kierkegaard is just wonderful to read regardless

>i can prove god exists
>ok, go for it
>first you must prove that logic applies to god
>what
>also there is no physical reality
>what
>everything is faith always all the time
>okay sure, but how does that prove god

If I saw a motherfucker that walked around looking like Kierkegaard, I'd punch his ass. Intellectual douche look

>>4992484

>everything is faith always all the time
>okay sure, but how does that prove god

since it all boils down to faith at some level, you stop asking for proof of God...the question makes no sense. You either accept it or you don't.

Plus only imbeciles say that God "exists" existence is for trees and mammals and finite phenomena. God qua God supersedes and subsumes existence itself.

I have General Anxiety Disorder and Bipolar Disorder.
Reading Kierkegaard's 'The Concept of Anxiety' actually really helped me to take some control over my emotions.
Never read his other stuff though.

>>4990237
le mayo. this was me and i left and never expanded on what i meant but anyway read hume

>>4991748
God is not a being to be proved or disproved.

Ehyeh asher ehyeh

also why did everyone start speaking about the existence of god? an appreciation for faith is only that, an appreciation for faith

believing anything is true, for instance matter exists(materialism), requires faith - and the belief serves you in some way

i consider it the same for someone who believes in god, it serves them some way, but doesn't make it any more true

no one is trying to force you to believe in god. stop being defensive, if you want to be truly sceptical you would be a pyrrhonist

>>4992730
>God is not a being to be proved or disproved.

I can't even believe you guys even believe your rhetoric, sometimes.

>>4992747
You can choose to allow extra-dimensional beings to impose their will on you, or you can choose not to do so, m8.

>>4990347
>>4990329
Why are theists still doing this when someone on the internet poses an argument or a statement that goes against theism?

It might be so people like myself ask, but if not, it really drives home the point that you've got no rebuttal for whatever that person said.

>>4992548
>since it all boils down to faith at some level, you stop asking for proof of God

And you stop claiming proof of God exists. You forgot that part.

You can't have it both ways, buddy. Either proof doesn't exist, and you can't claim that you have proof of god, or proof does exist, and you simply have none. Denying objective reality doesn't save you. It's also laughably stupid.

>>4992817
Defense mechanism.

>>4990314
>>4990314
>>4990314

>>4990385

Those who have not seen the curtain move never believe there is a window.

>>4990515

You either want:
A: ubiquitous erudition.
B: exclusive erudition.

One helps the greater good, the other makes you feel special.

>>4990476

I think it has something to do with the fact that 'regret' is immutable and unavoidable.

>>4992817
They always word them in a condescending matter. Instead of "I don't really believe in any of that stuff" it's "Believing in baseless nonsense is for sheep! You're being fooled by the elites into believing feel-good horse shit!"

You faggots come here for the purpose of waving your atheism around like it's some heroic evolution of thought, and the weird hardon you all have for Christianity is ridiculous. I'm not a Christian at all and I can't tell you the number of times I've had you idiots saying "hurr major skydaddy! evolution is real, idiot!"

Note you said "argument" first, not statement. You don't go to a hangout place looking to "argue" (or, as you fags do, copy and paste shit other people have said word for word then nitpick through people's responses for words like "idiot" so you can say "ad hommmmum!" and feel like a winner)

Don't go to a place thinking you're just going to tell people they're dumb, and expect you're not going to be name-called back. Try conversing instead of thinking "oh wow a theist, better point out how superior my lack of belief is and how infantile their little minds are"

Damn near everybody on this board has thought on atheism, it's not like everybody here's some ignorant that thinks trees are God's dicks or whatever the hell

>>4992679
lel faggot I have GAD also. I don't need to read any of this faggot's philosophy,

>>4991134
I think the point is that the "fedora's" needlessly bash Christianity and religion in general. Why bash another person's beliefs at all? It serves no real purpose other than to divide people along imaginary lines. How about I tell you why I believe in God, but also why I dislike the Catholic Church, you tell me why you like and dislike whatever you like/dislike? Maybe we could get further than if I just told you to stop being a "fedora".

>>4992828
Not the guy but fuck, it's the truth. Religion is for the ignorant. No reason to follow a religion in 20 fuckin 14

>>4992880
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but that won't change what happens. Half of the posters are shitposters, looking to stir people up and get them mad. The other half are people so stubborn in their faith (in God or their own mental superiority, it makes no difference) that they will not listen to real reason. The real conversations will not happen on 4chan, they will happen between people who are willing to listen, whether in a bar or chatting on skype.

>>4990369
You remind me of me when I was 6. No, really, I believed in Jeebus and all that shit

>>4991060
I hope you enjoy your life role of pleb. Stay true to yourself.

>>4990385
Dat rekage

>>4992820
>And you stop claiming proof of God exists. You forgot that part.

but Most ppl in this thread said God is reached by faith, which was Kierkegaard's point...

proof is impossible and irrelevant for this sort of question, it's always a question of faith and faith alone.

>>4990385
Every religious person will tell you they have personal proof of god.

Like consciousness, it is not something you can point to material proof for. It is something that is experienced.

>>4992820
>And you stop claiming proof of God exists.

This isn't a question that depends on proof, it only depends on faith.

>>4990231
>>4992880
>>4992730
>>4991771
>>4991707
>>4991605
>>4991519
>>4991482
>>4991487
>>4991417
>>4991358
>>4991337
>>4991343
>>4991326
>>4991325

Any justification outside the realm of passionate volition for the existence of God is entirely untenable.

So please stop talking about it.

Kierkegaard is one of the few philosophers who understands subjectivity of views and gives happiness priority over the search for objective truth

>>4990314
Thanks for posting this. I haven't been able to use any of my many "faces of atheism" pictures in awhile.

I'm sorry you have no conception of what it means to have faith. It's easy to become misled in our society today.

>>4990314

>>4993030
Why is a picture of Barbara Spectre added in the background?

>>4992909
No, we have good conversations a lot here, I think, and it's sensitive stuff and people get mad sometimes, but some people are just these idiot mind-crusader zealots with no willingness to converse with the other side. I don't think you should let people like that ruin anything for you, though.

Plus, it's fun to get into flamewars and shitflinging sometimes. I like 4chan for the range of conversation. There are idiots and geniuses, and closed and open-minded people of all walks of life, just like real IRL.

>>4993042
Why do you know who that woman is?

>>4993030
>>4993035
>I'm against religion because it teaches people to accept nonanswers as answers
- pseudointellectual I met at college

>>4993030
>Before I found Reddit I felt as if I was drowning in an anti-intellectual quagmire

UEHUEHEUHEUHEUHEUHEU

>>4992885
each to their own

>>4993059
This video circled around anti-semitic websites and message boards a while back : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

>>4993030
I've seen this picture a hundred times, but when I saw it this time I read the last line as "I am the face of autism".

SCIENCE IS NOWHERE NEAR ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD/CREATOR

WE HAVE ONLY BEEN IN SPACE FOR 50-60 YEARS, NOT EVEN A MILLISECOND IN THE CONTEXT OF TIME

WHY IS HUMANITY SO EAGER TO PROVE AND DISPROVE THINGS THEY HAVE NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF?

>>4993042
If you think about it for a moment you'll understand and find it humorous, hopefully.

I had no idea who that woman was until I googled her and just from a minute long clip I understand why she's on there.

good goyim, debtroy christianity and then bow to your Jewish masters

>>4993030
Did that motherfucker intentionally grow a neckbeard?

I'm picking up what he's Thoreau-ing down.

>>4993081
do you think facial hair gets like that on its own?

>>4993075
So that we can go to sleep at night and not sit awake debating with ourselves about the intricacies of the universe.

>>4993089
IMPLYING SCIENCE HAS GIVEN US ANY ANSWERS TO THE INTRICACIES OF THE UNIVERSE BEYOND AN AMBIGUOUS ESTIMATION OF WHAT SURROUNDS US

IMPLYING THIS ISN'T MORE DISCONCERTING THAN NOT KNOWING

>>4993093
yeah because knowing things never helped anyone.

>>4993099
KNOWING MINUSCULE ESTIMATIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT THE SAME AS KNOWING THE 'THINGS' YOU ARE REFERRING TO

>>4993093
What I meant as some people fool themselves into thinking that they know anything as a form of consolation.

>>4993109
>meant as
is*

>>4993105
just stop.

you can only know something through evidence and thats why science works.

you talk about 'knowing' and 'truth' like it means something on a deeper level. there is nothing complicated, intriguing, amazing or useful about religion.

you are just refusing to look at the world how it really is and instead forcing your supernatural beliefs onto reality.

>>4993075
>SCIENCE IS NOWHERE NEAR ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD/CREATOR

Science is totally irrelevant to the question of god's existence. It will NEVER be "advanced enough."

>>4991201
that 'faith' is not the religious faith you speak of

>>4993122
>there is nothing complicated, intriguing, amazing or useful about religion.
lol

>>4993122
>there is nothing complicated, intriguing, amazing or useful about religion.

*fedora tip top tipping*

>>4993134
real theology and academic studies on religion could be interesting.

but the beliefs and faith of the average religious person are embarrassing, especially when they start talking about science and reality; topics that outside religious understanding.

>>4993122
I NEVER SAID I WAS RELIGIOUS

IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK THERE IS NOTHING INTERESTING ABOUT RELIGION YOU ARE TRULY STUPID

WHAT DOES 'HOW IT REALLY IS' EVEN MEAN? ALL PERCEPTIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE YOU MINDLESS PHILISTINE

THERE IS NOTHING SUPERNATURAL ABOUT BELIEVING IN A CREATOR - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FAIRIES AND GHOSTS HERE

KILL YOURSELF

>>4993146
>but the beliefs and faith of the average religious person are embarrassing

This is what Kierkegaard argued often. Religion as practiced "by the masses" is a sham to him.

>>4993148
>nothing supernatural in believing in a god
its obvious you dont understand what it means.

gods, ghost and fairies are not part of the natural (ie observable) world and are therefore 'supernatural'. the power and influence a god might have on the universe is also supernatural nonsense.

>>4993146
refer to this post on what i think about proper religious study.

>>4993164
*tips fedora*

>>4993164

>equating unobservable with supernatural

I guess blackholes, history, and ethics are supernatural too since we can't observe them directly.

>>4993170
its funny that you think nerdy guys with no fashion sense are representative of atheists.

i could use the same method of cherry picking representatives by using pedophile priests as being the 'typical' christian.

its sad really.

>>4993173
i never said directly did I. we have vast and comprehensive means of observing celestial objects.

you are just very silly.

>>4993148
>ALL PERCEPTIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE

Unverifiable assumption. You're operating on the idea that any so called subjective experiences couldn't be replicated given absolute knowledge of how they are produced and their contingent properties.

Futhermore, for something to 'create' the Universe, it would necessarily have to exist outside it. It wouldn't be an empirical phenomena, so we call it super-natural.

Funny how the ability to hold an intelligent, thoughtful discussion disappears from /lit/ once religion is brought up.

>>4993184

if you aren't observing it directly then you aren't observing it, but it's assumed "effects"

like how the world is an effect of God

>>4993184
so are my thoughts and semantics and other such things also supernatural?

>>4993201

it's just fedoras from /sci/ that pollute lit.

>>4993230
It's the fucking redditors and tumblrites. /sci/ itself was a great board 6-7 years ago then some dog shit happened and reddit dickholes turned it into 4chan's /r/Atheism

>>4991800
The brain is not a sensory organ.
The brain is the organ that interprets the signals of sensory organs.
Also, faith is only misguided if you believe it to be. Everything we accept is taken on faith, but I don't believe many would argue that is misguided.

>>4993224
there is not reason to assume the universe is an effect of god.

your argument is beyond flimsy but more importantly the scientific definition of observable involves reality and the physical world. we can observe black holes through their radiation and gravitational effects.

god does not produce any observable effects and therefore cannot be asserted, with any authority, to exist.

its a simple concept and all you continue to do is argue semantics that are not relevant to our overall argument.

>>4991802
>My reading skills are pretty okay. I was just hoping to have an engaging discussion.
I was kidding about the read better part, although now that you couldn't see that I'm starting to think maybe I was right.

>>4992893
>faith=religion
kek

>>4993075
i appreciate your sentiment and would likely be on your side but seriously this is high-school tier thinking

>>4992893
What exactly are the religious ignorant of?

>>4992893
Is there any reason NOT to follow a religion in 2014?

>>4993269

if you want to lead a life of hedonistic, degeneracy and not be a hypocrite. If you have a very low IQ and can't comprehend metaphysics. Etc

>>4993297
Define hedonistic degeneracy

>>4993297
since religion is responsible for burning people at the stake, raping children, murdering and being bigoted against anyone that is different; i would say that they are the hypocritical degenerates.

>>4993297
>you can't prove gods existence
>therefore I believe in him

What? How can one person be so stupid

>>4993330
>religion is responsible for burning people at the stake, raping children, murdering and being [faggot commie word] against anyone that is different
[citatation DESPERATELY needed]

>>4993357
Read the grand inquisitor

>>4993358
>Christians burning people at the stake
You do know that's an act of benevolence, right? You can't burn them at the stake until they confess their sins and accept word of Jesus Christ, and once they do that burning them sends them to Heaven.

>>4993363
>You can't burn them at the stake until they confess their
Or you find warts on them.
But only witches burn of course.

>>4993343

no one believes god for that reason, stop making up straw men

>>4993357
inquisition
pedophile priests
crusades and all violent religious extremists
supporters of slavery, misogyny, racism etc

>>4993363
I want to believe you're trolling, but the odds are you're not. Everything you said is wrong. Everything. But I suppose there's no arguing with someone as far gone as you.

If, namely, God does not exist, then of course it is impossible to demonstrate it. But if he does exist, then it is also foolishness to want to demonstrate it, for in the very moment the demonstration commences, you would presuppose his existence. Otherwise you would not be gin, easily perceiving that the whole thing would be impossible if he did not exist.

One never reasons in conclusion to existence, but reasons in conclusion from existence. For example, I do not demonstrate that a stone exists but that something, which exists, is a stone. The court of law does not demonstrate that a criminal exists but that the accused, who does indeed exist, is a criminal. Whether you want to call existence an addition or the eternal presupposition, it can never be demonstrated.

If God is not a name but a reality, his essence must involve his existence.

God’s works, therefore, only God can do. Quite correct. But, then, what are God’s works? The works from which I want to demonstrate his existence do not immediately and directly exist. Are the wisdom in nature and the goodness or wisdom in governance right in front of our noses? Don’t we also encounter terrible tribulations here? How can I demonstrate God’s existence from such an arrangement of things? Even if I began, I would never finish. Not only that, I would be obliged to continually live in suspense lest something so terrible happen that my fragment of demonstration would be ruined.

The fool says in his heart that there is no God, but he who says in his heart or to others: Just wait a little and I will prove it to you – ah, what a rare wise man he is! If, at the moment he is supposed to begin the demonstration, it is not totally undecided whether God exists or not, then, of course, he cannot demonstrate it. And if that is the situation in the beginning, then he will never make a beginning – partly for fear that he will not succeed, because God may not exist, and partly because he has nothing with which to begin.

In short, to demonstrate the existence of someone who already exists is the most shameless assault. It is an attempt to make him ludicrous. The trouble is that one does not even suspect this, that in dead seriousness one even regards it as a godly undertaking. How could it occur to anyone to demonstrate that God exists unless one has already allowed himself to ignore him?

A king’s existence is demonstrated by way of subjection and submissiveness. Do you want to try and demonstrate that the king exists? Will you do so by offering a string of proofs, a series of arguments? No. If you are serious, you will demonstrate the king’s existence by your submission, by the way you live. And so it is with demonstrating God’s existence. It is accomplished not by proofs but by worship. Any other way is but a thinker’s pious bungling.

Camus said it well:

I no longer see that God’s existence nor his nonexistence can be proven in any reasonable or logical way. It seems to me that both the existence of God and the nonexistence of god are equally absurd and unreasonable, making no sense of any of our attempts at proving either. That there is a God who created all things and is uncreated himself, eternally existent outside of time and space, makes no sense to our human minds. Where did this God come from? Is He uncaused? How? How can anything exist being uncaused? Something uncaused is absolutely illogical. Every effect must have a cause, according to physics and logic.* Proof is only in reference to logic. Therefore, an uncaused god is illogical, and so is proving him.

But, the nonexistence of god is equally absurd! An eternal state of existence of matter? An infinite chain of causes and effects stretching back to eternity past? The age old question holds weight: how can something come from nothing? It’s absurd. It makes no logical sense and cannot proven. That god does not exist is absurd, illogical, and breaks down according to reason.

All that is left is faith. Faith in either the absurdity of God, or faith in the absurdity of no god.

>>4993297
look at the goddamn image name
>shitposting frog

goddamn you must be a faggot

>>4993406
>All that is left is faith. Faith in either the absurdity of God, or faith in the absurdity of no god.

holy shit

>>4993418
What?

>>4993424

we're fucked either way, God's existence and non-existence are both equally absurd

>>4993425
Did you really get impressed by that? No they are not "equally" absurd, they both are absurd

>>4993406

based camus
what was his solution to nihilism/religion ? just some sort of acceptance?

>>4993433
is a "solution" not antithetical to the idea of the absurd?

>>4993439

solution is too strong of a word, maybe "best response" or a response that doesn't lead to suicide, etc

>>4993453
rebellion

>>4993462

yes! haha

>>4993358
>Read the grand inquisitor
Have you ever actually read this?
It's not at all related to what was said.

>I could weep, even want to die, when I think about how the public, with its press and anonymity, make things so crazy. That an anonymous person, by means of the press, day in and day out can say whatever he wants to say, what he perhaps would never have the courage to say face-to-face as an individual to another individual, and can get thousands to repeat it, is nothing less than a crime – and no one has responsibility! What untruth! Such is the way of the crowd.

Soren Kierkegaard;

He would've hated 4chan lol

>>4993396
The problem with this argument is that humans do all of these things with or without religion.
If anything should be blamed it should be humanity as a species. Then you run into the problem of that being fucking retarded since all humans are different and not every person would commit those crimes.
Trying to apply the actions of the few to everyone related to them in some way is just stupid.

>>4993396

that's not religions fault, that's the individual's or group's own short-comings

>supporters of slavery, misogyny, racism etc

What? not Christianity

>>4993495
in the case of witch burnings and extremist behavior (suicide bombers etc) their motivation actually was religion.

but your point is correct. however, murder, infanticide, war and rape are all present in nature, and therefore for humans who do these things it could be acting according to their nature.

anyway thats a pointless line of reasoning, my problem with religion is that its not useful to humanity anymore and it only holds us back.

>>4993524
Religion provides a morality for which people to follow. It gives meaning and a sense of community.
That is very useful.

>>4993492
hes talking about the press tho

4chan is hardly mainstream media

>>4993534
morality is taught and has no 'divine' origin so thats irrelevant. the only real benefits are meaning and a sense of community.

however things like prayer, anti-scientific dogma etc can be damaging to society.

>>4993524
>extremist behavior (suicide bombers etc) their motivation actually was religion.
Suicide bombers are often a good example of religion being a secondary rationalization of an action rooted in geopolitical and socioeconomic factors.

>>4993593
>That an anonymous person ... day in and day out can say whatever he wants to say, what he perhaps would never have the courage to say face-to-face as an individual to another individual, and can get thousands to repeat it, is nothing less than a crime – and no one has responsibility! What untruth! Such is the way of the crowd.

what he's saying is not limited to the media, his criticisms of the press apply just as well to 4chan

>>4993620
4chan doesnt cater to the masss

>>4993714

There is no such thing as "the masses." Grow up.

So they've abandoned their Kantian dead end and now they're talking about morality being impossible without religion. Great.

It's like I'm really sharing this board with highschool kids.

>>4993740
explain

>>4993614
You said yourself that there is a use in the sense of community. As for the morality aspect, it gives an objective morality as set by an absolute being. Morality taught simply as "do this because society says so" is much weaker than morality taught as "do this because God says so and it is objectively the correct course of action".

>>4993744
Objective morality is impossible without a God.
It doesn't take a highschool student to figure out something that simple.

>>4993792
objective morality doesnt exist because god doesnt exist.morality is completely relative to the society and it has always been this way. eg murder is wrong except christian countries still have capital punishment (ie america)

objective morality is useless in reality.

>>4993847
america is not a christian country

>>4993847
Then there is no morality and right and wrong are pointless.
If people honestly believed this, though, many would not hesitate to kill others for a couple dollars. That is the use of religion that you refuse to see.
Also >>4994101 this guy is correct. Majority Christian does not mean most of the "Christians" that live here practice or understand their religion.