/lit/ - Literature

the bible

>>5829970
No such book exists.

>>5830062
this

>>5829970
there's no verifying
you're speaking in the language of the enemy
they have already won
back up, start again

>>5830062
/thread

The problem with people like dawkins and hitchens is that they assume every god is a bearded man in the sky who calls all the shots, decides what's moral and what's decadent.

I know how witty and cute it is to quote the celestial teapot but religion is clearly the answer to human ignorance, we want a pattern, we want an answer.

But who is to say god isn't the grass you crush underfoot? or the sky or the sea?

>>5830062
good joke

>>5830096
>But who is to say god isn't the grass you crush underfoot? or the sky or the sea?

thats pantheism

dawkins calls pantheism "sexed up atheism"

>implying just one God exists

>>5829970
If you need to prove the existence of God, you're no theist.

>>5830129
Where do Christians come off as so arrogant as to believe that their conception of God and what faith means, is applicable to all theists? Christians didn't invent theism.

>>5829970
How about you search for what's true instead of trying to disprove something.

>>5830120
It's not funny anymore, faggot.

>>5830136
Apart from the Abrahamic faiths, there is no serious, monotheistic worship of God. Just mumbling that you think God is real does't count..

>>5829970
None.

Atheism and Theism are both belief structures which assert things which cannot be tested. While particular aspects of specific beliefs might be tested (the veracity of religious stories, the history of texts, etc) the overarching idea of a creator god isn't something that can be empirically tested. What would the test be? It's like how you can't really know if a being is omniscient unless you yourself are; You have to know the answers to the questions you'd ask to make sure it's not wrong, right?

Weak atheism, the belief that the current lack of evidence for one of the declared gods is indicative that these existing gods most likely do not exist, at least in the form they are asserted to, is about the most logically reasonable form of atheism. Strong Atheism, which out and out denies the existence of gods and the supernatural, is, well, rather unscientific when you get down to it.

>>5830062
>>5830077
The bible is an ancient text, though by no means the oldest religious text. Nor is it the youngest. It's been translated, edited, changed, cut down and otherwise manipulated greatly over its lifetime. The stories within it vary widely, contain a great number of inaccuracies and many falsehoods.

Whats more, it doesn't prove the existence of god, so much as it asserts there is a god and then outlines a code of morals to be followed. It never seeks to verify or deduce or prove the existence of god, it takes that as given. It is no more proof of the existence of this particular flavor of Abraham god then any other religious text.

>>5830088
As hateful as I find this notion, this idea that one should aggressively fight against higher thought, he's correct. Faith is faith, belief is belief. In the end, none of us will ever know for certain if there is a god, and afterlife, anything. All we can do is choose that which we believe on the subject based on our own personal, irrational, selfish reasons.

>>5830096
The problem with Dawkins and Hitchens is they're adopting an atheistic viewpoint as an aggressive counter to religion; specifically to Christianity. Everything thing they say on the subject, all their targeted dismissals are clearly aimed at the Abraham faith. And whats more, specifically aimed at details of it, rather then the whole. They have gotten lost in this endless argument, and their descent into claiming religion is the cause of all evil and science is the answer to all things shows that.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "religion is clearly the answer to human ignorance". If you mean that religion developed out of mankind's natural desire and capacity to find patterns and insert meaning into otherwise random, meaningless events, then I would agree with you on that.

No one can say it's not, if only because no one can define god, or at least they haven't yet.

>existence of God
>verifiable

Read some Kierkegaard.

when i was about 7 and learned that not all people on earth were catholic or believed jesus was the messiah it took me about an hour to become atheist

>>5830152
Genesis 3:22 ADONAI, God, said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

>Us

>>5830180
Uh huh, you do realize that plural was used as formal singular in many languages, including Hebrew and English?

Stop reading books on drugs and mother earth, and start reading some actual critical material, you heathen shitbrain.

>>5829970

THE BIBLE WITH JESUS WORDS IN RED

>>5830188
>Doesn't realize genesis is rifle with material from early Judaic mysticism, which was polytheistic
>doesn't see the influence of other cultures on the bible, the valley of Gehenna and the hatred of the gods of the ancient jew's neighbors.
>Doesn't realize that the stories a pick and mix of manuscripts spanning hundreds or thousands of years and that internal inconsistencies exist as a testament of that.

>>5830152
Why would there be only one? If there's any god, why not several?

>Apart from the Abrahamic faiths, there is no serious, monotheistic worship of God.
What the fuck?
Xtin egomaniacs strike again.

>>5830205
rife

Fucking auto correct.

tips fedora

>>5830205
Just because there was a bit of syncretism, doesn't mean the Bible is polytheist in any part.

>>5830206
If you had several omnipotent, perfect Beings, they'd all be doing the same thing at the same time, so they would essential being the same God.

Fuck off with your pagan bullshit, butterfuck.

>>5830109
maybe atheism is just undersexed pantheism

>>5830223
Not this version, surely.

>>5830152
>Apart from the Abrahamic faiths, there is no serious, monotheistic worship of God.

lel

>>5830244
That's not a very serious faith, since it considers all faiths to be equal.

>>5830232
I'm looking for an appropriately-sexed belief system. Any recs?

I really envy religious people. I wish I could believe. What do I do? Read up on the Bible and Kierkegaard, then go full Kierkegaard and take an illogical leap of faith into religion?

>>5830283
Christianity

>>5830291
guess again

>>5830291
>not Hellenismos

>>5830290
Thats about all you can do. If you're waiting for logical reasons to get into any particular faith you're never gonna find em.

>>5830265
>your faith respects the beliefs of other faiths and doesn't hate them for being different
>therefore it isn't a serious faith

so essentially unless your religion prescribes hating people based on holding a different religion, you're not actually religious?
way to prove the assertion that religion is evil and causes hatred right

>>5830290
Read Rodney Merrill, listen to ancient Greek hymns, interface with the sublime.

>>5830290
Find a church and start attending, you'll find your faith.

>>5830327
Yeah, pretty much. What good is your moral structure if you think all commandments from every two-bit made up god are spiritual to follow? Might as well be old fashioned paganism and say every god anyone worships is real.

>>5830331
Fuck off.

>>5829970

>>5830265
Religious exclusivism is a historical aberration and a deeply Jewish concept.

>>5829970
Remember to report troll threads.

>>5830348
>historical abberation
Yeah, worshiping the One True God is an aberration from worshiping demons and bullshit, you can say that again.

>>5830339
>you'll find your faith.

aka

>you'll find your faith through mob mentality

fuck off and die

>>5830344
Thanks, that actually looks pretty good.

>>5830339
>muh precious god with his foreskin collection

Hellenismos 4 life, m8

>>5830062
considering that reading the bible is what made me an atheist, this is not good advice

>>5830344
>Christianity, Hart argues, was the first movement to even intuit, let alone take to heart, what he calls a “total humanism”, meaning the conviction that every single human being has infinite value. This is an idea that, at least rhetorically, is today taken for granted by almost everyone in the post-Christian world, but was absolutely new–and scandalous–in the Pagan world.
>While the Christian world, Hart very readily admits, had its share of atrocities, it remained forever haunted by this Christian total humanism, sometimes with dramatic consequences. For example, Hart goes over the fact of the Christian care of slaves and their progressive (though, sadly, much too slow) dismantling of the institution, the fact that the Christians were the first to organize care for widows (who, typically, in the ancient world, had no means to care for themselves), orphans, and the poor generally; that the hospital is a Christian invention; that Christians very often cared for victims of plagues at the risk of their own lives, and so on.

Sounds like an interesting argument, I wonder how well supported it is.

>>5830355
>One true god

Why is your god better then others? Seriously, explain why. None of them can be proven, all of them are based solely on faith and personal feelings. By saying yours is the best, you're basically saying "My opinion is better then everyone else's" and inherently outing yourself as a selfish egotist.

But then again, you believe in a religion that touts humanity as the most important thing in the universe, quite literally, and the subject of constant celestial struggles, so I can't say you weren't already broadcasting that.

>>5830478
Wouldn't that actually be Judaism? I mean, it's basically the same thing but jews did it first whats more, they don't even have an eternal hell, just a temporary one.

The christian hell rather undermines the idea of a "Total Humanism" when it declares that fully 2/3rds of humanity is doomed to suffer for all time because they didn't ardently worship the right god.

>>5830486
Why are you hard on Christ but so soft on pagans? Are you just trying to be trendy and dogpile on Christianity, or did you have to go to church as a kid? It never fails to baffle me that liberals will single out Christianity, but tolerate and even defend primitive religions.

>>5830339
>Yeah, pretty much. What good is your moral structure if you think all commandments from every two-bit made up god are spiritual to follow? Might as well be old fashioned paganism and say every god anyone worships is real.
>equating moral structure with religious belief
Oh boy, here we go.

>>5830567
Since every moral was first codified in a religion, I don't see how I'm too wrong on that.

>>5830571
[citation needed]

>>5830565
Why are you so hard on everyone that thinks differently than you but soft on Christians? Are you just trying to be edgy and dogpile on anyone who disagrees with your faith, or did you have to go to church as a kid? It never fails to baffle me that tribalistic barbarians like you will lash out against anyone who criticizes your beliefs, but tolerate and even defend your own flawed religion.

>>5830573
Show me a single ancient secular codification of morals that isn't the decedent of a religious codification.

Protip: you can't

>>5830603
[citation needed]

>>5830602
I'm a Christian, so I defend Christians and attack heresy. That's a lot different from atheists who are soft on heathenism but hard on Christianity.

>>5830156

>atheism
>belief structure

no

>>5830612
>attack heresy

lmao

>>5830180
Could refer to the Holy Trinity, or to both God and the Angels.

"The struggle of atheism is in essence a struggle against the superstition inherent to the inferior brains of the dark skinned. A contorted organ consistently trying to halt the white man's thirst for progress. We must purge our planet and lead humanity forward with this vile nuissance expunged from the face of the earth."
-Sam Harris, neuroscientist

>>5830603
Sorry bub, burden of proof doesn't work that way.
You need to prove that moral belief was first codified in religious text.

>>5830612
>heresy.

>>5830622
>text written by iron age Israelites
>mentioning the Trinity

>>5830344

Cool, another Hart fan on /lit/

The Experience of God is probably more what OP is looking for, though.

>>5830565
I'm against anyone aggressively attacking the beliefs of others and demanding that their own be accepted as the one truth in the universe. It's why I dislike atheists attempting to say there is no god. It's why I dislike you saying anything that isn't christ is evil. As per pagans...well find me some pagan sitting on a street corner screaming about how Odin will smite the filthy Christians.

Also
>Primitive religions

Says the believer in a bronze age faith based upon ritual genital mutilation, blood sacrifice, and myths stolen from other cultures.

Believe whatever you want friendo, just don't fool yourself into thinking your particular brand of god is more "Advanced" then those of other men. Because it really isn't.

>>5830616
But it is. It is the BELIEF that there is no god. I didn't say it was a religion, but it certainly is a belief. Atheism is a negative position; it cannot prove anything, it simply takes the other side of the argument.

>>5830630
I dunno, it's hard to prove either way. Plus you have to keep the mindset of ancient man in mind. Everything that could not be explained was god: Morals came from the society, and gained power over time, being absorbed into religion, which acted to empower them and make them sacrosanct.

I dunno if I'd say "codified" but I would say that religions, or religious convictions, were the way most morals and laws probably got their backing in much of history.

im convinced these religitards are even bigger fedora tippers than atheists

>>5830630
The Code of Hammurabi is the oldest known moral and legal text as far as I know, and it's religious.

>>5830679
But can you prove that it was the first text to ever codify moral belief? Does moral belief have to be codified in text specifically?

>>5830663

it's not a negative position, it's a zero position, it's the lack of position.

it's not the belief there is no god, it's the lack of belief of a god.

>>5830694
>But can you prove that it was the first text to ever codify moral belief?
I can't, but since all the recorded primary moral codes of ancient societies are religious, it's a sound theory. To disprove it, all you'd have to do is show a society whose first codification of morality was secular.

>Does moral belief have to be codified in text specifically?
There's no way to examine any ancient moral codifications that wren''t written down. You can say maybe there were secular ones, but since I have numerous religious original codifications of morals, and you have zero secular ones, the chips are stacked pretty nicely on my side.

>>5830701
Thats true enough, I suppose. Though, I'm talking less about the ACTUAL definition and more about what it has popularly come to mean, ie Anti-theism, where people actively deny the existence in god rather then just personally lacking a belief in religion.

That sort of Atheism isn't a belief system, that is true. But once you start arguing gods don't exist, it becomes one.

>>5829970

You can't "disprove" atheism and "verfiy" the existence of God.

All revelations come like lightning and set the forest of neuronal machinery on fire!

You realize how meaningless and droll the gib gab of most human beings truly is.

These idolaters have their own houses of idols which they don't even acknowledge as idols. They call this Kaaba "inherent Reason" without realizing how many Christian idols remain in it.

The calculation of action in terms of pain and suffering (as if those terms aren't modulated by intelligence!) as flat equivalent values is just one of their many shibboleths.

Command the sea, command the ground, command the tree and see how little you mean to the world. There are your gods or parts of gods or parts of god or god.

The greater part of derision is not courage against the Mandate of Heaven but cowardice before it.

"Our pleasures are fragile and our pains are many. Let us magnify our pleasures, no matter what, and minimize our pains, no matter what."

And yet they forget pleasure is a reward and pain is a learning tool for intelligence, having confused the gaming of the pressing of levers with the increase in a measure of power.

They forget that they live in a universe full of things which do not fear pain, which are too stupid to even know pain and pleasure, and which interact with man in spacetime events with the same results that a shark's teeth has with the innards of Tuna.

>>5830779
>There are people who will think this post is deep and won't realize it is basically nonsense.

Well since virtually no one suggested a reading I'll suggest one. Read 'On the Nature of the Gods' by Cicero

>>5830720
In its defense it's not too hard to disprove certain or specific gods don't exist. If you're talking about a more Deistic type of god though then yes, you'd never really be able to disprove something as nebulous or all encompassing as that.

>>5830797

And likewise for the majority of writers, atheist or religious. So many idols to uphold and so little time!

One can be successful in the presence of an idol and kiss its golden feet and say "Thank you" but that doesn't mean such idol worship isn't mere idol worship.

There was a man named Steven Jay Gould who slandered the work of a 19th century physician who measured skulls because the data could not be reconciled with his idol worship.

The older you get, the more "original" thoughts have their electroplated gold melt off and reveal the bronze of aged statuettes and gods and beasts.

>>5830824
>epik may may xD

This shit needs to stop before we degenerate into /b/.

>>5830833
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>5830478
>the fact that the Christians were the first to organize care for widows (who, typically, in the ancient world, had no means to care for themselves), orphans, and the poor generally; that the hospital is a Christian invention; that Christians very often cared for victims of plagues at the risk of their own lives, and so on.

Muslims and probably Chinese did all of this shit too.

>>5830205
>genesis is rifle

more accurate than he intended.

>>5830827
Depends on what you're talking about, but yes, if someone claims the gods live on Olympus and we find no gods there, we can certainly say there are no gods on Olympus.

>>5830831
So...let me get this straight. You're pointing to Gould's misinterpretation and framing of data in an attempt to undermine a disproven and racist claim as the ultimate affront to rationality? Not, you know, Nazi doctors or the tuskegee syphilis experiment, or the events surrounding Albert Stevens, or anything like that?

No, you're gonna point out one man being biased towards an already disproven theory as idol worship?

You're not helping your position.

>>5830612
>I'm a Christian, so I defend Christians and attack heresy.
>I'm a Christian, so I... attack heresy.
My, how very "Christian" of you.

>>5830840
>GodS

>>5830955
Sigh, you're letting the title get you too worked up. Its a good read on the godS or God nevertheless.

>>5830955
>implying the very concept of polytheism is inherently wrong.

also
>Cicero

Greeks aren't know for their monotheism.

>>5830903
>gods live on Olympus and we find no gods there, we can certainly say there are no gods on Olympus.

You'd be missing the point of legends and fables and belief in framing experience and reality in accordance with modes of production.

Language is a recursive tool and we can negate any "objection" with "counter-objection", no matter how contorted the logic is. What's being protected isn't a empirical fact that Gods live on Olympus but belief in Gods and traditions which structure social existence and bring meaning and significance to people's lives.

> racist claim

There goes one of your idols. One of your dukes of hell is called "racism", even if it presents factual information.

I'm pointing him out because that's one of the foremost rituals present in this society, the beating of the Duke "Racism" by the forces of "Whig History" and "Progress", facts and figures and simple pattern recognition being thrown into a bonfire to burn in the never-ending carnival.

>>5830972
Cicero was Roman. And I mean if you read all of Cicero's works you'll see that he was a borderline monotheist. The guy you're responding to however doesn't know what the fuck he's on about.

The Existent- Jacques Maritain
St. Thomas Aquinas- Summa Theologica
St. Augustine- City of God
St. Anselm- The Monologion
Have fun.

>>5830967
>it's a good read
Yes, so are comic books on Greek mythology, that doesn't mean it should be used as an argument to defend the real God.

>>5830997
W-what. Wait do you think Cicero wrote mythological work or philosophical works?

>>5831013
When you're writing philosophy rooted in mythological work, it doesn't make much difference. Unless you're using mythology figuratively, like Camus does.

>>5830977
Oh, there we go. I was expecting it, but now you've proven it.

Listen friend, I know /pol/ is a shitstorm right now, so you don't have anywhere else to go and try to pedal your particular brand of pseudo-intellectualizing, but we could do without it here. True though it is that aggressive anti-racism is a thing in america, and that it can be rather knee jerk in fashion, but that doesn't make skull measurements any more valid then Phrenology.

While you're ranting, semi-coherently, about the idols of modern society, perhaps you should address your own.

>>5831045
Rather knee jerk? They're fucking modern-day witch hunts for boogeymen.

>>5831045
>implying I post on /pol/

It wasn't any racist diatribes that convinced me, it was simple experience. You're talking to a former hardcore communist vegan disillusioned with the actual "way of the world".

When you actually have to spend time with the people you valorize, you realize "they ain't like you and their like."

As a result I'm more open to the idea that there are differences in time-preference, boredom management, twitch response, action-response prompting, etc between different ethnic groups. Hell my own relative verbal virtuosity (relative, relative) in comparison to everyone I know makes sense in light of my Ashkenazi heritage.

And skull measurements are different from mapping different personality matrices onto different brain regions in a height of speculation. We see progressive increase of cranial capacity in our ancestors for good reason.

>>5831083
>Hell my own relative verbal virtuosity
>verbal virtuosity
Fedora well and truly tipped.
Got to bed, /pol/ will be back tomorrow.

>>5830283
Pantheism.

>>5831028
Cicero's 'On the Nature of the Gods' is written in three books. The first book describes the Epicurean school of thought of the gods with critiques of their arguments. The second, the stoic view. Then lastly the third, which is the academic school of thought which also critiques the stoic view. Yes, they discuss the mythological view of the Greeks and Romans, however; in the third book, the academic point of view. Cicero writes about the absurdity of the amount of 'gods' in the Greek/Roman world. When talking about the supreme being he says 'God' not 'gods'. 'On the Laws' Cicero constantly refers to 'God' again not 'Gods'. When discussing natural law he doesn't refer to the many Greek and Roman gods, he refers to a supreme being, a supreme creator, a God, one not many. The work of 'On the Nature of the Gods' does not discuss only polytheism but monotheism as well which is why I recommend it.

>>5831101

Fedora and tipping accusations are the new fedora.

Where's your gods now? Oh wait, you don't have any because you forsook them for the central computer communist gangster jewish conspiracy.

But seriously, you're just trolling me at this point while I'm actually trying to impart like some wisdom, whether it be gold or pyrite.

>>5831081
I could say the same for terrorism, child predators, communists, illegal immigrants and a laundry list of people and ideas that americans have aggressively attacked at one time or another. I fail to see how a societal backlash is the same as a religious idol.

>>5831083
>between different ethnic groups
> mapping different personality matrices onto different brain regions in a height of speculation
Probably should have lead with that. Racism is determining traits based on RACE not ethnicity. Ethnicity implies a lot more then race, and determining things related to ethnicity is much more credible then by race (the only things race give you are some tolerances or weaknesses to various medical conditions.)

Also, I'll point out that Neanderthals had bigger heads then us. Part of the reason they died out was the birth complications because of it.

>>5831115
>Fedora and tipping accusations are the new fedora.

Denying obvious fedora is the new fedora

>Where's your gods now
>where's
>gods

>But seriously, you're just trolling me at this point while I'm actually trying to impart like some wisdom
>to impart like some wisdom

>whether it be gold or pyrite

Go easy on the verbal virtuosity, /pol/cluck.

>>5831126
>Racism is determining traits based on RACE not ethnicity
Actually, that's not true at all, not in the modern definition of the word outside of, say, 'Merica.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwCaZaSon9A

>>5831126

I use them interchangeably because there are things like differences between Northern and Southern Spainards as a result of different lineages (Iberians being pretty much ravaged by the Romans) that aren't covered in the blankets of "whites" and "blacks".

But what I can tell you from experience is that a greater part of blacks have a lower IQ and suck at government jobs and managing shit. The US government, and the VA in Los Angeles particularly, employs blacks at a far higher rate than other jobs do.

There's a reason for "that DMV lady" stereotype or the simple pattern of dumb bureaucratic ass holism that seems almost universal to blacks.

So with that said, I don't apologize for my pattern recognition. Your pattern recognition might parse the very existence of statements such as mines to be inherently heretical. That's one of the ways of the world. But I don't apologize for pattern recognition.

>>5831144

I try to tone it down. I was merely pretending to careless enough to have typos in my posts and wrong tenses. Merely pretending.

>>5829970
Any jewish propaganda should do

>>5830478
>Christianity, Hart argues, was the first movement to even intuit, let alone take to heart, what he calls a “total humanism”, meaning the conviction that every single human being has infinite value. This is an idea that, at least rhetorically, is today taken for granted by almost everyone in the post-Christian world, but was absolutely new–and scandalous–in the Pagan world.

This is crap. Plato puts humanistic words into the mouth of Socrates. Epicurus' garden was open to everyone, and another philosopher called himself a "citizen of the world" (I think it was a Stoic but can't remember exactly).

There are other examples too. And as for Christianity's humanism there are lots of examples of it not being humanistic too. First is Montefort's words as he sacked a city during the Cathar Crusade "Let God determine the righteous from the sinful"

>ctrl-f "The Last Superstition"
>0 results

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of New Atheism, by Edward Feser

>>5831525
Weird, you really went out of your way to ignore the same statements you quoted. Nicely done though.

>>5830565
I never went to church as a kid. I was never told God exists, nor was I told otherwise. It simply wasn't mentioned. I feel no holy spirit in my breast, and suspect a majority of the religious population of the world are only so because they were brought up that way.

>>5829970
This guy gets it>>5830994. Modern atheists think that they're the first one's to ever pose these questions in history of human kind. The Summa Theologica alone offers 5 powerful arguments for the existence of God.

>>5831635
>he doesn't feel the heartbeat of the creator as one with his own

Wow man I truly feel sorry for you

>>5831693
>Modern atheists think that they're the first one's to ever pose these questions in history of human kind.

Literally no atheist ever thinks they are the first.

>>5831693
also, why the fuck did you put an apostrophe in ones? i know christians are more stupid on the mean than atheists, but that's inexcusable

>>5831706
I feel my heartbeat, and that's enough for me.

>>5831706
>he has indigestion but believes it is metaphysics

>>5831726
Said as someone who has never been on /r/atheism.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html#omoziIh

daily reminder

whats the best summatheologica tralsiaton

>>5831726
That's probably why no contemporary atheist has ever read any of the dozens of books written explicitly with their questions in mind, you're right. It also explains why so many modern atheists call religion a remnant of some archaic past where nobody used logic or reasoning, it's because they were so aware of all these texts written hundreds of years ago disputing the logical and reasonable arguments for God, or all those ancient texts written explicitly for them and their questions. It makes perfect sense. Thank you.

>>5831808
you sound so dumb right now

>>5831813
That's a compelling argument, I concede the debate good sir.

>>5830156
I took it upon myself to translate your god damn fucking wall of text so It's readable.
>holy shit I can see your fagora

(1/2)

>>5829970 (OP)
None.

Atheizzle n' Theizzle is both belief structures which assert thangs which cannot be tested. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! This type'a shiznit happens all tha time. While particular aspectz of specific beliefs might be tested (the veracitizzle of religious stories, tha history of texts, etc) tha overarchin scam of a cold-ass lil creator god aint suttin' dat can be empirically tested. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! This type'a shiznit happens all tha time. What would tha test be, biatch? It aint nuthin but like how tha fuck you can't straight-up know if a funky-ass bein is omniscient unless you yo ass are; Yo ass gotta know tha lyrics ta tha thangs you'd ask ta make shizzle it aint wrong, right?

Weak atheism, tha belief dat tha current lack of evidence fo' one of tha declared godz is indicatizzle dat these existin godz most likely do not exist, at least up in tha form they is asserted to, be bout da most thugged-out logically reasonable form of atheism. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. Strong Atheism, which up n' up denies tha existence of godz n' tha supernatural, is, well, rather unscientistical when you git down ta dat shit.

>>5830062
>>5830077
Da bizzy be a ancient text, though by no means tha crazy oldschool religious text. Nor is it tha youngest. It aint nuthin but been translated, edited, chizzled, cut down n' otherwise manipulated pimped outly over its gametime. Da stories within it vary widely, contain a pimped out number of inaccuracies n' nuff falsehoods.

Whats more, it don't prove tha existence of god, so much as it asserts there be a god n' then outlines a cold-ass lil code of morals ta be followed. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! Well shiiiit, it never seeks ta verify or deduce or prove tha existence of god, it takes dat as given. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Well shiiiit, it is no mo' proof of tha existence of dis particular flavor of Abraham god then any other religious text.

>>5831822
i'm not here to argue. you're swinging at nobody. lol

>>5831826

(2/2)

>>5830088
As hateful as I find dis notion, dis scam dat one should aggressively fight against higher thought, his schmoooove ass erect. Faith is faith, belief is belief. In tha end, none of our asses will eva know fo' certain if there be a god, n' afterlife, anythang fo' realz. All we can do is chizzle dat which we believe on tha subject based on our own personal, irrational, selfish reasons.

>>5830096
Da problem wit Dawkins n' Hitchens is they adoptin a atheistic viewpoint as a aggressive counta ta religion; specifically ta Christianity. Everythang thang they say on tha subject, all they targeted dismissals is clearly aimed all up in tha Abraham faith fo' realz. And whats more, specifically aimed at detailz of it, rather then tha whole. They have gotten lost up in dis endless argument, n' they descent tha fuck into frontin religion is tha cause of all evil n' science is tha answer ta all thangs shows dis shit.

I aint shizzle I KNOW what tha fuck you mean by "religion is clearly tha answer ta human ignorance". If you mean dat religion pimped outta mankindz natural desire n' capacitizzle ta find patterns n' bang meanin tha fuck into otherwise random, meaningless events, then I would smoke wit you on dis shit.

No one can say itz not, if only cuz no one can define god, or at least they aint yet.

>>5831826
Wow, you ran it through Gizoogle awesome man you're pretty hip.

>>5831826
>Strong Atheism, which up n' up denies tha existence of godz n' tha supernatural, is, well, rather unscientistical when you git down ta dat shit.

>lel oh my god i'm so fucking superior agnostic

why don't you go read up on skepticism and think deeply about how it all works together, and stop being such a polarizing fucking imbecile

>>5831804
All this says is that intelligence people are more skeptic

has anyone here actually read the summa theologica? should i?>

>>5831848
>intelligence
I need to go to sleep

>>5831832
If you didn't notice, he was being sarcastic. The "good sir" should have tipped you off.

OKAY CHRISTFAGS LISTEN UP:

Why won't God heal amputees?

Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.

- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:

- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.
- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.

- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.

- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Until you answer these ten simple questions completely logically and satisfactorily, you believe in a fantasy fairy tale.

>>5831848
>ignostic

yep

>>5831856
it did, he was saying "fuck off" and i was telling him back that his opinion was worthless

>>5831834
>no fun allowed

>>5831862
Because the God of Abraham is a complete dick, and all that stuff about him being the ultimate benevolence is blatant revisionism.

Also because none of this shit is real.

I don't believe in the God
You don't believe in.
The spiteful patriarch with comets
For fists. The amorphous blob of light
Spouting rainbows and orgasms for people I'm not cool enough to be.
I don't believe in God the Accountant, or God the Composite of Wishful Thinking, or God the Feminist Wikken Shapeshifter. I don't believe in a God Who fits inside my mouth and hisses "clean, filthy."

I believe this: I'm conscious, in some way. I'm made of the same energy as all the other energy I'm able to perceive or extrapolate. I have no reason to assume that all the "other" energy I perceive isn't conscious, in some way. In fact, I have no reason to assume it's "other" and not "same." If it's all the same consciousness in varying degrees/varieties of separation and awareness (lacking which the universe would be undifferentiated and uninhabited), is it inappropriate to call this larger entity we belong to "xxx"? I have faith that our dreams, our errors and our lives are neither random nor wasted, because Everything means All of It, and that's the question (He [we]) asked, or rather, the statement in our nursery tales: Be.

>>5831834
>No one can say itz not, if only cuz no one can define god, or at least they aint yet.

Okay, let me take a breath here and send a little prayer to Wittgenstein. Then I will splash cold fucking water in your face and slap you three times.

If you say, "God has not been defined" or "God cannot be defined", then you have defined him. Analogously, "indescribable" is a description. You may have not given him a complete description, but you have given a description (God is a member of the set of things which have yet to be defined).

There is no way you can place God 100%, completely out of the real world. Even if you say "God is unlike anything," the predicate fails because God is at least enough like other things that he can be given a name. For God to be truly unlike anything, it would be a paradox to speak his name.

Christians are absolutely the worst logicians, and yet they play within definitions and pretend to be "logical". You guys are an embarrassment.

>>5831923
>2tryhard4deep

>>5831935
>Christians are absolutely the worst logicians
>i have never read peter Abelard or anything of the sort
*tips*
what is with /lit/s hate boner

>>5831599
Feser is a good defender of Thomism but he should have left out the parts on how rejecting Aristotle leads to gay marriage and rampant abortions.

>>5831940
it's called 'fedora', get with it

>>5831960
Yes but anon, you're completely missing the point. Being truly Christian requires believing a contradiction. Logical people who are Christian have different beliefs from you, because they are logical. I respect Christians who can follow consequences to their ends.

>>5830062
>the bible
HAHAHA Get a load of this faggot !

>>5829970
>verifying the existence of God?

there are none, lol.

>>5830152
apart from the Abrahamic faiths? so, from half the human population?

wow, pls don't advocate for atheism. you do the movement a disservice.

>>5831993
*tips fedora*

>>5829970
Summa Theologiae - Thomas Aquinas
The New Inquisition - Robert Anton Wilson

>>5832598
*Tips foreskin*

>>5829970
>H-h-h-hey. Is there like a cook book you can recommend for porpoise food?
>Written by a porpoise. Yeah. Ty.

>>5830502
No. You can see clearly that Jews are the chosen people on the Bible and everyone that isn't Jew might as well be dead (and will be killed if it is in the way of the People of the God). Christians, at least, sees that everyone who isn't Christian should become a Christian. Every soul is valuable and loved by God, and should know his way and worship him.

>>5832695
and also eat a juicy, fat cock

>>5829970
am I the only one who hates this guy?

>>5832757
(not what he stands for, but the person itself)

>>5830890
>very often cared for victims of plagues at the risk of their own lives
Christians confirmed for bioterrorists

>Christians very often cared for victims of plagues at the risk of their own lives
Christians confirmed for bioterrorists

>>5830478
>Christians very often cared for victims of plagues at the risk of their own lives
Christians confirmed for bioterrorists

>>5829970
pensees by pascal

read an annotated version and have a bible handy so that you can look up the passages he mentions

>>5829970
books that miss the point

>>5832760
Of course not. Jesus, Dawkins is always the person who gets dragged out first when someone wants to complain about atheism or secularism.

>>5830283
contemporary Wicca
pic related

>>5832757
no. there is a video on youtube of him reading his hate mail. it's pretty funny. most of it is from christians, amply demonstrating their understanding of the concept of forgiveness

Atheism is always weak Atheism. Strong Atheism is bullshit. Weak Atheism just states there is no proof for the existence of God. It does not state there is proof for the non-existence of God. So how do you disprove a fact ?

>>5830136
It's not arrogance.
It's not our "conception" of God.
It's not what we say "faith" is.
There are no "theists" who are not christians.

>>5830096
>they assume every god is a bearded man in the sky who calls all the shots, decides what's moral and what's decadent.

Literally most theists think that God is an invisible person living in some other dimension and beams his will into people's head when they pray.

So clearly, it's not Dawkins or Hitchens who is misrepresenting what most people think of as a deity.

>>5833087
Or yours.

>ctrl-f
>"Critique Of Pure Reason"
>nothing

stay pleb, /lit/

>>5834187
Nonsense. He is quite visible where He is, and He was quite visible when He was down here on earth.

>>5834204
Really? Were you there?

>Atheist kick theist ass on every subject of the debate over god and religion; from history, to philosophy; from psychology, to science.
>Right before the theist loses he drops the inevitable Hail Mary, "If God doesn't exist then why is everything here?"
>"No one's been able to expl....."
>"Haha! You can't disprove a creator of the universe, which automatically means that Jesus was the son of God who died to save us from our own sins and only through the Eucharist can one be saved!"

>>5834216
Was I alive when Jesus was fully visible to all who wrote about Him?

Was I in the third heaven looking at God dwelling in unapproachable light?

>>5834241
Actually, Jesus rising from the dead is sufficient evidence to back up His claims that He is God.

>>5831862
Why won't God heal amputees?
>being this ableist

Why are there so many starving people in our world?
>because of greedy men who reject the message of Christ

Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:
>this is for Jewish people, Christians believe that Christ is the full revelation of God and therefore Old Testament passages can only speak to the nature of God if they are consistent with the person of Christ. As those commands to murder cannot be reconciled with the Gospels, they cannot be accepted as truly from God. inb4 you try to pull some modernist US evangelical Bible literalism argument

Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
>it doesn't

Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:
>See "commands for violence" point

Why do bad things happen to good people?
>We're all good people when good things happen to us.

Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
>because people drank all the wine and ate all the bread and fish, what kind of evidence are you looking for? Besides miracles are a non-issue because Jesus was actively trying to hide them and would regularly tell witnesses not to tell anybody

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
>because I didn't live in first century Palestine, I thought that would be pretty clear

Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
>Are you a child, I'm serious are you an actual human child

Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
>judging a religious moral framework by cherry-picked statistics

>>5830327
Talk about hyperbole. Christianity speaks of loving thy neighbor despite them being different in any way. I think the guy you commented on was thinking of the Baha'i faith were all religions are equally correct and revere the same God in different forms.

>>5834277
1 no
2 no

>>5834283
ok. now provide evidence that jesus rose from the dead. that is, something other that a load of bronze age shepherds saw it, which is about as credible as a redneck saying they were abducted by aliens

>arriving at your conclusion first and then trying to figure out a way to reach it

>>5834283
How new do you think I am?

>>5831862
There being no record of such does not mean that it did not happen; there were many crowds that were all healed at once. Further, any person will find themselves whole after either resurrection, even if they were not born whole.

Because food distribution is an effective weapon.

There are none innocent; especially the wicked canaanites. They had 400 years to repent, and remained the most wicked people on the planet.

The Law has strict punishments, that often call for death. That is how serious sin is, sin being the violation of the Law.

The bible contains zero anti-scientific nonsense; the one people like you glom onto is bats being called birds. They're not. They're all called "winged creatures" in the original Hebrew.

God has no slaves, there will be no slaves in heaven, nor were there slaves in the Garden. Slavery is a condition of fallen man, and God deals with it. Nor does He look down on the slave.

Bad things happen to everyone. There are no good people. There are none good but God.

They did. They were recorded in the bible by eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

He has appeared to me, and to millions in their dreams.

He would not; that is the Holy Spirit that satisfies that condition, not cannibalism.

Because Christians do not receive super powers to stay married.

The only fantasy in this post is that you are seeking answers to your questions.

>>5834322
How blue do you think my eyes are?

>>5834306
So, conceding that people saw Jesus, and conceding that God lives in heaven in unapproachable light.

And that He is not, in fact, invisible in any way, shape, or form.

>>5834343
> The bible contains zero anti-scientific nonsense;

that genesis creation myth tho

>>5830622
Obviously not mentioning the Trinity, this was centuries before people invented that concept

>>5834357
Your authority for calling it a myth is what, exactly?

>>5834353
dude you need to brush up on your reading comprehension

>>5834358
1 John 5
The Certainty of God’s Witness
6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[b] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

It's like /lit/ has never read the bestselling and most famous book of all time.

>>5834359
How would you define myth?

>>5834359
sorry dude, this is further down the religitard rabbit hole than i'm prepared to venture right now

>>5834360
It's far more likely that you're being willfully ignorant.

The people who saw Jesus wrote about Him in the bible. He was not invisible.

That God lives in unapproachable light is also in the bible.

So, the bible is my foundation for saying that neither the Son nor the Father are invisible. If you want to make the case that the Holy Spirit is invisible, that's fine.

He is.

>>5834365
Same way most people would. A tale told mostly out of whole cloth that most understand to be false, or mostly false. Like Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, or Santa Claus.

>>5834349
Aryan

>>5834366
No problem bro. Not a religion fan myself.

>>5831862
>Christianity
>having anything to do with the existence of a god
Choose only one.

fuck this thread, i'm going to /pol/ to look at fisting pictures

>>5834381
You misspelled "everything". How embarrassing for you.

>>5832695
>tips foreskin

>>5834293
Topkek

>>5834362
I think you missed my point, do you know how to read? The OT was written centuries before the appendix/NT was composed. The "Us" in Genesis obviously does not refer to the Trinity.

And I have read about 3/4 of the Bible

>>5832695
All christians are people adopted by God to be brothers and sisters to the Seed of Abraham, the Root of David, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

Jews.

Not Jews in the flesh, being born a Jew, by Jews by adoption.

>>5834407
"Elohim", the plural word for God used in the singular sense, is most certainly a shadow of the trinity.

Also, who do you think was walking with Adam and Eve, except for Jesus? Do you think they were created to withstand being in the presence of the Father?

Also, John 1:1 speaks directly to Genesis: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Trinity is not a 19th century concept; Paul and John both wrote about it, and you can see it at Jesus' baptism.

>>5834407
In case it was not made clear by my first post, in this second post, let me say that the Trinity is not a manmade construct at all. Never was.

God is a relational being, even within Himself.

>>5831935
You're a total retard kid, God is not a member of any set of things having yet to be defined.

You're so fucking retarded. You don't know shit about real christian thought and you bring your retarded-ass 15 year old-tier arguments in here like you're hot shit, but you're just one more educated edgy teenager on the internets.

God is, as a necessity and a finality, unlike all things and like all things --- unlikely because no thing may be consubstantial to God that is not God; --- likely because all things have as their original essence, God. There is no contradiction.

God is 100% out of the real world, yet 100% in it in essence and Spirit, yet is not the world itself. It's a complicated concept which I could explain to you if you request it; or else you can read Aquinas.

God is not defined, yet may have a human definition: God contains the notion of definition, thus may not be defined, the same way Being cannot be defined for it contains definition, Being being God as cause and ἄπειρον, although such notions, that is, perfection and infinity, are understood by the human brain. Most people, given they are not entire retards in the clinical sense, understand what infinity and perfection mean. They could even understand Being, as worded by Hegel, as a momentarily indeterminacy.

In these cases, the human brain has certain concepts which may explain or define God, but, as the brain formulating such concepts is human, all too human, the very substance of God may not be understood, although there are traces, an intuition of divinity: for we understand concepts such as infinity or perfection. But, although we may understand divinity with such concepts, we may not, --- grasp it. Thence comes faith; after the human brain, through logic, understood the existence of God, it becomes the work of faith to take care of this part of divinity which may not be understood by humans, yet is hinted at by the very nature of the human brain.

>>5831935
I agree with that. God cannot be perfectly defined by us. He obviously can define Himself, however, and He can condescend to tell us snippets about Himself.

But He will not be confined by a definition, or by a name, or by anything else. He will be what He will be.

>>5834437
Well said. I have often wondered if God were small enough for us to perfectly understand Him, and comprehend Him, would He be big enough to worship?

>>5834437

so you are saying god is indefinable... and yet you confidently also assert that he/she/it is "100%" of anything

common religionist fallacy. god is indefinable, so i am going to define god. basically:
>muh special insight

>>5834460
No, it was said that God can be sufficiently defined in order to inspire awe, but not perfectly described by limited human beings.

>>5834460
You either didn't read or didn't understand his post. Read the last two paragraphs again, slowly.

>>5834460
I don't know if you're trolling or simply have borne your reading faculties so dull you could not get through this hundred of words without fucking yourself up?

>>5834487
He's operating at a significant deficit; he believes mankind is the ultimate being in the universe, and that anyone who does not believe as he does is mentally ill.

>>5834487
>>5834499
it was charming to meet you too

>>5834540
It would be good for you to be better off having met us. It is not good for you to be fighting against God.

>>5834555
> It is not good for you to be fighting against stupidity

ftfy

but thanks for the christian love anyway

>>5834293
>because of greedy men who reject the message of Christ
It's the fault of greedy men that the omniscient God didn't foresee the widespread human population and provide ample fertile earth and rain coverage for much of the planet?

>Christians believe that Christ is the full revelation of God
Don't some believe him to be the son of God - as in, a separate entity? He argued with God on the cross, after all. Of course, there are passages that might argue the contrary, but either way it just proves the book's contradictions (or, at the very least, the fact that your opinion of God is entirely subjective)

>Old Testament passages can only speak to the nature of God if they are consistent with the person of Christ. As those commands to murder cannot be reconciled with the Gospels, they cannot be accepted as truly from God.
Then who were they from? Was God having a laugh? Was he trying to make himself look like a maniacal hypocrite for some reason, or did he just change is unchanging mind by the time Jesus came around?
What about the parts that neither affirm nor discredit the New Testament? How are we to take these? Does the very fact of disparity over how to interpret the book not show how stupid God's plan was and therefore discredit his perfection?

>it doesn't
One elaborate bird-slaying ritual for curing leprosy is enough for me (or was that only 'for Jewish people)

>We're all good people when good things happen to us.
Complete subjective nonsense. Does a child murderer become a good person when something 'good' happens to them?

>what kind of evidence are you looking for?
Some historical documents recalling those zombie saints that "went into the holy city and appeared to many" after Jesus was crucified would be a start.

>because I didn't live in first century Palestine, I thought that would be pretty clear.
God appeared to many people personally and in physical form in the Bible. Why does he rely exclusively on faith now?

>>5829970
hahahahahaha

>>5830142
>this

>>5834584
Yes. It is the fault of the warlord hoarding food while his enemies starve to death.

I think what you imagine is that God should always step in and prevent all bad things from happening, or in the alternative, create the place where it would have been impossible for bad things to happen.

>>5834584
>Don't some believe him to be the son of God - as in, a separate entity?
Being the Son of God is being God; when He called Himself the Son of God, they picked up rocks to kill Him for blasphemy.

>He argued with God on the cross, after all.
He did not. He was forsaken at the cross when He became sin, and the Father turned His back on Him.

>Then who were they from?
The commandments were from God. They were not to be followed. They were to demonstrate that they could not be followed.

>What about the parts that neither affirm nor discredit the New Testament?
Nothing in the bible discredits anything else in the bible.

>One elaborate bird-slaying ritual for curing leprosy is enough for me
It was not, as you misunderstood it. The leper was already clean by then, by a miracle, and that was a sacrificial cleansing ceremony to accept him back into the fold. Nobody was ever healed of leprosy by killing a bird.

>Does a child murderer become a good person when something 'good' happens to them?
There are none good but God. However, children are not accountable under the Law until they reach their own age of accountability.

>Some historical documents recalling those zombie saints
It is in the bible, and you do not believe it. Why should we think you would believe it if it were written by different Jews outside of the bible?

>God appeared to many people personally and in physical form in the Bible. Why does he rely exclusively on faith now?
Because He is offering the best benefits right now to those who believe without seeing.

>>5830486
Because it's MY God. Why should any other God be greater then MINE?

>>5834672
Indeed. Why worship a lesser God?

>5834622
No, I'm talking much more basic than that. I imagine that a being with infinite power, when seeking to create a home for its children, could do far better than a planet that has only a fraction of suitable living space, in a universe that is 99.999...% inhospitable.

I imagine that, given such power, pretty much anyone could do multitudes better than the Christian God did, and they could do it without the benefit of omniscience.

>5834668
>He was forsaken at the cross when He became sin, and the Father turned His back on Him.
So they are separate? If they were one and the same why did one turn his back on the other? Wasn't it his plan all along? Speaking of which, did God not have the power to forgive sin without engaging in an elaborate blood sacrifice, if he really wanted to?

>They were not to be followed. They were to demonstrate that they could not be followed.
So God's plan was to inspire one book, have people follow the inscribed rules for a while, and then eventually reveal, through a separate manifestation of himself, that much of the book was a demonstration of how -not- to do things? That is heinous.
The commandments were followed, anon. Thousands took up arms against others because they believed those words to be holy law. People still do. This seems an incredibly cruel way of teaching your children.

>Nothing in the bible discredits anything else in the bible.
You just yourself said that God purposely put bits in the Old Testament that are discredited by the New Testament in order to demonstrate that the former could not realistically be followed.

>It was not, as you misunderstood it.
Yet 'sacrificial cleansing ceremonies' are still scientific gibberish. If that part can be considered true, not 'modernist US evangelical Bible literalism argument', then why can't a literal six-day creation?

>There are none good but God.
Then I have no idea what you meant by 'We're all good people when good things happen to us.' Also I meant a murderer of children, not a 'child' murderer.

>It is in the bible, and you do not believe it. Why should we think you would believe it if it were written by different Jews outside of the bible?
The same reason I wouldn't expect you to believe that Vishu appeared to anyone because such was written in the Bhagavad Gita. Because I could then apply the same time of historical consensus that I could to any other purported fact. Because the cliche that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is true.

>Because He is offering the best benefits right now to those who believe without seeing.
Why? Faith is not a virtue.

>>5834795
Then why do you not create such a universe yourself, and populate it as you see fit?

>>5834795
But faith is the virtue above all others, from it others come forth.
I can't find the exact quote from Kierkekegaard tho.

>>5834795
>So they are separate?
For those three hours, yes.

>If they were one and the same why did one turn his back on the other?
Because God cannot abide sin.

>Wasn't it his plan all along?
Yes.

>Speaking of which, did God not have the power to forgive sin without engaging in an elaborate blood sacrifice, if he really wanted to?
No. If there were any other way, it would have been taken.

>So God's plan was...
To redeem a fallen mankind at His own expense, yes. Available to all who believe.

>The commandments were followed, anon.
The standard was, and is, "as perfectly as God the Father follows them". That standard has only been met by one person, Jesus.

>You just yourself
The New Covenant does not discredit the Old Covenant. Both have their place. Both are different deals with different parties. One is demonstrably and maybe infinitely better than the other.

>Yet 'sacrificial cleansing ceremonies' are still scientific gibberish.
If you think man's ways are higher than God's ways, you have not contemplated that very well.

>then why can't a literal six-day creation?
There was a literal six-day creation.

>Then I have no idea what you meant by 'We're all good people when good things happen to us.'
It's not my turn of phrase, but it was obviously meant to indicate that we all believe we are good people when we are being blessed. Or cursed, really. That no matter what, we believe that we are good people.

We are not. We are a fallen, broken, and depraved peoples, incapable of being like God. Which is the standard.

>Also I meant a murderer of children, not a 'child' murderer.
There will be people in heaven who have murdered children. After all, in the US alone, we have murdered how many tens of millions of children?

>The same reason I wouldn't expect you to believe that Vishu appeared
I would very much believe that a demon calling itself Vishnu appeared to someone. Because the christian worldview includes demons lying to people, to get them away from God's plan of salvation.

>Why? Faith is not a virtue.
Faith is an ability. If you use that faith to realize that Jesus really did back up all of His extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, you can come to the place where you want to be in His Kingdom, forever.

>>5829970
Father Spitzer if you're looking for response to le ebin STEM major crowd. He's a Jesuit who specializes in philosophy and astrophysics.

>>5830994
>Jacques Maritain

My nigga

>>5834893
>STEM major atheist
this is how you know someone is a fedora tipper.
If they actually cared about the issue of religion they owuldn't spend their time measuring shit noone cares about anymore, but instead they think because they can't find God he can't possibly exist.
Fuck stemfags

>>5834893
>He's a Jesuit

No clue why this is a good thing.

>>5831826
Why are you trying so hard nigger?

>>5834955
Education, wisdom, tradition of thought.

Anyone who believes in in a singular God: why would you believe in only one God? The idea of a single God baffles me.

>>5835311
The idea of more than one baffles me. Considering that the one god is the thing of both the revealed truth and philosophical thought.

>>5835334
I don't see how you find such a mixed-bag of a world ruled by one God, unless you think God has a split personality. If God saw people as his children and he was singular, he's be a very, very neglectful parent.

>>5835340
The Trinity brah

>>5835358
Like I said, split-personality.

>>5835334
>revealed
>laughingwhores.jpeg

Sophist troll pls go

Multiple constituents apply to everything from the most fundamental building blocks of matter to the duality of the sexes in all higher life forms.
Where is the singularity in ANYTHING?
Nature

>>5835360
the trinity isn't split

>>5835399
Nature is not singular. Even time is relative, geeze.

>>5835311
The unmoved mover must be infinite, and this means there can be only one ultimate cause or God.

>>5835511
But by its implicit nature infinity is made up of multiple constituents, ergo how can you imply it isn't?

>>5835411
Oh no? Christ talking to his father as a separate entity isn't split?

>>5835511
There is certainly a first God, but that doesn't mean he is the only God, or that being the original cause is required for one to be a God.

>>5829970

You can't really prove a god via argumentation. Such a thing has to be seen, and unfortunately no god shows itself.

>>5830710
Having a sky God watch your actions and enforce law is a very effective and adaptive feature of human evolution. You are probably right and good thing too, it ended up with me using this iPad enjoying hedonism. Yay religious codification of morals, yay projection

The book of Shrizek

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct.
-Wiki

>>5835580
>But by its implicit nature infinity is made up of multiple constituents, ergo how can you imply it isn't?
If you've never taken a math class or read Aristotle I can see why someone would have trouble with the idea of infinity or the difference between continuous and discrete quantities.