/lit/ - Literature

>>6039777
But I am a libertarian and love hierarchy because I'm better than you.

>click /lit/ by accident
>see this thread

If you're sympathetic to communism and marxism you're a piece of shit human being that needs to be executed

that is all

>>6039923
> not realizing that Marxism was the only logical conclusion to all social questions at the time
Lmao

>>6039923
>actually lumping marxism together with communism
stop posting, friend

>Disbelief in God is merely the logical conclusion of socialism

No, it's the logical conclusion from there being zero evidence for his existence

>>6039934
So, Marx was not a communist? I mean, fuck that faggot you're replying to, but still, seriously?

>>6039956
I'm guessing he's talking about the abomination Communism became after Lenin (fascism)

>>6039956
Marx was a communist, but that's really not the point when it comes to his analysis. Just like Einstein was an abolish-private-property socialist, but that has little to do with this theory of relativity.

>>6039961
>I'm guessing he's talking about the abomination Communism became after Lenin (fascism)
Socialism is materialist totalitarianism, fascism is idealist totalitarianism.

>>6039979
Now I'm spitballing here, and please keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker and may just misunderstand certain definitions, but here I go:

Wasn't Communism under Stalin basically Fascism? No free press, no critizising the government, a ruling working class over the working working class, the collectivizations and kolkhoz were basically a return to fiefdom, executions and deportations, etc.

That's not really Communism, is it?

>>6040010
Ok, I just checked our definition for fascism, it includes racism. I guess I was wrong.

>>6040010
Don't conflate Communism as official political position and goal, with Communism as something actually achieved.

You have a very crude understanding of fascism, since four out of five of your criteria could be applied to nearly every form of government prior to the Enlightenment. Also, fascism doesn't advocate collectivism as a policy, fascism is corporatist, it basically adopts whichever economic position in whatever sector it finds to be most efficient, it can have things worker managed, bourgeoisie-managed, or state managed, or a mix, depending on which is most productive, and it can apply different systems to different sectors.

>>6040017
Fascism is not inherently racist at all, that's more national socialism. Fascism's official position is that race and nations are simply mental constructs, not scientific facts.

Fascism is popularly conflated with National Socialism, but the two are no more the same thing than liberalism and leftist are the same thing.

>>6039951
>craving for empirical evidence of non-empriical entity

here we go again

>>6040010
>Wasn't Communism under Stalin basically Fascism?

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

No. The USSR was Nationalist Marxist Socialism.

>>6040028
Dude. The only kind of proof for God is personal anecdotes and feelings, i.e faith.

Which doesn't sway a rational mind. Or rather, shouldn't sway a rational mind.

>>6040028
If the entity leaves no evidence for their existence, they have no influence over the physical world. Even altering the outcome of random events would eventually show up statistically, unless for example they choose whether or not to save a sick baby based on the chance it may reveal their existence.

>>6040035
Why is there something rather than nothing?

>>6040031
I was thinking the same when I was 15

>>6040023
>>6040020
Ok, thanks a lot. I realize that my understanding of fascism is fairly crude, for I never found a reliable definition for it.
But I see, where I went wrong. I'm have a tendency to use this word a little too liberately (possibly because my mind somehow tends to associate any dictatorship with fascism).

>>6040053
> Why is there something rather than nothing?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all
Humanity is making excellent progress on that very question.

>>6040053
>I was thinking the same when I was 15

Yes, and the fact that you haven't changed your mind means you're still 15.

>Implying God can be dethroned
>Implying the eternal can die

>>6040053
You realise 'we have not figured it out with science therefore god' is a terrible argument right?

And if you are trying to imply that growing up should make you less rational and more open to superstition then you are highly confused.

>>6040068
He is implying that only edgy teenagers are atheists.

>>6040074
>He is implying that only edgy teenagers are atheists.

Yes, Nietzsche, Hume, Kant and several other atheist philosophers were just "edgy teenagers" then I guess.

>>6039777
Why do people insist on going about things in a complicated way. Belief or otherwise in god has almost nothing to do with your political views.

The far more simple explanation is that people are simply less willing to believe superstitious nonsense that has no factual backing. There is also not a single valid way to say you should accept the Biblical god but reject Thor, Odin and all the other entities humans have invented.

>>6040082
Well obviously its an absurd argument and I think one that only an American living in a highly religious area could make. Because in plenty of other places most people are atheists or extremely apathetic Christians.

God isn't around, which is my playground. I don't need your bullshit about God; I am God on Earth, and people worship me.

You'd actually be better if you got over your plaster-wall paintings and worshiped me

>>6040068
Mate, I think you are having a problem with understanding of written text.

Also, why are atheist so butthurt about religion-fags?

I mean, I went through the hating phase too, I guess almost everyone with average intellect raised in christianity went through it between the age of 12-25, but what are u even rebelling against after that

Anyway, I'm out of here, outgh to do some reading.

>>6040082
Kant wasn't an atheist, you idiot

>>6040083
>There is also not a single valid way to say you should accept the Biblical god but reject Thor, Odin and all the other entities humans have invented.
But anon, rejecting those gods is exactly what the Biblical God demands of His followers. It's the only valid way to acxepe Him.

>>6040082
How was Kant atheist?

>>6040082
>Kant
>atheist

>>6040104
>>6040102
>>6040095
have you ever read him

>>6040093
>Also, why are atheist so butthurt about religion-fags?

I'm not butthurt about religion at all. But YOU are the one who said it was ridiculous to demand empirical evidence for God's existence right here>>6040028

And I'm sorry to have to tell you, but to demand evidence, is not ridiculous. It is the mark of a sane individual.

And just because you have capitulated your mind, doesn't mean that the rest of us are "butthurt" or "edgy teenagers" you fucking faggot.

lol ollolol ololool @this thread

get a life NERDS no one cares about ur stupid god or atheism

>>6040095
>>6040102
>>6040104

Kant clearly was NOT religious. I might've misspoken when I said he was specifically an outspoken atheist, but he was not religious, and any who thinks he was hasn't read any of his work.

>>6040107
Yes, he talks about how the soul is an integral part of human beings and cared so much about his Christian values that his entire career was an attempt to logically prove that they were objectively correct.
What makes you think he was an atheist? The fact that you associate religion with the irrational forces he didn't like?

>>6040028

>non-empriical entity

So you believe in a god that never interacts with reality?
Amazing!
Do you believe in a lot of useless ideas?

>>6040111
>muh evidence

>>6040117
i'm not the same guy but kant was clearly less religious than his contemporaries

and literally no one but strawmanning christians and retards give a fuck about new atheist retardation

>>6040112
trying to kill the final god of grammar?

>>6040101
That is only because the worshippers of that particular god decided he should supplant his entire pantheon. Does not make him real.

>>6040127
i'm trying to imagine u with a dildo in ur but lmao gaybag

>>6040121
>muh unfalsifiable claims

>>6040122
One can be less than a fanatic and still be a believer.
>and literally no one but strawmanning christians and retards give a fuck about new atheist retardation
So what? The attitude exists.

>>6040133
pls be qt lesbian salome and in lndn

>>6040137
then go find sum1 who cares and fucking tell them

literally no one on /lit/ cares about ur retarded apologetics, we reply just cuz we're bored and lonely and you're stupid enough to make people tippy type stupid replies, but nobody takes any of what you say seriously

>>6040093
Why are you incapable of understanding that it does not have anything to do with 'rebelling' or 'hating'.

People are atheists because there is no evidence for God's existence.

>Disbelief in God is merely

lol this pompous horse shit

>>6040031
swaying a rational mind isn't too relevant to the actual existence of god

>>6040117
>Yes, he talks about how the soul is an integral part of human beings and cared so much about his Christian values that his entire career was an attempt to logically prove that they were objectively correct.

I'm assuming you are talking about the categorical imperative, and saying that the Golden Rule and his categorical version of it is "Christian values" is a complete ahistorical joke, as the Golden Rule is about as much of a Christian value as it is ancient Chinese philosophy.

Confucius formulated the ethic of reciprocity before Christianity was even founded, so by your standard Kant was a Confucian.

>>6040055
Read Part VII of The Philosophic Basis of Fascism
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm#

The Political Doctrine of Fascism wouldn't hurt either.

>>6040151
It should be.

>>6040153
I'm not him but I'm going to assume you didn't read Kant on Christianity or other religions, and that you don't know Plato wrote down the categorical imperative within a hundred years Confucius and had a greater influence on Europe.

Arguing that Kant's problems with original sin and so on once you find his work on religion are antiChristian is going to make me accuse you, by your logic, of thinking Schopenhauer hated Kant. Which would be completely ahistorical, but some idiots do believe odd things.

>>6040010
>>That's not really Communism, is it?

Communism isn't real. It's a pipedream of some idiots on /lit/.

>>6040164
no, that doesn't make sense

>>6040176
>I'm not him but I'm going to assume you didn't read Kant on Christianity or other religions, and that you don't know Plato wrote down the categorical imperative within a hundred years Confucius and had a greater influence on Europe.

So, in other words, I'm right either way, that the ethic of reciprocity has nothing to do with Christianity other than it being subsumed and claimed as it's own.

>Arguing that Kant's problems with original sin and so on once you find his work on religion are antiChristian is going to make me accuse you, by your logic, of thinking Schopenhauer hated Kant. Which would be completely ahistorical, but some idiots do believe odd things.

I never said Kant was anti-Christian, I said he wasn't that religious personally, and that I might've misspoken when I said he was an atheist.

Pay attention to what I write instead of creating strawmen inside your head.

>>6039923
the OP quote isn't sympathetic to communism at all, it says that socialism is ressentiment

goddamn learn to read

>>6040191
>So, in other words, I'm right either way, that the ethic of reciprocity has nothing to do with Christianity other than it being subsumed and claimed as it's own.
Well, if anyone other than you argued that was why Kant was considered to think Chrisitianity the best of monotheistic religions because of the categorical imperative not being reproduced anywhere else, yes, you would be right to argue against them. But you set up that poor argument yourself, so that you knocked it down with another ignorant argument is more like watching a retarded kid dance for joy when he knocks down two pins while ten pin bowling with the buffers up.

>I never said Kant was anti-Christian, I said he wasn't that religious personally, and that I might've misspoken when I said he was an atheist.

I put it in the conditional tense that once you find where he talks about religions if you use the arguments I told you about, you would be dumb. Obviously I hold less faith now that you will actually find his arguments about it, or understand any Kant, since you could not parse a conditional which required your future research as not being a statement about current, but potential, arguments you could have made after getting less ignorant.

>Pay attention to what I write instead of creating strawmen inside your head.
lol, baby, just cut your losses before you get buttmad about something you were interested in enough to read in the first place

>>6040223
>you were interested in
*weren't, obvi

>>6040223
Regardless, I don't think Kant was an atheist, but I doubt he was much of a Christian. He critiques the metaphysical claims of religion a lot in his works, at least the works I have read.

>>6040249
He had a serious crush on Jesus, dude. He called him the pinnacle of morality; I think only Wilde has been more gay for Jesus in his writings from the modern era. Read more.

>>6040162
Thank you!

>>6040120
>created the universe
>produced a human being after 13 billion years of starting the most ineffably complex algorithm ever.
>doesn't interact with reality

>>6040629

>what are unproven assertions

>>6040638
>what is faith
tell me about what happened before the big bang anon, I'd love to know!

>>6040662
Tell me about what happened before God, anon, I'd love to know!

>>6040662
>>what is faith

Not a valid reason to believe anything?

>tell me about what happened before the big bang

Nobody knows, that doesn't mean god dun did it, that would be an argument from ignorance

>>6040670
God created time, there was no before

>>6040674

Again, more unproven assertions. Is that all your beliefs are?

>>6040674
There was no time before the big bang either, dude.

>>6040678
yes

>>6040678
>>6040679
I mean, that does not contradict what I am saying

>>6040683
Therefore there is mystery about the "before" of the big band, because time starts with the big bang.

But guys, wasn't communism proven wrong with the end of the USSR? The capitalists won, didn't they?

>>6040683

It also doesn't demonstrate that it was the result of a conscious, intelligent entity willing it into being

>>6040674
>God created time
Impossible. Without time, causation is logically impossible, and therefore "creating" time is a ridiculous concept, because you couldn't create time without time.

>>6040689
>God acts through causality

lol

>>6040692

>what is special pleading

>>6040673
You have a different definition for belief, which is actually just based on David Hume and the scientific method which in itself is not proven infallible.

>>6040684
>>6040678
its possible time existed before the big bang its not actually known.

>>6040677
>look guys I'm so smart, people who believe in god are dumb lol

>>6040692
Then wherefore the argument of him being the first cause?

>>6040696
>its possible time existed before the big bang its not actually known.
It's possible God existed before the big bang too.

>>6040686
of course it doesnt, thats why it is called faith.

I believe it was created by God, non-theist believes it was created some other way

>>6040695
>what is omnipotence

>>6040696
>which in itself is not proven infallible

Which no one has ever claimed. In fact, its fallibility is arguably one of its strongest aspects

>>look guys I'm so smart, people who believe in god are dumb lol

Way to not address anything I said

>>6040700
I agree, time is a construct for mere mortals anyway.

>>6040701
>thats why it is called faith.

Which is not a good reason to believe anything, as I already told you

Then you handwaved about the Big Bang and then I told you that's an argument from ignorance

>>6040705
Hellenimos :^)

>>6040702

And again, more unproven assertions. You build unproven assertion on unproven assertion, and your foundation is "I believe it's true, therefore it is". I can't even begin to tell you how weak and flimsy such a beliefsystem is

just leaving this here

>>6040704
The scientific Method is purely rational, the universe is irrational, belief in the scientific method (which is very good for simple models of the universe) necessitates a lack of belief in free will. As its most in depth theories point towards a quantum/random determinism.
If you believe in free will, I argue you must also believe that the scientific method is to some degree fallible.

I chose not to address your point as it is obvious and betrays a lack of understanding of the concept of faith.

>>6040706
You sound like Louis CK

>>6040716

And you sound like someone who has run out of arguments and now resorts to namecalling

>>6040715
>The scientific Method is purely rational

>what is corroboration and falsification, what are experiments

>the universe is irrational

Uhm, what? What is this even based on?

>belief in the scientific method (which is very good for simple models of the universe) necessitates a lack of belief in free will

Free will is mostly an unknown now, so it doesn't necessitate any of this

>I chose not to address your point as it is obvious and betrays a lack of understanding of the concept of faith.

Or you don't address it because all the points you make are lousy at best, and self-refuting at worst

>>6040717
there are multiple people in this thread who acknowledge that you've just come read some Dawkins so you are feeling superior and keep spouting that "unbeatable" maxim and embarrassing yourself.
Read some Tolstoy or something, your ideas on God are far to limited.

>>6040706
Why do you believe in science?

>>6040722
Yes the universe is irrational, have you even studied physics mate? (its based on quantum mechanics)
>what is corroboration and falsification, what are experiments
no amount of experimentation
will ever help us to discover what we don't know we don't know.
>Free will is mostly an unknown now, so it doesn't necessitate any of this
I have faith in my own free will, therefore I feel the scientific method has the potential to be fallible.

Or I don't address it because you're repeating yourself and haven't yet proven the infallibility of the scientific method which is what your whole argument is based on.
>self-refuting
expand here please

>>6040726
>you've just come read some Dawkins so you are feeling superior and keep spouting that "unbeatable" maxim and embarrassing yourself

And again, none of this is based on anything. Also, I've read Tolstoj and Dostojevski, they were boring slavophiles whose ideas were as poorly thought out as yours are. Their works have the same stench of ad-homimens and strawmen to them, no wonder you like them

Also, War and Peace was a snorefest and Crime and Punishment is contrarian whining from a boring reactionary who hated Western Europe, despite not speaking French or German

>>6040733

I don't know, could it be the fact that I wouldn't be talking to you right now without it?

>>6040736
>haven't yet proven the infallibility of the scientific method which is what your whole argument is based on.

Jump off a high building and find out yourself

>>6040752
omfg, Im out of this thread

>>6040746
>War and Peace was a snorefest
>a snorefest
>snorefest
Just leave now before I call the pleb police

>>6040755
the scientific method as we know it today didn't exist at the time of Newton's theory of gravity. Literally go buy a fedora and complete the image

>>6040758

>leaving means I win

Okay cool

>>6040772

So because there was no method as we know it today, there was no science?

>>6040755
mate when the scientific method produces a Theory of Everything that describes the creation of the universe I may hesitate in my beliefs. But currently our knowledge based on science just laughably small. Also have you actually ever studied science or did you read some pop sci and now think you're a badman atheist crusader.

>>6040780
The scientific method didn't exist i.e.
Uncertainties, Gaussian distributions, Standard deviations.everything that makes experiments "valid" today.
It clear you've never studied science, and that you don't understand faith.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,
it

>>6040786
Just popping into the thread to say "science doesn't know" =\= "christianity is probably true despite being impossible and retarded". You are an idiot. Please kill yourself.

>people actually using the god of the gaps argument

Really? You realise this is not even a remotely sensible way to look at things?

so is overthrowing the hierarchy good or bad, or an unavoidable transition?

>>6040805
>god of the gaps
no. god of the gaps and everything surrounding the gaps

>>6040812
Cute.

Also its interesting how people who try to argue God exists always argue for a biblical god as if that particular one is somehow more valid than the thousands of others humans have invented.

>>6040801
>Implying I belong to an organised religion
I believe in a creator of the universe and that is it. He came, tinkered about with a few constants and interactions and fucked off. The bible is obviously fiction.
He isn't necessarily male, or white or whatever, why are you stuck with the idea of a Christian God?

>>6040830
see here Sir Dawkins>>6040845

>>6040845
Because I'm not reading the thread. Why are you so obsessed with shitposting your irrelevant delusions on a board about reading?

>>6040845
Perhaps because the majority of people on your side are idiots who think the bible is true and that asking for evidence instead of blindly swallowing superstition and dogma makes you an edgy teenager.

>>6040855
>Perhaps because the majority of people on your side are idiots who think the bible is true
Literal interpretation Christians aren't even the majority of the Christian demographic in the US any more, and Christians as a whole are not the majority of even religiously affiliated theists. You believe some weird and unfounded shit, my friend.

>>6040863
Hanging onto a dead religion by saying everything is a metaphor no one can be bothered to actually explain because you are afraid of life itself is even more pathetic than believing a hebrew zombie raped a clay monkey to sacrifice himself to himself because your parents were cultists

>>6040863
>You believe some weird and unfounded shit, my friend
>In defense of The Bible

This is trolling right? You aren't really this putridly fucking stupid, are you?

>>6040863
I am obviously talking about this website.

Trolls aside only American Christians would claim being an atheist makes you an edgy teenager, atheism is too normal almost everywhere else that this website gets a large number of users from.

Would be nice if they stopped being retarded and used arguments that do not consist of 'lol edgy' and calling you Richard Dawkins for making valid points they have no answer to.

>>6040873
Saying nobody bothered to explain because you were not spoonfed is probably why you believe some weird shit entirely encapsulated in your cultural mores with little reflection in fact. Good luck with that paradigm you hate so much but refuse to break.

>quote from icycalm's bullshit
>119 replies

Stay classy /lit/

>>6040884
But jesus definitely existed right? What's the metaphor for why the all powerful creator literally placed the snake in the garden and punishes people despite designing time? PROTIP: "the snake is a metaphor" is not an answer. Good luck being a petrified little faggot forever.

>>6040879
Do you think that calling me stupid is going to make literal interpretation of the Bible a more common demographic worldwide than it is, or are you just so butthurt that you can't read?

>>6040895
>pls spoon feed me
>all the other people I got talking point from did
>it's almost like they didn't expect me to do anything under my own power

>>6040898
M8 I'm not going to seriously engage you in defense of your sinking ship. You are just afraid of living and dying. No amount of patronizing is going to prevent you from being a scared dumbass clinging to a dying sand cult.

>>6040883
>Trolls aside only American Christians would claim being an atheist makes you an edgy teenager
I'm not an american christian and I think a lot of the posts on this thread were made by edgy teenagers.

>>6040904
7/10 troll got some replies but this is still your faggot life at the end of the day

>>6040906
That you think claiming Christianity of one form is declining in adherents is a sign of faith tells me you'll fall for 8 out of 10 cats advertising every time

>>6039929
Like the question of 'what's the best way to ensure that a group of people will forever remain under the thumb of Zionist Jews?'

>>6040927
If you think that I'm doing anything other than mocking you for being an indoctrinated moron then lol. I hope you aren't one of those wierdos who limits your life and you're just some modern hypocritical faggot who follows their whims but pays lip service to a dying chameleon cult because you're afraid because you're gonna regret missing on everything cool, otherwise.

>>6040919
>boohoo he doesn't want to hear about my snake story
>let's call him a faggot
>that'll totally seem unrelated to my obsession with disproving snake stories to people who didn't bring up a snake story
>nobody will ever think I'm closeted at all

>>6040890
>mfw icycalm is right

>>6040939
>Tfw I could have been born this retarded whether this post is sincere or not

Thank you Randomly Generated Essence of Being

>>6040934
I'm talking about statistics on congregations of the faithful. I've never been a literal interpretation Christian in the US, or part of any Pew survey in the US, to have affected the statistics by my faith or renouncing of it. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is Christian. I was unaware statistics had now become a Christian discipline, dominated by literal interpretation of the bible, but that could be because there's very little statistics on that, unlike the demographics of religious affiliation in the US.

Nice rage though, have you smashed any of your own possessions yet? That would really teach me for having never been an American Christian in the first place.

>>6040916
Do tell us why.

Making statements such as 'all gods are equally lacking in evidence' is not edgy, neither is refusing to believe in something without evidence.

>>6040954
I have already stated I just mocking you and now you're going to go full autist with "oh well I was just saying based on the numbers, lol xD, I'm actually a fedora myself *tips it*" or whatever it is you are attempting to accomplish. I live in America and not even in The South. Literal interpretation of the bible is very much alive. Rebranding a menagerie of jewish myths because you are afraid of living and dying is even more pathetic, again. Enjoy being the devils advocate in off topic threads on 4chan for the rest of however long you'll be intentionally retarded. Good luck.

>>6040853
because I'm obsessive and delusional.

>>6040980
>Literal interpretation of the bible is very much alive
Not according to any survey conducted by a body larger than you.

>>6040988
Well this is a nice illumination on the problems with survey methodology I guess, because you're talking out of your ass and wrong to boot. Additionally; believing in the impossibility that is the ressurection is in fact "literal interpretation of the bible", although that is not what I'm referring to specifically.

>>6041006
Kek, you're arguing against the statistics because they don't fit your preconceptions. You go on believing your antidisestablishmentarian batshit, it's going to be terrible for you when the trend continues and you're the last keeper of the interpretation you wish to destroy. You'd think the decline of your enemy would be good news, but, man, you're never going to win.

>>6041022
You're literally denying reality right now because of disconnected numbers despite having no actual basis to know about the situation. Phenomenal. You'll never believe that you're wrong, and you are, and you in any case are just hell bent on being a shitbird autist for the sake of it. Holy shit. You admittedly have no actual clue, and yet you persist. Unreal. Because of "statistics". Truly, you are the embodiment of fedora tipping.

>>6041045
Are you just lonely? It's hard to tell between the retarded, but I think you might be lonely. Sorry Jesus didn't love you enough to want you as a sunbeam or whatever.

>>6041045
Anyway I'm going to shower and read. I'll be sure to let Paul and Christina's families know they are apparently statistically insignificant and don't exist according to an unnamed survey as reported by an intentionally annoyinf retard on another continent. Maybe they'll have an epiphany and stop making people they work around uncomfortable on occaision.

>>6041061
It's pretty funny you're basically admitting that you are a no-life moron just stirring shit here. "Lonely" isn't really an insult unless you are, and it's clear that you spend your time being a dumbass in off topic threads pretty regularly for the sake of arguing. Ayy lmao. Have an uneventful day, as usual.

>>6041066
It's the Pew foundation's surveys. As I said, but you missed. And yes, your friends might well be statistically insignificant; it's not like statistics were meant to care about you as a special snowflake more than God, or at all really.

>>6041087
>"Lonely" isn't really an insult unless you are, and
I can sense the precious baby tears your ducts can still produce. Let me lick them.

>>6040890
Only reason you know it's from him is because you read his shit too!