/lit/ - Literature

What do you believe in currently?

>>6206621
I'm very uncertain in what i believe in. I find the existence of a universal spirit almost undeniable, but at the same time I feel so distanced from it. This is why I feel like I need God.

>>6206636
>God
What makes you think that you need the Christian god in particular?
Couldn't you settle for Deism?

>>6206645
Deism is pleb-tier.
OP, read the Bible.

>>6206618
Well my friend, I can only recommend that you read the Bible from the beginning with an open heart and pray for understanding and to be receptive. You may find parts that you must wrestle with but the Creator will open your mind and He will make you to understand.

I was raised going toa Southern Baptist church, I went through a period of agnosticism when I was 17, atheism at 19 as I read The Selfish Gene and other works of reductionism, I finally began experimenting with Hinduism and had subjective experiences involving those "gods" or as the Tanakh teaches us, demons. I then had serious experiences which turned me toward YHWH and he revealed Himself to me as the One True and Good God and Creator. I have served Him ever since although I have fallen wayward many times, for which I am repentant and I seek to serve Him in earnestness and as the Shema states with all my Heart Soul and Might, blessed be His Name forever.

>>6206647
Do i have to read the Old Testament?

>>6206665
This is looking like what i'll do.

>>6206673
I am glad to hear that, may your journey be blessed.

>>6206645
Tell me about Deism

>>6206667
You don't have to,but I would recommend that you at least read Job,Ecclesiastics and some of the Psalms.

>>6206618
I suggest you first buy a copy of the Quran, and then early in the morning, you go out into nature and read the first 2 or 300 verses. If you read them with soft eyes and a open heart, the love of God will find you.

>>6206709
I heard that Job essentially represents the unknowable-ness of the Jewish God, but is not entirely relevant to the Christian God. Is that correct?

>>6206636
>I find the existence of a universal spirit almost undeniable, but at the same time I feel so distanced from it.
If you can feel this "universal spirit", then you should be able to focus in order to become closer to it and acquire information about things.

That's how remote viewing theory works; an all encompassing "matrix" that cognizant beings have weak contact with, but can focus to acquire a better connection and scrape up information about specific things.

>>6206667
The New Testament is a fulfillment of the promises made to Israel in the Old. If you want to grasp the true significance of Christ, you have to grasp the relationship Israel had with Yahweh prior to His incarnation.
Read Genesis and Exodus, then look through Leviticus for an idea of how weird the things the Old Law entailed were, read Daniel, Samuel, and Ezekiel, and then move on to the New Testament.

But before any of that, read John.

All these niggers telling you to read the Bible are going to ruin any chance you have of finding God.

Read a bunch of philosophy first, then consider reading religious texts. That's how it worked for me.

>>6206647
>the bible
>not pleb tier
anon, it's the most commonly believed-in religious book there is, most of the time by people with blind faith who haven't given a modicum of thought to what they're reading.

Any rational person who wants to be a theist will end up in some form of deism whilst still maintaining a slight skeptic perspective.

>>6206773
This is also true, if it weren't for philosophy I wouldn't be a theist.
>>6206781
There are plenty of rational theists.

>>6206618
Why would you want to do that?

>>6206665
Ahahahahaha

>>6206785
>>6206787

>>6206792
Talk about reductionism you dunce

>>6206815
But you're the reductionist, friend

>>6206815
Not that guy, I haven't until now responded to your mocking laughter. I can only pity you and your soul for making light of a serious matter.

>>6206829
>soul
Having pity for things that don't exist seems like such a waste of time and energy.

>>6206835
*flourishes trilby'

>>6206835
This is the only enlightened gentleman in the thread. He has done a truly brave and heroic thing by refusing to humor your puny god (no capz cuz hes fake.) If you guys want to understand more about our truly euphoric and enlightened viewpoint on this matter, you shoudl read a very enlightening book called The God Delusion.

>>6206848
>>6206849
This is 2easy

only prayer will do it
if you feel silly praying then you need to pray more
reading is an incentive and guide to prayer; to the extent that reading doesn't lead to prayer then it's useless in regards to developing piety

>>6206856
>>6206835
>>6206815
>>6206787
>>6206785

thomas merton: seven storey mountain
dorothy day: the long loneliness
kierkegaard: fear and trembling
augustine: confessions

>>6206618
faith shouldn't be a choice

when you sit on a chair do you have faith that it will hold your weight?
absolutely not, because the reality of the chair is separate from your mind
now, why do people put 'faith' in phenomena when what we experience only happens as a consequence of a prior event?
really look into what you're saying and what it truly means, and you'll see that a lot of the discussions your hear about god have nothing to do with 'god' and are only statements about how people interpret and think about reality
never mind the fact that the only reason you're even thinking about god is because someone came along and told you about it

also; when people start talking about god think about it psychologically
why the fuck would some guy make a whole universe just so some upright creatures could suck hi- i mean sing his praises for eternity
if you were god, would that be the universe you'd choose to make?

also; most of the words and ideas we have all tied to something we experience
how does one experience god? how do you know it's god, the specific bible god and not something else? is 'god' just an empty signifier?
how is it that regardless of gods existence we here and millions around the world speak about it? we can talk about unicorns, we can talk about string theory, what's the difference? if you're going to be honest you have to admit that for now god is only an idea

>>6206869
>kierkegaard: fear and trembling

overrated

sickness unto death, purity of heart is to will one thing, & works of love are better.

>>6206618
Thomas Aquinas

>>6206618
You're a twit OP, get some councelling instead.

You don't need God, you need to do something practical and worthwhile with your life and stop navel gazing.

You daft muppet.

>>6206862
read: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/mustpray.htm

>>6206884
>>6206874
>>6206835
>>6206787
>>6206815
Since when did /lit/ get flooded with so many euphoric gentlemen?

>>6206893
care to enlighten us or are you going to sit their in your comfy smugness

>>6206893
A better question would be why 4chan got flooded with self proclaimed theists.
But I think we already have an answer to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

>>6206893
That ship has sailed, retard
>>>/lastyear/

>>6206618Proving that God exists is not hard, what's hard is to get behind all the modern hatred of metaphysics and enlightenment ideas of secular progress.
The only way to avoid falling into reactionary fideism is to reconcile your reason with classical theism, an understanding of God shared by Aristotle and many greek and christian thinkers, and is still the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Modern conceptions of God are hard to accept since they're at odds with the great tradition.
God is the ultimate metaphysical reality that keeps all of creation in being, It is the Pure Act of Being itself.
God is not a person in a way that we are persons, and human characteristics like will and goodness are only be ascribed analogously to refer to the one, absolutely simole Divine Essence.


Read Aristotle and Aquinas nigga.
Feser is a modern proponent of classical theism and explans all this much better than me. Check his "Scholastic metaphysics".

>>6207023
Yeah too bad it's all schizophrenic bullshit and you've obviously wasted a lot of time. Oops =<

>>6207023
Mate, trying to prove anything with metaphysics or theology is like trying to prove something with Astrology.

Both fields are just highly advanced forms of horseshit, developed to perpetuate the percieved legitimacy of these subjects as points of study.

There is no metaphysical; dualism is dead in academic discourse, and only gets taught as part of modern Philosophy courses as a historical curiosity.

>>6207035
>>6207039
>All this butthurt
Confirmed for not being open to Being.

>>6206893
I'd expect more of /lit/ than to use intellectually-void memes responses.

>>6207039
>dead in academic discourse
Academic discourse isn't the barometer you think it is.

>>6207043
But I'm here OP.

I'm the sum of my parts and no more.

There is no great mystery; there is no metaphysical "soul".

If I stick pins in my brain and watch the neurons blink out one by one I am destroying my conscious self irreparably.

And when my body ceases to be, so will I.

Being is no great mystery, and you don't need a book full of sophistry and unverifiable nonsense to tell you how to exist.

We're all doing that just fine on our own.

>>6207086
I'm not OP.
Your claims have no evidence or argumentation, nor are they convincing to someone who disagrees with you. The lack of evidence for the existence of the supermundane is not indicative of its nonexistence. Enjoy your reductionism, pluralist scum.

>>6207043
You don't need to announce that you're upset, it's a given based on your delusions and fear of life.

>>6207075
Perhaps not, but you really don't need metaphysics to have a working universe.

It's all unverifiable postulation, and a field that we can't actually learn anything from, because it definitively exists as an attempt to study that which is unknowable.

An utterly sisyphean task that simply complicates the human condition needlessly, who's only practical use is in religious shit-flinging; something best left to priests and mystagogues.

>>6206787
Ahahahahaha

>>6207023
>d exists is not hard, what's hard is to get behind all the modern hatred of metaphysics and enlightenment ideas of secular progress.
>The only way to avoid falling into reactionary fideism is to reconcile your reason with classical theism, an understanding of God shared by Aristotle and many greek and christian thinkers, and is still the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
>Modern conceptions of God are hard to accept since they're at odds with the great tradition.
>God is the ultimate metaphysical reality that keeps all of creation in being, It is the Pure Act of Being itself.
>God is not a person in a way that we are persons, and human characteristics like will and goodness are only be ascribed analogously to refer to the one, absolutely simole Divine Essence.
>Read Aristotle and Aquinas nigga.
>Feser is a modern proponent of classical theism and explans all this much better than me. Check his "Scholastic metaphysics".

My negro.

>>6207091
Sorry, was a typo to call you OP.

Don't appreciate the Scum thing tbh, but I've been called worse by better.

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you to tell me why I need metaphysics.

Not on me to justify why I don't need it.

So unless you can show me why I should give credence to your field of study over say, Mystic Meg the fortune teller, I'm afraid that theology and metaphysics are for the fire.

Guh.

I tell you though, I wouldn't want to be a theology stuent or a philosophy student with a particular affinity for metaphysical debate nowadays.

Poor buggers don't get no respect; and by and large we don't choose the academic subjects we're drawn to; they call us.

I do not envy them.

Is god perfect? I think so. If it is perfect then I think that throws out the Christian god since he is pretty damn jealous of people following other faiths. (Or maybe I misunderstood) Jealousy is a flaw. Probably same deal with the Muslim god, but I don't know enough to say for sure.

>>6207116
Different person. The head of the philosophy department at Berkley is a hardcore Jesuit. I've taken a few classes with him. I'm not sure it's fair to say they "get no respect"

>>6207116
>muh metaphysics
>academic subjects call to us

>>6207129
You know what I mean lad; you have only a limited control over your own interests and aptitudes, as they begin develop in you from the time before you're capable of much in the way of self-examination or thought about the practicality of your interests.

Not to say you can't pick up new aptitudes and hobbies in adulthood, but this is a much harder and more involved process than the sponge-like inquisitiveness of a moderately intelligent child or teenager.

>>6207124
Tbf, he's probably a good administrator, or also apt at discussion in other fields too.

Not likely that he has that position because he's a Jesuit, more likely that he has the position in spite of it.

I mean, the academic world, even the mainstream, isn't homogenous, even if we have trends that hold a greater or lesser ammount of sway.

And even thoughy I don't recognise the validity of metaphysics or theology, I do recognise the validity of having multiple viewpoints contributing to discourse.

>>6207095

Of course you need metaphysics- that is, if you want to understand the world. Perhaps you don't need it to manipulate things technologically, but why reduce the universe to what is relevant to technological manipulation?

To understand the particular as it emerges from the general (and ultimately, the transcendental) just is the intellectual project, qua intellectual. And as the most general principle is being, to fully commit to the intellectual project simpliciter is to commit to metaphysics, which (per Aristotle's definition) just is the study of being qua being.

It's impossible, in any case, to act and think without acting on or thinking on the basis of metaphysical assumptions. If one declines to do metaphysics, one is doing nothing less than committing to irrationality on one's deepest unexamined philosophical commitments (or, at the very least, leaving the task to others).

So the choice vis. metaphysics is between being a barbarian, a subject of some ideological/philosophical/religious priesthood, or being a metaphysician oneself. The first option is mere wretchedness, and the second is a matter of having the right priesthood (which is in turn a matter of providence or luck, rather than rationality). If one wants to be fully engaged with reality in one's own right, engaging in metaphysics is the only possible option.

>>6207182
I'll be upfront with you, I understood very little of that.

You seem to be very deeply engrossed in the field of study, which is a credit to you, but you're attempting to use metaphysics to justify metaphysics, which is a sort of circular logic.

What makes the "barbarian" so wretched?

Is he wretched in his own sight, or simply that of others?

And if the latter, should he care?

>>6206618
>/Lit/, how do I develop faith?
First, lie to yourself so that you'll feel comfortable with dying. Stop questioning all the threadbare circular arguments that the religious use to justify their beliefs. It's especially helpful if you ignore the harm religion has imposed on even those folk who don't follow their particular religions--think about all the charity they perform rather than the thousands who died in religious wars, or the millions who are denied rights because their lives are not nearly as sacred as some people's beliefs.

>>6207275

In more simple terms: If you make statements about things in the world ( remember Metaphysics is simply the study of being), then you've already presupposed a metaphysical worldview. You can either be a metaphyscian and justify your worldview and probably come to a more enlightened one, or you can just hold the metaphysical views you do on faith like most people do.

Why do so many atheists think of the Christian God as a man in the sky. when really he's basically the first cause of all things?

>>6207332
>Why do so many people think of the Christian God as a man in the sky. when he's supposedly just the first cause of all things?

fixed

You don't need faith, because you can see the power of God yourself if you're strong enough. That's why it's only relevant to humans and a small portion at that; only they are strong enough to see it directly.

>>6207351
Wow, kind of like Harry Potter, huh?

>>6207315
It it though?

If a naive person makes a statement about a chair, then they are, in their mind discussing an object that is self-evident.

I would say that the true discipline of the study of being is Physics; in that it consists of observational analyses about the interactions between natural phenomena, which are observable; self evident in that they are there and their effects are immediate.

Metaphysics on the other hand, seems to postulate a being beyond conventional being; devoting more time to the hypothetical discussion of Noumena than the practical cataloguing of Phenomena.

Which strikes me as profoundly unreal and credulous in it's whole.

>>6207361

>I would say that the true discipline of the study of being is Physics

no and you say it yourself
physics is the study of things that are
that's not what a study of being means

>>6207332
they need to reduce it down to something they can easily dismiss

>>6207390

>implying

>>6207375
But being is self-evident, and contingent on physics.

Things that exist, in the proper and non wishy-washy debateable sense are generally composed of atoms.

>>6207401
>Humans give God human characteristics to comprehend him

Well I'll be dammed, but with that said atheists will still dumb it down further to le magic sky fairy XDDDD to make it easier for them to dismiss religion entirely despite their lack of understanding of it

>>6207390
Lad, I've got a king james on my lap, and it's explicitly telling me that God is a big man who made everything.

Just because that reading is unfavourable to you in the harsh light of science doesn't mean you get to interpret the whole thing as metaphorical to try and claw back some credence.

>>6207409
Yeah well your retarded cult is still dying /pol/ and the only adherents left are niggers and spics.

>>6206618
Read the Gospels, the Torah, and the Quran. I think the Muslim faith is among the easiest to develop.

Islam accepts the entire Abrahamic tradition as divine, there are comfortably "progressive" variants like Sufism, it has the best music and food of any religion and the Shahada is literally just "I believe in god and Mohammad (pbuh)."

Simple stuff, and it is the most recent abrahamic/monotheistic religion to gain significant popularity. Also read up on Salafi Islam and you'll understand where not to turn to. Ignore the Wahhabis, OP.

>>6207408

that's not really what it is, though
does it strike you as at all plausible that the grown men and women of academia are getting constant paychecks over 'oh but what if we don't exist' level stoner talk?
descartes already kinda killed that

metaphysics has more to do with
the self, consciousness, language, time, perception, etc

it's a very interesting discipline that comes with a lot of cool questions, i'm sure you'd enjoy reading and thinking about it

>>6207423
>Says i'm from /pol/

>uses words like niggers and spics

Ok friend whatever you say

>>6206717
It's still a damn good book!

>>6207439
You are though and that's why your religious beliefs are even more hysterically retarded
>>>/pol/

>>6207359
No

>>6207409

yeah totally but i mean

what do you expect from atheists
what would you expect from theists
people are retarded

>>6207418
#239

>God is neither man nor woman he is God, lad

>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

>>6207443
I don't go on /pol/, I'm Catholic, /pol/ from what I can tell is mainly protestants from bumblefuck USA. Once again you were the one using terms like nigger and spic not me, perhaps you should go back to /pol/

>>6207438
Frankly?

There are so many academics knocking around that I'd be honestly shocked if a fair proportion of them weren't utter frauds.

People are gullible, you only need look around you to see the sort of awful nonsense people actually buy into.

There's a reason Sun Myung Moon died obscenely rich and surrounded by devoted followers.

Time is also a matter for physicists really; for one thing whether "time" as a force or a phenomenon actually exists, of whether or nopt this is just how we percieve the continual motion of the universe; though discussion of it's perception is better left to neuroscientists I reckon, same with language.

>>6206667
Yes. Also read Apocrypha.

>>6207445
Sure it is! Only those bestowed with the strength of magic can climb onto the train at 9 3/4!

>>6207457
So he's like Prince then?
http://www.zapkolik.com/video/prince-i-would-die-4-u-571173

>>6207457
This tells me nothing mate.

I understand the concept of heaven being a metaphysical space, and God not literally being a hovering bald bearded man.

But I reject the notion of the Christian God as an entity, and I reject his teachings as revolting, stupid and archaic, with the odd gleam here and there of salvageable humanity, only present due to the entire narrative having been fabricated by the human beings who's fingerprints are all over the god damn text.

Do you really think an omniprescent perfect being would lay out his teachings in such an easy to misinterpret manner?

>>6207490
*Artist formerly known as prince

>>6207498
I think you mean *

>>6207495
>Do you really think an omniprescent perfect being would lay out his teachings in such an easy to misinterpret manner?

Humans are not perfect and there will always be those who will subvert ideas/religions w/e for their own wants and needs, the bibles tells us how to be good people in Gods eyes and and tells us what will happen if we choose not to be, everything else is up to us

>>6207470
> is better left to neuroscientists I reckon, same with language.

in simple terms

neuroscience is the study of your nervous system, which is the hardware
consciousness is the software

>>6207514
Problem is the internal consistency is all over the place, and the sets of rules and morals layed down in the bible change with the covenant, which implies that evil isn't an objective thing, but a matter of God's whim.

Then there's the whole matter of being an all-knowing entity with perfect knowledge of all that is, was and shall ever be, and creating your poor flawed minions, allowing them to toddle through life "sinning" greviously with no intervention because "muh free will", then consigning them to the burning pit for something you knew they'd do from the moment of their birth?

The judaeo-Christian God, by this metric is incomparably hostile and ultimately indifferent to human suffering; he creates for the express purpose of damnation.

>>6207531
What do you think consciousness even does?

>>6207541

everything

>>6207531
Let me lay down some computer science for you.

Software and hardware are as distinct as pencil marks from the paper they are written on; when you save something to your hard drive, the hard drive's physical structure is changed to reflect the data stored; and so the software becomes part of the hardware, and indeed cannot exist independantly of it.

Same with the human brain and the human mind.

This is why if you damage the brain you also damage the mind itself; not simply the brain's ability to interpret the will of the mind.

>>6206618
Kill yourself and meet him, spook

>>6207557

which is a relevant rebuttal to my analogy because?

>>6207567
You can basically boil down all human mental phenomena, from language to the perception of time, to neuroscience.

>>6207537
>Then there's the whole matter of being an all-knowing entity with perfect knowledge of all that is, was and shall ever be, and creating your poor flawed minions, allowing them to toddle through life "sinning" greviously with no intervention because "muh free will", then consigning them to the burning pit for something you knew they'd do from the moment of their birth?

The classic Christian position is that God exists outside of time, i.e., He is eternal. As a result, He does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. Rather He sees time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments of time. This position allows God to see and know the future free acts of humans while not in any way violating their free choice

>allowing them to toddle through life "sinning" greviously
People choose to sin or not, whether they go to Hell or Heaven is their own choice

Theodicy od Leibniz

atheism is a meme

You sound like the biggest pussy in the world, the type of person who was shamed into religion, probably by le epic hat maymay. Are you just going to let other people dictate the meaning of your life for you? Because in that case, you might as well not bother, because it's never going to satisfy you.

>>6207600

honestly you don't have to appreciate my attitude but i was trying to inform

i'm not going into a piss contest with people whom i've been trying to inform, for obvious reasons

>>6207605
If god existed outside of time, he literally couldn't be contemplated because all thoughts occur within time. All you faggots ever do is bury contradictions with the idea of god

>>6207605
Mate, that's even worse.

That means that God could literally intervene at any point, but he chooses to provide purposefully muddy instructions, and knows exactly when you're going to crash and burn, because he's watching it right now.

In fact, from his perspective, you are in hell before you're even born, because time is irrelevant to him.

Is this your idea of infinite wisdom and mercy?

It sounds to me like the blackest most foul evil.

And I'm quite glad I don't believe a lick of it.

>>6207634
Not trying to start a pissing contest man, just enjoying the debate.

I had hoped that you were too.

>>6207649

sorry, apparently i was projecting
which means it's time for me to sleep
good evening

>>6206618
why do you want to believe in god?

>>6207656
Nighty night!

>>6207605
>People choose to sin or not
That is to imply that people never have decisions made for them.

>>6207706

do you even sartre

>>6207718

>premodernists now find support for their ideas in postmodernists

How ironic

>>6207361

You don't get it. When I make a statement about a chair I have presuppositions that there are a category of things called chairs, I either think that there really are objective properties that makes this chair and all other chairs part of an objectively defined category, or maybe a universal form of chairness that all partake in, or I think that the limits of what is a chair or is not a chair a subjectively constructed ones, perhaps I think that a chair's chairness is defined by a bundle of properties some objective and some subjective,ect, there are many positions that one can take, but everyone has one, even if your position is that objects are just primary and self evident that requires no further analysis, that is a metaphysical position that needs to be justified.

You can posit that only the things that physcis deals with are real and that we should admit of no extra things which are not verifiable by sense data and still do metaphysics. that position is extremely common within metaphysics. Your perspective is just one WITHIN epistemology and metaphysics though, and it needs to be argued for, not just assumed.

You are also making huge Metaphysical and Epistemological claims by even admitting of the categories Noumena and Phenomena, and assuming that certain kinds of things must be categorized in Noumena if they don't fit into your empiricist schema. We never see causation empirically either, only succession, if you believe that the world involves causality you are doing metaphysics by your own admission.

>>6207408
>Things that exist, in the proper and non wishy-washy debateable sense are generally composed of atoms.

This for example is a metaphysical statement. Now justify it, instead of just assuming it, and you are doing metaphysics.

>>6207600
no. you can't.

daily reminder that the jews took all their shit from the sumerians and 'satan' was just being a brometheus and giving us the light of knowledge


christianity is the most insane thing to have come out of the human experience

>>6206618
>I want to believe in God. /Lit/, how do I develop faith?
Disconnect from the internet, get rid of your tv. Take all images out of your home. Stop reading anything and go to church. No, don't even read the bible, keep one, bring it to church but don't read anything but hymnals as directed while in church. Don't talk to strangers from outside your congregation.

Sage, not /lit/ related.

>>6206618
*hug*

Instead of believing in God, why not try experiencing God?

Read the Mathnawi or some Rumi anthology and soak it all in. Whether or not it makes you feel connected to something deep and beyond language, it's still good stuff.

Read Genesis, John, and Revelation. Then read the Bible properly from cover to cover. (preferably douay-rheims or rsv-ce editions). and join the catholic church

then read aquinas and kierkegaard. or if you prefer philosophy as a starting point, start with them instead.

>>6206618
By discovering true evil against which you may divine the right.

>>6207789
Yes. I can.

>>6206618
>I want to believe in God. /Lit/, how do I develop faith?

If you don't believe then you don't.