/lit/ - Literature

>>6245330
The same ones that try to prove it
/thread

the bible

Any book on the history of religion

>>6245341
This

"God in the Age of Science?: A Critique of Religious Reason" by Herman Philipse

>>6245330
can t think foru rurself fag?

teh gawd deluzion

:^)

tip hat

>>6245330
Disproving religion is irrelevant today. Go back to the century you came from.

>>6246295

>implying

>not sees that every identity politics is based on christianity morals in the end

>>6245330
>disproving religion

4chan is for people over the age of 18

>>6245358
>>6245341
hahah nice one

Link me your reddits so I can upvote you :)

>>6245330
Idiot, if you need a book that they have shown you that there is no God - then you would never kill a latent believer.

Fuck, it's better to believe in God. Yes, you need to do without discrimination, but the dispute between believers and atheists reminds dispute between Democrats and Republicans. You choose the Republicans and the Democrats win the election and fuck you in the tail and mane.

>>6246338
no he doesn't, he just doesn't share that "crusading spirit"

ATHEIST SHITLORDS STOP OPPRESSING ME

I'm more interested in a book that could prove religion to a materialist.

>>6245341

As much as people invoke le reddit maymay reading the Bible is actually what made me lose my faith. I couldn't read Samson killing 1000 people with a donkey bone and keep a straight theological face at that shit.

>>6247617
That really is redditt-tier though. No context, just hurr everything is a literal story

>>6247617
>biblical literalism

>>6246338
every time

>>6247570
a time will come when you realise it's only the you inside that's suppressing the you on the outside

remove yourself from the circle then re-enter

>>6247708
>>6247699
>the word of god doesn't mean what it says but how a shitty human interprets it

>>6247723
I don't understand the joke. Einstein was fervently against religion (as most, not to sound egotistic or anything but, as most intelligent folk are).

>>6247780

>Listen Christfag I know what it says, it's written right here in plain English!

>>6247780
>begs the question of why it should be read in the first place

>>6245330
Nietzsche is anti Christianity but not anti religion

>>6247803
Did he disprove it though?

>>6245330
DER EINZIG

>>6247699
>>6247708
>It's not literal!
>no explanation given

Then explain WHY you fucking faggots. I find it a lot easier to believe that 2000 years ago people genuinely believed mythical stories about a man killing 1000 people with a bone than some contrived post-hoc rationalization that it was really a dense symbolic layered narrative about something compatible with the modern understanding of the world.

>>6247617
>Abrahamic God = all theology

>>6247929

#rekt

>>6247929
>they give an explanation
>i want a different explanation!


damn...

>>6247929
The explanation is that the various stories have context. Some have been taken as myths and parables for thousands of years. Others, like the gospels, have always been presented as non fiction. I'm an atheist who hasn't even read the Bible and I know that much, how fucking mediocre do you have to be to not be able to figure this out?

gtfo and take your cuck>>6247999
with you

>mfw trilby nodders have never read Quinque Viae

>>6248005
>>6248015

Saying "it's not literal!" because the story seems incredible is not an explanation, you spergs. You can't just vaguely allude to the story being figurative allegory and call it a day in order to dismiss everything in your holy book that seems stupid.

>Harry Potter is non-fiction, guys.
>What about the wizards and magical creatures?
>Durrr they're not literal how stupid are you

>>6248045
>has been taken that way for thousands of years, implying it was never meant to be literal
>hurr its a cop out
fucking kek how illiterate are you? I think you should learn to read before posting matey

>>6248045
this is embarrassing

>>6248055
>>6248061

More dodging the question. What is the symbolic significance of the story as it was seen in history? What proof or scraps of context is there that it's not meant to be taken literally?

>>6248085
the Vatican says so ;^)

>>6248085
I literally just said that it wasn't considered literal by the culture itself, what more do you want? Do I have to hold your hand through the symbolism in these stories and then change your diaper as well? If you're so interested, look it up, I can't give you a complete education via 4chinz

>>6248136
>I literally just said that it wasn't considered literal by the culture itself, what more do you want? Do I have to hold your hand through the symbolism in these stories and then change your diaper as well?

Yes, you've been repeating that response the entire time, and I find it doubtful because nobody in this thread has been able to elaborate it further. Sorry for not blindly trusting you when you provide no sources to back up your view. Since you're apparently such experts, I don't see why I have to Google it myself and wade through pages and pages of apologist sites to get to one with a decent historical claim.

>>6248175
>I don't see why I have to research shit instead of being spoonfed like on reddit
Should have just said so from the beginning, could have saved me some time replying to you.

Literally google samson in rabbinic history and it's the first result. Even since ancient times, many scholars believed the story to be a myth or parable. Some later argued for its truth as well.

chapters 10 and 11 of humes enquiry (but you should read the whole thing to understand it)

Religion isn't monolithic and something to disprove.

>>6247929
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0

If you're one of the many who (I hope) accepts death of the author as the foundation from which we read texts, then you should also be able to accept that the value of the bible is ascribed entirely to the reader, not to the creator. Why should it matter whether it was written in praise of a murderous barbarian if what you gain from it is nothing but positive reinforcement of your own values?