/lit/ - Literature

>>6332848
No.

pretty much, yeah

>not going full kierkegaard

>>6332861
ma boi soren

>>6332848
That should be obvious. Everything will be fine once r/atheism stops being something for edgy teenagers and twentysomethings to fixate on.

>>6332876
>>6332861
Not quite sure how to feel about this, but I find his shit very interesting.

Nope, Episcopal masterrace, reporting in.

>Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are not accepted by the Episcopal Church.
http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/109399_14568_ENG_HTM.htm

Palm Sunday was great, we did a joint service with Lutherans.

>>6332884
There was a before and an after Kierkegaard in my life

Yes, though I've adopted the Chesterton strategy of retorting all critics of religion by calling them cowards who're too weak for the true freedom and knowledge only gained through submitting oneself to Jesus.

>>6332890
>>6332879
>haha I was in on it too so you can believe what I have to say xD
topcuck

Are we?

http://strawpoll.me/3993330

>>6332915
>people take Buddhism seriously

>>6332926
>white guy buddhism

>>6332915
[HELLENISMOS INTESIFIES]

Not in my case, I'm a practicing Catholic.

>>6332915
Explain this shit

>>6332960
I'm atheist but I voted Protestant for cultural reasons

>>6332960
Protestant includes Anglican and Lutheran, friend, even though Anglicans and most Lutherans (today) have apostolic succession as a doctrine.

Duh. I've seen a fair few people on /pol/ and /lit/ say "I want to believe in god." When pressured why, they say something like "It's not peer pressure, I want to stop being a fedora". As if they had a stereotype of atheists as fat manchildren in their head before the fedora meme came along. It's as much of a vapid, emotionally loaded babble just like "degeneracy". Even some of the smartest Christians of all time, like Wittgenstein, have been fideists who resort to plain faith when backed into a corner by lack of sound evidence and valid logic, when they should know this doesn't justify god as a special case. All the other arguments for god's existence are either based on:
-anthropocentric projection, such as the argument from design or argument from morality
- spooky ontology, starting from the false axiom that the universe must be created, and applying infinite regress to the creation of the universe but not god, without explaining why the universe can't simply be a necessary entity itself
- or, as in the aforementioned case of fideists, throwing empirical and rational standards out the window entirely, like saying "god can't be sensed or measured", without elaborating on what methodology they used to discover his existence and properties that couldn't be applied to any other supernatural being we can contrive.

I get it, your feels seem transcendent, but you can't expect something as personal as religious ecstasy, the temptation faith, or personal guilt and yearning for redemption to be universally convincing to others who don't experience it as strongly. As much as we like to lambaste reddit for their upvote system, account reputation, karma etc., the fact is that 4chan is equally as groupthink in our site culture. Simple accusations of being a faggot, degenerate, shill, autist or or edgelord win arguments in the minds of so many users. Especially on /pol/, whose shitposting is allowed to spill into other boards despite having containment for things like /mlp/, /soc/, /b/ and /s4s/.

>>6332984
And on the question of how Lutherans would get apostolic succession, they did it through having independent Catholic churches ordain their bishops.

>>6332960
Anglican mustard race

>>6332978
If you're not a Protestant you're not a Protestant. How difficult is this concept? Religion isn't race..

>>6332996
My nigga. Burger here. What country you in?

>>6332999
There are atheists who identify as Protestants, such as Bishop Spong.

>>6332999
Never said it was race

>>6332936
>You're not authentic lmao everyone knows buddha was a racist who didn't want westerners following his beliefs

>>6333008
>My nigga. Burger here. What country you in?
Burger as well :^)

>>6333012
Are you Episcopal, or schismatic?

>>6332915
Why no Hinduism on the list?

I'm an atheist Christian.

>>6333008
>There are atheists who identify as Protestants, such as Bishop Spong.

Religions are beliefs. Don't believe? Then you're not a member of that religion, just like you're not a writer if you never write :^)

>>6333010
Sorry if I think religion is srs business anon, I know many people do not share my point of view.

>>6333022

Dumbest thing posted all day.

>>6332915
looky what I found
>>>/pol/43144217

>>6332984
>Protestant includes Anglican

hahaha Anglicans have fallen hard.

>>6332848
I only pretend to be much more religious than I am in real life.

>>6333016
Idk, I used to go to an episcopal church until they appointed some random woman with no speaking ability to preach.

The only one in my area that's not episcopal calls itself "anglican catholic" whatever that means

>>6333023
I do think religion is serious, but you're applying Abrahamic ideas of dogma to Buddhism that simply don't apply to his philosophy. He quite explicitly stated that people should take from his philosophy what they wanted and discard the rest, this is exactly what new agers do. Secondly, using a stereotype of white people as cultureless and unable to follow Buddhist teachings is racist, plain and simple. Many prominent Western thinkers have been strongly influence by Eastern philosophy, like Schopenhauer.

I'm not religious, but I don't have a problem with religion. I think Christianity is fine even if it has some bad moments, but I don't believe in God or ascribe to any doctrines.

Easily the worst thing to have come out of modern philosophy is "militant" atheism. Congratulations, you figured out that believing in a magical sky man is foolish. No need to tell the world about it.

>>6333030
They claim Anglican, but they aren't even in the Anglican communion. If your local Episcopal church is shit, you should at least go to an Evangelical Lutheran church, since we're in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church both in the U.S. and in Europe.

>>6333027
>/pol/
That would help the atheist percentage as well tbh

>>6333039
And yes, I realize Buddhism is a religion as well as a philosophy, but it borders on both with a less "historical" and more existential focus than most religions.

>>6333027
>>6332915
>Survey-taker browses /pol/
Feels good knowing I'm an objectively superior human being. My ideology remains pure.

>>6333054
>implying /pol/ isn't pure ideology

>>6333041
>No need to tell the world about it.

I agree people take this to cringe levels, but why not? Why is asserting the existence of God not considered to be pushing faith on others, but denying it is?

>>6333064
Street preaching is not considered acceptable by most people, it makes you look like a total lunatic regardless of what religion you're professing. The vast majority of religious people are private about it.

>>6333091
If the world hates you, know that it hated Him first.

>>6333091
I have NEVER seen an atheist preaching on the street or door-to-door. The internet is a totally different thing with regards to the ability to filter content.

>>6333097
/r/ing the "I'm an atheist, debate me" shirt pic

>>6333097
But what militant atheists do is essentially equivalent to street preaching. I remember at a college involvement fair the "Atheist club" was there hanging posters of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and other such fedora-core shit. That's just as stupid, obnoxious, and offensive as the obscure churches who have people hand out fliers on campus telling students they'll go to hell.

>>6333091
>Evangelism is unaccpetable

>>6333119
Honestly, stay mad ;^)

>>6333110
I've never seen someone wear one of those in real life. Even then, that's a textual invitation to debate that's totally different from shouting loudly about fire and brimstone.

>>6333119

Obscure churches? We pound the idea of Hell into people's heads since a young age.

>>6333151
>Obscure churches? We pound the idea of Hell into people's heads since a young age.

Assuming you grow up in a very religious family, yes. Otherwise not at all.

>>6333151
Are you having fun?

>>6333128

>>6333173
>Hey guys lol I'm an atheist too but as a super unique twist I actually make fun of them because the internet makes me really insecure
>please don't post pictures of hats, it deeply upsets me

>>6333187
So you are having fun?

>>6332848
Personally, yes, but only on lit. And here it isn't contrarian

>>6332915
>most of the Christians on this board are Protestants.

Explains so much.

No, just to be stupid. And you're not pretending, you're just stupid

>>6332915
Agnosticism is not a religious orientation, it's a degree of belief

>>6333189
This doesn't establish causation.
Also, using autism like an epithet shows how ingrained the 4chan herd mentality is in your head.

>>6333180
>see this? do the opposite of le tricky jew man
>you're not being manipulated by anti-semites, no way!

>>6332848
>Christian
>contrarian

only on /lit/ could a belief in the most popular religion on the planet be considered contrarian. Fuck off you edgy contrarian shitposter

>>6333026
Not an argument.

>>6333303

And when was the last time any of you Jesus-niks helped the poor and practiced non-violence?

Face it, Christianity on 4chan has everything to do with appearance, and nothing whatsoever with a true interest in making the world a better place

>>6333303
It's contrarian in this context. 4chan will do anything as long as it's ironic.

>>6332848
>Dostoevsky is at the top of nearly every /lit/ rec post
>lel we r not actualy christians guys rite??
REDDIT

F U C K O F F
U
C
K

O
F
F

>>6332915
>no Islam

>>6333439
That's be an ideal world.

>>6333276
But all the shitposters are Papists or Papist sympathizers, like Tallis.

>King James is a Bible for virgins because it's not Papist
>Luther was a autistic fedora for objecting to indulgences
>Protestants are all fundy retards, but if you question a single particle of *our* doctrine then you're a heretic
>Protestants are less autistic about doctrinal differences than we are? That just makes them even MORE heretical!

>>6332937
Is "apatheism" a real thing? Obviously there are people who fit the description (myself included) and the perspective is nothing new, but is giving it a name some edgy shit that occurred in the past ten or so years, or does it actually go back a ways?

>>6332852
>Protestantism

>>6332989
>Wittgenstein
>Christian

fucking lel

Witty completely missed the point

>>6333499
Papists are still butthurt that Anglicans have the most beautiful translation of the Bible?

All they shall speak and say unto thee,
Art thou also become weak as we?
art thou become like unto us?
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave,
and the noise of thy viols:
the worm is spread under thee,
and the worms cover thee.
How art thou fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations!

You should have gotten over it by now, the Pope has.

>>6333282
>Trying to explain things to /lit/

>Dostoevsky is one of Nietzsche's only contemporaries that he respected
>lel Nietzsche is actualy christians guys rite??

>>6333282
its a religious position

>>6332989
good post

>>6332915
Cultural catholic, but otherwise agnostic/non-religious. So I voted Catholic.

JESUS CHRIST I LOVE YOU, YES I DO

>>6333947
same

>>6333947
>So I voted Catholic.
So you voted Catholic, even though you aren't Catholic in any sense of the word?
This stupid shit is like claiming to be black because you're from Africa.

That one box should say "None"
>>6332978
It's not asking about your parents or background or even what you were as a kid, just you and now.

>>6333981
I go to church on Easter and Christmas and
I've done most of the sacraments as well... How am I not Catholic?

I'm not. I really am a confirmed and practicing Catholic.

>>6334066
>How am I not Catholic?
Maybe in that you don't believe the things required to make you Catholic?

>>6332989

>>6334066
I was that way for a while. There was an eight years stretch where I only went to Christmas mass with my family. I considered myself an atheist then. Then I started to believe again, went to confession a year ago, and have tried to go to mass more regularly. It's really hard, though - I work like six days a week and can only make it to Saturday vigil.

I really need to get to confession before Easter

>>6332848
yes we are
trust me

>>6333961
Who you trying to convince? The board, or yourself?

>>6332876
kek. saving this.

Why can't Anglicans play chess?


they can't tell a bishop from a queen

>>6333532
>gay "marriage"
>female "priestesses"
>female "bishopesses"
>married priests
>married bishops
>lesbian married "bishopesses"

>mfw Anglicans think they have any apostolic succession what so ever

Before I found jesus, I found satan

>sold my soul to satan to manipulate the world in a dream
>had an encounter with the sucubi

The first night of satanic sin was beautiful, I felt happiness and acceptance like never before.

>but this is the bait and what follows almost made me an hero.

continue?

>>6334347
The Apostles had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5).

I don't know about ordaining gays or women being ordained though. I do know the Catholic Church ordains practicing pedophiles. ;^)

>>6334347
The Apostles had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5).

I don't know about ordaining gays or women being ordained though, but neither of these has been formal grounds of declaration of the invalidity of Apostolic succession by either the Catholic of Orthodox church (Catholics officially say Anglicans don't have it because sacraments, and Orthodox apparently fully acknowledged Anglican apostolic succession in the 1920's). I do know the Catholic Church ordains practicing pedophiles. ;^)

>>6334347
The Apostles had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5).

I don't know about practicing gays or women being ordained though, but neither of these has been formal grounds of declaration of the invalidity of Apostolic succession by either the Catholic of Orthodox church (Catholics officially say Anglicans don't have it because sacraments, and Orthodox apparently fully acknowledged Anglican apostolic succession in the 1920's). I do know the Catholic Church ordains practicing pedophiles. ;^)

>>6334384
go on

>>6334093
Hence the term "Cultural Catholic"

>>6332915
>no gnostic

this is what archons actually believe

>>6334521

This person is not me, by the way.

>>6334594
He certainly isn't.

>>6334594
Yeah, actually, I am. You're delusional.

This board, this website, this lifestyle are all radically contradictory to an authentic Christian life, which is necessarily characterized by striving, suffering and straining of the soul in the name of loving and bearing witness to God.

With perhaps a few exceptions, anyone on here talking about Christianity is probably interested in a somewhat distant, academic way. Maybe some others feel that it might be a path out of NEETdom.

But I don't think there are many (if any) authentic Christians here.

>>6334521
did the apostles marry homosexuals?

>>6334612
I am Spartacus

>>6334347
Married priests are actually allowed for Eastern Catholics and in limited circumstances for Latin Catholics, it's a discipline not a doctrine. If the church wanted to it could change its position of celibate priests.

Bishops however whether Catholic or Orthodox are expected to be celibate.

>>6334846
No, and they sure as shit didn't dress the way they do now either.

>>6334851
Mark 15:13

>>6334880
What does dress have to do with anything?

Are you going to compare clothes to moral law?

>>6334894
Yeah, why not? Do you think it would be moral if they did it nude?

>>6334878
I think this is entirely proper in an allegorical sense. The Church, after all, is "the Bride of Christ," and the clergy stand in for Jesus himself. If not a priest, then certainly a bishop must be "married to the Church," and cannot distract himself with tending to his wife.

>>6334922
Are you going to try to make a point or just shitpost and dance around my words purposefully?

>>6334963
I am making a point. Your idea that dress and morals are two different things is wrong, because the Bible has several passages on moral dress.1 Corinthians 11: 4, for instance, says it is improper to pray while wearing a hat, but Catholic clergy sometimes does that

>>6334894
It is immoral to tell adults who they can and cannot marry.

>>6332876
>telling your bitch to step off so you can become a knight of faith
>you will never be this alpha

>>6334981
Says who?

>>6334980
4

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.

5

But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.

>4 [4-6] From man's direct relation to Christ, Paul infers that his head should not be covered. But woman, related not directly to Christ on the scale but to her husband, requires a covering as a sign of that relationship. Shameful . . . to have her hair cut off: certain less honored classes in society, such as lesbians and prostitutes, are thought to have worn their hair close-cropped.

In the proper context your point is bullshit

>>6332848
No.

why would you pretend to be retarded to be contrarian? you're just retarded either way

The only way you pagans will survive the great tribulation is if you convert to the ''Watch Tower Bible and Tract society''. Eternal paradise can await all of you if you join the Great Crowd and become sheep following Jehovah and his only begotten son Jesus Christ. Join the The Truth!

>>6334981
>It is immoral to tell adults who they can and cannot marry.
Marriage is a religious and legal construct. You're welcome to privately label as "marriage" whatever perverted sexual practices you practice, just don't expect the laws to change because of muh hurt feelings towards your preferred sex fetish.

>>6333151
>totally different from shouting loudly about fire and brimstone.
Kek. Is the mere mention of hell triggering you so badly? I wonder why, lol.

>>6333343
>And when was the last time any of you Jesus-niks helped the poor and practiced non-violence?
Christianity is not about pacifism and charity. Read the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, it explains succinctly what Christianity is about.

>and nothing whatsoever with a true interest in making the world a better place
Jesus himself cared nothing about 'making the world a better place'. In fact, that's one of the reasons why he was crucified in the first place.

>>6332915
>>6332960
I wish I was a protestant

>>6332888
I fail to see how it was a joint service. You were all a bunch of heretics

>>6333039
>He quite explicitly stated that people should take from his philosophy what they wanted and discard the rest


No, he really didn't. This just shows no understanding of the background context of the kalamas or their line of questioning.

>>6332915
>has agnostic, atheist, and Buddhist as separate options

what the fuck

>>6332926
>people not taking the path to freedom from existential lack seriously

>>6333061
*sniff*

>>6334625
>implying Jesus wasn't NEET to the max

>>6334584
So then not Catholic at all

>>6333343
>mfw I have probably already given more to charity to help the poor at the age of 21 then you will ever give in your entire life

>>6335140
This.

I really have a low opinion of 'cultural Christians.' The benchmark of Christianity is the Nicene Creed. If you can't recite it and believe every single word of it, you don't get to call yourself a Christian.

Monotheist maybe, leaning toward Judeo-Christian narrative maybe, but I don't view God as an anthropomorphic deity in the sky, it's just too simple. More like of a kalamic view of "god" then falsafic view.

>>6335167
*than

>>6335163
>I really have a low opinion of 'cultural Christians.'

How Christian. It's sort of important to note that the same one-uppsmanship that goes on with all sorts of bullshit, even literature, goes on in religion, too.

>>6335177
It's a perfectly valid position to take in an enterprise where everything depends on belief- correct belief, at that.

>>6335167
>but I don't view God as an anthropomorphic deity in the sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc

>>6335163
The benchmark of Christianity is love. A person who doesn't believe isn't a Christian, but a person who believes and does not love is actually less of a Christian.

>>6335167
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

Im only religious in the Stirnerist sense in that I live for external fixed ideas placed above myself.

>>6335218
Love is a very loose term. People have done terrible things out of misplaced love.

>>6335285
>Love is a very loose term.

Love is the unconditional and total acceptance of the other.

>>6332937

>>6335287
Once again that is just one definition of it, think for instance of people who act out of love for ideas or concepts.

Likewise when you combine this with the way humans percive one another the divide becomes very small

Im Atheist and im doing good with everyone, im not an asshole and its in big part because of common sense instead of being ansgty or docile like most christians are.

i feel more freedom than i would in any other context.

>>6335293
>that is just one definition hurr durr le subjectivity.

That's what christian love is, AKA what this guy was talking about. (and also the platonic definition btw read the Banquet)

You're either thinking of fanatism, sexual attraction, or admiration.

Step it up senpai

>>6335295
How do you know

>>6335300
Well lets see give that most of the information we have is based off of what we precive with our naturally limited senses you cant actually love another person, but only your limited perception of them. Hence it is more accurate to say that you love your idea of them rather than them as a person.

Likewise when people talk of loving others its less about loving them as individuals but instead some idea of humanity they see being embodied in those individuals. Which is why it is so easy for people to be indifferent to the suffering of individuals whilst still loving humanity or mankind

>>6333826
Describing degree of belief, yeah. Faggy nerd.
you can't be agnostic on your own, that's like someone asking you "what sport do you play?" "I play it lefthanded!"
"What is your religious orientation? "
"I do not completely believe or disbelieve my religious orientation and i am open to new information"

Equal disconnect in the two examples.

>>6332915

why isn't mormon an option?

>>6335305
I've been a christian and it's nosense, it has nice values but that can be said about any religion.

I dont feel the bible or any other holy book is really inspired by a superior being, its cool mythology at best.

>>6335324
Subsect of protestant?

>>6335330

How can you replace God's purposive creation in a secular worldview?

You're going to be between the Scylla of solipsistic hedonism and the Charybdis of man's ultimately-doomed (we know how it ends) historical project...

???????????

this is srsly like THE question of the 21st century...

>>6332989
Assuming that a group you disagree with is only motivated by being contrarian is just as dismissive as the fedore memelords, just less sophisticated.

>>6335341
God of the gaps is terrible reasoning, you can replace it with literally anything and it will have equal or greater plausibility. Creation isn't even necessary, at least from a scientific perspective, it's more likely that existence is the inherent nature of physical law, nothing is a human concept

Yes /lit/ Christians are edgelords in denial

>>6335323
>what sport do you play
>I don't play sport
That is still a statement on the sports you play
That being nothing

It is a position as much as being a baseball player is

>>6335177
Faith is a process and not an achievement, and just as the church is a hospital for sinners rather than a podium for the faithful you have no right to look down on others for what might be a low point in their faith

>>6335341
Solipsistic hedonism is the way to go, you have peace of mind doing good by our own morals, like Nietzsche said to some extent, nobody needs to be hated, abused or indoctrinated to ideas that dont have a place in the real world.

>>6335351

Let me try again:

Once the idea of revelation has been tossed out, and thus any hope for an explicitly communicated and divinely sanctioned ethical order, how do human beings decide what to do?

This is particularly difficult if we assume that human extinction is inevitable and that there are no divinely sanctioned, explicit reasons to act in any particular way.

Why not pursue self-interest above all else, and why bother creating a more just society? We're all doomed to oblivion, after all, and a moment will come in the future where there's no way to distinguish whether humanity (or you) acted ethically or not!

>>6335358
That would be atheism

>>6335384
and atheism is a position just as christian is

>>6335389
Atheist is a lack of a position.
a - without
Theism - theological belief
agnostic atheism
You can't be agnostic alone, that's just incorrect wording, since it's a description of how strong your stance is, not a stance by itself

>>6335371
Why would we base that morality on religion, there's no need for more conflict, the main proof is middle east and the dark ages, even if it is a fedora meme argument its still true.

Does anyone else remember back in the days when 4chen was very atheist and then all the sudden a bunch of edgy fucks showed up and went full anti atheist for seemingly no reason other than reddditors being atheist also.
It disgusts me to see you fucks using religion like a fad. But it also pleases me, reminds me that hey at least I'm not an edgy shithead pseudo intellectual like much of modern first world kids

>>6335427
I still think the majority of chon is atheist. The anti atheism meme is strongest here.

>>6335411

This is a short argument meant to encourage you to explore similar ideas, because there is by now ample (and extremely interesting) literature on the subject:

1. religion is not going to vanish or dissipate in such a way as to revoke the need for dialogue and pluralism. it's absolutely embedded in historically ossified cultures the world over.

2. religion is probably more often used as a populist ploy to get populations to cooperate with imperialistic adventures (this seems to hold throughout history, with leaders becoming more and more aware of their doing so with the passing of time)

3. the major religious traditions are so variegated and complex that they probably all contain the resources needed to justify dialogue and pluralism without acquiescing to relativism or secularism. This means lots of hard work on the part of theologians and philosophers, and many generations of steadily bettering relationships and dialogue.

4. if you think another round of new atheist texts is all the world needs to address these issues then you are beyond stupid. air-dropping "The God Delusion" over Syria is more likely to provoke new recruits for ISIS than it is to "convert" new secularists.

I'm generally agnostic, leaning toward atheist. However, I consider myself culturally Christian (Eastern Orthodox specifically) and will engage in the occasional apologetic on the church's behalf. Can't quite shake my sentiment.

>>6335531
Do you believe in a god or not? It's a dichotomy, you can't lean atheist, since being theist is an active state of belief. If you don't have a belief in god you're an agnostic atheist, no such thing as just being agnostic. I will go full linguistics autist until you people acknowledge this

>>6332989
>this is what atheists actually believe

>>6332989
>spooky ontology, starting from the false axiom that the universe must be created, and applying infinite regress to the creation of the universe but not god, without explaining why the universe can't simply be a necessary entity itself

Can you please just actually go read Aquinas , Scotus and co before you talk about the cosmological argument ? Aquinas' argument actually accepts that it is rational to believe that the universe has existed for eternal past time and works around it without any( obvious) problems, and don't try to find a summary online, go read the actual literature, with secondary texts to make sure that you get it. And then critique the arguments.

>>6332848
>Are we pretending to be christian just to be contrarian?


Yes. Yes you are. Which is sorta OK, I mean we're all contratian in some of our beliefs. But it's just that you need to accept that fact. No accepting it doesn't automatically mean that "atheists win"- it just means you demonstrate a profound understanding of the phenomenon of human belief

>>6332852
>no growth of the soil

>>6333521
>>6334105
>>6335577

More hollow bullshit from people without anything substantial to say.

>>6335347
I didn't say Christianity has contrarian motives in general, that would be absurd. However, an emerging number of atheists are roleplaying as Christians due to the backlash against early internet atheist. This isn't genuine belief.

The latter part of my post dealt mostly with fideists, which are the kind I'm most familiar with, but admittedly I'm not a survey unto myself.

>>6335609

I was talking about the argument itself as I've encountered it in modern times, not particular historical iterations of it, which I'm admittedly less familiar with (and usually don't care about). I'll take your advice into consideration, though. Other than being a theist, I find Aquinas kinda based, and his empiricist standpoint seems to relate a little because I'm a fan of Hume.

>>6335521

Don't bother, man. Atheists can't into postliberalism.

>>6332978
I voted Protestant because it was right next to Atheist and I clicked it on accident without paying attention.

>>6335162
And yet you still boast about it. Go read the Bible again, you're current faggotry will land you in hell. It's just as much about your attitude and intention than it is your actions. You people shouldn't even be arguing at all over such petty things.

>>6335371
Why are acting as if there haven't been and aren't any systems of law or government who's basis in non-religious?

>>6335371
There are plenty secular motives. A just society is desirable, so we seek it out, simple as that. To base it on divine purpose or reward just makes us do arbitrary things that help no one

>>6335371
>Once the idea of revelation has been tossed out, and thus any hope for an explicitly communicated and divinely sanctioned ethical order, how do human beings decide what to do?

We still have desires from instincts and personal experience. Sheesh, do other animals have this problem despite being irreligious? Humans inherently pursue food when hungry, rest when tired and so on. Add the complex socialization of human interaction to the mix and you have athletic, scientific and creative impulses. You're so trapped in epistemic closure you literally can't conceive of an atheist having motives.

>This is particularly difficult if we assume that human extinction is inevitable and that there are no divinely sanctioned, explicit reasons to act in any particular way.

If the facts suggest this is the case, perhaps we need to re-evaluate our priorities and goals to be more realistic, instead of the inverse.

>Why not pursue self-interest above all else, and why bother creating a more just society?

People already do this in every society, but being selfish isn't always in one's own best interest. Altruism and mutually beneficial transaction create a much more prosperous and secure environment for every individual.

>We're all doomed to oblivion, after all, and a moment will come in the future where there's no way to distinguish whether humanity (or you) acted ethically or not!

Most people generally enjoy being alive and don't want to die, or else the species wouldn't preserve itself. We live in the now, whether I cease to exist in 40 years is zero concern to my conscious mind.

>>6332848
>Are we pretending to be christian just to be contrarian?
Yes, dude, you, like, totally figured us all out; we're just constantly pretending to be Christian as an elaborate ruse. Of course nobody could claim to be a Christian unironically.

>>6335703

I'm an atheistic you fucking idiot. I'm posing a philosophical problem of extraordinary difficulty here, don't act like you can just green-text your way out of it.

If you don't understand the problem then it's your fault, not mine.

>>6332848

;)

yes.

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell


I have never owned a fedora.

>>6335835
At the risk of sounding combative, would you care to elaborate on why you think that way?

>>6334981

>you cannot marry a dog
>oy vey, bigot!

>>6335975

Why can't you marry a dog actually? They already live with us, so if you were banging your mutt, then surely it would be best to be wed, rather than fornicating outside the socially approved framework for sexual companionship?

disclaimer: I don't fuck my dog. She's ugly.

>>6335979

I agree, once "b-but we love each other" is the only requirement you absolutely should be able to marry your dog.

Good luck to you both :^)

>>6332848

There's a few useful idiots mixed in, but I'd say the ratio between sincere/trolls is very firmly on the troll side. The fact is, it's enough of a ratio that you don't know which one you're talking to at any given time, which is what makes it such a beautiful ruse.

>>6336031
*tips*
> anybody who is a Christian sincerely is an idiot

>>6336066
>anybody who is a Christian sincerely is an idiot
This has been proven scientifically. If nothing else it takes enormous leaps of logic and cognitive dissonance to fit a at the same time benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent deity in your world view.

>>6336069
a simultaneously benevolent*

>>6332848
This thread is so retarded I no longer understand who is trolling who. Is it atheists pretending to be christians pretending to be atheists trolling christians pretending to be atheists pretending to be christinas?
>This has been proven scientifically. If nothing else it takes enormous leaps of logic and cognitive dissonance to fit a at the same time benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent deity in your world view.
Shit like this is somehow captivating.

Nah, just 'cause New Atheism is so fuckin' horrible and philosophically bankrupt.

>>6336088
>This thread is so retarded I no longer understand who is trolling who.

I hereby nominate this to be the official motto of /lit/.

>>6336110
Seconded.

>>6336110
There's a grain of truth in this.

>>6332848
>we
Some are. Some aren't. I feel like I've seen an uptick in actual theological discussion about actual theological issues, so I suspect that there are more Christians here than some might realize.

>>6336110
That could very well be the motto for the whole website

>>6334962
This was one of the arguments for the celibacy put forth by the Conclave a millenium ago.

That and the pornocracy was still fresh in memory. The clergy not having families was a way to enforce secularism by cutting away questions of nepotism.

>>6335351
>it's more likely that existence is the inherent nature of physical law, nothing is a human concept
Do people put any sense into this ?

>existence
>inherent
>nature
>human (does it refer to empirical human species psychology, to a single human or to a transcendental ego ?)
>concept

It's a festival of terms so that I can give pretty much one meaning and its contrary to the sentence. Not only that, but it's "more likely". We are indeed in a "scientific perspective".

>>6336185
Honestly, anything that gets us away from the horrors of the Renaissance popes is a good thing.

The Renaissance is actually a good argument for never again electing an Italian as pope, no matter how long ago it was.

>>6336206
The popes of the Renaissance were Italian princes like others. They get trashed because people expect saints and because of mad protestants.

They are an argument for complete secularism and not the middle of the roas stuff promoted at the time. But as rulers they really are trashed too much.

The popes of the Renaissance were the number one promoters of the Renaissance. It's debatable it would even have endured without their actions. Lands that broke from the pope didn't experience Renaissance until it came through the back door long after. For instance, some kind of (expurged and lame icanoclast) gothic remained the standard architecture in protestant Europe. Netherlands were (and still are) one third Catholic and never broke relations with the Papal States, they harly fit what I describe.

People ignore the state of decadence among other Italian rulers at the time, either monarchic or republican. The Sforzas or Medici were worse than the Borgias.

>>6336110
>>6336165
It should be. But it's for this very reason I now completely reject all ideas that I happen to read on 4chan. I also avoid /pol/ now for this reason because I think that board has it the worst. So instead I read books to get information. Instead of trolling though you have to be concerned about propaganda...which is almost the same thing.

Hence the importance of critical thinking...

>>6334878

>>6335835
>I have never owned a fedora.

Dubs say you did

>>6336522

bless these dubs

I understand theism. But what's the fucking point of religion? How can you pretend to know anything about God? Hell there may be several of them for all you know.

>>6336557

I'm an atheist but I think you can know a ton of shit about god/s. Theology is a philosophical discipline, not a list of dogmas, you know.

The thing is, I think there's so many gods we can postulate and define through the logic of discourse, and I'm not talking about fedora guys pretending to understand polytheism or confronting one monotheism to another like it's a damn Pokemon battle: I'm talking about the philosophical concepts of a deity.

The immanent deity contained in the universe, the deity which personifies the universe, the personal humanist deity of he romantics, the deity of the author in literary theory and metafiction, the metaphysical "origin of motion" deity of the original theologies, the deity of a singularity (a digital singularity, for example) theorized by what we could call modern theologies....hell, I've even tried to add a few theoretical divinities to this list.

And while it would be possible to somehow synthesize all these definitions into a single notion and claim that this is as close as we'll get to describing god while attributing everything else to metaphor- it would still be an awfully clumsy definition which could hardly stand the test of logic (avoiding self-contained contrariness for example) and (for those spouting out the vague "logic cannot describe it" statement) even the test of intuition. Even the test of faith. We'd be left with an ontological mutant.

And adopting just one of these concepts is surely wrong since all of them make equal sense. Sure there are more convincing and less convincing theological theories- but there is no ultimate one.

And the view I find prevalent today: that god is a metaphor for perfection- is a paradox beyond repair by logic or intuition. There are no metaphors for perfection. That's what makes it perfect.

*tips a shitload of books*

>>6335835
*tips flebora
>muh brother

get fucked

I'd guess a lot of people on here are. I'm at the point now, though, where I know too much about science, history, and philosophy to possibly be a Christian. Atheists can be annoying, sure, but have we forgotten about Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and so on? The worst of them are far worse than your New Atheists, and the best of them are extremely nice but also extremely uneducated.

Believing vaguely in a god or gods of some sort is one thing -- I can understand that -- but actually committing yourself to a religion... well, that requires a tremendous amount of willful ignorance (or, if you're simply uneducated, ignorance).

>>6336557
>what is revelation

And no, their can't be more than one God as Christians understand him

>>6336600
why should I choose Christian god in the god catalog?

>>6336595
By the way, I've spent my entire academic career studying and writing about theology/philosophy. What I've noticed is that the more one learns about religion, the less likely one is to be religious. It seemed in my program that by the end over 90 percent of the students were irreligious.

>>6336600
>their
>literature board

>>6336595
You my friend are a retard.

>>6336605
It isn't a catalog and you aren't picking clothes you ignorant retard.

>>6336621
Actually it is. Sorry to hurt your feelings with my crude choice of words but that's what it exactly is: a bunch of gods, each with their religion, eager to convert me and I get to pick which side to convert to. Are you American by any chance?

>>6336627
Are you a dumb uneducated cunt by any who thinks he is winning an internet db8?

>>6336630
No, I simply received no religious education whatsoever because I live on a sane continent. I don't get why you're being so upset at my indecision in front of so many religions.

>>6336627

>Monotheistic religion is exactly the same as Magical and Mystical explanations of the world.

Time to put down the Dawkins bub

>>6336657
>implying I said that in any way
Time to put down the straw m8
>muh Dawkins
never read anything by him, people outside America aren't religious by default you know

>>6336664

There are three monotheistic religions, that is to say that there are three main religions that can be arrived at following Aquinas' proofs.

Since you cannot properly convert to Judaism, the main choice is between Islam and Christianity. Not the 'bunch of Gods', but two that both worship the same God, but disagree as to whether or not Jesus was the son of God and whether Mohammed received the message of God.

Your charcterisation seems to be

>well if you believe in God why not le flying spaghetti man or the Pagan Gods.

My point would be that you could have reasons for believing in one that would not apply to another.

I'm French btw so stop playing the "I'm a Euro-sophisticate" card

guarantee that 90% of the religious folk are from the Americas and 90% of the atheist/'agnostic' folk are European

>>6336775
That can't be, Europe is majority Muslim.

>>6336791
nice meme

>>6336791
>hurr I have never left my hometown in rural Missouri
fuck off

>>6336795
>meme
That's a funny way to spell "demographics."

>>6336775
Self-hating amerishit detected. We are catholics here, not dirty protestant peasants.

>>6336804
Yes, it is a joke, but it's one worth considering. Even if Muslims never become a majority in any European nation, the strength of their culture- which is tied to the strength of their faith- is bound to eventually play an outsized role in European society. It already does, to some degree. This, I think, is because most Europeans have a sort of bored, disaffected atheism, as opposed to a rigorous atheism. They have no vibrancy, no vigor- to use Nietzschean imagery. It's a weak culture these days, subject to being overwhelmed.

As much as everybody likes to shit on the New Atheists, at least theirs is a rigorous atheism. Most Europeans just don't seem to care.

>>6336775

Why do you say that? "New Atheism" originates in British Empiricism and is very much a reaction to Protestant literalism and the American Right.

In my experience people in Europe don't have the same anti-religious zeal as some Americans, they're much more likely to disbelieve whilst still having a certain residual affection for Christianity

>>6336822
>Even if Muslims never become a majority in any European nation

Thanks to America there's a 100% muslim and criminal "country" in Europe that was part of an orthodox country :)

There has not been clarity until now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFltt_16p8

>>6335521
What's the point? It just counterproductive to spend time bothering ourselves with dogmas

>>6336822

I think you're simplifying. Muslims don't come to Europe with one ready-made 'extremist' ideology. The extremism tends to occur in later generations and is largely arrived at through a search for identity and a disappointment with the post-ideoligical, individualist Europe you describe.

In many ways though Wahhabism/Salafism is just as foreign to their origins, its just that it offers absolute certainty and is the antithesis of what they dislike about the West.

>>6336829
This is true. Science trying to do religion in the form of "New Atheism" is a direct reaction to religion doing science (Creationism etc.). In Europe the prevailing attitude is one of these spheres being separated. The same goes for religion and politics.

>>6336843

The point is to achieve pluralism, dialogue and respectful coexistence with understood boundaries.

If you can't see the value of peace over conflict, you're hopeless. If you can't see how religious perspectives can contribute to peace on assumption of the four items listed, you're also hopeless.

>>6336852
All the same, they do HAVE that drive, and most Europeans don't. And I feel that drive- that thirst for ideology- is going to make Europe an uncomfortable place for the average European soon enough.

Frankly, I don't mind. Europe sort of disgusts me these days. Francis is right, it IS an old grandmother.

>>6333173
what is the agnostic doing

>>6336876

Oh, I agree, I believe that radicalism is already a massive problem, its just that I don't blame it solely on Muslims themselves

Your last point made me laugh, dumbing down of culture, erosion of traditional structures, glorification of the multiculturalist model and the end of European Social Democracy are all largely down to America or ideology directly imported from America. Although of course it is our leaders that are to blame

>>6336110
4chan is 90% trolls trolling trolls all the way down.

>>6335564
Very well. Agnostic atheist, then.

No, we're pretending just to win the raw material benefits of being members of a very popular and very powerful cult.

fucking duh.

My gf is Russian, should I convert to Russian Orthodox if I marry her?

>>6336881
Hes supposed to be on both sides of the fence. Its something people do to insult it without realizing its not actually an insult.

Its not really a serious photo though, I don't know if anyone would actually try and use that.

>>6335673

Fair enough. The versions you will find in standard Philosophy of Religion textbooks just simply fail to do any justice to the original versions of it ( which dates back to Aristotle more or less) or any the actual serious versions of the argument that makes it hold weight as a rational proof.

The issue I have with most anti-theists who think they have the rational high ground is that the kind of objections that they raise are ones that you will be heard voiced by Medieval Philosophers, who then proceeded to demolish those arguments in their works. It is not that there are no problems, it is that people simply do not investigate far enough to really be justified in critiquing the rational grounds for Christianity these days. On the side of believers, I think that the rise of Fideism is extremely problematic in that it is lazy and shows itself to be ignorant of the flaws of other non-Christian ontologies, which could easily be exploited the same way Christian mysteries are by it's opponents. What lead me to my (not quite) Christianity was doing academic philosophy and noticing that pretty much every position that one can take has flaws and contentious bits. When I studied the medieval scholastics I was quite surprised to find how well they hold up even compared to our modern analytic philosophers, faulty scientific beliefs aside. Medieval philosophy is vastly underrated, during the Middle Ages logic was mandatory in the schools and was advanced to a new peak, but after the Black Death it began to decline until Frege, and the degree of intricacy and rigor in philosophy fell and rose with that. Hell, in a certain sense the Medievals had the best Philosophical Anti-Theists, like Ockham and Buridan ( who were empiricists and very good ones at that), who would often make compelling arguments against the idea that articles of faith and reason could be reconciled. Modern Anti-Theists don't even touch this gold mine because it is too advanced for them. I'm just often amazed how people who interested in the issue of Christianity rationality manage to completely ignore it's golden age.

Aquinas is closest to Aristotle, but did deviate a fair amount. Hume's position, ironically enough, was derived from Father Malebranche,who held a very similar position to the Meideval Islamic Theologian and Philosopher Al-Ghazali, who used the same kind of arguments Hume did against the Aristotelian kind of Philosophy Thomas was into, only on Theological grounds. Hume's anti-realism about causation is foreshadowed in a Medieval revolt against what was seen as too much subversive pagan influence.

All that being said. Is part of my Christian leanings me being contrarian?

If one tries to completely erase all they know about Christianity and then think to themselves " God on a cross", I think that that image is inherently edgy. We are so conditioned to see it as "safe", but Christianity is an inherently edgy and contrarian religion in a sense.

>>6337421
Yeah, they have the best architecture

>>6337421
This might as well be you

>>6338362
Ah, gotcha.

I've heard people joke about agnostics and picking "sides" so it makes sense.

>>6337421

Only if you actually think there may be something to it outside of your girlfriend being into it.

>at church
>lean over to the person next to me during the sermon
>whisper 'greater than arrow, em, ef, double-you I trick atheists on lit by posting fedora memes and pretending to be Christian'

>>6337421
No. The woman should always convert to the religion of the man. Otherwise you will be forever symbolically cuckolded by her.

>>6333499
>Babylonian prostitutes in my thread

>>6339252
Convenient timing to check back up on this thread

I'm not religious, and she is hardly devout, it would be mainly for the ceremony. Although truth be told, I find Orthodox Christianity the best form of Christianity.

>>6339265
>Rastafarians
>They literally believe some Ethiopian was Jesus

Kill yourself

>>6339265

The only of the "saved" groups that are even close to being worthwhile is the Lutherans, and that's only because they gave us Bach.

>>6339265
Official power ranking is
Episcopal
Lutheran
Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox

way down the line you have the rest, and then in an even lower category you have the Arians (Mormons and JW's). And I'd put Rastafarians and Gnostics below that, they aren't saved.

All of them are saved (except the last two) because they fulfill the basic requirements of salvation, but a lot of them are massive heretics.

>>6339277
>I find Orthodox Christianity the best form of Christianity.

Why>?

>>6339426
I think his post says it, he cares about ceremony. Orthodox Christianity is far and away the most ceremonious denomination, it makes Catholicism look like puritanism. You ever been in an Orthodox Church? Their entire alter walls are, by protocol, covered with beautification and medieval paintings. Look at the ceiling: it will be painted to look like the vault of heaven.

You can read about the importance of aesthetics in Orthodox theology here
>http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT1.2013/Munteanu-Iconic-Theology.pdf

>>6336698

>only monotheism is the TRUE religion

lol there are thousands of religions and they are all equally stupid. A bunch of failed philosophers (ie theologians) and apologists' stale arguments won't prove a thing. There is zero evidence for the existence of any god. None. So don't act all butthurt when people don't rush to church on sunday.

>>6339450
I bet you wear a funny hat!

>>6339450
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165

But I think you're missing the point of why people on /lit/ are interested in Christianity. It's for its philosophy of life. Christianity is to be the new Lucifer, to rebel against the prevailing order of cynicism and nihilism, and affirm the unthinkable.

>>6339462
You can do similar without self-delusion. Ever read any Camus?

You went as far as to call Christianity "the new Lucifer." I don't think enslaving yourself to a set of rules and beliefs that ultimately revolve around total submission to a "higher power" really encapsulates the archetypal rebel, no matter how contrary it is to what you perceive as the prevailing philosophies.

>>6339484
You can do without Camus.

It really is, though. In today's world, where everything is "objectively subjective", Christianity is the real counter-grain to that. Just as Zizek said repressing pleasure is no longer the dominant ideology, but rather enjoyment has become the new duty. To reject this brave new world of material hedonism is to reject one's duty and rebel against neoliberalism's mastery. It is a rejection of the myth of freedom, because "freedom" as used in neoliberalism is really just about sin...and it is true we have the freedom to sin, that doesn't take any will...but do we have the freedom to not sin? well yes we do, but we don't have the willpower, for that we need the Holy Spirit, and to reject this myth of "freedom to sin" as some sort of special existential beauty of society, is questioning and undermine what society's dominant narrative...you call Christianity "self-delusion"? I call the contemporary idea of the free individual a delusion, because it is not freedom, it is an enslavement to nihilism.

>>6339501
>Fucking GROAN.

>>6339501
Nihilism is the absence of any set doctrines. It allows the freedom to create meaning and purpose for yourself, if you'll exercise that freedom. This is why I brought up Camus. On the other hand, Christianity gives you a set of rules and beliefs and requires total submission to the will of its God.

And I have to point out that nihilism really isn't as popular as you think it is. Most people believe in ethics and place value in humanity.

You don't have the willpower to not be controlled by the desire to indulge? I did a no fap month last year. No "holy spirit" involved. Christians often draw this imaginary dichotomy between being a "slave to sin" and not being a "slave to sin." It's a lie. You can seek pleasure without letting desire consume you. Christianity and addiction to what you call "sin" are both different kinds of psychological slavery. But one can commit what you call "sins" without being addicted and controlled. I have the freedom to "sin," and also the freedom not to "sin." I don't need to submit to a "higher power" for either of these things.

The fact that you think people are weak-willed on their own really says more about you than it does about others.

>reading the second half of this thread

>>6339576
I bet you're the one who wears a funny hat here! That means your opinion is wrong.

>>6339550
Submission to the will of God not only requires free will, but God's help as well, you often have to ask him to support you in your desire to submit to his will. Christianity is a choice, and a challenging one at that. To say there is more freedom to creating and changing your own rules whenever you feel like it is wrong, it will lead to constant rationalization and rules of whim and doubt. If you make the rules of God your own rules, that is freedom and takes immense will. Free will is important in Christianity, because acceptance of God's love has to be freely chosen, if it is compelled, it cannot be love.

A lot of people simply tailor their ethics to the law or the law minus some things. Ethics and morals with a concept of wrong beyond that which the law provides are getting rarer and rarer.

Like most atheists, you seem to associate sin mainly with sexuality. My denomination doesn't even consider masturbation to be a sin. Even if you considered it a sin as a facet of lust, not masturbating doesn't make you stop lusting, and in fact might aggravate it. The focus on sexuality makes you forget things like hatred, pride and greed.

People are weak willed, sin is part of our nature.

Lol I love how 2edgy&contrarian4u 4chan is.. One day you all love traps, now you hate them, you're all atheists, then you're christians, you're all either cosmopolitan libertarians or left-liberals, now you're Neo-Reactionary Christian Traditionalist Nationalists.

You'll adopt any set of beliefs that make you feel like you're the smartest in your room, and I don't even wanna go into the persecution complex.. ffs

>>6339701

This might come as a shock to you but 4chan isn't a homogeneous entity.

Crazy, I know.

>>6339586
Lol beta cucky friendzone fedora!!!!

A lot of this seems to stem from attempts at resolving cognitive dissonance, a lot of people want to avoid recognizing themselves as the "Neckbeard Fedora Autists" so they attempt to categorize them as an alternate group.. projecting a set of beliefs onto them and fashions that are very narrow, then patting themselves on the back and saying "Ahhh.. at least i'm not one of them"

It is often contradictory; Nice Guy vs. Red Piller, Male Feminist vs. MRA, Atheist vs. Christian, Leftist vs. Libertarian vs. Conservative (This is a special one)..

As long as you describe them with a narrow set of conditions you can exclude yourself, the alternative is to radicalize certain existing beliefs of yours or to apostate others, e.g. "I'm a moderate libertarian, I have some pretty progressive social views and economic views though, but they have fallen out of fasion with the crowds i associate, I have 2 options: Become full fledged Anarcho-Capitalist, or become Neo-Reactionary Fascist"

I say this as an ex-Anarcho-Capitalist..

>>6339715

>I say this as an ex-Anarcho-Capitalist..

you say this as a fukken wanker, m8

>>6339707
I know its not, first of all I wouldn't be here if it was lol.

Lit seems to be very varied so far in its views, and ironically more Politically Literate then /pol/..

Just the fact that this is an anonymous online board allows people with the most extreme of beliefs a soapbox, and it seems as though these views are amplified..

>>6339715
If neckbeards were seriously involved in a church, I think they would effectively cease to be neckbeards, since they'd be socializing an awful lot.

>>6339707
>>6339707
I know its not, first of all I wouldn't be here if it was lol.

Lit seems to be very varied so far in its views, and ironically more Politically Literate then /pol/..

Just the fact that this is an anonymous online board allows people with the most extreme of beliefs a soapbox, and it seems as though these views are amplified..

>>6339718
Could have called me an autist or a beta cuckold.. would have won the argument,

>>6339727

>still being a little dweeb

lol

>>6339722
Not a practicing christian of coourse.. a bent, distorted version of it manipulated to serve their own biases..

Well that is what most christianity is but they just owuldn't go to church :D

>>6339688
Personal rules for dealing with other people don't really need any justification other than empathy and compassion.

The "rules of God" are still something that would need to be justified; it's just that your justification is ultimately a weak "God said so." Why accept the rules of this supposed being unquestioningly? Do you really think that's freedom? You could blindly submit to any other set of doctrines to escape the intellectual burden of creating meaning and purpose for yourself as well.

I'm not particularly inclined to hatred or greed. Help is even more unnecessary with those. "Greed" can be a useful motivator for success so I don't see it as a bad thing, anyway. It just needs to be kept under the control of the will. Pride? I proudly admit to having pride. This one seems to only be considered a sin because it prevents people from submitting their will to the idea of "God." Which is roughly why I'm inclined to hold it as a virtue -- it imbues you with a will not to submit to anything, and thus a will to be truly free. This is the essence of the "Lucifer" archetype you mentioned.

The desires you fear can just as easily be resisted without "God." Look at atheistic Buddhist monks, for example. But like I said, they don't really need to be resisted; only kept under control by will.

>>6339734
I don't need to act like a tough guy on the internet. I can try to be calm here lol.. seems strange forcing yourself to adopt this 4chan mentality and personality of casual racism and mysogyny, narcissism and anti-intellectualism. We don't have anyone to impress here..

>>6339742

literally every post of yours is
>i want to leave this board but my habit of constantly lurking here and the immediacy of it has made it so hard to quit it that i now need to cognitively reframe constantly and desperately convince myself that i'm above it all despite not being able to quit it

this place has always been a toilet and it will always be a toilet just lose the habit then and stop coming here you conflicted dweeb

it is literally that simple

>>6339755
When did i say i wanted to leave or i'm above any of it bro?

I'm not conflicted, i like it, I'm just accepting it for what it is..

>>6339462
>William Lane Craig

>>6332926
great meme :^)

>there are actually people on 4chan who were convinced that Christianity, a confused and self-contradicting set of claims about reality, is 100% true, because someone else posted a picture of an ugly fat guy wearing a hat, with a fake quote edited next to it
>their logic to actually take on Christianity was that if they didn't believe in Christianity, that would somehow mean they looked like that
>they agreed with an entire worldview based on how someone looks, which isn't even a shitty argument, it might not be an argument at all
>in this worldview, not a single concept is defined in advance or consistently, if it's even defined at all. This means that they go on and on about concepts of which we're never told what they mean by it
>nothing in this worldview is actually falsifiable. This means that even if every single aspect of what they claim is demonstrated to be completely inaccurate, they would still believe it to be accurate
>and, as the cherry on the shitcake, they never have and never will present a single shred of evidence for even a single claim they make. They will endlessly avoid having to present any evidence for any claim they make. They will use every excuse under the sun to not address this, right down to denying the possibility of knowledge itself, which cuts away the branch they are sitting on
>they actually expect me to take them seriously and all the shitty pseudo-intellectuals they praise, like William Lane "there's nothing wrong with genociding Canaanites" and Peter "I'm an intellectual because I use big words that all end in -ism" Hitchens
>mfw

>>6338416
This is maybe the only post worth something on this shitty thread, congratulations.
I agree very much, Medieval Philosophy is a field very few understand in any depth, people are staggeringly ignorant of its brilliance and complexity. Even a figure like Aquinas, whom even the most anti-medievalist overview admits as valuable, is rarely given attention beyond some articles of the Summa at best. He's still considered to be some kind of a christian aristotelian, and that's about it.
Thomas is one of the most genius thinkers in history, the amount of his writing and interests is amazing. In a way he represents the whole history of philosophy as a huge, incredible synthesis, interacting with every school of thought, replying to anyone, pagan or christian, church father or heretic. His Aristotelianism is merely a starting point, a logical methodology to inherit and go beyond to consider all the implications of the Unmoved Mover in view of revelation, just to name a prominent theme.
He was wildly controversial in going against many accepted opinions in theology, always finding a way to use his own adversary's arguments to refute or synthesise with his own. I can't express the absolute genius of this bastard, other than putting him on the same pedestal as Aristotle himself.

And that's just the most well known philosopher of the middle ages, a period lasting about 12 centuries.

The only people whom I've found to have consistently good knowledge of these thinkers are Catholics, especially Dominicans. I recommend studying at a college where such people teach.

>>6341169
Pretty much this.

>>6333532

> beautiful but misleading propoganda

Would you similarly praise a delicate painting of Henry VIII that was engraved with the words "whoa, what if like, I could smash like 8 pussies instead of 1, and hang them when I'm done??? whoa...."

>>6341169
>there are actually people on 4chan who were convinced that Christianity, a confused and self-contradicting set of claims about reality, is 100% true

>>6333343

> used to spend hours each weekend at a food pantry
> eagle scout project centered entirely around fixing up the problems with my church
> used to ride the metro every day during the summer for an internship, I would pay for and have lunch with the bums on the metro once we both got off regularly
> done many other service projects in the past
> want to eventually join a religious order centered around helping the poor

:^)

> inb4 "do your goods in private or it doesn't count!!!"
> we're all anonymous here

>>6341169
>>6341564

you're out of your fucking minds

>>6341288

Are there any good essays on why he should be held in the same esteem as Aristotle? I hear people on lit prasing him like crazy but not much else. Are there any secular philosophers who have written about him?


>The only people whom I've found to have consistently good knowledge of these thinkers are Catholics, especially Dominicans. I recommend studying at a college where such people teach.

Thats a huge barrier to entry you realize.

>>6341956
It shouldn't be that hard to find a Catholic university with a philosophy program? Dunno, I'm European.

>>6338416
>it is that people simply do not investigate far enough to really be justified in critiquing the rational grounds for Christianity these days.
This. This. This. This. This.

This is honestly why I usually hate getting into discussions on this issue, because 99% of the time it's just rehashing tired old surface-level arguments that have been around for hundreds of years. The intellectual smugness of modern athiests is maddening and does nothing to help their side. The battles are fought on simple, and often emotional, grounds without either side ever even acknowledging some of the heavy philosophical groundwork that has been laid over the past centuries. Refusing to even acknowledge and address the logical arguments of the other side is just sloppy arguing.

The revival of Christianity among low-income males is just a sign of Post-modernism. It is nostalgia for a time these people were never even a part of. It's superficial and fake, much like other parts of post-modernism, but it is the time we are now living in and until the capitalist society crumbles, we will see a lot more edgy fedoras and enlightened surpreme gentlemen christians.

>>6342077
>revival of christianity
>sign of post-modernism

I honestly can't tell if this is a troll post or if you're actually that retarded.

>>6341288

G.E.M Anscombe considered herself a Thomist and she is probably the most important Female Philosopher of the 20th century. David S. Oderberg and Edward Feser are two modern ones who are very pro Aquinas.Alasdair McIntyre bases his ethics on Aquinas, he started off as a Marxist and in trying to prove his students wrong about Aquinas being a good philosopher ended up joining the pro-Aquinas camp.

I think the age of analytic rockstars before the 50's or so was a very anti Aquinas and Medieval age because of logical positivism, Russel's anti-Christian viewpoints, and a lack of realization of the limits of science and a mechanistic worldview. These days we have less in terms in philosophical rockstars, and all the biases that come with that, and are returning to something more like what the Medievalist had, just a bunch of Philosophy professors working on problems with each other over a long period of time with little more than intellectual curiosity driving them. Philosophy being discredited and unimportant in the public sphere is giving room for more honest Philosophy, and for that reason the bad anti-scholastic and anti-aristotelean biases that began in the renaissance ( often on what we can now see as insufficient grounds) are fading away.

Though I have to say, IMO Thomas is not the best of the Medievalist, as great as he is I like Duns Scotus more, but they are both great systematic and clear thinkers that fits in well with what we expect in Academic Philosophy these days.

One funny anecdote, Russel proved that all causation must actually be simultaneous causation and used that as an argument to why causation is a spook. The Medieval view was that any non simultaneous causation was only "accidental" causation and not the real deal. It's interesting how we come full circle in these issues, it is always worth checking out the history of Philosophy.

Also, I've seen a fair amount of courses which teach Aquinas at the graduate level, I will be taking a course in him next year as I finish up my Honours Thesis, so it's not like he is ignored in Academia, you just may need to look around a bit more than you would for someone like Kripke or Nietzsche.

>>6342077

This doesn't follow, Christianity( at least the good kind) is the heir of Plato and Aristotle, postmodernism is a return to the beliefs of the Sophists. The two are genuinely opposed.

>>6342131

shit, this post was meant for
>>6341956

>>6342068
What would you consider a deeper-level argument that isn't popularly discussed?

>>6333039
Well, considering that Buddhism is more or less dead among Indians, i.e. the ethnicity is originated within, and survives in China, Japan, and SE Asia, where it only spread to much later, it's hard to make the case that Buddhism is an insular religion.

>tfw taking a class on Thomas taught by a qt dominican nun who knows her shit
towel.jpg

>>6342146

The real version of Aquinas'/Aristotle's cosmological argument would be one place to start. It isn't as they say " the universe had to be created so God had to do it". This is a decent explanation of it, a bit too long and and over explained for those who know Aristotelean metaphysics well enough, but probably perfect for one with only a bit of Philosophical training. https://youtu.be/BAIHs5TJRqQ

Also the question of future contingents: If God has infallible knowledge, God knows what I will do tomorrow, so I will do it tomorrow no matter what, so my actions are predetermined and I have no free will. How do we escape this problem?

Christians should also be focusing on systematic views of science who show how physical laws are most likely not factual- but just pragmatic guidelines to manipulate phenomena. There is a strong strain of this in the modern secular Philosophy of Science. Really I place more scorn on the side of Christians who could easily demolish the new atheists if they just put some genuine effort in.

>>6332848

>Volunteer at my local Catholic Worker a few times a month.
>Planning to enter the Deaconite once I'm old enough (married so I can't do the priesthood)
>Involved with local parish's youth ministry

I ain't perfect, but i ain't pretending just to be contrarian either.

>>6342048
Yeah but changing/ going back to university seems like a huge demand for the sake of a single author.

Thank for you responding at length in >>6342131

>>6342192
pics of said qt3.16?

>>6342238
I'm just throwing it out there for people considering studying philosophy. You can learn the moderns anywhere, but serious study of medievals is another thing and lacking in academia still. I think it's hugely important so I pretty much chose the university based on it, there were ones who didn't even have medieval phil. as required classes. I can imagine the ideology.

>>6342206
Hmm. I'm reading "The Last Superstition" literally right now, so this is quite the coincidence.

I'm a former Catholic (atheist now) and for the life of me cannot see the merit in the 'potentiality' and 'actuality' concepts that invariably come up in Aristotelian and Thomistic arguments that Catholic philosophers drool over.

>>6342267
What about for people who are interested/ pursue it as a side interest/hobby, outside of just diving into the metaphysics and the Summa how should one get into it?

Why dont more Christians use Aquinas to give public athesit figures a beat down in debates?

>>6342369
because america

>>6342308

I personally find it the most common sensical and clear explanation of change there is.

If something can become something else it has the potentiality to become that thing, the food I eat has the potentiality to become nutrients when I metabolize it, not everything can become nutrients though, hence rocks, for example, lack that potentiality, and not all food will be turned to nutrients nor is food identical to nutrients, you need a digestive system to actualize that potentiality in the food so that it turns into nutrients.

It also can cover many uses of activity and change

On one hand I have the physical capacity to learn German, hence I have that potentiality.

Going further I may know German, but may be sleeping and unable to speak it, so I have that potentiality as well.

On a third sense I can be awake, and ready to speak German, but not speaking German yet, hence I have that potentiality.

In all cases something has to happen that we need to account for when the potentiality goes into actuality, just me in my state of the first potentiality cannot on it's own bring forth my speaking german, that potentiality has to be actualized by my learning German. In the 2nd sense the actuality of my coming into an awakened state must happen for me to be able to speak German. In the third sense, part of me must cause my voice to form German words, hence another actuality is in play for me to speak German.

This morning I had the potentiality to not go on 4chan today, and I had the potentiality to go on 4chan today, I went on 4chan, actualizing one potentiality and closing off another.

Aristotle was a common sense Philosopher who saw metaphysics as the most general science. The act and potency system of explanation is incredibly elegant, clear, and fits the basic metaphysics of change in a general sense better than any other that I can think of.

>>6342369
I wish this was a few years in the future when I could recommend you my advisors upcomming book on Aquinas, the guy really knows what he is talking about.

Unfortunately at some point people abandoned Scholastic Theology for more emotionally driven stuff that is more trendy and accessible, but lacked intellectual rigor.

Since you are reading Feser's book, you may want to check out his blog. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/

It is serious Philosophy, but Feser has a clear and accesible style and the blog posts are'nt too long. Guys like Feser are using Aquinas to give New Atheists beatdowns. But most Christians have given up and just stick Fideism, which is pretty lame because they really don't need to. Also anti-Catholic bias stops non Catholic's from reading Aquinas sometimes.

>>6342551

One last thing, most serious academics don't get involved in public debate because they have more fun with serious people rather than charlatans, which are 90% of public intellectuals.

>>6342551
All you're saying is that there are some things that will be but currently are not. You're just saying that there's a present and a future, but adding the suffix "-ality" to them to give them some kind of independent essence.

>This thing's future-ality requires a present-ality to cause the future-ality.

These are just word games.

>>6342710
And for the record, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and the other fathers of thermodynamics did more for explaining change in the universe than any of the metaphysicians.

They gave explanations that can actually be used to *do* things rather than talk about things.

>>6342710

No I'm saying (correctly) that for something to become something it is not, or gain a predicate that it doesn't have, that it has to have a property that allows for it to change into that thing or gain that predicate. Otherwise anything ought to be able to become anything else and anything ought to be able to gain any predicate, but that isn't the case.

>>6342744
The whole point of metaphysics is to give a description of general principles and structure of reality, physical explanations are built upon metaphysical concepts. The temporally indexed example was one example, but it doesn't cover the full extent of the concept which really is just an accurate description of change in general.

>>6342804
I'm not disputing that certain current realities are required for certain later realities. I reject the use of the -ality suffix to abstract some independent essence from what is really just a mental model of change.

This is what metaphysicians seem to do in arguing for God from this route. They abstract "present-ness" or "actu-ality" into an entity unto itself called "God" which to me merely shows that God is just a concept and not an entity independent of minds.

>>6342852

I don't think you understand the concepts.

The potential property is what determines WHAT X can turn into when Y causes X to change. If there is no such property then how do you account for the fact that I cannot become a Penguin but can become an amputee ?, or why a color can't turn into a loud noise but can turn lighter or darker? If there are no potentialities then anything should be able to become anything.

That is the argument I put forward.

Now how do you come to the conclusion that this is only a mental model of change? What are your grounds for believing this ?

Also don't bother focusing on temporally prior causes, ontological counterfactual dependence can also be used here. For example, if I had no mental functions, I could not breath, thus my mental functions actualize my respiratory systems potentiality to breath, and does so as a simultaneous cause.


As far as God goes, God is pure actuality, but so far you have given no satisfactory account of why actuality( the actual realization of a potential) is only "mental", so you have no grounds to say that god is just a concept.

>>6339722
Too bad that doesn't make Christianity true...

>>6342561
Yes but surley rising academics trying to make a name for themselves in the horrific publish or perish system would grasp this low hanging fruit.

>>6342308
What are your thoughts on it? The reviews are a tad mixed on that book.

>>6342936
You can't consider actuality and potentiality apart from the things themselves. There isn't a Platonic form of actuality that all things participate in.

These are components of a mental model, and within that model there are true and false applications of those components. But those components don't exist apart from the mental model as independent entities.

Physics has a mental model of the electron, of which one component is electric charge. But electric charge is not an essence that exists independent of any particle. It can be abstracted from the real things it's describing only within the mind.

Again, I'm not disputing that the potential energy field a certain object is in allows for only a particular future actuality. I'm disputing your apparent approach of abstracting concepts into entities independent of minds and the objects being described.

It's like you're observing that football, basketball, and baseball are all games and then positing that "game-ness" itself exists.

The burden is on *you* to show that "actuality itself" is a coherent concept, in particular the "...itself" part.

>>6344053
>The burden is on *you* to show that "actuality itself" is a coherent concept, in particular the "...itself" part.

I should clarify here.

I'm not disputing that "actuality itself" is incoherent if it's describing a *component of a conceptual model* itself. I'm arguing that it's incoherent as an entity independent of human minds.