/lit/ - Literature

There aren't any
Antitheism is infantile

>>7262623
this

and dishonest. everyone implicitly knows the existence of God

>>7262620
Just go with Hitchens book, God is Not Great, and then just read science texts.

>>7262620
God and The State - Bakunin

>>7262647
I've read excerpts of that book and it reads like american president candidate speech at times.
The axis of evil in the middle east, the russian despot who is worshiped as a god, stuff like that.
Its not a critique of religion, its an opinion peace on what is evil, and how it is connected to religion. I can compare it to the relation modern media finds between video games and violence - a killer played video games. Yes, most people do. And most people are religions, so its not hard to tie evil people to religion.

I was more looking to a practical review of it, what it has done for us, and why it should be let go of to continue forward.

>>7262620
These aren't articles "against" religion, they just try to explain rationally why religion exists.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/harvard_science_review_fall_2005.pdf

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf

http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/ReproductiveReligiosityBlume2009.pdf

http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/Blume_Barcelona_ReligiousKnowledge.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/02/religious-inherit-earth-eric-kaufmann


What you SHOULDN'T read, or just read to learn about misinformed opinions:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

>>7262634
you mean 'intuitively' there, grown-up genius?

Anti-religion books are garbage. Just become a scientist. Someone who is atheism and claims "its because im scientific" and then doesn't understand the most basic concepts of science is dumber than religionfags.

>>7262793
that misses the point.

I think op wants to bring the deconditioning from the mind virus onto himself or someone else. Or perhaps he just wants to know what to answer to another crazy "argument" from religious party. Just becoming a scientist isn't gonna cut it.

>>7262793
>>7262841
I'm the OP and I am sort of a scientist, as in I'm an engineer. I do follow the scientific method and know the basics of chemistry, biology, physics and other such uncommon common sense stuff.

The point is to see an evolutionary analysis of religion. Why it was needed, where it helped, how its outdated, and if its worth updating it or should we drop it. And I'd like to have it justified and explained with a minimum amount of calling muslims evil, christians stupid, and judging historical events and culture based on contemporary morals.

>>7262620
>People that claim atheism isn't a religion

>>7262855
>unironically believing that nothing exploded, which ultimately led to a rock being formed, where it rained and made life
wew lad

>>7262874
>unironically believing that nothing became an intelligent being of unimaginable power, which created a rock, where it created life and rested on the sabbath

>>7262874
>misunderstanding the big bang theory to argue against atheism.
>No problem believing some prophet actually was the messenger of a God.
wew lad

>>7262881
>nothing became an intelligent being

lol

I think you're a bit in over your head here

>>7262634
I would say it is the opposite. A person whose believes:
- Are based in scriptures written when everyone was like 1000 more supersticious than today.
- Changes overtime with no evidence that God it is fine with those changes just to accommodate with the times.
- Ignores how other methods for finding how the universe works have achieved more merits than the knowledge given by God.

If your religion is like this, probably you are dishonest and infantile. Maybe, you fear death and try very hard to believe in something

>>7262889
Thats the joke, moron. Your original post showed you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>7262901
>- Are based in scriptures written when everyone was like 1000 more supersticious than today.
That's false. We are vastly more superstitious today than even iron-age pagans used to be, much less the more rational iron-age Jews. Looks like you don't understand what 'superstition' really is. (Hint: believing in space aliens, or buying lo-fat food, or citing the DSM-IV, etc, etc, are all examples of superstitions.)

>>7262952
>eating good food is superstitious nonsense
>leaving your shoe outside for the shoe goblin to shine is culture

>>7262952
Yes, they are examples. But it is stupid to say we are today more supersticious. Precisely, those examples that you cite shines in our age because we are aware of how stupid they are. But you cant argue that:
-Sacrificing human (and animal) lives because some God will change his mind.
-Thinking spirits walk among the livings and can control your body if you dont protect yourself.
-Using items such as talismans can protect you.
-Eating certain kind of food are a great fault and a God will punish you for it
Are examples of people less supersticious. Today there are people which shares some of these supersititions, but you cant say we are MORE. Like actually believing everything herodotus wrote was true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx3_2lpvZKM&feature=youtu.be

>>7262623
This closes the thread ok

>>7262901
>Are based in scriptures written when everyone was like 1000 more supersticious than today.
Yeah, they didn't understand the nitty gritty mechanics of reality, but ancient people were still able to communicate poignant ideas about nature and humanity.

>Changes overtime with no evidence that God it is fine with those changes just to accommodate with the times.
Our understanding of God develops the theology sort of in the way that our understanding of nature develops the sciences. These developments don't spring out of nothing, they're almost always carefully crafted responses to the trends and ideas that did spring out of nowhere.

>Ignores how other methods for finding how the universe works have achieved more merits than the knowledge given by God.
Discovering and mapping the mechanics of reality doesn't explain why reality is intelligible and consistent in the first place. Man desperately wants to understand these abstract ideas and somehow evolution gave us the logos to do it. It's either a very convenient quirk of random particles smashing into each other or there's something more mysterious at play.

>>7262634
>everyone implicitly knows the existence of God

>>7263011
>they're almost always carefully crafted responses to the trends

Yes, its updating the outdated religion to work with the newer times. However, the God is the same. He was the same before and after, as he is absolute and perfect.
So did we do wrong before, or are we wrong now? Will we be wrong tomorrow?
Because God is God, and he is absolute, perfect, divine, everything, and yet we change the way we worship and understand him all the time. It only makes sense that we are wrong the vast majority of the time.

>>7262906
>thinking everyone that replies to your post is the same person

>>7263018
You're right that only God is perfect. Humans are always going to be wrong to some degree.

Subjectivity may be all the rage these days, but when push comes to shove, most people intuitively agree that some beliefs are more or less right than others. The subtleties of this distinction are evolving, but the core of moral living (Do not kill, Do not steal, the Golden Rule, etc.) is pretty much universal even in isolated societies. It's almost as if it's innately human.

>>7263037
>You're right that only God is perfect. Humans are always going to be wrong to some degree.

And you'll never guess who came up with the idea of God and what that means for God's perfection

>>7263037
>It's almost as if it's innately human.
Because it is, and has nothing to do with religion. Non religions people also follow these rules.

Religion evolves, because its made up. Its a superstition.

>>7263040
God is transcendental in the way that truth is. Unless you believe that objective truth doesn't exist at all, you wouldn't deny it because humans only have a limited grasp of it.

>>7263043
I don't deny that atheists intuitively believe that there is a right and wrong. The only difference is that they attribute the feeling to survival and herd instincts. This can't be the case though because sometimes the right thing to do is detrimental to one's immediate safety or the safety of their community.

>>7262906
>trying to satirically represent the viewpoint of another party
>fail
>throw tantrum

lol

>>7263037
>most people intuitively agree that some beliefs are more or less right than others.
sure, after spending billions after billions on ''educating'' the masses, generations after generations, to the ''right views'' and discarding as many ''wrong'' elements in society as possible ...

What about all the other gods that are now myths? I don't mind tha people worship God or Jesus now as i don't mind that people worshiped Thor or Ares in the past, i think it's human right to believe in anything they please and don't harm others rights, in fact, i think it's one of the things that separate men from beats, however, i don't see how today's beliefs are different from the beliefs of yore in terms of truth. People believed in those gods, nothing supernatural happened because of it, why today's religions would be any different?
I do respect your opinion if you do believe that thousands of warriors from all ages are in Valhalla though, that would be badass.

>>7263146
The problem comes if people try to force their beliefs on others, or want public services to cater to their beliefs.

Prime examples are education or gay rights, both trendy in the USA right now because of christian pressure.

>>7263146
Christians still believe that demons who called themselves 'Thor' or 'Zeus' existed, they just don't worship them. (Them or any demons in general.)

I am surprised that a seemingly well-informed board is so willing to defend the Abrahamic God as fact. Belief in God is one thing but belief in a divine, monarchical Creator is simply indefensible in the face of philosophy and scientific reality, unless any of you are living in an ancient/feudal set-up.

The only explanation for continuing is cultural inertia. I mean fuck, most of you live in a constitutional republic which has literally put men on another world. Why are you clinging onto god-king spooks we have inherited from Ancient Egypt and the near east? What do you think Nietzsche meant by "God is Dead"?

>>7263162
>The problem comes if people try to force their beliefs on others
Fully agree, last years we had a particular sad case in my country, a underage girl had a baby, which was very sick and needed a blood transfusion, since the mother was underage she didn't had permission to donate without the consent of her own mother, and the old rag didn't allowed it because "it's a sin", the baby died a few days later and the grandma wen't to jail.
>>7263186
And they don't wonder why didn't their god did anything to stop whole civilizations from worshiping demons? I mean, how many generations came before even judaism was enough of a thing to be talked about and "save these people souls"? Christ was only a thing for about 2k years.

this thread is truly reddit-tier

>>7263206
But the Earth is only six thousand years old! Its not that long.

>>7263213
lol

>>7263202
>another world
A lump of rock is not really 'another world'.
>What do you think Nietzsche meant by "God is Dead"?
He was literally insane. Who cares what he meant?

>>7263212
>hurrr 4chan is a conservative fundamental christian forum durrrrr

back to >>>/pol/

>>7263206
>And they don't wonder why didn't their god did anything to stop whole civilizations from worshiping demons?
Last time I checked, he did. Civilizations don't worship demons now, and the ones that do quickly die out from AIDS. (Continue with the 'gay rights' bullshit and you have a chance of experiencing this phenomenon first-hand.)

>>7263221

>implying

>>7263222
>this is the kind of people you discuss philosophy with

>>7263222
>continue disagreeing with me and god will give you aids

My sides landed on the Moon.

>>7263061
>God is transcendental in the way that truth is.

Yes, according to fallible humans, which makes this statement very unlikely

>Unless you believe that objective truth doesn't exist at all, you wouldn't deny it because humans only have a limited grasp of it.

You contradict yourself here. According to you, I can't deny 'objective truth' (although I think you really mean 'inerrant truths'), because of the limits of the human intellect.

If the human intellect has limits, I by default can never have objective truth, because that truth is limited by the very source that generates it, which is your own brain

>>7263233
>>7263230
guess tendency to argue against strawmen is one of those atheist virtues

>>7263218
>nitpicking
What makes your god different from ones that came before and the ones he is descended and assimilated from?

>>7263218
>a lump of rock
Is literally Earth

>>7263238
I guess producing strawmen when confronted is one of those christian virtues.

>>7263237
>Yes, according to fallible humans, which makes this statement very unlikely

If humans are fallible, then how come we know what infallibility is, or at least know it is not a human virtue?

>>7263011
Fuck yeah, I love mystery!

>>7263222

>>7263249
>then how come we know what infallibility is
Because we know God :^)

>>7263249
>If humans are fallible, then how come we know what infallibility is

We don't. At least, we can safely assume that we don't. You need to possess all possible knowledge for an infallible idea, because it would need to stand up in every possible scenario.

If you want to test this, make a prediction about tomorrow. Any prediction will do, what the weather will be like, who you'll meet, what the news will be like. I can safely assume that 99% of the predictions you'll make about tomorrow will be completely wrong.

>>7262874
>Person who hates science does so based on a misinterpretation of popsci
Lordy Lordy xD

>>7262620
What is that last one?

>>7262620
It's a bit dated and it's not for atheism or against religion per, but Joseph Campbell's Masks of God series is still interesting and should get your noggin going toward the direction of accepting the Death of God (which is not the same as "atheism") and the Death of Religion.

>>7263261
what if he studies the weather and has a very controled, tight schedule of meeting with work collegues? A lot more than 1% can be right.

>>7262653
Also this

So much euphoria in this thread.

If you're looking for intellectual engagement with atheism, basically everyone is riffing off of what Paul Ricoeur termed the masters of suspicion - Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. You can add Feuerbach to the list.

All of these guys would laugh at the contemporary neo-darwinian rationalizations that pass themselves off as empirical illumination of religious mechanism and evolution.

For contemporary scholarship you can check out J.Z. Smith. He's towing a sort of Kantian line that stems from Durkheim (religion comes from social organization) and Cassirer.

But my words will probably fall on deaf ears as I am writing in one of the shittiest pleb-tier threads I've ever seen on /lit.

>>7263304
>what if he studies the weather and has a very controled, tight schedule of meeting with work collegues?

Those are linear models of reality, and reality is non-linear.

If for instance, he makes a model of three predictions about three appointments, and the first one is going to be wrong, this won't just make the first prediction wrong, it will make all three of them instantly wrong, since the three predictions are connected to each other.

If you make mistakes in a linear model, those mistakes don't accumulate, which they do in the real world. This means that with a tight schedule, he could actually be more wrong than in a scenario with no tight schedule

>>7263261
We have a concept of infallibility, and the necessary perspective to realize we are not infallible. Where does this perspective come from?

>>7262620
Try The Miracle of Theism by whatsisname.

>>7263328
This as fuck. Theology makes one suspicious, because atheism comes from distrusting people before it comes from rational discourse

>>7263362
>Where does this perspective come from?

From our own experience, which is limited.

What you're discussing is known as the black swan problem. The simple fact is that we know what's wrong a whole lot better than what's right

>>7263369
So how can we know what is right if we only know what is wrong?

>>7263377

No, we can't know what's right with absolute certainty in the first place, we can only know what's wrong with relative certainty (at least, with more certainty than we know what's right).

If we take an ancient example, when humans first tried to make boats to fish with, and carved boats out of big logs, and tested them in the water, and the boat floated, they didn't actually know whether it would work as a boat to fish with. However, if the boat sank, they were pretty much certain that it wouldn't work.

This negative epistemology has been with us almost as long as there has been knowledge, for the simple reason that knowledge about what's wrong with something tends to be much more reliable than knowledge about what's right about something

>>7263328
>"one of the shittiest pleb-tier threads I've ever seen on /lit/"
>starts his post with euphoria meme
>continues with old is gold, new is shit meme
>at no point argues any point, just states his opinion as fact

>>7263237
Why do you assume that an intuitively understood concept like truth exists only in our brains? Are mathematical truths just an imaginary byproduct of our fallible brains too?

>>7263439
Mathematics doesnt exist outside of your brain, and all the mathematical truths are observations on how abstracts we made up act and behave according to the rules we assigned for them.

Are you trying to say that God and religion are observations of how things ought to be for us to move forward as a species? Thats an argument you can make.

>>7263425
I was responding to OP, who asked for some sources. Not interested in engaging in a really terrible debate over the ontological proof that seems to have derailed the thread.

My point is that atheism basically reached its logical conclusion in the 19th century. What people pass off as atheism these days is really a mystical discourse, a pseudo-materialist crypto-platonic form of mathematical monism that is a far, far cry from any sort of atheism. Really a new sort of scholasticism.

>>7263439
>Are mathematical truths just an imaginary byproduct of our fallible brains too?

Math is a tool by which we discover patterns. They might refer to actual patterns in nature, but the tools we use to discover them only exist in our heads. They known as inter subjective concepts. They're shared by a great number of people (pretty much everyone who knows math, although this doesn't mean that people who don't know math don't have they're own way of doing calculations), but they're not independent pieces of knowledge, although you can wonder whether completely independent knowledge is possible in the first place, I personally don't think that it is

>>7263461

>My point is that atheism basically reached its logical conclusion in the 19th century.

Can you explain this?

Are you theistic?

>>7263473
I mean that every manifestation of atheistic philosophy that has arisen since Marx et al. established a hermeneutic of suspicion has been a second hand regurgitation of stuff they already said.

Religion is a form of social control? Marx said that in the 1840's. Nietzsche expanded on that in the 70's and 80's. Religion is a projection of infantile wishes? Freud said that at the beginning of the 20th century. Religion is a reflection of social organization? Durkheim and the neo-Kantians.

It's all really interesting stuff, and well worth reading, but the popular picture we get through Hitchens, Dawkins, and the New Atheists, is that atheism is something new. It isn't, and people have really thoroughly dug into these issues and argued both sides very well, to the point where if you read the stuff you realize theism/atheism ultimately is an arbitrary choice. Enter the existentialists.

Sartre is the only honest atheist of the 20th century. He really shows what happens when you thoroughly accept that there is no God.

No I'm not a theist. But I'm certainly not an atheist. I'm not agnostic either.

>>7263502

It's all really interesting stuff, and well worth reading, but the popular picture we get through Hitchens, Dawkins, and the New Atheists, is that atheism is something new. It isn't, and people have really thoroughly dug into these issues and argued both sides very well,

ok i'm with you

>to the point where if you read the stuff you realize theism/atheism ultimately is an arbitrary choice. Enter the existentialists.

hmm

>No I'm not a theist. But I'm certainly not an atheist. I'm not agnostic either.

literally impossible. I think you're totally over-intellectualising here. I share your frustrations with this thread, but, what? These terms at their heart are about beliefs, before the political and philosophical baggage that comes with them.

>>7263502
2kool4skool: the post
you went through too many hoops and got lost in the forest, bud

>>7263535
We're all lost in the forest. Some of us just don't realize it. Bud.

>>7263543
When I rationalize, I can draw a simple graph of how I got there.
You wanted to be a rebel, so became an atheist. Then you wanted to be a rebel again, so you became an antiatheist. Then to rebel some more you pretend to be outside of the debate.

Its not even a unique thing. You will be surprised how often pseudo intellectuals try to take this position.

>>7263556
What position?

>>7263560
>No I'm not a theist. But I'm certainly not an atheist. I'm not agnostic either.

This position. It makes no sense.

>>7263568
I'm a special snowflake

>>7263568
Well, at least that is something you and I can agree upon. I consider myself a neoplatonic tantric wizard. If you want a label, use that one. But I'm certainly none of those three titles.

>>7263574
But why are we talking about me here, we're supposed to be talking about theism/atheism. My point is that it's an arbitrary choice. That's what Kierkegaard says. He was super smart.

>>7262620

Logic and Theism, by Sobel is a nice general critique of theism.
If you want to focus on criticism of ontological arguments, Graham Oppy.
If you want a discussion of cosmological arguments, try Quentin Smith.
For the problem of evil there's plenty. Rowe, Draper and so on.


And don't listen to people who say "nihilism is the only thing that can follow from atheism, bro, I read some german/frenchman and he totally gets it, bro". Actually read the relevant contemporary literature and you'll find that literally every metaethical stance is available to botht theists and atheists except for DCT, which is shit anyway.

>>7263588

Obvious correction: I meant to say that every metaethical position available to theists is also available to atheists, except for divine command theory.

>>7262620
Have you read Sam Harris or Daniel Dennet?

The Miracle of Theism by Mackie is probably the best starting point a slightly more simple but still solid book is Arguing for Athiesm by Poidevin

The closet thing to intelligent anti-theism is learning religious history. For example understanding how Yawheh originated in Canaanite religions or learning about the conflicts in early Christianity that shaped it's image.

The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions

read this OP, you might as well be consistent with your worldview and go full atheistic retard before you kill yourself after the first sight of incomodity

>>7263328

And had two of those three lived up until now (and been kept out of the world only as spectators, so as not to meddle with the result), they would have lived long enough to have seen their theories repudiated. So your appeal to the Old in order to prop yourself up as an intelligent and well-read person is bogus, because your central point, literally your central sentence-paragraph-doesn't matter. You don't, they don't get to laugh anything off. The theory to which you refer is an improvement upon the metaphors that Marx and Freud availed themselves of in their own writings. Nothing is "passed off" or a "rationalization"; it's so, and the more so, that its discovery is /especially/ empirical, running through everything. Or, please tell me some more nonsense about metanarratives or whatever word you prefer.

All that ever was, to motivate morality, was the foresight of the retaliation of one's neighbors. This became confused with the externalization of religion.

>>7262620

Go for J.L. Mackie's work.He has a book called "The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God ".

One thing I would warn against is that modern Philosophers have a bad habit of misrepresenting older authors arguments when it comes to Philosophy of Religion. So be mindful to not just assume that a critique of one version of an argument will necessarily carry on to all of them.

>>7264935
Good man.

>>7265768
see
>>7265645

>>7265768
You seem to be very pro-scholastic. Are you religious to any degree or atheist? Why?

>>7265753
You're projecting a lot here. I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with philosophy, but saying I've read Marx and Freud is hardly pretentious.

I assume its those two to whom you refer when you say their theories have been repudiated. That's really an inadmissible claim. If we're talking about Marx's economics then maybe, that's not my field. If we're talking about Freud's energetic model of the brain, then yeah, probably repudiated. But we're talking about their theories of religion here, which are for better or worse still taken very seriously by basically everyone but religious fundamentalists.

Your think contemporary Darwinian explanations of religion are empirical but they are actually wholly speculative. Your last line, for example, is, despite being an intelligent critique probably bolstered by some sort of neo-darwinian theoretical model, complete speculation. We can use darwinian theory to say "well religion probably arose because of this and that," or "language probably came about as a result of A and B." But these are not empirical facts. This is why I call it rationalization.

>>>/8gag/
leave us alone

>>7265791

I'm not a practicing Catholic. But I do believe in the Trinitarian God, find the faith more than just rationally defensible( it provides the best ontology I can conceive of), and intellectually am an adherent to Catholicism- particularly of Scholastic metaphysics.

I also think that Catholicism has been the core in the production of the greatest art, culture, political institutions, myths etc, ever. The west is doomed without it. I'm a reactionary monarchist in the tradition of de Maistre and Donoso Cortes politically, and without doubt a cultural catholic. I think that Theology is the root of political and social reality, whether positively conceived of or negatively conceived of.

I intend to get baptized once I become strong enough and knowledgeable enough to commit myself to the faith, I'm just not there yet. I have a very high standard for committing myself to a religion. But I'm far more than just sympathetic to Catholicism.

I was an atheist/anti-theist since I was 13 until 4 years ago or so when I grew out of it due to my pursuing a degree in Philosophy and realizing that all my opinions on the matter were stupid.

>>7265786
I just saw that.

>>7265872
Why Catholic and not Orthodox? Because it fostered the philosophical system you like or because it's true?

>monarchist
I expected better of you. How would you be supportive of giving one man such power? How do you choose the man?

>I think that Theology is the root of political and social reality, whether positively conceived of or negatively conceived of.

Explain what you mean here

>>7265872
>I also think that Catholicism has been the core in the production of the greatest art, culture, political institutions, myths etc, ever. The west is doomed without it

So you believe in good and evil? How do you even support such a stance?

The high brow, analytical position is to recognize this debate doesn't remotely matter

>>7265885
>Why Catholic and not Orthodox?
because the Orthodox have been whipped forever by the secular arm

>>7265904
and to add, have been pretty unorthodox to give justice to their name

>>7265885

I don't have enough experience with Orthodoxy to say.This is one reason why I'm not fully Catholic yet

Because absolute monarchy is mostly a fantasy. Throughout history monarchs have been bound to religious and social custom to some degree. Most monarchies were incredibly decentralized and allowed for allot of local autonomy, because they had inherent legitimacy and hence did not need to be totalitarian in their rule so to maintain order, unlike with democratic nations.

Monarchy is the proper system of government because

A. There is no competition for power, so the monarch doesn't have to waste his time flattering the masses at the lowest common denominator and selling out to merchants so to win elections, he has legitimacy regardless of the political spectacle and thus won't be spending all his time and effort on trying to gain it and maintain it. Instead he can do useful things with his power. At the same time if he disturbs the general order of custom or becomes immoral and denies the truths of the Catholic faith, then there will be an uprising against him. Monarchies are naturally unstable, and are much easier to over through than nation states once they have become corrupt.

B. When someone comes into office for a short amount of time they are going to simply exploit that office for as much as they can while putting the least into it as they can, since it is transitory to them. Kings are hereditary and are passing on their kingdoms to their sons, and hence want to make something good to pass down the family line. This means they will invest more into their kingdoms. Patriarchal catholic social ethics are integral for this factor.

C. The masses never actually rule themselves. There is always sovereignty, a legal order cannot cover every possible position and individual leaders will always need to make decisions outside of the bounds of the written law ( not necessarily against it, but unspecified by it). When the ruler and the ruled are identified as one and the same then the rulers can simply claim that abuses were "the will of the people" and deflect responsibility. This is the same with parliaments and large governments- decisions will always be made by individuals and the ruled will always have rulers ( direct democracy is a fantasy outside of small communes). Monarchy is transparent about this dynamic, and it protects the people from abuses. Just look at the worst crimes of the 20th century, all committed for "the people" in some sense or another. All non totalitarian democracies are just tools for mercantile exploitation, since democracy runs by the law of quantity over quality, it always fosters an environment where money becomes the law over religion and custom.

It doesn't matter who is Monarch, a mediocre king is better than a demi-god president or a parliament of angels, because of the way the different political offices work.

1/2

>>7266037

I understand that Monarchy has flaws, but it is simply the best we have.

Now as far as how Theology and Politics intersects.

The sovereignty of the king is an analogue of the sovereignty of God as the most primary being. Just as liberals want to dissolve political sovereignty into constitutions and parliamentary processes they want to dissolve the reality of our world's contingency into a self sufficient system of inherent "laws" ( "the laws of reason" " the laws of nature" and all that enlightenment swill). Apart from God and from Sovereignty.

Consider Marxism. Marxism claims that at one point man was himself, rational and free, but through the introduction of capitalism we fell, now by acting so to achieve communism we can differentiate from this fallen state and return to our origins. This is just a materialization of the Catholic doctrine of the fall of man. Once man was united with God, he fell into separation from God , and now by focusing on God and achieving heaven he can return to his origins from his fallen state.

As Carl Schmitt pointed out, all modern political concepts are politicized theological concepts first and foremost. As Cortes pointed out, there is nothing beyond Catholicism in the west, only degrees of inversions and errors rooted in it on one side, and those who understand its reality on the other.

>>7265888

Evil is a non-thing, this is the standard Catholic position since at lest Augustine. Evil is just a privation of goodness, a hole where something else should be. This is rational as well. The reason why we don't call a dog who tortures a cat evil, but call a man who does evil, is because we see something missing in the man that should be there, unlike in the dog.

A dualistic conception of good and evil is Manichean and both Augustine and Aquinas spilled allot of ink refuting that heresy. There is only God and Creatures insofar as they are created and sustained by God and through God.

2/2

>>7266113
How do you decide what is "good"?
What people call it is subjective.

>>7266037
What do you think of WOLFSHIEM from the catholic generals on /pol/?

>>7265839

I am very happy that

1) you have thoughtfully and comprehensively replied to my post in a civil fashion (which is how I know that you've actually read and understood it),

2) you kinda-sorta wanted to defend your Old guys, then in the very same paragraph, immediately backed off of actually doing so because you sense that you are cornered on this point, even pretty-much conceding the point(s) (okay they're kinda-repuddidated on xyz),

3) You /expressly recognize the truth of my central point in your own reply/,

4) you have /qualified/ yourself to me by explaining your usage of the word 'rationalization',

5) you have confused your own understanding of "empirical", "empiricism", etc by whatever means, to the point of nonsense.

I am very happy to have had this exchange with you.

CONCLUSION: my opponent >>7265839 in the debate >>7265753 >>7265839 /has conceded in his own language/ my central point: that morality only ever came from knowing not to fuck with other humans, thereby negating his own thing about "Marx etc would laff at u guise no subtlety or big words wtf". This is not "speculative", it is EMPIRICAL on almost every level, in the senses that a) short of mental illness, humans learn not to do this as children lest they can handle the consequences, b) the historical corpus of written record variously codifies the rule "don't fuck with other humans unless u can handle it breh", and c) I actually did have a third point but I'm just too pleased to have won a "substantive retard-fight" argument so easily.

I therefore declare victory, and that is why you SHOULD vote FOR my thing, and NOT for that guy's thing. Thank you.

>>7266113
>Marxism claims that at one point man was himself, rational and free, but through the introduction of capitalism we fell, now by acting so to achieve communism we can differentiate from this fallen state and return to our origins.

No, that's not the case at all

>all modern political concepts are politicized theological concepts first and foremost

This is an absurd proposition, especially if you're arguing for Catholic theological concepts being the backbone of western political thought, considering how they are pre-dated by many other concepts

>>7262967
>leaving your shoe outside for the shoe goblin to shine is culture

It is. Culture is literally any repeated behavior or imagery particular to people in a certain area. I don't see why people on 4chan act like all culture has to be "high culture".

>>7266037
>democracy and the democratic process aren't self legitimizing
>there is no jockeying for power in a monarchy
>Kings will easily and painlessly pass down the mantle to their sons
>government plans for elected officials do not exist
>rule of the people is the reason for rampant materialism
>a bad monarch is better than a good president

Jesus fuck, what the hell am I reading. I think I may have become slightly dumber by reading through this post. I always knew monarchists were dumb an lacked in perspective, but damn

>>7266270
Also they fail to realize that Fascism accomplishes all of the same goals with fewer weaknesses. For instance a Fascist government can pass the mantle down much easier and with less infighting.

>>7266270

Green text statements without any actual argument and some ad hominems don't make for a very good case on your side. Though yes, I will admit there can be jockeying for power in Monarchies, it is a far more prevalent problem in Democracy though since that aspect defines the process, where it is minimized by Monarchies since they have longer periods without any need for it.

>>7266207

All "modern" concepts, as in concepts that came about in modernity, are rooted in Catholic Theology ultimately. Though considering that Catholicism is just the good parts of Greco-Roman, Germanic, and Hebrew beliefs and culture unified and perfected, most of those other foundations that predate Catholicism are also tied up with it.

My interpretation of Marxism is one I got from Althusser, my reading of Marx, and several conservative authors. What is wrong with it ?

>>7266172

Anything that shares in God's existence is good. Literally everything that is something is good. God only creates good things. Evil is just a negation, non-being, nothingness and lack considered as something.

>>7266181

Wolfsheim is cool, he amalgamated some of my posts for a Thomas infogram which was nice.

>>7266330

Fascism is just democracy with added testosterone. It still gains pseudo-legitimacy from populism and is ultimately based on materialistic brutality. It also justifies its abuses by claiming to represent the "will of the people" " the nation" or other abstractions. Fascist governments cant even last for more than half a century because they are so volatile. I was a fascist for a few years, so I get the appeal. But fascism's only good parts are those that it borrows from monarchy.

>>7266349
Marx's idea of historical dialectic wasn't some sort tabula rasa, free from taint human being that was "corrupted" by capitalism, history was instead a series of dialectics evidenced by evolving means and methods of production, as well as their ownership and sharing structures

All according to Mandel, my reading of the Capital, and what my Marxist professor spent a semester drilling into our soft little skulls

>All "modern" concepts, as in concepts that came about in modernity, are rooted in Catholic Theology ultimately.

The concept of public patronage, so en vogue in Renaissance Italy was copied wholesale from the Roman model. Why would you ascribe to Catholicism something that can be directly traced much further back? That just seems circuitous and a bit disingenuous

>>7266349
>Green text statements without any actual argument

There is no argument to be made. I'm flat out stating, truthfully, that pretty much all your premises for why a monarchy is better than a democracy are false. You keep entertaining some absurdly infantile notions, get used to getting called out on them

>>7266392
>that pretty much all your premises for why a monarchy is better than a democracy are false.
you just asserted they were, you didnt say why they were false. There's this thing called argument btw, it's pretty useful ;)

>>7266349
>Anything that shares in God's existence is good. Literally everything that is something is good. God only creates good things.
Why?
How do you know this is true?
This just seems like circular reasoning or flat out arbitrary claims

>>7266406
There's this thing called a fact, it's a bit of an anathema to monarchist idiots, but it might of you some good to look it up ;^)

>>7266419
>baseless rhetoric now counts as fact and should be taken as dogma
oh wow, im sorry then, i get it now :^)
>>7266413
>How do you know this is true?
there's this thing called fact...you know ;)

>>7266381

Yes by Capital Marx had abandoned this mythology, but it lived on in Marxism as a movement. It is something that Althusser was reacting against, how the proper understanding of dialectic that comes from late Marxism was being thrown aside for Marx's early political theology.

If public patronage was just copied from Rome then how is it modern ? Cortes' idea was simply that everything new that came after Catholicism either affirmed it, inverted it, or negated it. I think the qualified sense in that Catholicism is Roman also helps to explain the unity, but it isn't needed. Maybe there are some good counter example "all" statements rarely work out without some extra qualification, but i do think the Cortes was at least correct when it came to major movements like Liberalism and Socialism ( the ones he focused on).


>>7266392

Ok, well there is'nt anywhere to go if you are only willing to say that I am wrong without offering anything that we can discuss further on the issue. I have to say though, usually excessive hostility mixed with dismissiveness is a sign that the person doesn't actually have much to back up their views with and is lashing out because of it. So just as you take me to be an infantile idiot I am taking to be an insecure idiot. We can leave it at that.

>>7266413

"Goodness" and "being of God" are being treated as synonymous here. If you talk about something else and call it "good" then we are talking about different things.

>>7266349
Compared to theology how much time have you invested reading about politics and history? Which primary works influenced your opinions?

How can you maintain such idealism with your scholastic logic?

>>7266490

I started Philosophy with Political Philosophy, Sociology, and European History, and then moved on to Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion after that. I've worked on both in an academic setting, but I focus on Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion over Political Philosophy these days. I've done more intensive work on Metaphysics, but I have a longer experience with Political Philosophy.

Joseph de Maistre and Carl Schmitt are my biggest influences politically. But I also enjoy MacIntyre, Erik-Leddhin Kuenhelt ( not sure of the spelling on that one), Alain de Benoist, Aristotle and Plato of course, Nietzsche, Donoso Cortes, Rene Guenon, and even some Evola.

I fail to see how I'm idealistic. I get that Monarchy has flaws and works out horribly sometimes. I just know that those flaws are preferable to the flaws that come without Monarchy protecting against them.

I don't see why one would be surprised that one who has rejected modern errors in philosophy and theology and would hold on to modern errors involving politics. My noticing that de Maistre and Schmitt were far more rigorous and logical than their opponents lead to me to take note of Scholasticism in the first place. There is no contradiction here.

>>7266489
Why are they good? It seems like you're changing the definition now. The good depends on the will to label. If it isn't the case, we're not at the point scientifically to judge any kind of true human good.

Now if there was a true human good (good acts) how is it "of God". Aren't good acts the same as bad acts in that they have no real existence?

If what exists is of God and has real existence how can we objectively understand (without making a value judgement) that real existence is "good" simply by being of God?

>>7262952
This might be the most infantile thing I've ever read here, and I've been browsing 4chan since 2001.

>>7266530
>I fail to see how I'm idealistic. I get that Monarchy has flaws and works out horribly sometimes. I just know that those flaws are preferable to the flaws that come without Monarchy protecting against them.

Because it is being analysised separately from the conditions that allowed it to flourish and without reference to just how it could be achieved in a way that wouldnt comprimise its goals.

Kind of like someone who wanted an anarchist society and used Catalonian Spain or the free territory as models.

>>7266535

You aren't getting it. The terms are synonymous, there is no extra property of "goodness" that " being of God" needs to be unified with or is unified with in any way, you can literally replace either one with the other in any sentence ( with the wording changed around a but to accommodate) and come to the exact same meaning. You are adding on this neutral conception of "Good" that Catholics don't have.

>The good depends on the will to label.

> If it isn't the case, we're not at the point scientifically to judge any kind of true human good.

I don't see what you are getting at here...

> Aren't good acts the same as bad acts in that they have no real existence?

How can an act have no existence ? A "bad act" is just an act that lacks something that should be there. For example, say you are Thomist and you believe for teleological reasons that sex not for the sake of procreation misses out of the teleological end that should be there. Therefore there is something missing in the sex when it is not done for procreation, and it is a "bad act". If you want to dispute teleology, there is another thread up where we are dealing with that issue.

>>7266574

I never said that I thought an old school Monarchy could spring up tomorrow in my country. Nor did I claim that we can ignore things outside the institution that contribute to how it has worked, or the challenges that new technological and sociological aspects of the western world would bring. People asked me why I support Catholicism and my political beliefs are one of the reasons, so I mentioned them in passing and gave some of the more fundamental arguments for it as opposed to getting into historical details and the like ( since these seem clearly secondary, maybe you are more of a historicist than I am). I can think that Monarchism is the best political position without thinking that we are anywhere near being in a state to realize it, or for it to work. I don't want Justin Trudeau to become the King of Canada tomorrow ( Though I do wish HM could be a bit less decorative, that's for sure).

>>7266615
>I don't see what you are getting at here...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good

1. To be desired or approved of:
2. Pleasing and welcome:
3. Showing approval:
4. Having the required qualities; of a high standard:
5. Skilled at doing or dealing with a specified thing:
6. Healthy, strong, or well:

There are more but you can get the picture. These things either don't apply to some things in reality or are based on willful value judgements which are subjective.

Now, say, there is an innate morality or thing that benefits all people objectively - "the good". We are not at the place in our research to properly define that yet so you have no leg to stand on to assert there is one and define it.

>A "bad act" is just an act that lacks something that should be there.
So morality is just fulfilling teleological ends properly?

>>7266653
>I can think that Monarchism is the best political position without thinking that we are anywhere near being in a state to realize it, or for it to work.

What is that state and how attainable is it? Because it seems reasonable that when a person says they think a political system is best this issue must be in mind if they wish not to be utopian

>>7266615
Found the teleological thread by the way. Just posted a response >>7266726

>>7266685

I don't see large nation states ever allowing real Monarchy to spring up again. State power is too immense and totalitarian to allow for any meaningful change. We are in an ideal system for career politicians and the mercantile class, they also control most media and have their values taught in state education. The only possibility would be for most of the worlds large states to break up into smaller city states or even communes. From there we could start to develop monarchies based on small independent communities who happen to have exceptional individuals who can act as a patriarchal figure, who can command and respect over his small group of subjects in a familial kind of sense. From a situation like that we could perhaps go back to Monarchy. If many of the larger states fell apart catastrophically old Royal families could perhaps take advantage of the situation and act as a point of stability( think something analogous to Hobbes Leviathan situation), but generally we would probably want new blood. All Monarchical lines start somewhere obscure, it is generally by chance, skill, and perhaps something of providence that brings them about.

>>7266662

I don't see any reason why my concept "good" has to fit in with a random list of ways people like to use the word. Though interestingly enough

>4. Having the required qualities; of a high standard:
>5. Skilled at doing or dealing with a specified thing:

Are both Teleologically oriented,and seems to fit what I am suggesting. 4 required an end to to determine the "required qualities" and 5 requires an end to be skilled at doing. As MacIntyre points out in "After Virtue"( he has a great defense of this) we can say that a farmer is good insofar as we assign a function to the farmer, that he has to wield crops

Something is "good" insofar as it is created by God, but by fulfilling the teleological end set by God there is more "of God" in that thing, and thus more "good" since God sets the teleological ends.

Likewise 1 seems to fit the Thomistic idea of teleology since we can only desire real things, and anything real is "of God"- it is only our lack of stopping at an incomplete point that is bad. Sex requires consent, the sex part of the rape is not bad, but the lacking of consent in it is bad- when we desire the rape we are only desiring the sex, the real part, but incompletely so since we dont care about the consent part that is supposed to be included. So our desires are good insofar as they correspond to real things, but we can still falter in our desires.

2 and 6 sound like properties of God to me. He is supposed to be the greatest being and benevolent so he would be pleasing and welcome. And God is omnipotent so he would be healthy, strong and well in the most absolute sense.

>So morality is just fulfilling teleological ends properly?

If we want a rational morality then probably. Though I lean a little bit more on Divine Command Theory than Thomas Aristotle, and MacIntyre.

>>7262620

I'm not really sure what you're looking for, as far as high-brow goes, most if not all of the most influential atheists or theo-critics have been Ivy-educated scholars. Don't commit the fallacy of conflating popularity with low-browishness.

If you're looking for something more sophisticated, i.e. something that's not a complete denunciation and repudiation of religion, I would recommend Jon Haidt's "The Righteous Mind", wherein he posits some evolutionary explanations as to why religiosity is innate and evolved while detailing where he finds the new atheists (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and to some extent Hitchens) are wrong. Things like hyperactive agency and group binding.

I'd also recommend Nicholas Wade's "The Faith Instinct".