/lit/ - Literature

>>8942620
>books by fedora tippers
The bible.

You don't fool anyone, hat tipper.

>>8942625
This honestly. You already know enough of the enemy by reading the bible. His name is Satan.

>>8942620
The essential core of atheist literature is unironically the bible.

>>8942620
they arent our enemies

they are misguided children of God and we need to show them the right path, not call them names IMO

>>8942620
>b-but ur a fedora tipper!!!!!! heres a picture of a fat man with a fedora
>argument disproven

>>8942625
if you really want to know, I'm not even joking-- go to reddit. Also, anything by protestants would be considered a good *start*, since they ran such a massive chunk of christianity into the ground and so many made so many stupid claims that caused people to renounce Christianity in the 20/21st century. Most atheists were raised baptist, Catholics are too intelligent to wholly dismiss God without consideration. So start there.

>>8942625
>>8942634
>>8942642
Am reading the bible, currently on book of chronicles.

so books like god delusion, aren't worthwile?

>>8942659
Oops didnt mean to reply to butterfly. But yeah Reddit and hang out with lapsed protestants, they'll fill you in on all kinds of stupid shit
>>8942656
plz go to r/atheism you are not welcome here :/

>>8942660
>Dawkins
fucking kek, just read the prominent existentialists and other Continentalists.

>no reason to believe in god whatsoever in a world where the influence of religion in culture is almost nonexistent and there's no actual evidence of god beyond your own delusion
>lel look at these fedora tipppers xDDD
you retards are the definition of regressive idiots

>>8942671
>no evidence of god

haha

>>8942674
give me some evidence then

In my view, saying that god doesn't exist is the same as saying that Santa or any other mystical creature you could imagine doesn't exist

On The Nature of Things by Lucretius
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

>>8942671
>no reason to believe in god
"atheism is the human default setting" is the most intellectually lazy shield of unfalsifiable nonsense to hide behind.

>>8942696
It's true but reductive. Human beings will always be given to mystical beliefs in an essential unfathomable world, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to believe in the same god as you

>>8942682
i can't give you evidence, just as if you asked me to prove that fire existed i couldn't just give you fire. that is beyond my power as a man. you must turn to god if you want evidence of god.

and like if you wanted visual evidence, you would not keep your eyes closed and say, 'i cannot see the evidence, thus it does not exist!' nor if you wanted aural evidence, you would keep your ears close.

the way to perceive the evidence of god is with your spirit, in your heart. you must open your heart as you would open your eyes or ears, and you must receive the holy spirit with your spirit!

only then can you be convinced of his existence.

god is real!

>>8942671
evidence would defeat the purpose

the whole point is faith you fucking clueless 15 year old edgelord

>>8942620
Spinoza and Hegel (on one reading, calm yourself)

>>8942724
>>8942726
So basically I need to believe in god to be convinced of god

In this case, there's absolutely no reason for me to not consider god a real "thing" and not a psychological coping mechanism, and even if I could become a mystic I would have no real reason to believe in Christianity

>>8942741
prove it's a psychological coping mechanism. give me evidence

>Fedora tippers = Christians/lapsed catholics/agnostics/trolls with folders full of unattractive people wearing trilbys

>Atheists = People who don't believe in a creator/afterlife/immortal soul

>/lit/ = A board dedicated to the discussion of literature that has a large contingent of Christians/lapsed catholics/agnostics/trolls who try to goad any non-believers into asinine debates.

Try to resist and just report these kinds of things. If OP were serious, he'd find the books he was interested in easily.

>>8942720
>mystical
>unfathomable
do you not see the contortionism in your argument?

my point is that belief in intention behind the universe and belief that there is no intention behind the universe takes conviction either way. there is no 'default setting' for belief, both must be processed logically to formulate a conclusion not inherent in human consciousness. Neither goes "against the grain" of humanity.
It's a fork in the road and a path must be chosen(or refused) but either one is not more a part of the "original" path of oblivion than the other. Both are measured and weighed and CHOSEN, the answer is not given to you. anyone who has "proof" of either is frankly full of shit

>>8942741
Neither is there evidence that the Universe, and our place in it, is a random coincidence of events. That takes just as much if not more mental gymnastics to reach, than believing in God.

Stop acting like you have all the answers, its incredibly arrogant, have some humility.

I truly hope you find peace and Christ, God bless you and Merry Christmas.

>>8942762
Bad argument. Considering god to be a psychological coping mechanism is a consistent theory considering gods and religions have varied so wildly in human history and considering how believers use such circular logic (accept god and you will know the truth etc).
>>8942775
Belief and non-belief aren't really the same. I hold as much conviction that god doesn't exist as I hold that Santa or the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. It's there, but it's not a worldview or at the forefront of my mind, so it's not as much of a "choice" as your affirmation against everything of Christianity is.

>>8942774
lapsed catholics usually do something more interesting. if you look at major tippers like Dawkins and Hitchens, they were all raised Protestant. this is a thing.

>>8942774
fuck off tripfag fedora wielder

>>8942774
>Theists are fedora tippers
>Atheists are fedora tippers
can we just stop arguing about who wears what kind of hat because it's just a bunch of straw manning at this point it's not even fun anymore.
but atheists are definitely the trilby tappers here

>>8942724
>there's no evidence for a God
>haha! ignorant atheist!
>well okay give me evidence then
>I can't

What did he mean by this?

>>8942788
I never said that the universe is a random coincidence of events. Not believing in one worldview doesn't imply that I believe in the opposite.

Also it's very presumptive to jump from "there is a universal order" to "this 2000 year old religion is the ultimate truth of everything and if you don't agree you're a fedora tipper"

>>8942775
The default setting would be neutral/agnostic - "I don't now whether there is or is not a god". Then you'd have to look at the claims made by adherents, and test them against observable reality to see if they look plausible. That's how the scientific method works - currently, there isn't any way to prove or disprove "there is a god of some description", so full-on atheism seems a bit shortsighted to me, but equally none of the existing religions (with the exception of Eastern mysticism that doesn't posit any deities to begin with) have backed up their holy texts' claims either.

>>8942762
Not him, but:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16938037/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1088868309351165

>>8942800
it says it right there in the post my friend

>>8942620
God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Read it closely, he's more continental than analytic

>>8942789
and a blind man could not be convinced that light exists because he hasn't seen it with his own eyes

>>8942789
>I hold as much conviction that god doesn't exist as I hold that Santa or the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
you're definition of "god" is, for lack of a better word, a meme. you didn't work the sum out yourself, you picked up the nearest belief to refute. If you defined the "god" by which you found your logic I wouldn't believe in "him" either.
>it's not as much of a "choice" as your affirmation against everything of Christianity is.
my point exactly. Your beliefs(or lack of) are structured to be combative, to play a pre-established field with pre-established rules but there's no real truth to be found there, just identifying untruths

>>8942819
how does this prove it is not god?

>>8942620

>>8942837
Someone who was born blind and could never see? Sure.
>>8942845
>you're definition of "god" is, for lack of a better word, a meme. you didn't work the sum out yourself, you picked up the nearest belief to refute. If you defined the "god" by which you found your logic I wouldn't believe in "him" either.
>my point exactly. Your beliefs(or lack of) are structured to be combative, to play a pre-established field with pre-established rules but there's no real truth to be found there, just identifying untruths
In what way? Unless you want to go into "dude god is unprovable by definition" I have no reason to believe in god. Obviously this leaves me in a state of uncertainty about the world, but it's better than believing in lies. Your issue is that you think everybody needs and overarching theory of things much bigger and irrelevant to themselves.

There isn't, atheists don't need anything to help solidify their beliefs.

>>8942861
OP here, I don't know if this one is exactly the type, but I love "biblical" novels like paradise lost, divine comedy, faust, screwtape letters..gonna add this to the list

>>8942862
>Unless you want to go into "dude god is unprovable by definition" I have no reason to believe in god.
that's exactly what I want to go into.
i'm not a Christian, personally I don't even believe in "belief" so much as "tendency", but the god-concept is not utilitarian, nor is it accessible by reductionism, but either way it is either actual or not and that is very real, if not the only real truth, and if a god-mechanism were actual then it does grant some legitimacy to those who claim it is.
>Your issue is that you think everybody needs and overarching theory of things much bigger and irrelevant to themselves
I don't think that, but I do think that by claiming there is no overarching theory you are establishing your own overarching theory.

>atheism is the default human setting
how do you go through life without never having encountered anthropology, psychology, philosophy or art?

>>8942620
Ironically, the reluctant Christian existentialists like Pascal and Kierkegaard (hell, even St. Augustine) understand atheists far better than any atheist ever could.

Or maybe not so ironically. In one of G.K. Chesterton's books (not going to go look up which one, sorry f.a.m) he mentions how, when Jesus felt forsaken by the Father, He in a way became the God of atheists as well. :'(

Here are two good short reads if you're interested:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~sabar/enc3311/Why%20I%20Am%20Not%20A%20Christian%20-%20Bertrand%20Russell.pdf

http://symbiosiscollege.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/THE-NECESSITY-OF-ATHEISM.pdf

Christopher Hitchens also wrote an anthology of atheist essays called "The Portable Atheist," which might be useful if you want a broad survey.

>>8942865
Yeah, right. I had that feeling when I was a young atheist.

>became an atheist on my on
>thought it was the absolute truth so didn't had to read anything about theology or atheism
>shamelessly implied my reasoning/logical thinking/ideas were superior to those of great philosophers and theists
>realized all my questions and doubts about theology were already answered centuries ago by aquinas and augustine

glad I took my head out of my anus and started reading, special thanks to dante, who MADE me study philosophy and theology after reading the comedy

>>8942950
thanks, those are in my reading list

>>8942959
thanks, will check those

>>8942642
>>8942625
*tips fedora*

right on m'sirs! I'm crossposting this to /r/atheism as we speak

>le christcuck contrarian thread
fuck off trinishits, accept the reason pill

Holy shit, someone sure did stir the neckbeard atheists in this thread the wrong way

Hume probably

>>8942979
I did all that too, but he's right: being atheist doesn't require a goddamn thing. No reading, no justification, nothing. Just as we all go through life not being Hindu or Jewish or Asatru or Muslim or whatever without having to do fucking research on them in order to be sure we don't believe in them. If religious people can be massively ignorant of their own faiths (and most seem to be) atheists certainly have no obligation to bother about it. I love Dante, Eliot, Charles Williams, Lewis, Chesterton, etc., but my own beliefs are not connected to appreciating their art.

>>8943002
yes, we get it, your mother didn't love you as a child and now you're a 22 year old basement dwelling virgin who has never kissed a girl before.

>>8942918
this is just word games
>>8943003
>everyone who disagrees with me is le neckbeard meme
I guess Christcucks overuse the fedora meme because they can't actually give convincing arguments in the same way liberals spam "lel virgin /pol/ shitter" when they get BTFO by a conservative

>>8943027
actually im 21

>>8943027
not him, but I find it hilarious that people like you post this kind of shit and think you're making any kind of impact on them whatsoever

>>8942979
All this means is that you're easily influenced and not very good at critically thinking about things you read. Pure ideology etc

>>8943027
Do you really think Jesus would approve of your behavior, anon?

>>8942950
>Or maybe not so ironically. In one of G.K. Chesterton's books (not going to go look up which one, sorry f.a.m) he mentions how, when Jesus felt forsaken by the Father, He in a way became the God of atheists as well. :'(
G.K. Chesterton should read Psalm 22.

>>8942642
This. All atheist arguments essentially boil down to shit like "HURR IF GOD IS MERCIFUL THEN WHY DO CHILDREN GET CANCER?"

>>8943046
really? as I said, I turned to atheism on my on, not influenced by anyone, and alone, I went after plato, aristotle, cs lewis, augustine...and after reading it I just couldn't see another way around if not for christianism, thats calling evolving.

And just as you shouldn't be influenced easily by anyone, you should not ignore what great thinkers have said

>>8942950
Atheists aren't "forsaken" by anything, and they don't need any gods. Nor are kids who were "raised religious, went through a stage of doubt or denial, and then wound up being their parents again" real atheists: people raised in atheist households from birth who don't see anything worthy of worship, never did, and have no particular concerns about the afterlife or higher powers. It's astounding how difficult it is to convey such a basic concept to people who can't imagine a total lack of religion. It's not a sophisticated philosophical debate: the fairy tales don't convince us because we weren't indoctrinated at a young enough age, that's all.

>>8943118
I did the same thing you did but remained an Atheist. None of those philosophers are convincing, albeit I still like reading them.

>>8943118
Why the fuck not? You were never an atheist. You were raised with faith, hit doubt, struggled to reconcile it, found your justification, and returned to faith. It's the usual arc for intelligent theists. But as I said a moment ago, it has nothing to do with actual atheism. You don't need to study all the great thinkers of each faith to cross them off your probability checklist. You went after thinkers who were speaking of some versions of your childhood faith hoping for evidence to let you return to it. You didn't study great Taoist, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., writers, because you have not the slightest concern about their beliefs: you were never programmed with them.

>>8943137
>>8943118
just clarifying, I did not mean that reading and turning to religion is evolving, what I meant is that putting your head out and reading something unfamiliar is evolving, and that consequently, a change of views/beliefs is possible to happen. if it doesn't change, regardless of the topic, i think that simply the fact of going after the knowledge yourself instead of just taking what people tell you is already great

>>8943125
I converted as an adult. So claiming being raised atheist is something permanent, is a bit silly.

That dude who is atheist here in Latinamerica

>>8943115
Atheist arguments are stereotypical because the flaws with mosy religions have been evident since the dawn of said religions. By the same logic, the arguments of the religious are equally uninventive.

Besides, atheism is the lack of belief in a claim, it really needs no standing argument.

Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Sartre

https://youtu.be/yqAYiaTM67w?t=17m6s

>>8943181
Then you fell from a point of stability into a pit that religion dug you out of in lieu of self-determination.

>>8943154
I wouldn't say it was a 'moment of doubt'. for some years I was strongly and resolutely atheist. if someone told me back then I would believe in god later in my life i would have laughed, just as i laughed at 'how stupid catholics were'

then for a year i kind of turned agnostic, here came the 'moment of doubt', i wasn't an edgy arrogant atheist anymore, and then I read divine comedy, and that got me started on it for once

>>8942724
>just as if you asked me to prove that fire existed i couldn't just give you fire
Wut. Do you not know how to light a fire?

>>8943190
Atheism is a belief that there is no God. If you don't believe in God, then you must have some other belief that pertains to our existence. I've never heard a good Atheist argument. Most just point to shit unproven theories that they themselves don't have the IQ to really understand.

>>8943226
I cannot believe in any gods because there is no evidence. You believe in a god because you believe there to be substantial evidence. Burden on u bro, hehexd

>>8943237
I'm agnostic actually. Since you claim the universe exists without a God, the burden of proof is on you.

>>8943190
The thing is, by basing your arguments on such surface level inconsistencies you are totally ignoring any of the deeper questions regarding the Divine.
Instead of discussing God in a general sense, it becomes a shit flinging contest based on specific excerpts and moral dogmas.
Also, most atheists are just fedora-tipping secular humanists who believe themselves to be deep thinkers for realizing that some of the stuff in the bible might be bullshit!

>>8943280
You are an atheist of all gods but your own. I simply take it one step further. I don't need an origin explanation for eat, shit, and die.

>>8943226
The vast majority of people who describe themselves as atheists simply lack a belief in God or think his existence is unlikely rather than definitively claiming he doesn't exist. That's literally what atheism means: a lack of theism, and most dictionaries include a lack of belief in God as the definition or at least one of the definitions of the term. To distinguish between the two, a dichotomy has been established between strong and weak atheism, or gnostic and agnostic atheism. Agnosticism itself doesn't state whether one believes or doesn't believe in God, only that the answer, whatever it is, is unknown and possibly unknowable. So an agnostic atheist, for example, is someone who doesn't believe in God but believes the answer is unknown or unknowable. Likewise, there are gnostic atheists, gnostic theists, and agnostic theists.

Even if you feel like you want to somehow refute everything I just said and claim that using atheism to refer to a lack of belief in God is wrong, it still describes what most atheists believe, so it only makes sense to assume it when arguing against atheism that isn't explicitly stated to be strong or gnostic, because that's the only way you're going to be arguing against actual beliefs rather than about semantics.

>>8943226
>If you don't believe in God, then you must have some other belief that pertains to our existence.
Google "negative capability".

>>8943304
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot GENERALIZE, and your arguments end up being things you stole from a Lawrence Krauss debate.
There's principally no difference between militant atheists and creationists who say "how can life exist despite the second law of thermodynamics?".

>>8943247
>you can be agnostic towards something with no evidence
Are you also agnostic towards the idea of a SUV orbiting Mars?
Still don't have burden of prrof, xd

>>8943154
This

>>8943312
>The vast majority of people who describe themselves as atheists simply lack a belief in God or think his existence is unlikely rather than definitively claiming he doesn't exist.

How can you even begin to quantify the likelihood of the existence of God? You have not even proposed any alternate beliefs that are more likely.

>>8942774
>ywn be a narcissistic, histrionic lesbian who can magically redefine well-accepted phrases and stereotypes at the drop of a hat

>>8943334
>This is what passes for a modern day atheist
I thought atheists were supposed to be the smart ones.

>>8943348
>it's another agnostic pretends to be smart episode
ekkdee
literally the cucks of the ontological world

>>8943341
From my calculations there is a 37% chance of God existing.


But there's really no need to look into my math. It's all correct.

>>8943363
The flying spaghetti monster (or variations thereof) is an argument that has not only been destroyed ad nauseum, but misses the entire point of the debate. The only people who still use it are pseudos who have never had a deep or original thought in their life.

>>8943331
I generalize because I don't need 1000 arguments for every special snowflake theist who thinks their personal interpretation of God is the superior ideology. I refuse to jerk you off when there's so many other people in need of a good circle jerk.

>>8943371
>no proof to back up something so apparently simple
>degrades himself to attacking others

Oh boy, I can truely see we are among the truly enlightened.

>>8943387
>calls people cucks
>whines about ad hominems
You opted out of a civilized debate long ago.

>>8943395
>unironically uses the word cuck
Oh yes, civilized. Of course.

>>8942620
Fucking hell, christfags are god damned idiots. I refuse to believe any of these supposed christians in this thread are being genuine and not just memeing for laughs.

>>8943379
What you're actually saying is that you FEAR the prospect of debating God in a general sense, because it conflicts with your own established ideology.

>>8943417
i feel the same way about your reply, i genuinely think its bait, however, i hope you find your way to the light, son

>>8942726
And why is faith without evidence good?

>>8942762
AntiCitizenX is a YouTube channel with a few main series, including Psychology of Belief, which answers your question. He does cite several studies about psychology and relates them to religion. For instance, God provides closure for a lot of things, including where the universe comes from.

>>8942788
>Stop acting like you have all the answers
>Learn some humilty
>God created the entire universe so that I could exist
>Lol, I'm so humble

Also, it doesn't take any mental gymnastics. Science doesn’t claim to know everything. In fact, if you were to ask a scientist about unsolved problems in science, he would happily give you several examples.

>>8942788
>You can’t prove that the universe is just a bunch of random events
>Therefore, God exists.

>>8942837
You haven't seen infrared light, but I bet you don't doubt it exists. Also, blind people don't take light's existence on faith.

>>8943484
but this is bait too isn't it?

>>8943115
Omnipotence Paradox: Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If so, he can't do everything. If not, he can't do everything. Also, don't start with that logically possible/in his nature bullshit.

Euthyphro Dilemma: Did God create morality? If so, then he is no different than a dictator. If not, he isn’t omnipotent.

Also, what's wrong with addressing all the suffering in the world? If you could prevent someone from becoming paralyzed from the waist down, would you? If so, why wouldn't God?

>>8943341
>Can't provide a better explanation
>My explanation is correct

If you thought gravity was caused by sunlight and I thought gravity was caused by invisible dwarfs, and you proved me wrong, would that make you correct?

>>8943371
And what is the point of the debate? Keep in mind that I haven't seen what you were replying to.

>>8943669
>Also, don't start with that logically possible/in his nature bullshit.

>>8943442
He said "I generalize because..." and you call him out for not arguing against a general god?

>>8943669
I don't think the first two objections make sense. Christians, at least, do not believe that God can do anything. Omnipotent means possessing unlimited power, not being able to do anything. God cannot make a square circle. He can't make something more powerful than himself. The moral law is understood to be an extension of his holy and good nature, rather than a created thing. I am atheist by the way.

>>8943714
In His Nature:
>God can do everything except for the things he can't
Damn, by this definition, I'm omnipotent.

Logically Possible
>I don't feel like actually answering the question
I can make a rock heavy enough that I can't lift it. God cannot. I can do something God cannot.

You also have two other arguments left untouched. Let's see if you can make some headway.

>>8943759
>do not believe that God can do everything*
>not being able to do everything*

Fixed

>>8943759
Fair points. The only purpose of the Omnipotence Paradox is to force theists to define exactly how powerful their god is. The point about morality being a result of his nature means that he cannot change his nature, and therefore isn’t omnipotent, so it's really the second part of the dilemma.

>>8943761
I'm an atheist but this is a bad argument

You're assuming that the world and God is fundamentally logical, but there's no reason why "omnipotence" can't be the ability to transcend even logic

>>8943818
If they want to claim that their God is illogical, that's fine by me.

>>8943115
If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all of our actions in the future, which means our actions are determined, which means that free will doesn’t exist. If free will does exist, then our actions are not predetermined, and therefore God cannot know the future. In short, free will cannot exist while God is omniscient and vice versa.

Religion is closely associated with borders. Although there are converts and deconverts, most people tend to stay within the religion of their community. Religion sounds more like a cultural phenomenon than anything else.

God chose to reveal himself to a small group of illiterate people millenia after modern humans had evolved, but still wants to have a close personal relationship.

The Historical validity of the Bible/Quran is questionable at best. No other source besides the Bible/Quran mentions anything supernatural happening.

The fact that the number of miracles has decreased after the development of the camera even though the number of people in the world has increased points to another problem. Also, the fact that some miracles can be replicated by science casts doubt on the miracles themself.

Even if someone was to accept the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, etc., they would only prove Deism.

>>8943959
>If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all of our actions in the future, which means our actions are determined, which means that free will doesn’t exist. If free will does exist, then our actions are not predetermined, and therefore God cannot know the future. In short, free will cannot exist while God is omniscient and vice versa.

So?

>>8943979
Damn Calvinists. I knew you'd show up. Either way, this argument still applies to any Christian that wants both free will and an omniscient God with a plan. Either something along the lines of Predestination or a God that doesn't know everything would satisfy the argument. The important thing is that most branches of Christianity (e.g. Catholicism) fail this argument.

If you want to believe in a God that creates people only to send them to Hell and that the same God is the paragon of everything that's good, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

>inb4 Catholics with muh tradition

I kind of feel like writing the Atheist "manifesto" because I'm so sick and tired of reading about the misconceptions.

But, I am not great at page-padding and it would only be like, 10 pages max because it's more about people SHUTTING THE FUCK UP than anything.

>>8944037
>The important thing is that most branches of Christianity (e.g. Catholicism) fail this argument.

Catholicism actually has a long tradition of predestination tracing back through Aquinas and Augustine. Calvin et al. were following these theologians and not innovating in this regard. That modern Catholicism has rejected it is besides the point.

>If you want to believe in a God that creates people only to send them to Hell and that the same God is the paragon of everything that's good, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Humans are created to glorify God. We are his creatures and he can do with us as he pleases, and we have no right to expostulate with him. That he chooses to demonstrate his wrath and justice in the creation of vessels fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22) is his sovereign right.

>>8944068
Once again, if you want to be God’s toy, rejoicing in your chains, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. Also, I still don’t care about the specific branches of Christianity that believe in Predestination. The point is that there exist branches of Christianity do not believe in Predestination, and would fail the argument.

See this:
https://youtu.be/S6_9QmM6TfE
It’s an edgy comedy video, but whatever.

Any problem with the other arguments against religion?

>>8944122
If there is a God, you are their toy whether you like it or not. Disliking it doesn't change anything.

Going back to the earlier post:

>Religion is closely associated with borders. Although there are converts and deconverts, most people tend to stay within the religion of their community. Religion sounds more like a cultural phenomenon than anything else.

God relates to people covenantally, and those covenants include people's family and children, so it is expected that religion would have cultural boundaries. One could also look into the biblical concept of "nation."

>God chose to reveal himself to a small group of illiterate people millenia after modern humans had evolved, but still wants to have a close personal relationship.

God primarily relates to people by means of covenant.

>The Historical validity of the Bible/Quran is questionable at best. No other source besides the Bible/Quran mentions anything supernatural happening.

So?


>The fact that the number of miracles has decreased after the development of the camera even though the number of people in the world has increased points to another problem. Also, the fact that some miracles can be replicated by science casts doubt on the miracles themself.

Most miraculous claims are bogus as the demonstration of power during the time of the apostles, used for the spreading of the faith to the gentiles, has ended.

>Even if someone was to accept the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, etc., they would only prove Deism.

No one can prove anything to you as faith is a gift given by God to his elect. It is discerned spiritually and not naturally.

>>8943857
>the divine has to abide to human-made logic

wew lad

>>8944159
>>8944163
If you want to believe in things you cannot justify, I cannot stop you.

If you want to claim that your God is illogical, I cannot stop you.

Just don't claim that you came to your faith through reason.

>>8943203
that's some nice ideology you've got there friendo

>>8944223
>Just don't claim that you came to your faith through reason.

I never did

>>8944223
faith is by definition something you believe in without proof you fucking tard
the entire point of a god is you can't prove nor disprove its existence since it doesn't follow human logic, so belief is done by faith and disbelief is done by lack of faith, but there's no "proving or disproving" its existence

>>8944236
Fair enough.
>>8944242
Why should we have faith? Why is faith good?

>>8944272
define good

>>8944228
>religious people calling others ideological

>>8944272
>Why should we have faith?

Why shouldn't we?

>>8944288
>actually believing or disbelieving with certainty the existence of a god
lmfao @ u

>>8944294
Why shouldn’t you believe that there is some invisible dude behind you with a gun that will blow your brains out if you don’t give all your money to the nearest homeless person?

If your answer involves any logic, any claims that this is in anyway different from your faith, or a demand for evidence, you can get out.

>>8944317
no reason to not believe in it if you chose to

>>8944338
Replace "give all your money to the nearest homeless person" with "rape your children and make your wife watch." The idea is that you can use faith to justify anything.

>>8944366
But Obama told me all religions are peaceful.

>>8944379
yeah you've described islam

again, no reason to not believe in things you can't disprove

>>8944366
>The idea is that you can use faith to justify anything.

>Why shouldn’t you believe

Because I don't. Your examples don't address the question, either.

>>8944391
>The idea is that you can use faith to justify anything.

Meant to say: "Logic can do just that too".

>>8942620
You already have it in your head that the other side is wrong before investigating it. Good job dipshit. This is why religious people are children and should have the decency to castrate themselves and stop voting.

>>8942620
Have you read the one about being an adult and not defining your worldview by storytime from the dark ages?

>>8944391
Well, why don't you believe?

>>8944404
Council of Nicea forbade self-castration

>>8944398
If someone were to come into your house, claiming that someone told him that there was an invisible man standing behind him that would blow both your brains out if he did not kill you and would spare him if he did kill you, would your reply be "Well, I guess I can't really disprove that, so knock yourself out."? The reason why you shouldn't believe him is because you will die for no reason if he's wrong and he has provided no evidence that he is right.

>>8944278
Fine, I won't because you'll go on about how my definition of good doesn’t always work and dodge the question.

Why should we have faith?

>>8942660
Oh my fucking god, NO.

The God Delusion is ANYTHING but worthwhile to read. It's basically "echo chamber" the novel, some cash grab from an amateur atheist who just rehashes shit everyone already knows.

There is no good Antitheist/Atheist literature that isn't just shit people already know.

>>8944420
>why don't you believe?

I just don't.

>>8944483
A man's words are not equal to the intuition of the divine one feels. Also, this >>8944242

In any case, I think you are trying to prove that people shouldn't believe, instead of proving that that which people believe in does not exist, or that there is nothing to believe in. None of that matter anyway.

>>8942726
>not believing in things without evidence is edgy
please be b8

>>8944497
>In any case, I think you are trying to prove that people shouldn't believe, instead of proving that that which people believe in does not exist, or that there is nothing to believe in.

They've already admitted repeatedly that they have no reason to believe in what they believe. I'm saying that if they don't have a reason to believe, they shouldn't.

>A man's words are not equal to the intuition of the divine one feels.
Who are you to doubt him? And if you do doubt him, anyone who became a Christian through the words of others (including the Bible) without having a divine experience should not be a Christian.

Also, what's with all the atheists arguing against atheism?

>>8944545

>Who are you to doubt him?
Who is he that I should trust him?

>And if you do doubt him, anyone who became a Christian through the words of others (including the Bible) without having a divine experience should not be a Christian.

That's very dogmatic, but I agree to an extent. Rather, you do not completely realize you are a "Christian" or a member of any other religion until you have a divine experience. That is sort of dogmatic too, but it's religion we are dealing with here.

>Also, what's with all the atheists arguing against atheism?

Perhaps they are questioning their own set of beliefs, something anyone should do, regardless of their ideology.

>>8944545
>They've already admitted repeatedly that they have no reason to believe in what they believe. I'm saying that if they don't have a reason to believe, they shouldn't.

They have a reason to believe, it just doesn't fit your expectations, since it is not framed by hard logic, but it needn't be.

>>8944492
good can mean literally anything

as to why we should have faith, there's no reason for not agaisnt it so whether people have it or not makes no difference

>>8943761
>I can make a rock heavy enough that I can't lift it. God cannot. I can do something God cannot
I think God could make a rock heavy enough that you couldn't lift it.

>>8944634
Here's a quote from Steven Weinberg about religion making the difference:
"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

Why shouldn't someone enslave you if it is part of his religion? Why shouldn't another person kill your family? Why shouldn't another person burn down your church? Why shouldn't another person bring together all the believers and exterminate them?

>>8944398
There's a huge difference between "my god says I need to kill you" and "I have logically come to the conclusion that I need to kill you." Who do you think will be easier to convince not to kill you? The person who believes they have a direct link to the Creator of the Universe, the author of morality, or a logical person who can be convinced by reason?

>>8944658
Nice dodge. Either way, the only purpose of the Omnipotence Paradox is to force Christians to limit the power of their God.

>>8944660
what does faith have to do with actions?
both are distinct, and you're following the classical atheist manner of thinking where you associate to a religion the actions that people in said religion have committed
this is completely different to the actual faith itself that has nothing to do with action

you can believe something and do something contrary to it, both for good or bad motives

as well, this isn't exclusive to religion
it's possible to use logic to justify actions like >>8944398 said

>>8944671
>not understanding that god by definition surpasses human logic and understanding
have you even read the thread