/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10331835]

Atheist philosophers are better than theistic philosophers because theistic philosophers are bound by a preestablished framework.

[Anonymous No.10331840]

Atheist philosophers are bound by microcephaly.

[Anonymous No.10331841]

everyone's in a pre-established framework

[Anonymous No.10331874]

>>10331841
woah..

[Anonymous No.10331886]

>>10331841
Theists are a in a smaller preestablished framework, established by people who had no idea what they were doing, instead of the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.10332153]

>>10331886
sharp reply

[Anonymous No.10333033]

>>10331886
>universe itself
The way we percieve the universe is not necessarily the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.10333042]

>>10331835
>he thinks being rigidly bound by a preestablished framework is bad
>he likes bertrand russell

[Anonymous No.10333294]

>>10331886
>cold apathetic universe
vs
>numerous generations of your ancestors

[Anonymous No.10334399]

Religious people are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10334549]

>>10334399
t. guy who regularily posts on a white supremacist anime site

[Anonymous No.10334553]

>>10331835
thanks captain obvious.

[Anonymous No.10334554]

>>10334553
>atheists: theistic philosophers are bound by a preestablished framework.
>also atheists: if it's not science (tm) it's wrong

[Anonymous No.10334556]

>>10331835
atheist philosophers are already bound by being brainlets

[Anonymous No.10334559]

>>10334554
shut the fuck up loser go read a book.
or go to church, i dont care just fuck off.
go to /christ/ or somth fucks sakes
goodbye
agressive catholic rapist lve me be loser

[Anonymous No.10334616]

>>10334554
>the scientifik method is the onlee path to knawwage

Apply scientific method to scientific method

[Anonymous No.10334664]

>>10331886
how do you know you arent a brain in a vat being fed experiences?

because you have hands

how do you know you have hands?

because you have sense perception

how do you know you have sense perception?

because you have hands

[Anonymous No.10334667]

>implying nihilism isn't the pre established framework for atheists

[Anonymous No.10334668]

>>10334664
>how do you know you arent a brain in a vat being fed experiences?
>because you have hands

that doesn't make sense. my having hands doesn't prevent me from being a brain in a vat

[Anonymous No.10334680]

>>10331835
>proves your framework incomplete
Everyone needs a little faith Bert! That's why I use my intellect to make ontological proofs for God, and why your work will be remembered as nice but ultimately futile.

[Anonymous No.10334719]

>>10334680
TIL bert is short for Bertrand

[Anonymous No.10334745]

>>10334680
>ontological proofs for God
mother of keks

[Anonymous No.10335746]

>>10334668
he's referencing moore (1939) 'proof of an external world'

[Anonymous No.10335822]

Bertrand Russell is a REEETARD
He got fucked on by Wittgenstein and never recovered.

[Anonymous No.10335907]

>>10334399
wow you know its dangerous to play with all that edge you got there, son

[Anonymous No.10336038]

Here's the main issue with religious thought (based on personal experience, though there are undoubtedly outliers), it seems to consitently leave the door open for flagrant stupidity. Having faith based on there being form in the void or other so-called proofs is fine (not to imply these are the only arguments), but then it often runs off into craziness. So they believe in god of some kind, fine; then they very often start believing in Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. Then they start esposing the virgin birth, reincarnation, or other absolutly rediculous and abhorent idea.

It's similar to those that are anti-western medicine. The argument that pharmceuticals are over perscribed, fine; the argument that there are capitalistic issues with kick-backs for mediciation, fine; becuase of this you should use homeopathy, not fine. These anti-reason and establishement ideas always seem to lead to the most rediculous ends, even if the original ideas are not bad in themselves.

[Anonymous No.10337195]

>>10331835
If you have concluded that there is no God, isn't that a pre-established framework by itself?

[Anonymous No.10337208]

>>10335822
Russell was actually a pretty good philosopher until he met Wittgenstein

Its only afterwards that he became a retard

[Anonymous No.10337221]

>>10334554
>if it's not science it's wrong

This is a 100% accurate statement, yes, what's your point

[Anonymous No.10337224]

>>10333294
>Literally feels vs reals

[Anonymous No.10337232]

>>10334680
>ontological proof for god

[Anonymous No.10337244]

>>10337195
No, it's an framework I've established myself through my own reasoning. Theists follow what has been dictated to them (overwhelmingly by millennia old desert tribes who knew fuckall about anything).

[Anonymous No.10337249]

>>10334399
Irreligious people are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10337258]

>>10337221
Oof. That's some real shit science, and some REAL shit theology there, boi.

[Anonymous No.10337261]

>>10337258
Enlighten me

[Anonymous No.10337262]

>>10331835
The virgin aristotelian
>>10334680
The chad platonist

[Anonymous No.10337318]

>>10331835
Do you not need to have an established, prior framework of quality to make such a statement?

[Anonymous No.10337325]

>>10337244
>it's an framework I've established myself through my own reasoning. Theists follow what has been dictated to them
Are you the first atheist, who passed it onto others?

[Anonymous No.10337355]

>>10331835
philosophers are all niggers and should be tried for crimes against the species and then thrown into a lake of fire. All philosophy is mind control and socialized violence

[Anonymous No.10337399]

>>10337355
That's not hypocritical at all...

[Anonymous No.10337412]

>>10331835
Yes, but that reestablished framework is true because the Judaeo-Christian god is real.

[Anonymous No.10337414]

>>10337412
see >>10337221

[Anonymous No.10337424]

>>10331886
>People who had no idea what they were doing
People that survived and wrote tips on surviving for their future generations?

[Anonymous No.10337438]

>>10337221
Yes but what happened before the Big Bang?

[Anonymous No.10337453]

>Arguing about who's better
>wasting time not testing ideas for reason and searching for the good

/lit/ philosophy everyone

[Anonymous No.10337454]

>>10337438
/thread

[Anonymous No.10337465]

>>10337438
>>10337454

Big bang> matter spreads out > matter sticks together > matter falls apart > gravity wells pull matter back together > matter pulled into singularity > repeat

Material monism

[Anonymous No.10337469]

>>10337424
Telling their kids not to eat the red berries because their uncle died from them, isn't the same as telling them Zeus is their god and Hades is waiting for them.

>>10337438
>>10337454
probably same thing that happened before god
>inb4 god created god because god is great lel

[Anonymous No.10337492]

>>10337221

When the Catholic priest who invented the Big Bang came out with his theory he was ridiculed by atheists at the time for trying to inject his religious beliefs into science.

[Anonymous No.10337501]

>>10337492
Your point is? It takes a while for accept broad changes to their beliefs? Crazy opinion there, lad.

[Anonymous No.10337507]

>>10337208
It reminds me of Wertheimer meeting Glenn Gould in The Loser. His confidence was demolished in the face of genius and he didn't really do anything of consequence after.

[Anonymous No.10337537]

>>10337244
>>10337325
It's just too perfect to be an unironic post.

[Anonymous No.10337549]

Is there even any point to philosophy if you have all of your beliefs decided for you?

[Anonymous No.10337593]

>>10337469

>Inb4 God created God because God is great

Nigga that's literally the truth.

[Anonymous No.10337598]

>>10334399
There is truth to this statement, but it's not an entirely negative conclusion. Many religious followers relay visions and supernatural 'feelings' that could be misconstrued mental imbalance. There is a puristic, healing aspect in a lot of religious instillation that is good for the psyche of someone who is otherwise prone to ill humor and psychopathy. At the same time these misconceptions can be further relayed into other people's belief system, which is dangerous, or even worse manipulated by false pedagogues for the religion itself - very dire stuff. Faith Healers or some of the remote, secluded religious covens that border on cultism are good examples.

[Anonymous No.10337605]

>>10337465
yet... matter are moving away from eachothers faster than they are being attracted to eachothers. heat death is looking like a stronger theory than the big rip.

[Anonymous No.10337613]

>>10337593
Why doesn't something greater than god create itself, just by virtue of being the concept of something greater? There's no upper limit on "greatness", because all you have to do is imagine "something greater than the previous greatest thing".

[Anonymous No.10337618]

>>10337613
Why do you think we moved on from polytheism to monotheism? The God is the greatest god.

[Anonymous No.10337630]

>>10331835
unironically agree

[Anonymous No.10337631]

>>10337618
Because the romans couldn't suppress the christians. Also that doesn't make any sense, and is utterly retarded.

"Humanity moved from mostly polytheism to mostly monotheism a few thousand years ago because 14 BILLION years ago God was really cool dude, like, the coolest"

[Anonymous No.10337646]

>>10337631
For a progressive, you don't seem to get it. God is always active.

[Anonymous No.10337651]

>>10337646
yeah but...

WHICH GOD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

[Anonymous No.10337668]

>>10337651
Who else?

[Anonymous No.10337670]

>>10337646
If we became monotheistic because god is great, and god was always great, why were ever monotheistic? Because god was not great, god is not great, or there is no god?

[Anonymous No.10337688]

>>10337670
Why did life start out simple? Ideas and memes evolved.

[Anonymous No.10337711]

>>10337688
Exactly. We started out with nothing, made up gods, made up god, and then killed him.

[Anonymous No.10337740]

>>10331835
Atheism almost always (99%) accompanies presuppositions of materialism, empiricism and determinism, which unironically create a much shallower world view than any religion.

[Anonymous No.10337748]

>>10337740
I would wade in a real shallow pool than pretend to be in an imaginary ocean.

[Anonymous No.10337758]

>>10337748
Nice platitude sweety, but it doesn't change the fact that atheist """philosophers""" are bound by much smaller preestablished framework than theistic philosophers.

[Anonymous No.10338017]

>>10337711
We killed ourselves is what we did.

[Anonymous No.10338037]

>>10337424
>The Pentateuch = Moses's Declassified YHWH Survival Guide

[Anonymous No.10338054]

>>10337758
>all atheist thinkers are as addlepated as Dennett or Harris

[Anonymous No.10338104]

>>10337613
Stupid fuck who's never read the proslogion

[Anonymous No.10338115]

>>10337465
where did the matter come from? did it just start existing from nothing?

[Anonymous No.10338182]

>>10338115
Yes. Same way some subatomic particles seem to "pop" into existence, eventually (and notice time is irrelevant before this happens anyway) they arrived in such a combination that it triggered a chemical explosion that we are still a part of now.

[Anonymous No.10338266]

>>10338182
i wonder how that happens

[Anonymous No.10338279]

>>10337748
You can pretend that money is the gargantuan titan it seems to be, and keep on feeding it, sacrificing for it. Yet you claim to be atheistic...

[Anonymous No.10338281]

>hahaha stupid dumb christcuck fucks think that an eternal, all-encompassing source is necessitated by the existence of the universe we don't need an eternal, all-encompassing source that's retarded lamo backward ignorant superstitious religitards
>probably just the universe is eternal and all-encompassing, now THAT'S thinking with SCIENCE WUBBALUBBADUBDUB
>wtf LLLMMMAAAAAOOOOO unironically needing a BOOK to tell you the difference between right and wrong in the >current year sounds like a psychopath to me t.b.h. what kind of a baby relies on a religious text to inform them on morality I mean seriously the absolute state of religious """""""""""people"""""""""""
>it makes much more sense to retroactively invent justifications for the judeo-christian values I've unconsciously absorbed from being steeped in western culture (which has been inextricably intertwined with christianity for the past millennium and a half) from a half-baked understanding of darwinianism, except for all the parts of darwinianism that contradict those judeo-christian values like sexual dimorphism and the total negation of civil rights for all people unable to reproduce
>heheh babby apologist let me tell YOU something well guess what I read the esv once back in sixth grade before I entered my edgy phase and started smoking weed and skipping church and I'm pretty sure me and ONLY ME gets to determine the exact interpretation of this precise passage written by paul and wdhmbt, despite the fact that I don't know any of the context or even original koine but trust me this totally contradicts what you're saying and tbqhwyfamalamadingdong, the very fact that somewhere in this world there are two different christians with different opinions on this passage PROVES that there is NO real truth to be found, and it's just a free-for-all where everyone makes up their own interpretation based off of what makes them feel comfy in their INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE
>fortunately all of my scientific journals that I don't actually read are always in complete agreement, there are no disagreements or even room for disagreements in the world of SCIENCE because all the facts are totally, completely, one hundred percent knowable and known RIGHT NOW by scientists and there is absolutely no room for debate on metaphysical questions because all the answers are known with certainty
>BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY

[Anonymous No.10338282]

>>10338017
God is alive, West is a graveyard.

[Anonymous No.10338294]

>>10338279
Not him, but I don't think there is any reason to assume he worships Mammon.

I understand what you mean, but pious atheism has been a recognized phenomenon since the middle of the 19th century. The only people that don't seem to comprehend this are or were themselves pious atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.10338309]

>>10338281
Did you forget to take your haloperidol?

[Anonymous No.10338331]

>>10337501
>missing the point

[Anonymous No.10338333]

>>10338294
>Not him, but I don't think there is any reason to assume he worships Mammon
He lives and is not starving.

[Anonymous No.10338339]

>>10338333
>if you use money, you worship it
ok

[Anonymous No.10338341]

>>10338339
It works on faith. Like Placebo and idolatry.

[Anonymous No.10338344]

>>10338266
Yeah, maybe if you don't pretend as if you already know you could be one of the people who helps to find out.

[Anonymous No.10338352]

>>10338281
You summed it up perfectly.

[Anonymous No.10338353]

>>10331835

That's an overgeneralization. The philosophy of Epictetus for example works in both a theist and atheist framework just the same, even though he was a theist.

[Anonymous No.10338358]

>>10338341
This is the difference between early Napoleon and late Napoleon: he started to believe his own bullshit. One can use others' false beliefs to one's own advantage without internally sharing the delusion.

[Anonymous No.10338376]

>>10338358
I agree. However, the atheist completely ignores his presuppositions, especially regarding things of faith - hence he worships mammon; makes sacrifices for it and keeps it taboo. He will never doubt it the same way he doubts the ban of homosexuality. He will never put it under STEM to get his beloved {nothing matches with scientific data} result.

[Anonymous No.10338410]

>>10338358
>t.

[Anonymous No.10338413]

>>10338376
Again, you can be an atheist without being a pious atheist. I'm using "mammon" as a stand in for money, not all things material. But if it were to mean the latter, I would say radical materialism is just as much a religious notion as radical idealism. The only difference lies in what is worshiped. Some atheists (proper atheists) do indeed worship nothing, not even the material, or themselves.

[Anonymous No.10338424]

>>10334399
lol go read some Durkheim, faggot.

[Anonymous No.10338435]

>>10334399
Why should people be healthy, if not for the preferable state of being?

[Anonymous No.10338478]

>>10336038
I agree with you in principle, but your perspective on what is ridiculous and "crazy" seems quite harsh. Just picking the Virgin birth: if you are fine with believing in Christianity, what is inherently wrong with God himself being born into this world (which you're already ok with occurring) from a virgin? You doubt God's power, or the idea that His birth could be somehow pecial?

I could justifiably nitpick on your rejection of reincarnation, or any belief of another religion. It seems you reject unorthodox claims of religions just because they violate common sense, which is a fair way to evaluate folklore, but not religious beliefs.

Either come to terms with agnosticism, atheism, or theism, but do not be on the fence this much.

[Anonymous No.10338488]

>>10337651
>ben stiller
Such a small thing, but made my poor soul laugh so much

[Anonymous No.10338526]

>>10338344
i think there's an unending chain of things we won't understand so it makes sense to act out life in the best way for ourselves, be that a "religious" lifestyle or not

[Anonymous No.10338567]

>>10334399
People are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10338569]

>>10338281
Because evolution operates on survival of the fittest, humanity has to do so to? What obligation does humanity have to pass on the best genes possible? Why the fuck should we care?

[Anonymous No.10338575]

>>10337221
>implying the religious creation stories are not generally speaking identical to the Big Bang Theory

[Anonymous No.10338585]

>>10338575
>implying they are
This is going to take some explaining.

[Anonymous No.10338610]

>>10338281
4/10

[Anonymous No.10338624]

>>10337438
What's North of the North Pole?

[Anonymous No.10338631]

Atheist philosophers are bound by a preestablished framework, a far larger one.
Russell was a literal fucking moron.
>>10331886
Wrong. Try again, STEMcancer.

[Anonymous No.10338639]

>>10336038
Fuck off back to plebbit
>>10337221
Evidence doesn't exist. Sorry.
Not an argument, sorry.
Science is self-contradictory.
But hey, your entire image is reductionist bait.

[Anonymous No.10338643]

>>10337465
No actual proof, just STEMspergery sophistry.
>>10337549
Somebody doesn't understand religion, or philosophy. Typical of an atheist.

[Anonymous No.10338647]

>>10337748
>real
Proof please.
>>10338054
No, worse.

[Anonymous No.10338661]

Can somebody clearly describe to me why God exists? There are a few main reasons that I have never heard a legitimate response to.

Your place of birth is arbitrary, and your place of birth determines your religion. So does the time period in which you were born. How can one religion just be true when there are several of comparable size and influence, and even more that changed throughout history? Some humans would have literally no way to be saved, I don't understand how you can believe in Christianity when people born in Ancient Greece had no way to know about it.

Why Christianity/any one religion over another? The evidence is small for each main religion, but the amount of evidence is pretty much the same size in each major religion. Why can you trust Christian miracles and accounts over Islamic? Same for Buddhism or Hinduism or any other faith.

Why not just go with science? I see no reason to be religious when there's so little evidence that what you're worshiping is real, and so few reasons to be worshiping one faith instead of another comparable faith.

[Anonymous No.10338666]

>>10331840
>this is your average christcuck
I really didn't want to admit /lit/ has the lowest IQ out of all 4chan but, well

[Anonymous No.10338672]

>>10338661
I can't even imagine being this retarded

Anybody who still buys into the "science vs religion" meme should be gassed

[Anonymous No.10338682]

>>10338661
You're looking for the wrong kind of evidence. You won't find observable proof of God's existence, but you will find an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that human's were made FOR God. There is evidently a void in this world, that this world does not make sense without a God.

[Anonymous No.10338684]

>>10338672
>mfw a determinist claims that "your place of birth determines your religion" near me

[Anonymous No.10338685]

>>10338672
like I cant even fucking force myself to reply to this brainlet

[Anonymous No.10338691]

>>10338672
Christianity depends on a few eyewitness sources to some dude claiming he was the son of God. This is contradicted by a ton of other religions of similar size and evidence claiming that a different God in fact exists.

Even ignoring the science part, how do you keep this in mind and say that a God exists and one of those religions is right? You're just guessing based on shaky ancient historical claims.

[Anonymous No.10338696]

>>10338682
why were humans made for God? and how do we tell WHICH god?

[Anonymous No.10338705]

>>10338685
>>10338684
Atheists are simply incapable of advanced thought. Don't believe me? Ask someone to summarize the cosmological argument and watch the hordes of slobbering retards come in and burn down strawmen

[Anonymous No.10338710]

>>10338672
>>10338684
>>10338685
Not an argument, not even close. Please don't post unless you actually have an idea.

[Anonymous No.10338712]

>>10338705
>muh cosmological argument

Thomists will be gassed along with the determinists

[Anonymous No.10338714]

>>10338691
Alright listen you retarded nigger

It's not an all or nothing where it's either Christianity or atheism

The intellectually honest path is theism first then Christianity, of which there is very very strong evidence GIVEN that you adhere to classical theism

You would know this if you read even one book by a serious Catholic philosopher

[Anonymous No.10338721]

>>10338376
Wrong. There's nothing incoherent about an atheist worshipping earthly things.

>>10338282
Woah... deep...

>>10338115
>come
>where
You're a fucking moron. All that that is, is. All that that is not, is not.Time doesn't exist.

>>10338661
>Science
Fuck off

>>10338705
>Cosmological argument
STEMspergery before STEMspergery. Metaphysics is mental illness and you haven't read a book written in the past 800 years.

[Anonymous No.10338723]

ITT:
atheists challenge religion with questions that religion was never intended to answer

theists allude to answers they themselves cannot understand or paraphrase

Every. Fucking. Time.

[Anonymous No.10338734]

>>10338723
what use does religion have then? what questions is it supposed to answer and how does it answer them?

[Anonymous No.10338745]

>>10338721
>genuine atheist
>worshiping anything

[Anonymous No.10338749]

>>10338691
You can't ask how to tell which religion is the correct one and then refute the evidence for one particular religion by saying that "oh other religions make claims to the contrary". You're an imbicile.

[Anonymous No.10338750]

>>10338721
>implying metaphysics has anything to do with STEM

Now I know you're trolling for sure

[Anonymous No.10338754]

>>10338745
Every human *worships* because life requires a leap of faith. Atheists are simply people who don't worship a God.

[Anonymous No.10338758]

>>10338749
Tell me what makes one religion's evidence special. Islam and Christianity both claim somebody talked to God, how do you decide which one to follow?

[Anonymous No.10338765]

>>10338750
I never said it does. Not that Thomas "fetuses aren't humans" Aquinas wrote any good metaphysics anyway.

[Anonymous No.10338768]

>>10338758
>thinking all of the evidence will be laid out for you in a 4chan post

Atheists are real life memes. I hoped you'd know better on a fucking literature board

[Anonymous No.10338770]

>>10338754
Certain things in life require a leap of faith, but that doesn't mean they require worship, nor does it mean that life itself requires faith. Belief, it definitely does, but faith is not belief.

[Anonymous No.10338779]

Is it just a matter of religion not requiring to be 'real' in the way of a God physically existing or being provable and instead serving a different purpose? Perhaps explaining the nature of humanity, what distinguishes us, morality, and discussing death? Much like poetry serves a different purpose than a scientific journal. One teaches us truths about man's observations of the universe and the other teaches us truths about man's observations of morality and death and consciousness? If this is the case perhaps truly understanding religion doesn't depend on believing entirely that a God undeniably exists

[Anonymous No.10338785]

>>10338734
The religious perceptive predates history. For all we can tell, we emerged out of prehistoric mentalities that projected mind into nearly everything in the world around us: ourselves, other people, animals, plants, locations, planets, stars, the universe. Everything was understood as an expression of someone's will. This allows meaning and purpose for everything, because meaning is understanding and purpose is goal setting and so they both need mind to exist.

When the naturalist perspective began to emerge it stripped mind from people, objects, plants, locations, planets, the universe, so that their patterns could be observed and used to predict more patterns, but all without including a factor of will.

So the naturalist perspective got very good at making nonconsious models of everything, and intervening at various places in observed patterns to create intended effects. But meaning and purpose cannot exist in this model.

Religion still, insofar as it can treat yourself, other people, the world, the universe as having minds, can relate to them in terms of meaning and purpose. This has been its explicit domain for a long time now. Science doesn't have all the patterns mapped out, but it continually gets more refined in methods of observing and intervening on patterns of nonconsious objects. Religion doesn't have all the answers to the meaning and purpose of life, but it has processes for exploring them that have been practiced and extrapolated since before the earliest known artefacts.

Atheists who claim they can get meaning and purpose without religion are blind to the way they rely on an essentially nonempirical entity (aka consciousness) to do so. Even worse are the nuts who treat religion as if it can provide scientific models of the universe. They are two ways of relating to the world that are inherent to our evolved psyches, both with different and complimentary functions.

[Anonymous No.10338786]

>>10338768
Now I know you're either memeing or unintelligent. Show me where I can find the evidence. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.10338787]

>>10338770
>Certain things in life require a leap of faith
It's not that certain things require a leap of faith. Life itself does.
>but that doesn't mean they require worship
Life is inherently worship of something. Humans are seers.

Qual ponte, muti chiedemmo, qual ponte abbiamo noi gettato sull’infinito, che tutto ci appare ombra di eternità?

[Anonymous No.10338796]

>>10338787
Why does life necessitate a leap of faith?

[Anonymous No.10338802]

>>10338785
>Religion still, insofar as it can treat yourself, other people, the world, the universe as having minds, can relate to them in terms of meaning and purpose
You don't need religion to do that, although religion is one way to do it. Read Leopardi. Read Nietzsche. Read Deleuze. Read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.10338804]

>>10338796

[Anonymous No.10338809]

>>10338804
That's belief, not faith. I can believe that my bed will remain under me while I sleep on it without worshiping object permanence. Don't quote a mongoloid who believes in transcendence at me.

[Anonymous No.10338813]

>>10338802
Systematic ways of doing this are either religious or psychological (i.e., spiritual). The atheist/naturalist perspective cannot include mind, which is why Harris published a whole book against the notion of free will.

I suppose you could say you are spiritual but not religious, which would basically be the equivalent of saying you are a scientist with your own laboratory but don't keep up with any scientific discourse.

[Anonymous No.10338815]

>>10338796
Because it can't be grounded solely on reason. Living comes before reason. If it were, we would be nothing but robots, and we might as well not exist.

A che tante facelle? A che va l'aria infinita?

>>10338804
That's not what I meant. Please fuck off with this guy's brainlet tier understanding of Godel.

[Anonymous No.10338826]

>>10338815
Not living, but I myself come before reason. What need have I of faith, if I take courage instead?

[Anonymous No.10338833]

>>10338813
Wes Leopardi not spiritual? Wasn't Foscolo? Wasn't Lucretius? Wasn't Nietzsche? Wasn't Rimbaud? Wasn't Calvino?
Spirituality aka the need to ascend and transcend and the relation to the infinite and to our being is something inherent to all humans.
Systematizing the visionary power of man and then proclaim that that's the only way to experience this dimension should be considered a crime.

[Anonymous No.10338850]

>>10338833
So you think religion should not claim to be the only way to access the divine? Fine with me. I agree. Somewhere along the way I think you saw a value judgement in my posts that I didn't intend.

[Anonymous No.10338854]

>>10338826
>Not living, but I myself come before reason.
*I myself* doesn't exist as separate from living. The leaf isn't green, the leafing greens.
>What need have I of faith, if I take courage instead?
You don't understand. You don't choose if you'll take the leap of faith or not, the leap of faith is inherent in your condition.

[Anonymous No.10338857]

>>10338850
We kinda moved away from the original topic but yeah.

[Anonymous No.10338861]

>>10338857
Anyway, I'll be going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.10338862]

>>10338854
Am I less myself for being alive?

If I don't have a choice in taking "the leap of faith" (despite your refusal to clarify exactly what you mean by faith), then you may as well say I don't have a choice in breathing, in which case, we're discussing a tautology.

[Anonymous No.10338865]

>>10338857
No worries.

[Anonymous No.10338911]

Does religious people think how the heaven will be?

[Anonymous No.10338982]

>>10338639
>Science is self-contradictory
Enlighten me master, how do we BTFO these atheists?

[Anonymous No.10338988]

>>10338639
>Science is self-contradictory

[Anonymous No.10339001]

>>10338911
Yea, us do

[Anonymous No.10339253]

>>10338661
>clearly describe
Retard
>muh STEM
Meaningless garbage.
>>10338672
Science is cancer. Gas yourself.

[Anonymous No.10339263]

>>10338723
Because God is incomprehensible you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10339266]

>>10338988
>i dont understand science so its all fine
It begs the question.

[Anonymous No.10339268]

>>10331835
>Be athiest philospher
>Still bound by aspects of theistic framework usaully without realizing

>MFW atheist philosophers start talking about inalienable rights

[Anonymous No.10339363]

>>10338723
you forgot
>Every other anon itt flings shit and buzzwords because now THAT is making philosophy
Also nice faggot spacing you reddit

[Anonymous No.10339424]

>>10339363
>muh autism is philosophy
>anticivility isn't philosophy

[Anonymous No.10339473]

>>10337465

That's an unfalsifiable creation myth.

[Anonymous No.10339478]

Atheist Philosophers are bound by preestablished conclusions.

[Anonymous No.10339547]

>>10338802
I think you are the one who should read Hegel. Philosophy of Religion to be particular.

[Anonymous No.10339960]

>>10337438
we dont know
im assuming you dont like this because it hurts your feelings, but just because we dont know something doesnt mean that a god did ti

[Anonymous No.10340087]

>>10339478
These conclusions being what?

[Anonymous No.10340104]

>>10339424
see? That's exactly what I was talking about.
One could never discuss anything ITT since aside from few anons the rest is composed of memespeaking and being stupid for the sake of it

[Anonymous No.10340128]

>>10340087

Atheism.

[Anonymous No.10340130]

>>10338804
>atheist philosophers

[Anonymous No.10340213]

>>10334616
Literally what is bayesian epistemology. The fact that it works is inductive evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.10340335]

>>10340104
waaaah why aren you fitting muh ivory tower reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>10340213
Nope.
>inductive evidence
Doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10340445]

>>10339960
> thinking people think they know for certain God created everything

[Anonymous No.10340551]

>>10338661
>Can somebody clearly describe to me why God exists?
Lets take three letters. C A T.
Would you say a cat exists?
You see those three letters together, they are connecting to something more than their parts.
You know there is a animal outside which those letters describe.
Let's do another one. C I R C L E.
Would you say a circle exists?
Well know we have reached a problem. Circle is an ideal construction.
Just an idea of a set of infinite points all around the same distance from another point.
You might say: "I see something similar to a circle in reality".
But it's never perfect as the idea.
Somehow ideas have an existence somewhere beyond.
So the idea of GOD exists somewhere.
And if you entertain this idea enough, people say you see it in reality.

[Anonymous No.10340562]

>>10334664
LOL someone just finish intro to phl this semester

[Anonymous No.10340564]

>>10340087
You see that -ism? They are required to have some understanding of what constitutes as God.

[Anonymous No.10341694]

>>10340335
again with the memespeak and ape manners. The fact that (you) or other anons keep addressing me or others like baboons with this tenacity without even elaborating on the arguments only gives me amusement and the firm feeling that I'm speaking the truth.
Please dance again for me little chimp!