/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11361792]

.

[Anonymous No.11361796]

fart on my dick teen

[Anonymous No.11361821]

>>11361792
>implying evil exists

[Anonymous No.11361842]

>>11361792

not /lit/

[Anonymous No.11361956]

>>11361796
>>11361821
>>11361842
buttmad commie atheist jewish libtard bookcucks

[Anonymous No.11361978]

>>11361792
The world has more evil than good though.
Also even if it didn't, no amount of evil is justified.

[Anonymous No.11361983]

>implying there is that much good
>implying this is the only argument for atheism

[Anonymous No.11361984]

>>11361792
Writers force their characters to go through awful shit all the time, often these characters are the ones the writer loves the most. Maybe god thinks our suffering is it's own kind of radiance.

[Anonymous No.11361988]

>>11361792
glib, sheltered...
I’m sympathetic to christfag side of this argument but these uncharitable ad hominems (which usually who gives a fuck) are just bizarre and cruel, not to mention vaguely cowardly.

[Anonymous No.11361989]

>>11361956
>atheist jewish
a new phrase i now love unironically

[Anonymous No.11361990]

>>11361984
>writing about suffering is the same as making actual sentient being suffer

[Anonymous No.11361993]

>>11361990
sentience is a spook

[Anonymous No.11361995]

This is the greatest barrier to my acceptance of religion, I want to believe that there is a god or an afterlife but every mainstream religion's dogma is so heavily focused on a god as some sort universal micro-manager. It feels so contrived, like it was created to assuage people's fears about potentially uncomfortable and harsh realities (which, to be fair, is the main reason I want to believe in a god). What are some good books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.11362000]

>>11361995
books are for fags

[Anonymous No.11362001]

[Anonymous No.11362014]

>>11361995
If feels contrived because it's contrived.

[Anonymous No.11362021]

If you build a thousand bridges and kill one person, you're not a bridge builder, you're a murderer

[Anonymous No.11362028]

>>11361995
You're clearly a shitface pseud who hasn't read about religion outside of reddit threads if you see any conventional conception of god as an *universal micromanager*

I suggest you die.

[Anonymous No.11362036]

>if god real, why bad thing happen??

[Anonymous No.11362057]

>>11361983
I have honestly never heard another compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists stance from what I've seen is that atheism should be the default, and they don't have a compelling reason to change their mind.

[Anonymous No.11362058]

If God must necessarily be Good and Omnipotent, then the ability of a thing of perfect Good to enact Evil means we must accept that there is either no such thing as Good, or no such thing as Evil, as far as human perception is concerned (these things may not conflict per God's perception, but God's perception must be inherently impossible for humans to comprehend, or it isn't God definitionally).

The other option is that God doesn't exist but Evil and Good do, but it's unthinkable that Good could exist as an objective force and not necessitate God. Evil may also thus necessitate some greater force which we might call a god but more correctly fits the role of Satan in the Hebrew term (oppressor), but it seems a paradox that God and Satan can exist as equally Omnipotent, but counteractive forces, which is why Satan was understood in Hebrew mythology as a component of God's actions rather than a separate counterpart.

[Anonymous No.11362065]

>>11362036
Please tell me why? oh you great brainchad!

[Anonymous No.11362068]

>>11362028
>What is occassionalism?
>What is omniscience?
>What is omnibenevolence?
what a morna

[Anonymous No.11362073]

>>11362057
How is atheism not the default?

[Anonymous No.11362075]

>>11362073
Children are born knowing the laws of God, read the Qu'ran.

[Anonymous No.11362076]

>>11362028
Nigga wut. My grandma is part of a god-knows-how-many-member "prayer chain" that is an unknown amount of old ladies praying for god to enact X action on Y variable. I only have been to church in the last 10 years when dragged by family but there's a clear theme in the Catholic and Christian churches I went to that God will reward your for obedience and good actions with something in life or with eternal happiness in the afterlife and that that is the a key part of prayer, and bad things are punishments for sin or "tests of faith" and that if you persevere through these trials you will be rewarded. I haven't read any real theological works but in its current practice western religion most definitely views God as a universal micromanager.

[Anonymous No.11362086]

>>11362058
St. Augustine already solved your dilemma in "Confessions", in which he concludes that evil is not something, but the absence of good.

>>11362065
Not who you were replying to, but under the Christian faith (as that is the only one I feel I can do justice for) evil is only the consequence of free will. Tragedies happen in part because of evil done, and in part because the world was made (somewhat) evil with the fall in Genesis. I like to imagine, in addition to the aforementioned reasons, that God does not directly intervene often because he has too much respect for the choices that we make, and considers it necessary that, if an action is completed, the natural consequences always follow. Would you have free will, if when you killed someone, god prevented them from dying to spare their family the pain? That's just my personal opinion, though.

[Anonymous No.11362087]

>>11362075
>read the Qu’ran
No. Just tell me where anything says that children are born with “laws of god” in them

[Anonymous No.11362093]

>>11362087
die kaffir

[Anonymous No.11362101]

>>11362093
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11362102]

>>11362086
>evil is not something, but the absence of good.
Interesting take, but even the Greeks considered there to be benign actions where virtue failed or was not involved, separate from where vice succeeded and malign actions arose.

I suppose it is interesting to view Evil as God's absence, intentional by necessity. It is true that God must by definition by omnipotent, but that doesn't mean it has to enact Good at everything. But then you get into the question of whether God's worth worshipping if he is not omnibenevolent, and certainly a thing that we don't perceive as worth worshipping can't be God.

[Anonymous No.11362105]

>>11362073
I never said it wasn't, although I am a bit disappointed that the debate cannot often get further than passing the burden of proof to the other side, because neither actually has any evidence of anything. Instead we incessantly discuss the importance if Pascal's Wager. I am a Christian, but the agnistics are *technically* correct, in that whether there is a god or not is ultimately unknowable, in the most strict sense of know.

[Anonymous No.11362110]

>>11362076
Yeah but god can forgive you for your sins, never forget that. Priests were our therapists for generations, many of them gay, many of them not; many of them made a hobby out of teaching people the gospel. These were upstanding citizens who cared not for money or glory or big houses. They wanted nothing more than brotherhood or commiseration with the pious.

[Anonymous No.11362115]

>>11362105
Pascal's Wager is retarded Prottie-pandering. If God DOES exist and he knows you only chose to believe in him for the reward of heaven, every pre-Protestant interpretation of scripture says you aren't getting shit.

[Anonymous No.11362122]

>>11362110
Priestly classes were the political establishment before politics even evolved, what the fuck are you on about. The only times Priests haven't been secularly motivated first and foremost has been during times where religious fervor was so high that a huge majority of those in the Priestly class were considered useless for furthering secular aims and were so locked away somewhere that they couldn't rock the boat (monasteries, convents, etc)

[Anonymous No.11362132]

>>11362086
>St. Augustine already solved your dilemma in "Confessions", in which he concludes that evil is not something, but the absence of good.
The concept of evil as privation has been invented... hitherto the problem of evil is DEBUNKED

[Anonymous No.11362138]

>>11362110
>Priests were our therapists for generations, many of them gay, many of them not
what the

[Anonymous No.11362139]

>>11362105
Agnostic*

>>11362102
If you have not read the Confessions I would recommend it, it gives a better take on this then I could, from St. Augustine, who had relentlessly studied the Greeks. He explains the problem that arose with his earlier take if there being a competing good and evil, and makes this conclusion not from necessity but from logic. I don't want to screw up the argument, but the one I remember was something like "if God is the whole, then there cannot be something else entirely, but the various embodiments of that spirit could embody it less than others." If that makes sense.

>>11362115
There is a lot more to the wager than the difference between heaven and hell, although unfortunately that is what it has been reduced to. It could also be argued under the same principal that being a Christian is a better way to live, and then if you are wrong you are still out nothing, wheread if you live in an inferior way, you are out everything still.

>>11362132
Read the book mate.

[Anonymous No.11362146]

>>11362105
I think if it cannot be proved to either side, then it’s best to assume the default. The universe works perfectly fine without the need for a god and I don’t see the need to go to church and pray and do other religious things for something that I don’t even know is true.
Pascal’s wager assumes that human morals are the correct morals, that an afterlife exists, that god rewards belief in him, etc. There is even less reason to believe in a specific religion because in that case Occams Razor comes in

[Anonymous No.11362147]

>>11362086
I understand, too bad free will doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11362148]

>>11362139
Christian better way to live in explicit theist Christ god universe. Otherwise arbitrary convention. Manmade decadence. Untruth

[Anonymous No.11362156]

>>11361978
Perhaps evil can be justified in the sense that without it there would be no good. The contrast bias applies in this situation. Evil and good only exist with each other and not solely on there own.

[Anonymous No.11362163]

>>11362146
Everyone agrees with siding with the default in the absence if argumentation, that was my point. I was saying I am disappointed that the only arguments are not for which side is correct, but which side should be the default.

>>11362147
It is only possible to exist with the use of Spirit, therefore the idea of intrinsic morality is only possible in the system that necessitates it, and everything is fine.

>>11362148
Depends on the definition of "good", and while I see where you are coming from, it is better according to an artificial telos to live as if it were intrinsic and mattered beyond the self.

[Anonymous No.11362172]

>>11361956
>commie athiest jewish libtard bookcucks
I am literally none of those. stop projecting rabbi.

[Anonymous No.11362176]

>>11362172
based anti-book gang, together we will eradicate literature on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11362182]

>>11362163
>I was saying I am disappointed that the only arguments are not for which side is correct, but which side should be the default.
Okay yeah I agree. I’m atheist obviously but I don’t think a real argument is actually possible other than meme shit like in OPs pic, but it’s like how you can’t make an argument against the flying teapot thing. I do think though that arguments against specific religions exist because multiple of them get shit wrong.

[Anonymous No.11362183]

This is simply not an argument I am familiar with amongst atheists. Yes I know the “why does a good god allow evil” argument, but legitimately why does it? Also what is good and what is evil is not really objective so it’s hard to say there is so much good and so much evil. Also I’m not really sure where this “lol atheists are MAD at god” idea comes from. I simply see no reason to believe in a god so I do not. If there were sufficient proof given to me that god or gods do exist I would convert in an instant. There is no emotion at all towards god because I don’t believe in him or her or them or it or whatever. I’ve never seen an atheist angry at god. I’ve seen some religious types get angry at god, but really they are just angry at the the direction their life has taken and need something to take the blame.

[Anonymous No.11362190]

>>11362183
>Also what is good and what is evil is not really objective
then how do you know god allows any amount of evil? how do you know human perception isn't just busted?

You might want to read some works on the subject before you just start throwing out these questions as though they haven't been at least attempted by every serious mind going back for millennia, anon?

[Anonymous No.11362198]

>>11362183
>Also I’m not really sure where this “lol atheists are MAD at god” idea comes from
butthurt boomers who rebelled against rural and suburban retard parents

[Anonymous No.11362199]

>>11362182
There are definitely not a lot of compelling arguments, but I think the majority have come from your side and weeded out a lot of religions that did not make it to today. Essentially just pose hard questions, and if the other side tries and cannot answer, they will be forced to concede something.

[Anonymous No.11362204]

>>11362163
I’m the top person. I made a response b4 but it had no real substance. I want to know why you believe in religion despite no evidence being presented? Is it because of Pascal’s wager? I’m not trying to dig into you I actually want to know

[Anonymous No.11362211]

>>11362204
because I heard that only nu-male cucklords aren't pious Catholics

[Anonymous No.11362226]

>>11362204
I think either side requires some belief, as it is ultimately unanswerable. I suppose then at the root I am agnostic. From there, I took some time to think on Pascal a while back. His wager could be applied to more than an after life. If I live as if I have meaning and I do not, then I am out nothing, but if I live as if I am meaningless, then if I am wrong I am out everything. That is probably the most influential to my actions as far as arguments, and by that merit the most important to me. In reading the Bible, there is a lot of wisdom in a short space. You hear people critiquing the "bad" parts, but even these make sense to me. Because of this, there has to be some substantial truth, and I find it unlikely that that much was recorded by guys in the desert on their own prior to the scientific revolution. That's about the best I got off the top of my head.

[Anonymous No.11362229]

>>11362211
okay, this is based

[Anonymous No.11362244]

>>11361995
The Christian God is not a universal micro-manager, he is the Good, and we can choose to have a relationship with Him or not--he is always waiting. As for the rules and dogma of the Church that feel so contrived and micro-managey, the thing you have to keep in mind is that in allowing the Fall to happen God did not dictate the nature of that Fall--so, like dropping a plate, it shattered in a completely random way. So God's Word, aka Christ, is God's instruction for navigating the wreckage of this Fallen world. Heaven will not have such rules because in Heaven there will be no obstacles. On Earth there are, so God has given us all the things we have to do to avoid the pitfalls of the Fall (pun intended ;) )

[Anonymous No.11362250]

>>11361995
Being totally unironic here, you might consider Jordan Peterson's "Maps of Meaning", as it is on the use of myth beyond Freud's view of it as wish fulfillment.

[Anonymous No.11362252]

>>11362226
How do you live with or without a meaning? I hear this sometimes and I don’t understand. I believe life has no intrinsic meaning but it doesn’t mean I don’t do anything or enjoy anything. I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything
I do agree though that the Bible has a lot to say about things and making fun of the questionable parts isn’t a real argument. But science wise the Bible(to my knowledge) doesn’t have any correct info on things that wasn’t common knowledge at that point. I only read Genesis and the New Testament so if it has anything true in it I’d like to see it

[Anonymous No.11362268]

>>11362252
First, I was not talking about science directly, I meant that these people by our standards knew essentially nothing. As for living with or without meaning, I think it is possible to live a decent life under an artificial teleology, something like "benefitting other people generally benefits me in the long run", which itself would construct a crude morality. Beyond this it builds in complexity until you have something decent, but it still always has to be centered around the self, because that is the only solid footing you have to the world at all. With a divinity, you have something higher to place morality in, and therefore can be truly selfless. Because the conclusion of the artificial telos is something resembly selflessness (although not quite it entirely) the literal telos only possible with a god better suits even the demands of the artificial, as well as it's own.

[Anonymous No.11362285]

>>11361792
Reverse good with evil in that pic and tell me there's a good chance for God

[Anonymous No.11362312]

>>11362268
But would you really lose something if you didn’t believe in intrinsic meaning. If you didn’t believe in intrinsic morals, would you then have no morals? I don’t think so. You’re still human and succumb to the fact that we think morality involves selflessness. Do morals need justification?

[Anonymous No.11362320]

>>11362312
>You’re still human and succumb to the fact that we think morality involves selflessness.
Good vs evil as altruism vs egoism divide isn’t eternal universal moral fact

[Anonymous No.11362326]

>>11362312
I did not say you would have no morals. My point is that you would not actually be able to achieve anything truly selfless, because your morality still needs rooting within the self. I am not going to call you bad people for not believing in God. I think that line of arguing is stupid and counter productive. My point is that the conclusion that the construction of morality would beckon towards is only possible with an intrinsic morel, and therefore it is better in either sense to live as if it exists.

[Anonymous No.11362362]

>>11361792

>what do you mean im not allowed to hit my kids, i feed them so much and take them to school

[Anonymous No.11362380]

>>11361792
Since when being a conservative Christian became cool again? This neo-Christian fedora tipping is interesting.

[Anonymous No.11362385]

>>11362065
Read Job. The issue is addressed in the Bible itself

[Anonymous No.11362388]

>>11362380
2016 election