[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 119x145, plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1208714 No.1208714 [Reply] [Original]

Calling "religion" stupid is like calling "history" or "politics" or "literature stupid.

>> No.1208716

How about calling you stupid?

-10/10

>> No.1208720

Calling "Driving a nail into your thigh to cure your cold" stupid is like calling "Taking an influenza vaccine to immunize yourself to the flu" or "Taking vitamin C to prevent scurvy" or "Staying hydrated and sleeping so you don't die" stupid, too, amirite?

>> No.1208728

I'm one of the most pro-religion dudes around here

and even i think that shit is stupid

>> No.1208732

Bashing large categories without making qualifications is usually dumb.

This is a controversial point?

>> No.1208734

>>1208720

My mother can't have flu vaccinations. They make her sick.

>1208714

Religion in practice is generally stupid. Religion in theory is not. Most of history is stupid. So is most literature.

>> No.1208739
File: 64 KB, 593x575, 1271048770560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1208739

todays religon is just tomorows mythology

>> No.1208740

>>1208739

myth = authoritative truthful account

>> No.1208744

I don't understand why I am constantly being attacked for being religious when I have never used my religion as justification to homophobia or any other kind of discrimination or denial of rights and the like. My religion for me is a positive source of strength and comforts and helps me to make the right decisions at huge crossroads in my life, and it's something that I believe is totally a private matter.

>> No.1208745

>>1208740
myth = any invented story, idea, or concept

>> No.1208748

>>1208744
It's because religion has been the basis of most hatred in this country. I respect most people who are religious, but are not homophobic ignorant assholes who choose to shove it down other people's throats.

I don't consider myself religious, but I'm deeply spiritual. For the reasons you outline, I don't talk to many people about it.

>> No.1208763

>>1208744

Depends on the religion.

I'm cool with eastern religions because they preach living in unity with the environment and achieving inner peace through meditation is obviously achievable and backed up by empirical evidence with positive medical results

Wester religions, specifically the abrahamic religions are based on torrid mythology involving sacrafice, bloodshed and bizarre rituals, all of them have been proven false by objective empirical evidence.

Also, the thought that these religions provide "morality" is laughable, because its basis for it is "do this, because god said so." which is inherently anti-intellectual

After reading Suma Theologica, I realized that religion was permanently retarded and will never provide any real answer for anything, defending it is what people do out of fear of uncertainty.

I'm sure you have your reasons for beleiving in them, but I'm sure they are probably subjective and flawed. And its a free country so you can believe whatever the hell you want, but just as long as you know, ridiculous beliefs will always create some kind of invisible barrier between critical thinkers and the close minded.

Religion has been around for 10,000 years, modern science has been around for 200, so I only suspect things to get worse from this point.

>> No.1208765

>>1208739
But.. that's a troll picture.. only like two of them are atheists... I guess most of them aren't religious though..

>> No.1208769

>>1208744

>justification to homophobia or any other kind of discrimination

How is "fearing men who have sex with men" discriminatory? Do arachnophobes violate the rights of spiders?

>> No.1208771

>>1208763
>all of them have been proven false by objective empirical evidence.

no they haven't, you retard

>> No.1208776

>>1208748

>It's because religion has been the basis of most hatred in this country

Diversity is the basis of hatred. The Other is always on the receiving end of hate.

>> No.1208780

>>1208769
That's not what homophobic means..

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and in some cases transgender and intersex people."

>> No.1208782

>>1208771
The bible and Koran have.

>> No.1208785

>>1208771

yes they have you moron.

Snakes don't talk, noahs ark doesn't exist, the world's population was never wiped out by a mass flood, people don't physically descend into heaven, nor was the world populated from two people.

All of those mythological concepts have been completely refuted by modern science.

Are you a fucking idiot, or still in junior high?

>> No.1208786

>>1208782
certain parts of the bible may have been shown to be inaccurate as a historical account (particularly for the old testament). but no intelligent christian believes that the old testament is literally true anyway.

the tenets and doctrines of christianity have not been proven to be false. unless there's been recent news that I've missed.

>> No.1208794

>>1208785

You poor fool.

>> No.1208795

>>1208786

>the tenets and doctrines of christianity have not been proven to be false. unless there's been recent news that I've missed.

Spoiler Alert: Humans are apes that evolved from early arborial mammals.

We are not divine creatures created by a Sky God, with a soul that survives death, and our purpose is not to believe in Jesus Christ.

Main Christian Doctrine: Completely Refuted.

Now you're up to speed, have a nice life.

>> No.1208797

>>1208744
>My religion for me is a positive source of strength and comforts and helps me to make the right decisions at huge crossroads in my life, and it's something that I believe is totally a private matter.

Your religion is still irrational, thus the choices you'll make are influenced by an irrational belief, I'd say that's pretty stupid.

>> No.1208799

>>1208794

Please tell me you're a troll.

>> No.1208801

>>1208786
>the tenets and doctrines of christianity have not been proven to be false

What are the tenets?

>> No.1208802

>>1208785

Science proves the laws of nature wrong because you can't break them. TRUE laws can be broken. The laws of nature ARE FALSE. This is an EMPIRICAL FACT. Scientists have OBSERVED laws being broken. PROVE IT.

>> No.1208807

>>1208802
/lit/, the most intelligent board.

>> No.1208809

>>1208802

Wow...just fucking wow. I'm gonna screencap this and send it to Sci.

>> No.1208810

>>1208802

Brilliant parody my lad.

>> No.1208814

>>1208802

You can't break the laws of nature because they only apply to the circumstances that they aren't broken.

>> No.1208816

>>1208807

You'd think that, but apparently you can be well read and still be a complete dumb-ass.

Don't universities produce well rounded people anymore?

>> No.1208817

>>1208814

Circular logic.
The laws of nature are irrational.

>> No.1208819

>>1208816

>Don't universities produce well rounded people anymore?

Nope. They produce scientists instead.
The humanities are frowned upon these days.

>> No.1208828

>>1208795
>Spoiler Alert: Humans are apes that evolved from early arborial mammals.

Evolution is completely compatible with christianity. Here, I'll outline the steps: Billions of years ago, some supremely powerful, all knowing entity God created the Universe through the Big Bang. He created the physical laws of the universe and guided the creation of planets, the genesis of intelligent life, and the evolution of life leading to humans.

>We are not divine creatures created by a Sky God,

hasn't really been proven

>with a soul that survives death,

hasn't been proven at all

>our purpose is not to believe in Jesus Christ.

CERTAINLY hasn't been proven

>Main Christian Doctrine: Completely Refuted. Now you're up to speed, have a nice life.

You're an arrogant dickhead.

>> No.1208830
File: 42 KB, 240x240, 240x240_bio_asimov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1208830

>/lit/, 1 post every 4 minutes
>start religious troll, 4 posts every minute

Prove me wrong.

>> No.1208836

>>1208828
>Evolution is completely compatible with christianity. Here, I'll outline the steps: Billions of years ago, some supremely powerful, all knowing entity God created the Universe through the Big Bang. He created the physical laws of the universe and guided the creation of planets, the genesis of intelligent life, and the evolution of life leading to humans.

That's not what the bible says bro.

>> No.1208837

>>1208828

Wow, I really feed sorry for you christfags.

Have fun defending your sinking ship, you intellectual manchild.

>> No.1208845

>>1208836

You consider yourself a fine biblical exegete I take it?
Perhaps you could share your background with us? Do you know Hebrew or Greek? Have you a theological background?

>> No.1208846

>>1208836
no intelligent christian believes that the genesis account of creation is literally true. it's a metaphor

>>1208837
i'm not actually a christian at all.

I just find it sad when atheists make intellectually incoherent arguments because they've never talked to an intelligent christian

>> No.1208849

>>1208819

Troll/1000

>> No.1208865

>>1208846

there's nothing intellectually incoherent about what was said, you just don't seem to understand science.

But please, continue with your intellectually dishonest apologetics.

I mean, clearly the bible should be treated as a work of spiritual authority. It says so right in the bible!

Fuck, you people just have no clue. Its baffling.

>> No.1208866

>>1208817

Nature isn't bound by the equations we use to understand it. The circumstances that we can apply our equations are bound by nature.

If a law is "broken", then that implies that the law not correct in the first place, meaning the law was simply misapplied and not really broken. The law is then to be revised to apply to the situations where it still applies and researchers look to see what is different about the case where the law was "broken".

>> No.1208873

>>1208865
>there's nothing intellectually incoherent about what was said, you just don't seem to understand science.

If the standard you are using is the scientific method, then yes: there is no sufficient positive evidence to believe that God exists. I'm not saying that you should believe in God, or that it's possible to prove that he exists.

The claim was made that Western religions have been proven false by objective empirical evidence. I don't think that's true. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's not true. So I'm arguing against it. That's the extent of my point.

>> No.1208874

>>1208846

>no intelligent christian believes that the genesis account of creation is literally true. it's a metaphor

I guess you should do a little more studying, its been considered true by every sect of christianity for the entire christian era.

It wasn't until the rise of modern science that it came into consideration, and it wasn't until it was completely undeniable from the overwhelming evidence that the catholic church relented. Many other sects, protestantism for one, consider it to still be literally true.

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Christians are retards. Deal with it.

>> No.1208876

>>1208814
That's the cool thing about the scientific method, it's self correcting.

Tell me the last 500 years of applying the scientific method and disregarding the religious hasn't taught us more about the universe than the religious.

Please do tell me, I'll be sitting back in my chair watching lesbian porn in the meantime, so you have some time.

>> No.1208877

God is outside of measurable nature. He created it. Dawkins-type dogmatic campaigning atheists just restate pointless real estate information about the measurable universe and keep saying 'but doesn't it seem unlikely?' Yes, sure. That's why it's a miracle, and why faith is the core human work. It's easy to have faith in something that seems to have a high level of probability. Faith in the astonishing, sui generis fact of God's Love for us is hard.

>> No.1208878

>>1208866

Who is the judge?
What prison do you get put in for breaking laws of nature?

Admit it. Believing in laws of nature is as stupid as believing in invisible flying volcanos that have cold lava.

>> No.1208880

>>1208874

You know nothing of what you're talking about. No, the whole of Protestantism doesn't believe Genesis is literally true. You're speaking out of ignorance.

>> No.1208883

>>1208874
>I guess you should do a little more studying, its been considered true by every sect of christianity for the entire christian era.

Well, I mean, yes. When there was no reason for them not to believe it, when there was no reason to consider it less compelling as an account of the origin of man than any alternative account, they believed in it. When evidence emerged that countermanded it, they changed their opinions to deal with it. But that change did not invalidate the main points of Christian doctrine.

>Many other sects, protestantism for one, consider it to still be literally true.

'Protestantism' isn't a monolith. Many Protestants accept the Old Testament as metaphorical. And those that don't are stupid

>Christians are retards. Deal with it.

lol yase fuck you dad!

>> No.1208888

I feel the need to point out that the "literal" truth of genesis is far from obvious. Days need not be 24 hour periods for example. Symbolic language and ancient literary conventions need be taken account of.

>> No.1208890

For reference, a very brief summary of core Christian beliefs:

There is an allpowerful, omniscient God, who in some sense created all things visible and invisible, and in particular created humans. There is also another entity, Jesus, who is simultaneously human and divine, who stands in a relation of Son-ness to God. This latter entity, Jesus, chose to die in an expiatory sacrifice so that the sins of mankind would be forgiven, and all those who believed in God would have eternal salvation after death. There's also the Holy Spirit mucking about doing shit.

>> No.1208895

>>1208890

No, most Christians believe Jesus was God, not another entity. Read moar.

>> No.1208896

/lit/, I am dissapoint. Dumbfuck threads like this belong in /sci/.

>> No.1208897

>>1208878

Everything around you is made possible by understanding of some of the laws of nature. Intelligent thoughts wouldn't be possible without a basic understanding about how nature works.

>> No.1208899

>>1208895

>most Christians believe Jesus was God
Yes. Jesus IS God, but he is also WITH God.
Read the gospel of John.

>> No.1208900

>>1208895
Eh, it's one of those paradoxes that's central to Christianity, and thus difficult to state.

Jesus was both God and not-God; he is one with God, but he is God's son; he is God, but he is also Man.

>> No.1208901

>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877
>>1208877

>> No.1208904

>>1208878

Nature is the judge of its laws. Whatever it is is what the laws are. Period.

Scientist hope to understand everything that nature is.

>> No.1208906

Sometimes I love you guys, /lit/

>> No.1208907

>>1208897

>Everything around you is made possible by understanding of some of the laws of nature

Occams razor.
Believing that invisible forces permeate every single object in our universe is needlessly complicated.

>> No.1208909

>>1208899
With God, yes, but not a separate entity.

>>1208900
Jesus was fully God and fully Man. He is not partially not-God. He is entirely Man and entirely God.

>> No.1208910

>>1208907

>needlessly complicated
So what. Utility/necessity/complexity/simplicity are all concepts we project onto 'reality'. Occam's razor, burden of proof, and assorted meta-epistemological claims are baloney

>> No.1208911

>>1208907

Occam's razor is a suggested rule of thought, it is not an ontological law. The entire body of science is a refutation to the usefulness of Occam's razor.

>> No.1208913
File: 20 KB, 90x100, avatarphn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1208913

Nonbeliever here, I agree with OP.

>> No.1209266

>>1208880

I don't think you know anything about Protestantism

One of the tenants is Sola Scriptura, that the bible is the inerrant received word of God,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

If you're not following it, you're not Protestant. That would be like claiming you're Catholic and not receiving communion or believing in transubstantiation

Again, good attempt at defending the fundies, but sooner or later you're going to have to accept that these beliefs are out of touch with the modern world.

>> No.1209273

lol religion

>> No.1209285

Protestants believe in divorce, so yeah... they're going to hell.

>> No.1209290

>>1209285

Some of them, sure, but most of them will end up in purgatory.

>> No.1209308

>>1209266

NO, you don't know anything about Protestantism. What's you're saying is LAUGHABLE. The Bible can be the inerrant word of God without being a series of factual statements. You have NO NOTION OF PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY AS IT IS LIVED. Stop grubbing around Wikipedia for things that back up your existing ignorance, and get talking to some actual Protestants.

>> No.1209325

All I know is in German they call Prods "Evangelisten". And we all know what THAT means.

>> No.1209357

>>1209308

Most people clearly have little knowledge of their own faith, so what the fuck good is that going to do. That's a tenant of Protest belief, if people don't believe it then still call themselves protestant, that's really irrelevant.

I also notice you keep telling me Im wrong, ignorant, laughable, but you provide no counter argument other than abuse. The dead ringer for that was mocking an encyclopedia as somehow being inaccurate.

I'll just assume you're a butthurt protestant, mad because his shitty belief system is being picked apart.

It's like Mormons saying they don't actually believe in Jesus living on a planet called Kolob or Scientologists saying they don't believe in Xenu and thetans being the dead souls of aliens dropped into a volcano, but they actually do, they just don't discuss it to outsiders because they know how fucking ridiculous those beliefs are to outsiders.

Its not my fault you believe that a really old book is fact because the really old book claims its fact and demand intellectual respect because of that, and are made because no one will give it to you.

>> No.1209360

>>1209357
He's not saying that Sola Scriptura isn't related to Protestantism. He's saying that your interpretation of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine is radically incorrect. Which it is.

>> No.1209369

>>1209360

>He's saying that your interpretation of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine is radically incorrect. Which it is.

>Protestant doctrines
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestants#Protestant_doctrines

>Although the doctrines of Protestant denominations are far from uniform, some beliefs extending across Protestantism are the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide.

>*Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible)[7] is the final source of authority for all Christians.
>* Sola fide holds that salvation comes by faith alone in Jesus as the Christ, rather than through good works.

I think you should learn a little more about Protestantism, or perhaps just stop talking out your ass.

It's really starting to become embarrassing how completely wrong you are.

>> No.1209376

>>1209369
Yes, Sola Scriptura holds that the ultimate authority for Christian doctrine is the Bible. That does not mean that you have to interpret the Bible literally, as an account of actual events. It's entirely possible that you can interpret it metaphorically, as a story, and still believe it to be the literal truth revealed by God. Which is what most intelligent Protestants do.

>> No.1209384

>>1209376
>literal truth
>metaphorical

Damn it boy, you ain't makin' a lick of sense. The damn godless scientists make more sense than you.

>> No.1209389

>>1209376

You seem to be missing the point. Which parts are literal? Which parts of metaphorical? Who decides which is which? Sola Scriputra includes the idea that the bible is clear, concise divine words of God. Nowhere in the bible does it say "this is literal", "this is metaphorical", its ALL supposed to be taken as literal truth.

Historically, the bible was always interpreted as completely literal. The whole "metaphorical" thing only came about when science started tearing down the obvious mythology, and the "metaphorical" interpretations became some kind of intellectual compromise so the church could continue to survive into the 21st century.

Also, name one major protestant sect that accepts evolution and interprets the events of Genesis as a story. Just one.

>> No.1209399

>>1209384
We do not have to believe that The Bible (particularly the Septuagint) is a literally true accounting of historical events to believe that it is the true word of God. It can be a metaphorical truth. We can believe that Genesis is a metaphorical account of the process by which God created Earth, for example.

>>1209389
>
Historically, the bible was always interpreted as completely literal. The whole "metaphorical" thing only came about when science started tearing down the obvious mythology, and the "metaphorical" interpretations became some kind of intellectual compromise so the church could continue to survive into the 21st century.

I really don't like this objection because it don't make a lick of sense

in what regard is this even an objection

>> No.1209410

>>1209389

>Historically, the bible was always interpreted as completely literal

Have you read any of the Church Fathers? Allegorical readings were there from the start. Just look at guys like St. Clement.

>> No.1209457

>>1209410

Again, how did they know which parts are allegorical?

I'm pretty every author of every part of the bible intended it to be a literal truth.

Whoever wrote psalms probably did think the world was flat, rested on pillars, did not move, and great sea monsters guarded the edges.

Trying to interpret it as some kind of 2deep4u allegorical passage is a waste of time. It was written by some crazy old jewish tribesman.

>> No.1209487

>>1209457
>Again, how did they know which parts are allegorical?

they interpreted it

>Whoever wrote psalms probably did think the world was flat, rested on pillars, did not move, and great sea monsters guarded the edges.

but he was guided by the inspiration of god in recording that belief

>Trying to interpret it as some kind of 2deep4u allegorical passage is a waste of time. It was written by some crazy old jewish tribesman.

guided by the inspiration of god

>> No.1209492

>>1209487

God guided me to tell you you're a complete idiot faggot.

Interpret that how you will.

>> No.1209497

>>1209492
Ahhhhh, you're fulla beans

>> No.1209498

>>1209487

>but he was guided by the inspiration of god in recording that belief

>> No.1209504 [DELETED] 

>>1209457

>I'm pretty every author of every part of the bible intended it to be a literal truth.

You have a point. The early theologians believed that every biblical passage was both literal and allegorical.

I must stress once again though that this literal/historical dimension of scripture was itself interpreted, and was far from obvious.

An example of what I mean:
>In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

>> No.1209507
File: 25 KB, 400x400, what the fuck am I reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1209507

>>1209457

>> No.1209511

>>1209457

>I'm pretty every author of every part of the bible intended it to be a literal truth.

You have a point. The early theologians believed that every biblical passage was both literally and allegorically true.

I must stress once again though that this literal/historical dimension of scripture was itself interpreted, and was far from obvious.

An example of what I mean:
>In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

>> No.1209529

>>1209511

That's an excellent point as well.

My real overall point however is, who gives a fuck?

The bible doesn't have any actual higher truth or answers in it, especially after the past 200 years of science.

I'd rather learn about physics and biology then waste my time trying to interpret the insane ramblings of jewish tribesman, as if they had some kind of authority.

Science isn't truth, its about discovering truth. Religion has already decided what truth is, and tries to bend the world around it.

That's inherently anti-intellectual and I will never accept it or regard it as a viewpoint that stands equally with any kind of viewpoint derived from critical thinking. If people want to think I'm edgy or arrogant or close minded, that's fine, but I will never give religion any kind of high regard.

>> No.1209536

>>1209529
>I'd rather learn about physics and biology then waste my time trying to interpret the insane ramblings of jewish tribesman

I don't know why people think it's impossible to be all up on science and still be religious at the same time.

>> No.1209546

>>1209536

>Science isn't truth, its about discovering truth. Religion has already decided what truth is, and tries to bend the world around it.

Kind of sad how I had to repeat myself.

>> No.1209547

>>1209529

>The bible doesn't have any actual higher truth or answers in it, especially after the past 200 years of science.
What does science have to do with higher truths? If there is such a thing as higher truth, I'm pretty sure it would be beyond the realm of direct observation.

>I'd rather learn about physics and biology then waste my time trying to interpret....
Fair enough, not everyone is cut out for theology and the like.

>That's inherently anti-intellectual and I will never accept it or regard it as a viewpoint that stands equally with any kind of viewpoint derived from critical thinking
A cursory look at the rich history of Christian philosophy will show you that the religion is not inherently anti-intellectual or non-critical.

>> No.1209554

>>1209546

>and tries to bend the world around it.
Christianity starts with certain propositions it considers truthful and uses these to make various deductions. Is that really so offensive?

>> No.1209556

lol only because it's wrong?

>> No.1209566

>>1209554

That's actually really terrible

>> No.1209580

>>1209566
Yeah?

>> No.1209591

>>1209554

Yes.

Science does something similar, but when it encounters contrary evidence, it rejects the original premise, and moves forward.

Religion encounters evidence, then claims the evidence is wrong because it doesn't fit in with the preconceived truths.

That's moronic. Thank gravy people risked their lives to fight against this, otherwise we'd still be toiling under the divine right of kings, and shitting in chamberpots while dying of the plague.

Religion has been nothing more than an unfortunate placeholder for explanations until science came along, it no longer has any use other than a historic curiosity.

Economists no longer really read Adam Smith. Psychologists no longer read Freud. Physicists no longer learn Aristotelian physics. Humanity should no longer read the bible.

You should probably know about those people, and their basic beliefs, but intently studying them is irrelevant because they have little meaning in the modern world.

>> No.1209594

>>1209591

If you think economists no longer read Adam Smith, you are dreaming.

>> No.1209598

>>1208716
Called a troll in the very first page.
>>everyone else in here
Decided to bump the troll continuously.
Well played, lit, well played.
sage

>> No.1209611

>>1209591

>Science does something similar, but when it encounters contrary evidence, it rejects the original premise, and moves forward.

This is a utopian vision of science. In the real world, scientists are being punished for publishing data that calls into question things like racial equality.

>Religion has been nothing more than an unfortunate placeholder for explanations until science came along
Religion consists mostly in non-scientific claims. Making it into some sort of primitive science is just silly.

>Economists no longer really read Adam Smith. Psychologists no longer read Freud. Physicists no longer learn Aristotelian physics. Humanity should no longer read the bible.
Truth doesn't cease being true with age.

>> No.1209619

>>1209594

His ideas are still obviously discussed, but Keynes, Menger, Friedman, are whats actually taught.

Capitalism wasn't even a word when Smith was around, he used the term "a system of perfect liberty".

>> No.1209630

>Economists no longer really read Adam Smith. Psychologists no longer read Freud. Physicists no longer learn Aristotelian physics. Humanity should no longer read the bible.

Playwrights still read Shakespeare.
Does this throw a ratchet in the gears of your chronological snobbery?

>> No.1209632

>>1209611

>Truth doesn't cease being true with age

It does when when you find theories that are more correct or better explanations, or new evidence refutes it.

Learn2science, my little biblefag.

>> No.1209640

>>1209630

Literature and Science aren't the same thing, you daft manchild.

Shakespere didn't write scientific theories, he wrote fucking plays.

I can't believe you'd even comp...ah fuck it. Fuck you. Just fuck you, you goddamn moron. Fuck.

>> No.1209645

>>1209632

>It does when when you find theories that are more correct or better explanations, or new evidence refutes it.
Science cannot refute that which is beyond its scope.
Is this point that difficult to understand?

>> No.1209656

>>1209640

>Literature and Science aren't the same thing, you daft manchild.

Literature and science both impart truths.
Religious truth would seem closer to literary truth than scientific truth to me. You disagree?

>> No.1209669

>>1209645

If its beyond the scope of science, its beyond the scope of man.

If you believe a man made book of jewish mythology as having some kind of special insight into higher truths and holding authority over science, then you're either a troll or retarded.

Have fun going to heaven and partying with all your dead relatives, I'll happily burn in hell, it clearly would have all the best movies and music anyways.

>> No.1209672

>>1209656

Science doesn't impart truth, you fucking retard. That's not at all how science works.

Why are you so retarded? Were you homeschooled? Did you go to bob jones university?

>> No.1209676

>>1209669

I believe that there is more to reality than matter, and that this transcendent realm periodically breaks into our own making itself known to man.

Think me crazy if you want. I don't care.

>> No.1209680

>>1209672

>Science doesn't impart truth
Tell that to the people who say "evolution is true"

>> No.1209693

>>1209680

Yes, Evolution is the truest theory we have. However, something more true could come along one day and then that would replace it.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt you attended university, the scientific method should of been explained to you at least 4 times, grade school, junior high, high school, and then in university.

If you can't grasp how science works at this point, then I don't think much can be done for you.

>> No.1209699

>>1209693

Stop being so pedantic.
Valid observations can be said to be "true".

>> No.1209703

>>1209693

Why would he want to understand the scientific method?

>> No.1209708

>>1209703

Because science is the sole arbiter of truth.
To be ignorant of the scientific method is to be ignorant of everything.

>> No.1209725

>>1209708
>Because science is the sole arbiter of truth.

lol

no

>> No.1209730

>>1209725

Because theres no such thing as truth right?
GTFO NIHILIST SCUM

>> No.1209737

>>1209708

What matters in this life isn't what you know, but what you can do about it. Science is not the sole arbiter of truth, and even if it was, it wouldn't matter if most people weren't interested in that truth - which they're not. They don't care about you, or what you think. Most of them could break most of you in half with one hand. That's 'truth'.

>> No.1209747

>>1209737

>Practical applications determines a thing's worth.
You make me sick.

>> No.1209757

>>1209708
>Because science is the sole arbiter of truth.

Someone just arrived from richarddawkins.net. Do us a favor and take your pathetic, naive scientism back there.

>> No.1209758

>>1209747

Don't blame me, man, blame society. It's only to the extent that it has greater use-value than culture that the general public 'believe' in science - if science didn't make it easier for them to live by doing less, rather than reward them more ambiguously for thinking harder (like culture does), then it would have gone the same way. It's toasters and vibrators that makes the world safe for science.

>> No.1209813

>>1209757

>I WON'T BELIEVE IN THEORIES BACKED BY EMPIRICALLY TESTED EVIDENCE BUT I'LL FAITHFULLY BELIEVE A MAN MADE 5000 YEAR OLD BOOK OF MYTHOLOGY WRITTEN BY MOSTLY UNKNOWN MIDDLE EASTERN TRIBALS WITH NO WAY TO VERIFY ITS ACCURACY

durr hurr looks like someone just arrived from gotquestions.org

Seriously, I've never read a dawkins book in my life, and no one has too to be sceptical of religion, all it takes is a triple digit IQ.

>> No.1209822

>>1208714
I agree all those things are stupid, maybe not eqaully though.

>> No.1210520

this thread is dildos

>> No.1210526
File: 30 KB, 500x392, yg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1210526

It's a part of early human culture we haven't managed to shake off yet.

Hopefully we can stave off the religious corrosion of progress for long enough for it to die.

>> No.1210530

>>1208734
there is no religion without practice stupid fuck!
an the practice is called prayer

>> No.1210580

>>1210526

Can you name me a single human universal that has been "shaken off"?

>> No.1210590

>>1210580

can you name me a single human universal

>> No.1210604

>>1210590
can you name me a single human

>> No.1210622
File: 142 KB, 303x500, Valis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1210622

I'm a Gnostic. I believe that the phenomenal world is an artificial deception of unknown nature and purpose, that human nature is the only thing not belonging to this false reality, and that a God-entity residing outside it guides humanity in its cultural and spiritual progress, opposed by the mechanistic forces of this construct. Not that barbaric and horrible, is it? I totally support liberal atheism on all social issues, but traditional religion definitely has its place in culture.
Pic oh so related.

>> No.1210629

>>1210604

Can you name me a single?

>> No.1210631

religion is responsible for many very important philosophical contributions. thomas aquinas and augustine can still be relevant, philosophically. however the function of religion itself as mythology is outmoded.

>> No.1210638

Confucianism is the only fundamentally sensible religion.

>> No.1210643

>>1210604
can you?


Anyway, the majority of posts in this thread are pretty fucking retarded, like most debates about religion on the internet between a couple of well-meaning people and a bunch of either angsty faggoty adolescents or faggoty insecure adolescents.

Discuss books or something assholes.

Metaphysically speaking, religion (or core metaphysical aspects of religion) is not 'unprovable' or 'provable', they are unfalsifiable.
There is a difference and I acknowledge I can never empiracally prove my philisophical leanings.

But I could give one less of a damn about trying to prove anything to a bunch of jags with feigned senses of outrage at how "stupid" the world is without recognizing their own blatant stupidity.

>> No.1210656

>>1208802
Moar like true laws cannot be broken. You can't defy/break gravity. But you can murder someone--sorry Ten Commandments.

>> No.1210665

>>1210580


my post still stands:

can you name me a single human universal? at all?

human, subjective truth is as transient as time itself - the only constant is that it changes.

>> No.1210669

>>1210656
But doesn't the natural world break the laws of nature all the time?

Wasn't that the whole thing about the theory of relativity?

And if you're really trying to argue that the Ten Commandments are binding-
well, that shows that you don't know jack diddly about language.

It doesn't say You CAN'T commit murder, it says You SHALL not commit murder.

Come on.

>> No.1210674

>>1210665
hey anon, Heraclitus called.

He wants his vagina back.

>> No.1210677

I couldn't care less about religion; we all have our irrational beliefs and quirks, and if some happen to revolve theirs around a desert cult, then so be it.

>> No.1210679

>>1210665

>can you name me a single human universal? at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_universal

>> No.1210683

>>1210677
generalizations make everything sound stupid, dude.

If you want to somehow believe that all that we see is somehow made up of infinitely divisible specks that are mostly empty space, I'm not going to stop you, I'm just going to look at you funny.

>> No.1210686

I don't think ALL religion is stupid, Buddhists are generally nice and don't shove things in your face, Confucianism have a lovely way of looking at how the world should work and again (due to the main law of their religion) don't force it on people.

Sikhs take it as a main point that all beings are equal regardless of caste, creed or gender and they hand out free food to the poor in their temples, even if you are NOT Sikh.

The Muslims have a tolerance and understanding of the mentally ill that is unique in the world and treat them well and humanely even giving them sweets and making sure they do not come to harm, their original order even pushed the start of science and developed many technologies and ideas that were the building blocks of modern civilisation.

The Jews and Christians have done much in the way of charity and helping to build up civilization in the western world and we would not be anywhere near where we are now without them.

Each and every religion has it's flaws, but you must reason your arguments from a neutral view and they have also done much good.

You may hate them, but try to at least see the good in them so that you may better understand them. No one has ever learned anything from ignorance after all.

>> No.1210701

>>1210679


>>CULTURAL universal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Human universal)

can you name me a single human universal?

>> No.1210718

>>1210701
we all die
we all hunger
we all reason.

Now shut the fuck up and go back to bed before I rape you.

>> No.1210721

>>1210701

Only humans have culture.

>> No.1210727

>>1210665

>can you name me a single human universal? at all?

Structures of human thought.

Perhaps you would like to take the opportunity to cite Hegel, Nietzsche, or Marx at this moment.

>> No.1210737

>>1210669
But isn't it God's Law? Oh yeah I forgot, he's a sadistic fuck that takes pleasure in human suffering.

Yeah kill your son Abraham, kill him good.

Face it religion is obsolete in today's world. It does nothing but divide and keep the ignorant, ignorant.

>> No.1210744

>>1210721
That is absofuckinglutely not true. You don't think animals have culture? Well, humans are animals so nevermind.

Only thing other animals don't have is religion, and they are better off without it.

>> No.1210745

>>1210686
Wait...

Sikhs give out free food at their temples?

I didn't even know they were a proper religion, dear fuck it would have been nice to know that as a student, I lived near one of the damn things, turbans everywhere. That's the only thing I know about their thing, the guys wear turbans like the Jews wear those silly skull caps.

>> No.1210768

>>1210737
your logic has bowled me over indefinitely sir, not only do you possess a deep understanding of religion and religious principles, you are a shining example of secular humanism.

Now, you better run along, because that American Lit paper on Mark Twain is due on monday and you haven't even started!

>> No.1210791

The thing I like about these threads is that it's one extreme arguing with another, one or two moderate people post decent arguments for live and let live ideals and are completely ignored in favour of more arguing.

It just shows that neither side really cares at all about what they are arguing for, they just want to argue.

>> No.1210809

I think everyone would be fine with religion if it wasn't so brainwashed/forced onto kids from birth. But then if it wasn't, then I don't think many people would be religious, and then if not many people were religious, the few that were would probably end up being discriminated/ridiculed, until finally religion became a thing of the past, a joke or something stupid we used to do, like how we consider African and Native American tribes' religions. Which is kind of stupid because they really aren't that different from our beliefs. Why are their religions considered so barbaric, anyways?

>> No.1210819

>>1210809

>I think everyone would be fine with religion if it wasn't so brainwashed/forced onto kids from birth
You think that it's a bad thing that parents transmit their beliefs to their children, often unconsciously?

>> No.1210820

>>1210809
I was never under the impression that American Indian and African beliefs were considered barbaric.

I certainly never thought of them in that context. Different, yes, but you can't have the same world-view be present in every part of the world, can you?

>>1210791
Which is why I said a while ago I have no desire to prove anything to the sheer number of faggots around here.

People desperately want to justify their own philosophical and metaphysical ideologies at any cost so they will viciously attack any unlike thoughts if only to vindicate themselves.

Which is pretty fucking pathetic, but entirely human.

>> No.1210828

>>1210809

>like how we consider African and Native American tribes' religions
I, for one, have a lot of respect for tribal spirituality.
The whole "you don't believe in Odin!" attack isn't as strong as you think.

>> No.1210844

>>1210768
But hold on a minute, gravity isn't even a law, it's a theory.

Also, everything that can be feasibly tested for truth (meaning it falls into the realm of science) has been tested and proven wrong in most modern religions. It is possible to test the accuracy of this statement, so go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong, give me an example.

Well actually, I take that back because I know I am wrong. There are definitely some things preached in a religion that were true, simple things like stating the sky is blue or clear facts or some of the science that had been learnt and tested before the religion was created, I'm sure there's somethings in there that ARE true.

But what I'm saying is, religion has always been a way to replace science in matters that can't be answered by science. So they explained where the Earth was in space, what the stars were, why this or that happened. I think a lot of most religion's answers and ideas focused on space because that's the hardest to explain and the most mysterious. But finally, science began to catch up with religion, people began to find the REAL answers to the questions and that created conflict with how truthful religion as a whole was when there hadn't been any for thousands of years. They ended up turning to trying to censor the scientific discoveries but they kept getting proven wrong on repeated occasions (Earth's place with the planets, not flat Earth, no heaven etc.) until now its finally come to the point that religion's last foothold is right outside the realm of science, you can't PROVE god doesn't exist, you can't PROVE this or that, etc. When before you COULD prove the things religion said were wrong, now all they have is what you CAN'T prove. And that they still claim all this as fact is a bit silly.

>> No.1210845

>>1210844
Basically, religion is outdated. Science has caught up with it and now it isn't needed. It's not much of a problem, only with some moral issues such as womens' rights for Islam or gays for Christianity (though that really doesn't have to do much with the religion, Christianity is more of a scapegoat, then anything else, imo) etc.

Well, actually, they're trying to hold onto Creationism instead of natural selection atm. But I think that's the only thing left they have to do with science and that this point Creationism has been kind of denounced, only the most uneducated religious extremists (no offense) still believe in it.

I'm sure it will be done away with slowly, you don't need religion to teach morals, you can teach it fine without the threat/prize of Hell or Heaven, but it will definitely take some time.
I think its just getting lots of hate is because they still have their foot in things, such as minorities' rights and some science, when they should just be in their own corner not bothering anyone else.

Just like how moral and political issues are also slowing down the progress of science, for better or for worse.

>> No.1210848

guys what do you think we are going to occupy our time with after we de-throne science? Maybe taking up the old chestnut of making an art out life?

>> No.1210850

>>1210844

Myth, taken as a whole, is not primarily etiological.
Rather, the explanation of natural phenomena is a secondary function of myth.

You'd be hard pressed to find an expert in the field that takes the "myth = primitive science" position seriously.

>> No.1210854

Atheists seem to think that the Bible can be boiled down to historical accounts and moral lessons.

>> No.1210858

>>1210828
>The whole "you don't believe in Odin!" attack isn't as strong as you think.
What do you mean by that? I don't participate in that many arguments over religion, so I'm guessing people saying "You make fun of the Fire God when he is very similar to your God" is an argument often used?

I'm just wondering, because at least where I live, it is true that people do that. I remember going through school and when we learned about ancient religions and tribal religions, people always cracking jokes and such, all the way through highschool. A bit ironic because, like I said, they're very similar to their own religion, and also because they get upset when you aren't tolerant to everyone's religion.
I'm not saying that whatever religion you are is as stupid or barbaric as some tribal religion, I'm saying why is that an insult? Why do they seem stupid and barbaric to the average person?

My best guess would either be just the association with the uncivilized culture, or because of the instilled "uncivilized" idea for tribes since the imperial age, or just that polytheism is more outdated, as most Western religious preach monothiesm and while most Eastern religions preach polythiesm, the gods are usually more abstract and not like having 10 specific gods, but infinite different ones, or something.

Though I often do see people in the West make fun of some of the, say, Hindu gods. Herp derp an elephant head? lol!, etc.

>> No.1210870

>>1210850
What would you say the primary function is?

And I'm not saying that IS the primary function, but it is the reason why it was able to hold so much power. It explained the unexplainable, that's something to be respected. Anytime a curious child asked, why does this happen?, they had an explanation for it that captured his imagination, and scared him of mighty beings that could perform incredible feats.
Why would you go against this? They had no reason to disbelieve it until some evidence came along, and once people started to see that their religion wasn't completely full proof, they found more and more holes. Of course, they didn't actually completely believe all the amazing feats, but they somewhat did and thought there was a good amount of truth in there, just exaggerated to tell a story. But when there wasn't any truth, then what?

>> No.1210923

>>1210870

>What would you say the primary function is?
Exploring the relationship between the sacred and the profane.

>> No.1210926

>>1210858

>Why do they seem stupid and barbaric to the average person?
Surface readings of relevant sources + lack of familiarity with the traditions in question

>> No.1211009

>>1210844
see, there's two problems with this approach:

-first, you assume that all knowledge can be obtained through empirical observation- this is not necessarily the case

-second, you are using an misinterpretation of religion and religious thought to prove your point. The main point being you say religion claims things as fact, when it does not. It claims certain tenets as TRUTH, but all such truths rest on a notion of FAITH that cannot be fundamentally proven or disproved- ie, it's unfalsifiable.

When you work off those fundamental FAITH principles, you then build your logic around that. Which is not too much different than putting all your faith in natural laws etc etc.


And as a final note, you make an egregiously false statement when you say "Religion's only purpose is to answer questions that science could not; once science has answered those questions, religion is obsolete"

That not only speaks to a misinformed view of religion and its purposes, but also a misinformed view of science and its purposes.

The reason why religion is still 'around' is the reason why philosophy is still 'around':
Because it speaks to an aspect of the human nature that is at its base unpredictable and incomprehensible.

Now, the religious person looks at that and says "Well, I have my answer right here and the meaning of it all is implicit in its existence"

Whereas the secularist says "No, my answer is correct; the meaning is artificially constructed out of convenience and is malleable to change as situations arise"

>> No.1211010

>>1211009
cont.

while I take to one mode of thought definitely over the other, it's hard to make a convincing argument about the different approaches being superior over the other when they both use the same methods and modes of logic, but different definitional truths.

"Science" is not something that "answers all questions of mankind"; "science" is a process that is as much suspect to subjectivity, relativism, and change that any other human endeavor on this history of mankind has been attempted.
Now from a religious realm, I'd say differently, but from a metaphysical, logical, and philosophical standpoint, to say that one method of understanding is inherently superior to another is like saying that paintings are better than sculptures by their very nature.

Do you see how silly it is to make that claim?

>> No.1211051

>God has been disproved by science

orly? Have leprechauns been as well? It is sort of hard to disprove the metaphysical and "magical", if you want to call it that. By its own nature it is not bound by reality.

>> No.1211188

>>1211051
But no one claimed that

>> No.1211218

REFERRING TO AN EARLIER POST CLAIMING THAT THE HUMAN POPULATION WAS NEVER WIPED OUT BY A GREAT FLOOD

actually, in the cradle of civilization, also the cradle of the Abrahamic Religions, there was a great flood that did destroy the greatest city of the time. truthfully however it has been attributed to excessive deforestation, loosening the topsoil, causing build up of sediments, disrupting watercourses, eventually resulting in a big fuck off flood. true story.

>> No.1211238

>>1211218
i also read some shit that noah was an actual person. a businessman who sold animals and wine, and transported his shit by boat down a river. his boat was massive relative to the boats of the time, but would be small by today's standards.

i can't remember where but it sounds kind of legit.

>> No.1211242

Alright, lets assume the christians are right, and we all accept their beliefs, the church becomes the most powerful state
oh wait, sounds an awful lot like the DARK AGES dont it?

>> No.1211249

>>1211238
thank you. im not defending these religions, but as they say every lie has a grain of truth, read between the lines, the bible is one big fucking metaphor, the problems come when you take it literally

>> No.1211250

>>1211242

The Middle Ages were actually pretty cool.

>> No.1211254

>>1211242
>the church
ain't you never heard of the protestant reformation? christianity is no longer unified under a single banner, bro.

>> No.1211267

>>1211254
obviously, because it didnt work, idiot

>> No.1211359

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
-Tenzin Gyatso

A religious view I can agree with.