How do atheists reconcile with Pascals Wager?

File: 536 KB, 1700x1800, pascal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:10:03 2018 No.12208412 [DELETED]

How do atheists reconcile with Pascals Wager?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:34:59 2018 No.12208484

If you guess the wrong god, you still lose. Focusing too much effort on the wrong god has the same afterlife results as atheism, but costs you time and effort in life.
I'm a fan of personal gods, though. Not particularly devout, myself, but "she's not the goddess of everyone and everything" really helps with the whole "bad things happen to good people" issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:36:30 2018 No.12208488 to throw away only life you will have by living someone elses, that's the worst thing I can imagine

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:39:24 2018 No.12208500
File: 31 KB, 303x475, A2D0FA3A-46D4-443A-B497-139B4CFE4A2A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12208412
By not actually reading Penseés and still trying to argue against the wager because
>muh infinite religions
>b-but you can’t fool God

Pascal covers both of these, prideful pricks. Half the book is explaining why Christianity is the perfect religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:41:05 2018 No.12208505 Pascal's wager is a paradox, because you can't "choose" to believe in God without being convinced to.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:45:06 2018 No.12208519

>>12208500

You're just coping (as he was coping).

Also, remember: that guy was not here to see the discoveries of Darwin, the cosmological findings (Big Bang and so forth). You are supposing he would mantain the same view even when he could actually change it in light of a series of new informations.

And yet here:

>>12208484
>If you guess the wrong god, you still lose.

/thread

>>12208500
>Pascal covers both of these, prideful pricks. Half the book is explaining why Christianity is the perfect religion.

Wow, and and casually the author was born in a Christian country and was embedded in a Christian culture. Intriguing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:48:54 2018 No.12208534 >>12208519 >”By not actually reading Penseés and still trying to argue against the wager” Your kind are so predictable.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 08:49:32 2018 No.12208536

Because scientist knows certainly that such interaction doesnt exist in the universe.

Believing is 0% chance of achieving paradise. Not-believing is 0% chance of achieving paradise. Believing requires you to hold at least some capacity of your brain occupied by religion. Therefore the best solution is not to believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:04:36 2018 No.12208603 File: 261 KB, 1600x1200, 7c56cb8f63da20d4a4037dbf7e6d60cf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12208536

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:05:52 2018 No.12208606 >>12208519 >discoveries of Darwin, the cosmological findings (Big Bang and so forth) lmao

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:10:31 2018 No.12208624

>>12208606
Ok? What about them? You don’t have to be a young earth creationist to get into heaven. Can you imagine if Jesus told people we evolved from monkeys? No one would have believe him. You have to realize that the Bible is always applicable because of its spiritual message, not its scientific ones. When a part of the Bible doesn’t make sense on the surface, dig deeper. Also, you’re only continuing to embrass yourself as you haven’t actually read what you’re arguing against.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:22:33 2018 No.12208667 Because the only thing worse than facing a god as a nonbeliever is facing it as a hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:25:30 2018 No.12208671 Tfw filthy agnostic theist. Idk dudes it just makes the most sense to me

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:27:16 2018 No.12208677 >>12208667 >hypocrite What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:29:15 2018 No.12208682 >>12208412 Not quite an atheist but I don't base my entire existence on utilitarian self-trickery. Give me deontological self-trickery thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:37:31 2018 No.12208692 >>12208412 Christianity forces you to abase yourself and lead a restrictive form of life. Who would settle for existence as a cringer and sycophant, in return for nothing more than a far-fetched promise?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:40:31 2018 No.12208699 >>12208692 Because life is temporary and will soon be nothing, not even a memory. Also, you will live a life full of meaning, hope, and gratitude. And what can compare to God? What greater thing is there to seek?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:41:58 2018 No.12208705 >>12208505 >because you can't "choose" to believe in God without being convinced to. Belief in God is self evident. Do you choose to believe wetness is wet, or that heat is hot? God is Being

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:55:14 2018 No.12208732

>>12208699
>Because life is temporary and will soon be nothing
This is precisely what gives it meaning and urgency. You'll be dead a long time, so you'd better live the best life you can.

>Also, you will live a life full of meaning, hope, and gratitude
I see precious little evidence of those traits among Christians. At best they seem like buttoned-up prudes who don't know how to enjoy life. At worst they're hypocrites who only pay lip service to religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:56:40 2018 No.12208735 >>12208500 I’m so glad that someone on /lit/ actually understands Pascal. It’s a very rare thing to see. >>12208488 You are pursuing someone else’s idea of a good life right now. You are not an individual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:57:13 2018 No.12208737 >>12208705 >God is Being Just to be clear, which god are you talking about?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 09:58:30 2018 No.12208742

>>12208732
>This is precisely what gives it meaning and urgency. You'll be dead a long time, so you'd better live the best life you can
But it won’t make a difference in the end. All dead men are equal.
>I see precious little evidence of those traits among Christians. At best they seem like buttoned-up prudes who don't know how to enjoy life
This is the same type of reasoning that people use to defend Islam. The majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists, therefore we shouldn’t think the Quran actually supports terrorism. But what if it does? Isn’t it possible that the majority of believers aren’t true believers? How many Christians actually read the Bible?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:00:29 2018 No.12208748

>>12208412
>How do atheists reconcile with Pascals Wager?
we laugh and move on with our lives?

seriously is there a more illogical thing than his retarded wager? the fact that xstians hold it up as a shining example of supreme intelligence speaks volumes as to the mental capacity of these people.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:00:45 2018 No.12208750

>>12208500
>Pascal covers both of these, prideful pricks.
You sound angry. Why, when you're surely going to heaven?

Why aren't you forgiving those who disagree? Why aren't you turning the other cheek? Are you sure you're an actual Christian, or just an angry redneck larping as one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:04:05 2018 No.12208758 >>12208737 yikes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:05:54 2018 No.12208767 >>12208732 >the best life you can this is utterly meaningless without God >inb4 make your own meaning in life!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:07:21 2018 No.12208774 >>12208750 Jesus was actually very hostile to his opponents. You just sound like an arrogant hypocrite holding someone to a standard that you don’t believe exists.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:16:25 2018 No.12208790

>>12208750
I’m angry because people like you peddle the sane misinformed talking points to lead people down the wrong path. And for what benefit? Only to satisfy your own pride. So many people have opined about the wager without reading Pascal that it makes me sick. Do you know what it’s like to see people so obviously wrong but steadfast and arrogant in their beliefs? Add to this the fact that they are actively persuading people to forget God and seek after worldly pleasures, forgetting the possibility of eternal life. Who cares about avoiding sin, or living a meaningful life?

Yes, I’m angry, and if you actually read Pascal you might understand why.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:16:48 2018 No.12208791 File: 25 KB, 477x316, redneck1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12208767 Asserted without evidence. Dismissed without evidence. >>12208774 Top kek. Another """""Christian""""" who hasn't read the Bible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:17:27 2018 No.12208793 >>12208790 same*

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:17:44 2018 No.12208796
File: 406 KB, 750x551, 480F4255-0680-422F-A799-395DDE18EB06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1) you could choose the wrong god
2) is brainwashing yourself for the sake of your own skin really believing in God? I’d say no, that’s becuase God says to believe in him should be an unselfish love where you want to love him for no other reasons than he is perfect and deserves it. An atheist who believes in God becuase of Pascal’s wager believes in God not because he loves God but because he loves himself and doesn’t want to go to hell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:17:54 2018 No.12208798 >>12208790 >this is your brain on Christianity Holy shit, you sound like a mass shooter in the making.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:18:29 2018 No.12208799 File: 65 KB, 575x651, 1538976411952.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12208750 >You sound angry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:18:56 2018 No.12208801 >>12208796 The prediction is real >>12208500

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:21:19 2018 No.12208808 >>12208790 Good post. The atheist pseuds should be ashamed of themselves, even if they are just baiting.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:21:39 2018 No.12208809

>>12208798
>caring about preventing people from wrongly leading people down the wrong spiritual path is characteristic of a mass shooter
Okay then, keep spreading false information. I don’t care haha I hope everyone goes to Hell so only me and God can chill together.

Is that what you wanna hear?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:22:23 2018 No.12208813 >>12208791 shit bait

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:22:39 2018 No.12208814

Personally, I see it like this: I'd like for there to be a god out there, but I don't really have enough faith to believe in something I have never observed in any way, shape, or form. As for Pascal's Wager, it's either an unknown god accepts me for following my virtues, I am forced to accept my eternal damnation, or I disappear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:23:56 2018 No.12208820 >>12208814 >I have never observed You believe in lots of things you’ve never “observed.”

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:25:31 2018 No.12208828 >>12208801 I don’t get your point. You haven’t argued against my points but have tried to devalue them by mocking them. That’s not very smart or Christian of you Anon. And my 2nd point is right, I’m willing to bet you couldn’t argue against it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:26:48 2018 No.12208835 >>12208796 >brainwashing You haven’t read Pascal

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:32:24 2018 No.12208861

>>12208412

By wondering if you have any understanding of faith is if you imagine it is a thing that can be flipped on or off like a light switch. Faith ultimately is a means for the human to have a connection to the divine; all else is frippery and noise. If you believe that such a thing is a matter for wagers and sophistry, rather than something that is meant to be lived and demonstrated by the life you lead, well, I wonder which one of us actually believes in nothing.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:33:36 2018 No.12208865

>>12208835
>implying that forcing yourself to believe something isn’t brainwashing
My whole point is that God explicitly states that his disciples love Him becuase they want to and also becuase He is perfect. Forcing yourself to “love” God isn’t what he wants and therefore isn’t being one of His disciples.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:34:31 2018 No.12208868 >>12208865 >forcing yourself You haven’t read Pascal

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:34:39 2018 No.12208870

>>12208828
I’m mocking them because you haven’t read Pascal, and rightly so, because you’re very confident in your uninvestigated belief. Pascal acknowledges that the wager does not make you a Christian. It’s only the beginning. You must read the Bible, humble yourself, avoid sin, pray, go to church, etc. Along the way you should become a true Christian and not simply believe because of the wager. I can testify that this is exactly what happened to me.
>And my 2nd point is right, I’m willing to bet you couldn’t argue against it.
You lost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:36:56 2018 No.12208876 >>12208737 >which god are you talking about Your question makes no sense. Do you believe there multiple existences or something?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:37:24 2018 No.12208880

>>12208790

You are quite sad. You suppose that your code of ethics is the real deal and that your God is the real deal, when first, it’s all likely fiction, and second, you might well have been reading about and trying to understand the wrong God.

There might be some sort of Divinity or First Cause or Beggining or Infinity, but it certainly never spoke with any human being. All those who claim to have witnessed are either a) doing it because that’s the way they find to try to improve the world, b) because they want fame, status and power or c) because they have schizophrenia or other mental conditions. No single religious book, folk tale, myth, narrative etc. ever presented nature as it really is (as we now know it is via experiment and observation). All of them reflect notions of their own time and limitations of the thinking of their periods.

Just who do you think you are trying to tell others what is right and what is wrong when there isn’t a single evidence to support your world view?

If one wants solace is better to go for the oldest Buddhist texts were the problem they are trying to solve is that of suffering and the ending of suffering, and where Buddha states in one of his speeches that Karma and Rebirth may very well don’t exist, but that if one train the mind than right here and now one can reap the benefits.

People like you glue to the concept of God a whole bunch of laws and restrictions that are based on the will of those who dictated religion throw the centuries, and again: without a single evidence in favor, but all evidenced against it. It’s a single step from preaching online and on YouTube videos to enter politics and create lawa according to your own credos to restrict the lives of others, and only because at the root of it you people needed a wellchair to help you move throw life (the promise that you are worthy and important enough to not simply cease to exist).

You people are pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:38:18 2018 No.12208882 >>12208880 >reddit spacing

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:39:46 2018 No.12208884 >>12208880 Do you believe in morality?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:39:51 2018 No.12208885

>>12208870

Let me guess: you were sad and lost and didn’t know what to do with your life and then you decided to go to church. You end up find Christ and now rouba-te feeling much better, and you know that God loves you no matter what, and that this life is not the end.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:41:06 2018 No.12208893 >>12208885 Woah look guys, it’s a psychoanalyst! Analyse me next!

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:41:36 2018 No.12208895

>>12208868
>>12208870
>you haven’t read Pascal
I think what you mean is
>I can’t argue for myself

>>12208870
>implying I haven’t investigated Christianity
I was born in the Bible Belt. I know more about Christianity than you probably do. I spent the first 14 years of my life embedded in Christianity. I also know the dark side of it and that it’s not the one-size-fits-all solution you purport it to be. And even if you truly eventually believe, is not your foundation in faith a false and selfish one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:41:43 2018 No.12208897 >>12208500 I haven't read the whole Pensées, but I did read the section where he covers the wager. Unless he returns to it later, I saw nothing addressing these concerns. Can you cite where he does?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:42:04 2018 No.12208900

>>12208884

No. I myself can’t do a lot of things because of empathy and a feeling of what is right and wrong, but I know that concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, etc. are human creations. They are extremely important for society to work, but so it is any legal system or the social contract, and yet all of them are fictions.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:42:54 2018 No.12208902

>>12208885
No, I read Pascal. The decision was easy after that. I recommend it. If you’re not convinced, then hey, at least you can defend your non-belief better next time you get into a discussion like this. You might even come up with some good arguments against Pascal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:43:08 2018 No.12208905 >>12208893 Lol, jackpot. So predictable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:44:22 2018 No.12208914 >>12208895 >And even if you truly eventually believe, is not your foundation in faith a false and selfish one? Suppose it is. Aren’t all sins in our past covered by Jesus, anyway? Such an easy rebuttal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:45:24 2018 No.12208917 >>12208897 The second half of the book. You can read it or ignore it. It’s best to start from the beginning, of course.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:46:38 2018 No.12208918 >>12208905 I’m not the guy you were replying to, you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:47:20 2018 No.12208920 >>12208902 The first guy who posted on this thread made a great argument.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:47:34 2018 No.12208922
File: 847 KB, 1000x700, von_neumann_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12208484
>>12208488
>>12208505
>>12208536
>>12208667
>>12208682
>>12208692
>>12208705
>>12208742
>>12208748
>>12208750
>>12208796
>>12208861
>>12208880
Friendly reminder that the smartest person to ever live (not even joking, dude was a genius of geniuses), John Von Neuman, converted to Christianity on the basis of Pascal's wager and believed that God probably did exist.
>He invited a Roman Catholic priest, Father Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to visit him for consultation. Von Neumann reportedly said, "So long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer at the end", essentially saying that Pascal had a point, referring to Pascal's Wager.
>He had earlier confided to his mother, "There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't."

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:48:35 2018 No.12208925 >>12208918 Then it was just your life story.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:49:51 2018 No.12208928 >>12208895 >Being raised as an American protestant means I know everything about Christianity The arrogance is mind-blowing

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:50:18 2018 No.12208930 >>12208922 >be autist >believe autistic thing autistically >"lmao I'm old and tired so god explains things easier than no god now" yeah, compelling stuff

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:50:20 2018 No.12208931 >>12208922 He was scared as hell of death, specially after the cancer diagnosis.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:51:11 2018 No.12208935

>>12208412
The Christianity that I grew up with says that believing for any other reason than it being the right thing to do sends you straight to hell. Afraid of hell, straight to hell, after the joys of eternal life, straight to hell, covering your bases, straight to hell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:51:47 2018 No.12208937 >>12208914 Not only a coward, but a lazy coward too.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:52:02 2018 No.12208938

>>12208920
And Pascal explains why you should “bet” on Christianity (before actually becoming a Christian). It’s even possible that a good Christian will benefit if Buddhism or Hinduism or many other religions/philosophies are true, whereas a good Buddhist who doesn’t accept Jesus doesn’t seem to have as good odds. In short, Pascal lists and explains all the details that makes Christianity the best, the one you should adhere to. He even comments on other religions, such as Islam, and lists their mistakes. For example, he compared Jesus and Muhammad. One of them performed many miracles, the other was hardly different than a talented leader. One caused himself and his believers to be persecuted, the other stole and killed others.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:53:26 2018 No.12208943

>>12208900
So its okay for completely unfounded laws and emotional feelings of 'right and wrong' (which don't exist) to tell us what to do, but the 2,000yo religious tradition which gave us those specific moral ideas has no right to do so?

On what grounds do you even have the right to say that the Catholic anon was "pathetic?" There's no such thing as a upright and morally correct person for him to become according to your worldview.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:54:38 2018 No.12208945 >>12208938 Isn’t that sort of belief is inherently dishonest though?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:54:51 2018 No.12208947 >>12208925 Oops looks like you're still psychoanalysing. You're wrong btw, I'm not even a Christian. Fuck off.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:55:02 2018 No.12208949

>>12208937
I don’t think the Bible says anything about not getting into heaven because your initial reason for wanting to believe was “selfish.” How can anyone who isn’t knowledgeable about being a true Christian worship rightly from the beginning? Why are you so hung up on this point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:55:53 2018 No.12208954 >>12208935 Let me guess, you were an American protestant?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:56:05 2018 No.12208956 >>12208945 Read>>12208870 and>>12208914

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:56:47 2018 No.12208958

>>12208938

“Performed miracles”. No evidence on that.

It’s convenient that the guy chose his own religion as the best one. Also, his evaluation of what’s best and what’s worst seem like the evaluation of art: in the end it’s all subjective. If his subjectivism is a rule as secure as mathematics then we are electing Pascal as some sort of demigod.

In the end it’s just his opinion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 10:59:40 2018 No.12208965 >>12208949 Its a common move for atheists during debates to pretend that they're deeply principled people. Its just a stick to beat Christianity with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:00:55 2018 No.12208969 >>12208958 Which parts of Pascal's argument are "just opinions?" >in the end it’s all subjective Is this another opinion, or is it an objective truth?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:01:24 2018 No.12208971

>>12208943

My worldview would be artificial, but I don’t deny the value of the artificial. Most aspects of our society are artificial. And it’s like Checkhov said: hospitals and electricity show a greater life for humanity than prayer and devotion.

There needs to be a law, and to my eyes the more enclosure, the more egalitarian, the more empathetic the law the better (and not only for humans, but animals too). But in the end it’s an artificial creation, just as religious values are artificial. That’s what they call natural law: it’s system of ethics depend on religion or on the “nature” of humans beings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:02:06 2018 No.12208973 >>12208954 Actually a European revival movement. A bit cult-like but honestly very /lit/, a heavy emphasis on theology, church fathers, philosophers etc.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:02:53 2018 No.12208976

>>12208958
>>12208958
>No evidence on that.
Right, but we’re comparing religions here. Faith is important, but where should we direct our faith?

>It’s convenient that the guy chose his own religion as the best one.
As opposed to advocating a religion different than his own?

>In the end it’s just his opinion.
Well, he convinced me. And on the off chance that he’s right, I will benefit greatly. And I have already benefited in this life

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:03:29 2018 No.12208978 >>12208971 hospitals and electricity show greater LOVE (not life) for humanity

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:06:01 2018 No.12208985

>>12208971
>And it’s like Checkhov said: hospitals and electricity show a greater life for humanity than prayer and devotion.
Maybe there’s a context I’m missing here, but it seems Chekhov is confused. Prayer and devotion bring us close to God, not humanity. And being a good Christian generally makes us good to others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:06:27 2018 No.12208987 Eternal life is terrifying, I don't know why anybody would want that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:07:48 2018 No.12208991 >>12208484 So it boils down to >I don't like the dogma >Hey look, an emotional advertisement!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:07:53 2018 No.12208992 >>12208922 >b-but muh science >christians r stoopid lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:08:13 2018 No.12208994 >>12208987 That’s such a weird position to hold. Eternal life would solve all the problems. No urgency, no angst, just being the way things are.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:08:15 2018 No.12208995

>>12208971
>the value of the artificial
And how exactly do you decide what's valuable?
>Chekhov
I didn't realise that hospitals and prayer were mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church certainly doesn't think so, it spends billions on building and maintaining them.

Also why are egalitarianism and empathy valuable things for you? Why do animals deserve our kindness? What bothers me about your posts is that you think that you're enlightened about the illusion of morality, but really your belief in 'artificiality' is itself utterly artificial. Also your beliefs sound extremely Christian.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:08:38 2018 No.12208997

>>12208987
If there is no afterlife, then soulless reincarnation is probably true. You will always exist from your perspective, since you won’t remember the countless years you aren’t alive. It is my belief that, if suddenly all life died, and one organism were birthed, then every creature before would essentially be living through that creature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:08:59 2018 No.12208999 >>12208987 It's not to be like this life. Heck, this life is arguably worse than hell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:11:10 2018 No.12209009 >>12208928 Never said I knew everything. Nice reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:11:29 2018 No.12209010 >>12208999 >Heck, this life is arguably worse than hell. How is it worse than eternal anguish?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:12:46 2018 No.12209015 >>12208895 >first fourteen years of my life lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:12:55 2018 No.12209017 >>12208870 This is even worse than Catholicism, which is quite the achievement. Practically Anglo Theology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:13:49 2018 No.12209019 >>12209017 Woah good argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:14:38 2018 No.12209021 >>12209017 Nice argument. I liked the part where you gave a reason AND cited the Bible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:16:04 2018 No.12209023 >>12209010 Hell is at least categorical justice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:17:12 2018 No.12209026 >>12209010 Evil reigns here. Not so in hell. No, Simpsons' theology doesn't count.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:19:51 2018 No.12209034 >>12208969 this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:22:48 2018 No.12209045 This thread got quiet. Maybe the atheists finally started to read Pascal.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:23:00 2018 No.12209047
File: 63 KB, 500x399, 1446228403018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12208412
Let R be the set of possible religions who give you a positive afterlife if you follow them and a negative afterlife if you don't
|R| is the number of elements in R
Assuming one of these religions is correct and they are not all wrong
then the probability of picking the right religion and getting to heaven is then 1 / |R|

For Pascal's wager to work we need to assume
(1) R does not have an infinite number of elements
(2) Following the wrong religion does not have additional negative consequences compared to making no choice
Both of these assumptions are wrong.

There is an endless number of possible religions that promise a positive afterlife if you follow it and a negative afterlife if you don't follow it. And there is no reason to assume one is more likely than the other. I can just make up a few new ones on the spot. And most people have their own conception of what God(s) is how scripture is supposed to be interpreted anyway, so that |R| would be many million elements big.
And there are certainly religions that punish people for following the wrong religion.
And if I was to follow the advice given by advocates of Pascal's wager and just pick a God who is most to my liking, then that God would prefer people who are intellectually honest, who don't just believe in any irrational ideas because it might give them a small edge in a childish game theory argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:24:43 2018 No.12209055 >>12209034 I doubt it lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:25:59 2018 No.12209059 >>12209045 I doubt it lol

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:26:04 2018 No.12209061

>>12209047
>And there is no reason to assume one is more likely than the other. I can just make up a few new ones on the spot
God himself appears before you. He tells you that that one of the following religions are true:
>Christianity
>worshipping Anon’s poop

Choose one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:27:07 2018 No.12209065 >>12209047 There are infinite religions, no doubt, but almost all of them have infinitesimal chances of being true. Also read >>12208938

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:28:22 2018 No.12209071

>>12208994
>>12208999
It's not that life is bad and I want to end it. I wouldn't mind living a couple thousand years (provided I have good health and all that, of course).
But eternal consciousness? It doesn't END. I goes on and on and on and on. Surely you want it to end at some point.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:28:38 2018 No.12209074

>>12208969
>Which parts of Pascal's argument are "just opinions?"

Here:

>>12208938
>For example, he compared Jesus and Muhammad. One of them performed many miracles, the other was hardly different than a talented leader. One caused himself and his believers to be persecuted, the other stole and killed others.

It’s an opinion that Jesus performed miracles, because there’s no way for us to verify an know that. As for Mohamed, the Quran itself is said to be a miracle, he being unable to read or write and then suddenly coming up with a work that is said to be unprecedented in the beauty and sonority of it’s rhymed prose. In this case we even poses the “miracle” of Mohamed, but cant verify any of the miracles of Jesus.

He also says that Jesus cause himself and his followers to be persecuted, while Mohamed stole and killed others. Now, first you have to bear in mind that to judge killing here as right or wrong is a personal and artificial moral decision: it’s not based on reality. What if to my eyes the fact that Mohamed killed for his faith is greater than to be persecuted? But more than that, Jesus and Christiany are standing on the shoulders of the old Jewish religion, and the old books of the Bible (that are part of the Christian doctrine) speak of thousands and thousands of murders made in the name of God or by God himself.

Can you see it now? Pascal is choosing the “best religion” based on his views, opinions, and even turning a blind eye to certain facts. It’s subjective, it’s not mathematics. It’s the same problem of people discussing which artists is better: in the end it will boils down to subjectivism (there has never been a fundamental and fail-prove Theory of Aesthetics).

>>12208976
>Right, but we’re comparing religions here. Faith is important, but where should we direct our faith?

If it’s a matter of choosing then it’s best to bet on Buddhism. Of course, the man himself said he was practicing a way of life and a philosophy, but now it is a religion, so let’s called it a religion.

Using the principal of making comparisons of Pascal, I can say that Buddhism not only states the importance of being kind, gentle and humane towards others, but also toward all life forms. So you end up dismissing suffering in the world a great deal more than with Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:29:30 2018 No.12209079 File: 20 KB, 220x264, 18EABAB8-0A4C-4494-B4C5-6AEE89EFE3EF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12209071 Angels don’t conceive time as we do. Every moment is fresh

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:31:17 2018 No.12209089

>>12209061
>>12209065
God appearing in some kind of shape would destroy Pascal's Wager, because it would actually be evidence for his existence. And the truth value of Christianity is somewhere close to my shit, if not below it.

Maybe the social model of Christianity is useful, but following it does not require me to actually believe any of it. Arguing in favor of Christianity because it creates workable societies, does not add any truth value to the claims it makes regarding the existence of God or the afterlife.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:32:34 2018 No.12209093 >>12209071 Our consciousness would be united with the ultimate good (God), so by definition it is not possible for a human consciousness to "want it to end." There is nothing greater to desire, and non-existence would be a punishment.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:32:45 2018 No.12209094

>>12209074
>I can say that Buddhism not only states the importance of being kind, gentle and humane towards others, but also toward all life forms. So you end up dismissing suffering in the world a great deal more than with Christianity.
So if I'm a Buddhist, I can still practice Buddhist principle while believing in Jesus and Christian god?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:33:26 2018 No.12209097

>>12209074

Then there is the fact that Buddha never stated the main importance of his credo in life after death, but on this life, on the here and now. He said time and again that people needed to change their own brains and souls and stop caring about metaphysical mysteries that nobody can solve. He never threatened others (as Christ sometimes did) saying they would stay out of Heaven: he was much more down to Earth, something like: “Here, come, practice, see for yourself. If you do this you will end a great deal of your pain and suffering and live a much more joyful and plentiful life, and on this Earth: there’s no need to place your bets on the afterlife”.

Furthermore, in Buddhism you not only receive advices on what “sins” and “harams” you should avoid, but a complete practice of how to sculpt your brain in order to live better, to understand others better, to avoid feelings like anger, hate, jealousy, etc. to deform you. It has the same kind of morals that are, in the end, artificial (we know of no God who actually said: “This is right, this is wrong”), but they are offered as guide-lines not for entering Heaven, but for living better, feeling better, and consequently making other existences (humans, animals) also endure less pain and suffering in the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:33:48 2018 No.12209099 >>12209089 >the truth value of Christianity is somewhere close to my shit *citation needed >social model of Christianity is useful Why is it useful?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:34:29 2018 No.12209101 >>12209094 >So if I'm a Buddhist, I can still practice Buddhist principle while believing in Jesus and Christian god? Yes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:34:59 2018 No.12209103

>>12209074
>In this case we even poses the “miracle” of Mohamed, but cant verify any of the miracles of Jesus.
We can’t verify that Muhammad wrote the book, either. We have to have faith that Muhammad is a prophet, or that Jesus was a prophet and Son of God.

>If it’s a matter of choosing then it’s best to bet on Buddhism
What’s second best? Would you really choose Islam over Christianity, if you KNEW that one of them were true? And why choose Buddhism if you will suffer if Christianity is true? A good Christian won’t suffer if Buddhism is true, and the Bible teaches many things that Buddhism does.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:36:39 2018 No.12209109 >>12209089 So you’re avoiding the question? Choose worshipping my shit or believing in Christ. Again, what do you choose?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:37:11 2018 No.12209112 >>12208809 No, I'd like to see you actually express some of these irrefutable arguments instead of spouting "JUST READ DA BOOK"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:37:54 2018 No.12209114 File: 31 KB, 400x400, 1531715866916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] all of you need to stop being faggots and just become catholic already. seriously, buddhism? might as well just go take a shit in the middle of the sidewalk at that point

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:39:48 2018 No.12209123 >>12209112 Reading the book is a wonderful experience and converted me from agnosticism. If you want to believe, or if you humbly want to seek the truth, then you will read the book.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:40:14 2018 No.12209125

>>12209099
There is no acceptable evidence for any of the scientific claims made by Christianity regarding God or the afterlife. It's truth value in this regard is equal any other baseless claim regarding God or the afterlife.

>Why is it useful?
It is useful IF it creates workable societies, as I explained. That does not make it better than any other world view that creates workable societies by the way. And there are probably some that don't come with as many dogmatic irrational beliefs and the negative consequences that come along with those. But this is a different discussion.

>>12209109
God did not appear to me so I don't have to choose. Shit isn't actually belief set either. So what am I even supposed to choose?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:41:07 2018 No.12209132

>>12209074
>there’s no way for us to verify and know that
How exactly do you define verification? What kind of proof would you need? There are many reasons why serious Biblical scholars believe the gospels to be valid, so what are your reasons for denying them? There are also historical arguments and witness accounts that we can use to debate the veracity of the gospels vs. the koran. Also if an "unverified" belief is just an opinion then my belief in the Big Bang is just an "opinion."
>it’s not based on reality
Why not?
>What if to my eyes the fact that Mohamed killed for his faith is greater than to be persecuted
Lots of reasons, but I would say because such a belief runs contrary to the claims of Jesus (whom the Koran does not deny the existence and holiness of) and whose ministry is more deserving of belief in that Mohammed's.
> thousands and thousands of murders made in the name of God
The Catholic tradition has absolutely never relied upon literalist historical interpretations of the Old Testament. The writers are revealing certain aspects of God's nature, whether that was their conscious aim or not. Read St Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, they both explicitly argue against literalist readings like yours.

Also Pascal never claimed his theology was "mathematics"

> never been a fundamental and fail-prove Theory of Aesthetics)
This is no way a proof of subjectivism.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:42:07 2018 No.12209137

>>12209125
>God did not appear to me so I don't have to choose.
It’s a hypothetical. Why are you so scared?
>Shit isn't actually belief set either. So what am I even supposed to choose?
What? You already said there are infinite religions, and can be invented on the spot. Why are you contradicting yourself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:42:37 2018 No.12209140 >>12209074 >best to bet on Buddhism why?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:43:30 2018 No.12209146

>>12209137
>What? You already said there are infinite religions, and can be invented on the spot. Why are you contradicting yourself?
Yeah "shit" isn't one of those. If you mean if I have the choice between something you just made up on the spot and Christianity, then I would flip a coin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:45:06 2018 No.12209149 >>12209109 Worshipping the turd probably gives a smaller chance of getting molested

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:45:23 2018 No.12209150

>>12209103
>What’s second best? Would you really choose Islam over Christianity, if you KNEW that one of them were true? And why choose Buddhism if you will suffer if Christianity is true? A good Christian won’t suffer if Buddhism is true, and the Bible teaches many things that Buddhism does.

If I were to choose I would go for Buddhism, but that’s my subjectivism speaking. If I were to say that Buddhism is better or worse than other religions in a certain way it would be based on my morals, my set of standards of what is right and what is wrong.

For example, I don’t eat the flesh of animals (I’m a vegetarian), and since most of the world religious say that it’s ok to eat chicken and cattle for me Buddhism would already have some points over those other religions. Yet who decided that to kill a calf is right or wrong? The poor animal has a central nervous system and certainly can feel pain and fear and anxiety, but so what? I feel empathy towards him, but what makes my empathy a proven moral code? If the sun explodes and destroys all life on Earth, is this a good or a bad thing? Who decides?

I know it’s very annoying, but unfortunately that’s how it is. It’s the same thing with aesthetics. One can come to me and say that Stephen King is superior to Tolstoy and all I can do to counteract this stamen is appeal to incomplete theory’s of aesthetics that will in the end make subjective claims.

Here’s an article on one of the main philosophical arguments about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:45:51 2018 No.12209151 >>12209112 This is /lit/, try reading a fucking a book before asking to be spoonfed.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:47:08 2018 No.12209152

>>12209146
>Yeah "shit" isn't one of those.
Yes, it is. Does it not qualify as a religion or does it have zero chance of being true? Before, you claimed all religions have an equal chance of being true.
>If you mean if I have the choice between something you just made up on the spot and Christianity, then I would flip a coin.
How about a random African pagan religion and Christianity? Would you flip a coin then? And devote your life to it, believing it to be true?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:47:17 2018 No.12209154

>>12209125
Christianity is not a set of scientific claims. Point me to the exact refutations that science makes of God or the afterlife.

Your belief in "workable" societies is irrational. Why should aspire to "workable" societies, what makes them good?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:48:43 2018 No.12209157 >>12209149 Christianity doesn’t advocate that. You’re not funny, either.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:49:07 2018 No.12209160

>>12209140

In my opinion its best to try to change your brain to feel bliss and peace here than to wait for bliss in heaven.

I also like Buddha for being frank and admitting that he didn’t know if Karma and Rebirth were real:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

But that’s a subjective view.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:49:42 2018 No.12209162

>hey, atheists, get REKT by this mindblowing argument for God!
>*smugly posts the image of the wager*
<uh, but what about these glaring holes in the reasoning?
>BUT YOU WERE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO READ THE WHOLE BOOK REEEEEEEE
Fucking autism. And the same thing happens with the ontological proof. First comes some abstract word wank that supposedly proves god, and if you press them and demand some more precision in what sort of god this is supposed to be, they start falling back to muh miracles that surely happened 2000 years ago, trust me please!!

>>12209132
>whose ministry is more deserving of belief in that Mohammed's
According to which value system? A mongolian warlord would probably find Mohammed more agreeable and deserving of respect than Christ's "turn the other cheek" hippie crap.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:50:39 2018 No.12209163 >>12208412 Easily.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:51:55 2018 No.12209171 >>12209162 >more deserving I meant that it was historically more reliable, I wasn't making a point about values. Also your post is complete shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:52:17 2018 No.12209173 >>12209162 >uh, but what about these glaring holes in the reasoning? Like what? Give an example

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:56:28 2018 No.12209188 >>12209160 I'm curious, I wanna see you respond to this guy's post: >>12209132

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:57:36 2018 No.12209192 >>12209162 ><uh, but what about these glaring holes in the reasoning? this must be ironic

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:57:53 2018 No.12209193

>>12209152
Shit isn't a religion, it's an object. And specifically to be considered by Pascal's Wager it would need to promise a positive afterlife for following it. Do you have trouble following what we are talking about?

>>12209154
>Christianity is not a set of scientific claims.
No it's not. It is a set of ideas that also include scientific claims. Including God (as defined by Christianity) existing and an afterlife (as defined by Christianity) existing. Among other equally baseless scientific claims. They are assumed without evidence so they can be dismissed without evidence.

>Your belief in "workable" societies is irrational. Why should aspire to "workable" societies, what makes them good?
It's not a moral consideration, so keep your "good" out of this. Some societies are better at letting their members procreate, survive, interact with minimal violence and give the individuals the opportunities to pursue happiness as defined by themselves. In a stable fashion over preferably infinite time. The parameters of these considerations follow from human nature and not some dogma. Some social models are better at this than others. Christianity happens to be somewhat decent at it. I prefer to live in societies that are better at it than others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 11:58:57 2018 No.12209197 >>12209188 I will have to see a client now (I’m in the office). After I return I will try to answer him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:00:45 2018 No.12209204 >>12209151 I just have better things to read than lame-ass apologetics

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:01:46 2018 No.12209209 >>12209193 God spoke to me, he says I am his prophet, and that anyone respecting his judgment would worship my own shit to prove their faith in Him. Those who do so will go to Heaven. You’re squirming, it’s so fun to watch!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:02:48 2018 No.12209214 >>12209204 Then why are you in this thread? It really shows the nature of atheists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:04:00 2018 No.12209221 >>12209209 Okay now you got it. Like I said I would flip a coin. Not sure what I am squirming about.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:04:54 2018 No.12209223

>>12209193
>assumed without evidence
The veracity of your entire scientific method is also without evidence. Where is the "evidence" that science is the only way we can know the truth? Where is your verification for such a belief? You haven't responded to my question at all.

>Its not a moral consideration
I'm afraid it absolutely is. Again, where is the foundation or "verification" for your belief that "procreate, survive, interact with minimal violence and give the individuals the opportunities to pursue happiness as defined by themselves" is what we should pursue? I hope you have some evidence of verification, otherwise it is irrational according to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:05:56 2018 No.12209230 >>12209214 I'm simply answering the OPs question. I reconcile by realizing the argument is convoluted and worthless, and ignore it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:05:57 2018 No.12209229 >>12209204 >I just have better things to read Like 4chan threads about books that you think are worthless?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:07:46 2018 No.12209238
File: 8 KB, 250x202, 1514872409816.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12209209
>You’re squirming, it’s so fun to watch!
>if i act like i'm superior, it means i'm right
i don't even know what side you're arguing for (probably the atheist side)but this type of posting is just cringe

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:08:58 2018 No.12209246 >>12209229 I found this thread while taking a shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:08:59 2018 No.12209247 >>12209230 >I haven’t read the book, but one of its arguments is convoluted and worthless. Context? No I don’t need that. Didn’t you see that chart with all those religions on it? And how can you fool GOD? Pfft, what a dumb argument.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:11:13 2018 No.12209256

>>12209221
>Like I said I would flip a coin
I don’t believe you. I don’t believe that if the coin determined you to follow my shit religion that you would do it. You know God has spoken to you. One of the religions is true. I sincerely doubt that you would worship my shit. You would much rather be an atheist than to choose the shit, and you might even not choose at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:11:15 2018 No.12209257 >>12209247 entice me. give me a taste. make me WANT to read the book

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:11:49 2018 No.12209260 >ITT: people with only a wikipedia teir understanding of the wager actually read the penseés you fags

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:12:14 2018 No.12209263 >>12208412 >reconcile with Pascals Wager but why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:12:28 2018 No.12209264 >>12209260 >reading a book about penis >calling anyone else a fag

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:13:30 2018 No.12209270 Pascal was probably having a laugh and making some high level joke about those who do away with the existence of God and Providence reducing everything to chance and calculation.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:13:36 2018 No.12209271

>>12209223
>The veracity of your entire scientific method is also without evidence. Where is the "evidence" that science is the only way we can know the truth?
We determine truth by experiment. That which holds true over time is considered "truth". Science is just a formalized approach to this. I am not aware of any other method. Why do you assume God exists or the afterlife exists?

>I'm afraid it absolutely is. Again, where is the foundation or "verification" for your belief that "procreate, survive, interact with minimal violence and give the individuals the opportunities to pursue happiness as defined by themselves" is what we should pursue?
Those interests are in human nature. Systems that work to fulfill human nature are stable. Those who try to work against human nature are doomed to fail. We can get into a lengthy discussion about human nature if you want.

And like I said it's purely a preference of mine, to want to live in such a stable society. You can live in an unstable society if you want. I am not saying you are "bad" for doing so.

>>12209256
>You would much rather be an atheist than to choose the shit, and you might even not choose at all.
Yes of course I would rather be an atheist. The whole premise is that I have to choose between two irrational beliefs. If I have the choice to pick neither of them then I will obviously do that. No offense, but are you a bit retarded?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:15:43 2018 No.12209278

>>12209257
I chose to read the book because I was curious. I accepted the possibility that I was wrong, and that Pascal might be misrepresented by atheists. You should read the book when you are ready. The fact that you aren’t willing to read a book that may give your life meaning is sign enough that you aren’t ready. If you read through the thread, you might get a sense of what you’re missing.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:16:49 2018 No.12209279

>>12209271
>Yes of course I would rather be an atheist. The whole premise is that I have to choose between two irrational beliefs. If I have the choice to pick neither of them then I will obviously do that. No offense, but are you a bit retarded?
But God has told you that one of them is true. Have you forgotten this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:17:10 2018 No.12209280 >>12209278 I did read the thread, and I didn't see anything worth having

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:19:24 2018 No.12209292 >>12209280 Okay then don’t read the book if you don’t want to. But don’t be surprised if you’re called out for it if you ever try to argue against the wager

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:21:22 2018 No.12209301 >>12209271 why don't you believe in God?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:22:07 2018 No.12209307

>>12209271
>We determine truth by experiment. That which holds true over time is considered "truth"
And how exactly did you determine these truths? By experiment?
>any other methods
You rely on them all the time. Basically all of the truths and values you live by are not verified by scientific method, you just ignore that fact and pretend you have an entirely rational worldview.

>a lengthy discussion
I would love to hear what your understanding of human nature is, but its not exactly the point of our discussion.

> I am not saying you are "bad" for doing so.
But what if we lived in the same society and I wanted it to be unstable because that was my preference? How exactly would you argue against me in that pursuit if my preference is as valid as yours?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:22:08 2018 No.12209308 atheist posts are always so embarrassing to read their childish demeanour is enough in itself to reject secularism

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:26:24 2018 No.12209322 >>12209308 They really are terrible

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:27:54 2018 No.12209330 >>12209308 >completely civil christian thread discussing god and his eternal love >atheist starts sperging out and ruins the thread why must it always happen ths way

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:30:59 2018 No.12209339

>>12209279
Okay I will humor you. Let's assume God appears in front of me and I can verify that it is actually God somehow and he convinced me that he is telling the truth. And I could not derive from his appearance that either choice is more likely, then yes I would flip a coin.

>>12209307
>And how exactly did you determine these truths? By experiment?
I create a simple working hypothesis based on what I already know and test it again and again, if it turns out to be wrong then I come up with a better one that is more consistent with reality.

>You rely on them all the time. Basically all of the truths and values you live by are not verified by scientific method, you just ignore that fact and pretend you have an entirely rational worldview.
Which truths and values are those? Got an example?

>But what if we lived in the same society and I wanted it to be unstable because that was my preference? How exactly would you argue against me in that pursuit if my preference is as valid as yours?
Assuming you are fully aware of what you are doing then I would lock you away or kill you if necessary.

>>12209301
I don't see why I should. There are a lot of things I don't believe in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:31:56 2018 No.12209342 >>12209271 >That which holds true over time is considered "truth" >using the term in its own definition either you believe in truth or you don't. you don't get to bend the definition of something to fit your shaky worldview

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:32:10 2018 No.12209344

>>12209308
Indeed, fellow intellectual. They are so uncouth unlike we exemplars of the divine Logos. Why, just look at what their puny atheistic minds have contributed to the world
>modern medicine
>modern technology
>modern ethics or equality
heh, these heathens don't realize they have ruined teh Tradition™. Look like they need to read more Guenon, Girard, and the good ol KJV to get their heads straight, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:33:40 2018 No.12209349 >>12209301 Why don't you believe in any of the various other mythological beings?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:34:05 2018 No.12209350 >>12209344 You could have tried to refute him without acting exactly how he said atheists act. You fell for the trap

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:35:13 2018 No.12209352 >>12209344 >>modern medicine based on the work of christians >>modern technology based on the work of christians >>modern ethics or equality based on the work of christians

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:35:47 2018 No.12209355

>>12209339
>then yes I would flip a coin.
And if it lands on my shit religion? You will choose my shit over Jesus? You will dedicate your life to worshipping my shit, rather than looking into Christianity, reading the Bible or Penseés, praying, anything? I don’t believe you would

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:36:00 2018 No.12209356 >>12208705 >Belief in God is self evident. Yes. But where Christians make the mistake is in thinking that the self is universal. Therefore, God is a different thing for each person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:37:00 2018 No.12209359 >>12209344 I really hope this is bait but athiests are actually like this so its hard to say

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:37:24 2018 No.12209361 File: 277 KB, 600x550, 1504776694191.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12209344 yes, i'm so glad to live in a secular society. thank science that i have my ipad! thats all that really matters!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:37:31 2018 No.12209362 >>12209344 have an upvote sir :)

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:37:33 2018 No.12209363

>>12209339
>what I already know
I'm assuming you mean things "known" by immediate empirical experience (not quantum physics)? Again, basically of our values and beliefs are not held within this category and so are unverifiable by your standards. One of those many beliefs that are unverifiable is the validity of experimentation. Where is the verification of experimentation by your method of experimentation? On what grounds can we call this "truth?"

>Got an example?
Your belief in the scientific method as "truth" and all of your political beliefs that you stated in the previous post.

>I would lock you away or kill you if necessary.
By what right would you be able to do this? My preference is as valid as yours and I would have just as much right to lock you away for contradicting my preference.

You haven't really been responding to my points, unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:38:36 2018 No.12209368 >>12209356 >Therefore, God is a different thing for each person. *citation needed

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:38:58 2018 No.12209369 >>12209301 Why don't you believe in the Tooth Fairy?

>>	pagan scum Mon Dec 10 12:39:35 2018 No.12209375 >>12209369 i do

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:40:53 2018 No.12209379 >>12209322 Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:41:08 2018 No.12209381 >>12209368 God is a different thing for the same person at different times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:41:34 2018 No.12209384 >>12209369 >>12209349 so you don't actually have a reason to not believe in God?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:41:38 2018 No.12209385 >>12209379 see >>12209344

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:41:59 2018 No.12209386 >>12209368 Go look up perspectivism.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:49:36 2018 No.12209415

>>12209019
>>12209021

It is a Christian tenet that Stockholm Syndrome and p-zombiehood are antithetic to knowing God and useless in general. Even Catholics know this. The Wager is akin to Hume's or Locke's darkness, not even Atheism, but the murk in which Atheism fumbles. Horrific.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:49:40 2018 No.12209416 >>12209344 >>modern ethics Thanks for nothing

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:51:25 2018 No.12209424 >>12209381 It’s a finite and changing human mind contemplating the infinite and unchanging

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:51:55 2018 No.12209427 >>12209416 studies have shown that children understand consent, so where is the issue?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:52:40 2018 No.12209429 >>12209384 so you don't actually have a reason to not believe in Spiderman?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:53:02 2018 No.12209431 >>12209427 >studies have shown that children understand consent, so where is the issue? i don't even have a suitable reaction image for this shit jfc

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 12:56:05 2018 No.12209445

>>12209342
True/false are logical terms. I used them in my definition of "truth. The logical "true" is not the same as "truth". At least not in my definition. So no, I did not use my term in its own definition.

Are you trying to get at the concept of basic assumptions that underly all reasoning? Yes I have those too and they are picked based on pragmatic reasons. Is that what you are getting at? The concept of the christian God goes way beyond a basic assumption though. And there is very little utility that derives from it.

>>12209355
No I would probably kill myself unless your shit religion forbids it.

>>12209363
>Again, basically of our values and beliefs are not held within this category and so are unverifiable by your standards.
Still no example?

> One of those many beliefs that are unverifiable is the validity of experimentation. Where is the verification of experimentation by your method of experimentation?
I set up criteria that determine whether the experiment is successful or not (true/false). If it continues to fall into the true category consistently over time then I assume it to be truth until it does not hold true. See what I answer to 12209342 regarding basic assumptions.

>By what right would you be able to do this? My preference is as valid as yours and I would have just as much right to lock you away for contradicting my preference.
It is as valid as mine. But it is in my self interest to do it, since you are actively endangering my life and happiness. Since it is also in the interest of the vast majority of other people, we would probably band together to do it.

Rights are a societal concept, not a moral concept. Rights exist in a society as long as they are enforced by its members. So society might give me the right to do it, because society might see it as virtuous to get rid of you, but that is not really relevant here. Rights and morals are not equivalent. Though rights are usually based on the morals of the members of society.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:02:40 2018 No.12209482

>>12209429
why can't you just say why you don't believe in God? your only reason is to make yourself feel superior. you equate God to childrens fairytales and childrens superheroes to imply that you're some kind of adult, and that you only believe in adult things, that you're somehow better and more "grown-up" than people who are religious. i would almost have some respect for you if you at least said it was because you lost someone close and couldn't see how a god could let that happen, but that's never why.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:07:21 2018 No.12209504 >>12209352 That’s not at all entirely true, and then there’s the fact that was not their Christian beliefs what was decisive for their achievements.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:13:07 2018 No.12209532

>>12209504
>there’s the fact that was not their Christian beliefs what was decisive for their achievements.
patently false
newton said many times how important god was to his work, and many of the greatest scientists wrote extensively on theology and how god affected science

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:17:25 2018 No.12209548

>>12209532
>newton said many times how important god was to his work
yes, the man who lived at a time when not believing in god would mean totally anathematization and being cut out from all scientific funding/society, maybe even being legally prosecuted, for some reason confessed to believe in a god. how brave and devotional of him.

and if you knew anything at all about Newton you'd know that even then this "god" he professed to believe in was more of a tongue-in-cheek deism that had much more in common with Plato's demiurgus than the abrahamic yahweh.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:18:16 2018 No.12209552 I want to thank /lit/ for making me a Christian after being an atheist my whole life

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:20:10 2018 No.12209559 I want to thank /lit/ for making me an Atheist after being a Christian my whole life

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:20:53 2018 No.12209561 I want to thank /lit/ for making me a Girl after being a boy my whole life

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:22:16 2018 No.12209568 >>12208412 They say it doesn't contain them. There are atheists who say "what if you cant beleive in God". It isnt a choice to them.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:25:12 2018 No.12209582

People in this thread:

>>12208335

>There’s this movement from some 3-4 years since, that somewhat coincide with many 17-18-19-20 year old people starting to browse 4chan. Many of them are all into religiosity and the Bible and so forth because of the new waves of political conservatism that are now the fashion all over the world. They consider themselves – these young men – to be opposes to the status quo, when in fact they are echoing the fashion of the time perfectly. If they were born in the 60s they would all be hippies.

>The other side of the coin are people of around 27-28-29-30 years that have endured a great time of depression, anxiety and a feeling of lack of worth and that have found strength and meaning in – guess what – Jesus. I have seen hundreds of stories like this here on /lit/, all over the place. Again and again and again there’s the same story: “I was feeling lost and sad and lonely and it was then that I found Christ and now I’m feeling much better”.

>In other words: we are dealing with new-fags following the conservative trend and with old-fags hitting the mid-life crisis

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:27:06 2018 No.12209592

>>12209445
>are picked based on pragmatic reasons
And why is pragmatism good or a pathway to the truth?

>very little utility that derives from it.
I don't like to think in terms of "utility" but first things first God would give you a foundation for your ridiculous moral/societal views.

>Still no example?
I did give examples:
>>Got an example?
>Your belief in the scientific method as "truth" and all of your political beliefs that you stated in the previous post.

>I set up
Exactly. This is not a system that is inherent in the world, it is instead an ultimately unverifiable idea that you impose upon the world and experience in order to get "results" i. e. not truth, but instead a fallible, subjective way of getting a hold on empirical experience. This method can say nothing about God or an afterlife.

>basic assumptions
This is the crux of the argument that we're having. You are assuming things about the world in a way that is ultimately not verifiable or valid or rational according to the standards of the scientific method itself. Christians are also (very knowingly) making assumptions about the world but I would argue that they are a) more honest about the nature of those assumptions and b) more valid and important assumptions with regards to truth.

>in the interest of the vast majority of other people
So you believe in the truth of the majority, which is otherwise known as mob rule. Utterly irrational foundation for a moral system which could crumble in a single day.

>Rights exist in a society as long as they are enforced by its members
So if a society, say Nazi Germany, no longer decides to enforce the rights of Jews or Homosexuals then that is valid? There is no greater moral issue there? You don't really believe what you're saying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:28:09 2018 No.12209597 >>12209552 Same

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:29:11 2018 No.12209601 >>12209552 >>12209597 How recent?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:30:35 2018 No.12209609

>>12209582
>The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. In other words, a fact (or belief) is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:31:35 2018 No.12209614

>>12209592
>This method can say nothing about God or an afterlife.

Not him, but natural selection has already disproven all major religions of the world. The current knowledge of cosmology too is another major blow on all religions of the world. To be frank Hinduism would hold up better than Christianity in face of this findings.

Two facts: 1-Natural Selection and 2-The Big Bang.

Can still be a God? Yes. Was the God from teh Bible and Christ the real deal? No.

So while you can still have faith, you cannot have a Christian faith: it's already disproven, and to insit on that path is just to act with blind emotion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:33:19 2018 No.12209624 >>12209601 About three years ago. /lit/ encouraged me to seriously engage with my Catholic upbringing and Catholic philosophy, which led me to understand the falsity of atheism and secularism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:33:31 2018 No.12209626 >>12208412 There's nothing to reconcile, I have knowledge and there's no room for delusions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:34:22 2018 No.12209629 >>12209614 >natural selection has already disproven Christianity How exactly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:34:36 2018 No.12209630 >>12209624 Not /lit/: it's a major global trend. You are not special: just being the normie of your own time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:34:50 2018 No.12209632 >>12209626 You must suck at poker

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:36:18 2018 No.12209642 >>12209630 The same was said for atheists. One day it might be said for Muslims or Scientologists or Transhumanists,etc. What is your point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:36:22 2018 No.12209643 >>12209629 You’re going to come up with the old excuse that the Creation narrative is just metaphorical, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:36:59 2018 No.12209646 >>12209630 I'm not a teenager anymore so I don't care about my beliefs being "special."

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:37:25 2018 No.12209649 >>12209609 That's just a spot on on most people here. But if you want an argument agains Chsitianity, here: >>12209614 Just two words: natural selection.>>12209642

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:38:41 2018 No.12209653 >>12209643 much of the bible is allegorical, it isn't totally out of consideration also the "days" aren't necessarily human days

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:39:09 2018 No.12209657

>>12209643
Well its not an excuse, you can go right back to Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th Century and see that the Catholic tradition has never founded itself upon literalist readings of Genesis of the Old Testament.

Your argument from evolution is a refutation of 19th Century fundamentalism, not Catholic belief as its been for the past 2,000 years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:39:42 2018 No.12209660 >>12209643 How would you like the Bible to have been written so that natural selection and the Big Bang don’t disprove Christianity?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:40:15 2018 No.12209661

>>12209632
I absolutely suck at poker but that has nothing to do with this discussion. It's not a "bluff" to see that all religions are man-made fabrications. Deism is the only thing you can't outright dismiss but there's no evidence for that so I don't concern myself with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:40:37 2018 No.12209662 >>12209624 i became catholic largely because of a priest on /r9k/. don't tell anyone tho

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:45:42 2018 No.12209678 >>12209614 >Two facts: 1-Natural Selection and 2-The Big Bang Neither of these disprove Christianity. Maybe they disprove whatever strawman beard in the clouds religion you think exists to make yourself feel smart

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:46:51 2018 No.12209682

>>12209548
>and if you knew anything at all about Newton you'd know that even then this "god" he professed to believe in was more of a tongue-in-cheek deism that had much more in common with Plato's demiurgus than the abrahamic yahweh.
read this
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/translation/TRAN00007

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:51:05 2018 No.12209693

>>12209592
>And why is pragmatism good or a pathway to the truth?
It's not, but if I was not doing what is practical I would be dead already and could not have this discussion. The basic assumptions that underlie logic, science and ultimately technology and society lead to the car that drives me to work every morning. And me caring about truth in the first place is also an expression of pragmatism.

>first things first God would give you a foundation for your ridiculous moral/societal views
I think your moral and societal views are ridiculous as well. Especially because you didn't construct them on based on utility, but rather just accepted them on faith. My views have a more stable foundation than yours.

>I set up
>Exactly. This is not a system that is inherent in the world, it is instead an ultimately unverifiable idea that you impose upon the world and experience in order to get "results" i. e. not truth, but instead a fallible, subjective way of getting a hold on empirical experience. This method can say nothing about God or an afterlife.
I don't think your system is inherent in the world either, you just think it is. Your method can say nothing about God or the afterlife either, you just think it does. But my method would confirm God or the Afterlife once there was any good evidence to support those ideas, rather than just wishful thinking.

>This is the crux of the argument that we're having. You are assuming things about the world in a way that is ultimately not verifiable or valid or rational according to the standards of the scientific method itself. Christians are also (very knowingly) making assumptions about the world but I would argue that they are a) more honest about the nature of those assumptions and b) more valid and important assumptions with regards to truth.
Basic assumptions are something like this:
1. There is a world, a reality.
2. I am part of this world.
3. My senses provide me with a not entirely wrong, arbitrary yet mostly consistent, representation of reality.

You have the same basic assumptions as I do, I just have fewer than you do. So all of your criticism of me in this regard fall back on yourself. The basic assumptions that I hold are necessary for me to interact with the world. Your concept of God is not necessary.

>So you believe in the truth of the majority, which is otherwise known as mob rule. Utterly irrational foundation for a moral system which could crumble in a single day.
Like I said it is not based on a moral consideration. Nothing I have said in this regard is a moral consideration. Getting rid of your hypothetical "you" is just a function of my desire to survive. According to my morals it is also morally justifiable, but I don't see the point in bringing morals into this. Morals are not objective. Nazis are morally reprehensible according to my (and your?) moral system. But they are not morally reprehensible according to their own moral system. Rights vary depending on what society you are in.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:51:28 2018 No.12209697

>>12209682
yes, a man under contract churned out a cute little larp to reassure any of the more suspicious religious looneys of his time.

Your point?

This is the equivalent of some Hollywood schlock second-rate animated film that an A-list actor does a voice-over for due to contractual obligations with a studio. Nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:51:55 2018 No.12209700 this thread has been a disaster for the atheists lol

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:51:58 2018 No.12209702

>>12209653
>>12209657
>>12209660

See, you need to make a lot of malabarism just to avoid one single point.

>>12209678
>Neither of these disprove Christianity.

Of course they do. Is funny that no profeth (even the ones who were directly seeing reallity by influence of God) ever reported anything that matched reality. It was always a vision (even the fabulous ones) of their own time and culture.

And more, if it dosent disprove Christiany, it dosent disprove any religion. And since you people cant prove that Christ raise from teh dead then any other religion worths as many as your won: it's all based on blind faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:56:11 2018 No.12209722 >>12209702 post physique.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 13:59:51 2018 No.12209735 >>12209700 You people didn’t refute any of the major posts: >>12208880 >>12209074 >>12209614 >>12209693 >>12209702

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:00:16 2018 No.12209738

>>12209702
>just to avoid one single point
You have no point, it was just completely dismantled by those posters.

>their own time and culture
How else would a vision of divinity have made any sense to them or their communities that they preached to? Would a prophet need to have seen Krishna or a large hadron collider for their visions to be valid?

>it's all based on blind faith
No, there is a long tradition of sophisticated argumentation between the faiths of the world and they don't contradict as much as you think they do. However, Christ's resurrection is a revealed truth and its validity can be, and is, discussed and debated in historical terms by serious scholars. Also how exactly could an ancient resurrection be "proved" in a way that would satisfy you? Doubting Thomas addresses this point.

>blind faith
No, thats what scientists have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:01:22 2018 No.12209743 Kierkegaard and Pascal already solved all the shit you atheists are spewing lmao.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:04:37 2018 No.12209752

>>12209743
>dude! muh philosophurs totally dismiss all this SCIENCE that you drones keep clinging to lmao
>who cares if the bible is an abysmal morass of contradictions and raving lunacies that span from fatansy-land to literally advocating genocides!
>who cares if the bible has never proved a single thing about the world
>who cares if the past two centuries have completely buried all of its supposed arguments
>just, like, leap of faith + wager bro lolol
yikes. you guys really are larpers. "Kierkegaard" this, "Dostoevsky" that. yeesh

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:06:42 2018 No.12209761 File: 30 KB, 615x290, smug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] what if I don't want / don't see why should I pray to him even if he exists?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:07:09 2018 No.12209764

>>12209738
>You have no point, it was just completely dismantled by those posters.

They direclty contradited their Holy Scripture: they dismantled their own faith.

>>12209738
>However, Christ's resurrection is a revealed truth

Sources for the verification? >>12209738
>Also how exactly could an ancient resurrection be "proved" in a way that would satisfy you?

Why miracles were so common in ancient times and now they all end up being proven wrong?

You people have lost the battle a long time ago. It's all blind faith. If it makes you bitches sleep at night, ok. But don’t try to pass laws on Congress based on your illusions.

And in the end it’s all vanity: all because you simply need to feel you will keep existing, you need to feel that some colossal intelligence out there loves you no matter what. Why are you people so arrogant? Why so weak? Why do you choose to believe in things for which there isn’t a single evidence in favor? Is it that hard to cope with death?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:08:15 2018 No.12209767 >>12209752 you mad as fuck dostoevsky is shit btw

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:08:31 2018 No.12209770 >>12209752 >abysmal morass of contradictions Love this meme

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:08:37 2018 No.12209772 >>12209752 this, and this: >>12209582 I bet this guys are all around their early 20s

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:08:58 2018 No.12209774 File: 51 KB, 629x351, Is there a God?.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:10:06 2018 No.12209779 >>12209774 there is no virtue without God

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:11:09 2018 No.12209783 >>12209779 Jacking off to traps is a virtue. There I just made one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:12:26 2018 No.12209788 >>12209779 Virtue is blasphemy against the earth

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:12:48 2018 No.12209793 >>12209783 nice, your good deeds will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:13:29 2018 No.12209801 >>12209702 >Of course they do You haven't shown how, just asserted it. If I say Usain Bolt runs really fast, and you say Bolt just puts one leg in front of the other in rapid succession, how have you disproved my original assertion?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:13:32 2018 No.12209803

>>12209693
>based on utility
No, they're based on a higher truth than just liberal human whims like yours are. And the West has survived and thrived under Christian moral teaching for nearly two millennia, so those teachings must have some utility.

>a more stable foundation
"I think its good so its good and I hope you agree with me" is a good foundation?

>Your method can say nothing about God or the afterlife either
It can work by reason and philosophical debate which is based upon broader assumptions and thinking about the world, untethered by the insincere "objectivity" of science.

>once there was any good evidence
You've just made the mistake I warned about. The scientific system is utterly incapable, by its own definition, of knowing about these things. You can never prove or disprove them within your own boundaries. "Physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics which we know because physics explains everything."

> I just have fewer than you do
No you don't. I'm guessing that you also assume that the material world is all that exists, consciousness is reducible to materialism, there are no objective grounds for morality in the world, a higher intelligence or power is not a necessary idea, there can be no such thing as an afterlife etc. These are unverifiable and yet you assume them. You actively hold these ideas to be true with no reasoning behind them.

>not based on a moral consideration
Please explain why you keep making this point? How are you somehow separating morality from moral questions?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:13:50 2018 No.12209805 >>12209788 so are your shitty genetics you incel. post physique

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:15:08 2018 No.12209810 >>12209779 This is presupposing gods existence. Provide evidence that isn't 2000 year old fanfiction by a couple of fags.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:15:58 2018 No.12209816

>>12209779

Virtues are human creations. They depend on artificial morality systems.

All Gods ever created by mankind are artificial, and their existence depend on human faith. (There might be a God, but humanity never had any contact with it – based on all the sacred texts that we have, that have all been disproven).

Since both are artificial, you can choose to have both or you can choose only one. You can choose what you think that is virtuous without any consideration for a God, but of course, your view of right and wrong will still be a creation.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:16:35 2018 No.12209821

>>12209764
>They direclty contradited their Holy Scripture
How?
>now they all end up being proven wrong
There are a huge number of inexplicable miraculous events even confirmed by atheist doctors and witnesses. Look up 'Lordes miracles.'

>And in the end it’s all vanity
blah blah blah spare us all the amateur psychoanalysis in future, okay?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:17:38 2018 No.12209825 >>12209772 >their early 20s Woah on 4chan? No shit>>12209783

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:18:00 2018 No.12209827 >>12209816 >but humanity never had any contact with it I, and billions of others, am in contact with God on a daily basis. What the fuck are you talking about? God is Being, its literally impossible for him to not exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:18:19 2018 No.12209828 >>12209772 >I bet this guys are all around their early 20s t. 26 year old

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:19:11 2018 No.12209835 >>12209810 Look up 'Aristotle'

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:20:18 2018 No.12209843 >>12208412 God only lets atheists into Heaven.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:21:23 2018 No.12209850 >>12209835 And then you realize, all of a sudden, that Aristole was a pagan. A very, very gay pagan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:21:45 2018 No.12209852 >>12209735 All of them have been refuted

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:22:48 2018 No.12209855 >>12209850 Actually he was devoted to his wife and didn't believe in the supernatural pagan deities. Thanks for trying though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:23:13 2018 No.12209857 File: 259 KB, 800x1004, 1337908488039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12209805 There is no need to be upset. Christian virtue is an affront against humanity compared to superior Renaissance virtù.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:24:42 2018 No.12209866

>>12209801
>You haven't shown how, just asserted it.

Here, this is Jesus speaking:

‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6).

And here:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, u‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and vthe two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4–6
Embed

It is now known that every single organism on Earth is related to one another, and that all life on this planet arose from a single common ancestor. It is also known somewhat what species were ancestors of our species, and there is a whole fossil trail of other species that show a slow progression toward our own modern self. This is not a theory, this is a fact.

So Jesus, the son of God, the one who spoke with part of God’s knowledge, was unaware of this facts, and was speaking with plain certainty that God created the male and female.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:25:46 2018 No.12209872 >>12209827 That's your faith: until you present evidence it's just that - faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:26:50 2018 No.12209877 >>12209852 That depends on what you consider valid refutations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:28:12 2018 No.12209881 >>12209872 You can't prove the existence of love and yet you probably live as if that were real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:28:39 2018 No.12209885 >>12209828 No, 31, soon to make 32

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:29:15 2018 No.12209887 >>12209877 If the Christian posters have made any sloppy arguments then feel free to argue against them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:29:42 2018 No.12209891 >>12209835 not relevant

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:30:18 2018 No.12209892 >>12209885 why are you still on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:30:24 2018 No.12209893 >>12209866 fuckin yikes lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:31:25 2018 No.12209896 >>12209891 >Aristotle is irrelevant to the philosophical understanding of God's existence

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:31:33 2018 No.12209899 evolution isn't real you dummies

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:32:48 2018 No.12209907 >>12209896 philosophy is just logical conjecture, I asked for proof not circular reasoning founded on faulty premises. Surely if it's so obvious god exists you can proffer some evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:34:14 2018 No.12209917 >>12209907 >logical conjecture I'm curious: what do you think science is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:35:02 2018 No.12209920 >>12209907 >Surely if it's so obvious god exists you can proffer some evidence? Jesus and the Bible are evidence of God I don't know why that's not already obvious to you

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:35:55 2018 No.12209925 >>12209920 shameful falseflag bait

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:36:31 2018 No.12209929 >>12209925 Unless you don't understand the definition of evidence I don't know why you would dispute that

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:37:55 2018 No.12209933 >>12209917 Science is based on empirical observations, not a clown pulling a hypothesis out of his asshole and then spit balling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:38:11 2018 No.12209935 >>12209772 Not him, but if you're in your 30s and browse 4chan, you should kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:39:10 2018 No.12209939 >>12209929 So you would also concede that Harry Potter is evidence of witchcraft?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:39:50 2018 No.12209943 >>12209939 hary potter is fiction dummy lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:40:08 2018 No.12209944 >>12209939 No because Harry Potter is a fiction book

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:40:42 2018 No.12209948 >>12209929 Philosophy and theology provide our evidence of God, not merely the biblical accounts

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:41:17 2018 No.12209953 >>12209948 An account is still evidence regardless of how valid or good you think it is

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:44:33 2018 No.12209974 >>12209944 >>12209943 So you would suggest that burning bushes speaking to people and changing rivers into blood is within the realm of nonfiction yet flying on a broomstick is preposterous?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:45:34 2018 No.12209977 >>12209974 yeah

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:46:25 2018 No.12209981

>>12209803
Like I said the above some dozen posts ago, I see utility in the christian societal system. But I don't see any use in adopting its irrational claims about the nature of existence. Like all moral systems that survived over a long period of time, it evolved according to evolutionary principles and if it wasn't viable it would not exist at this current date. But that does not mean it is the best system. Just that it is one of many workable systems. That is the higher truth. You are just too stuck in your mysticism to take the head out of the sand.

>is a good foundation?
Any foundation is better than wishful thinking. And my foundation is based on looking at what works and what does not. Which I would say is miles above yours.

>can work by reason and philosophical debate which is based upon broader assumptions and thinking about the world, untethered by the insincere "objectivity" of science.
Which leads nowhere. You just end up with a bunch of hogwash ideas that are purely based on wishful thinking or random chance. Over thousands of years of natural selection of the most workable ideas you might end up with something that is actually useful. Sorry, if I don't feel like going back to that method. By the way that doesn't mean I am dismissing useful ideas that were created that way.

>No you don't. I'm guessing that you also assume that the material world is all that exists, consciousness is reducible to materialism, there are no objective grounds for morality in the world, a higher intelligence or power is not a necessary idea, there can be no such thing as an afterlife etc. These are unverifiable and yet you assume them. You actively hold these ideas to be true with no reasoning behind them.
No I don't actively assume these are wrong, I just don't accept them as true for no good reason. I have no problem with any of these being true. I just see no reason to assume they are true. I can't just assume everything imaginable to be true. So I have to pick things that are verifiable or utterly necessary. Basic practicality.

Would be great if there was a nice personal God who gives me an afterlife. But I don't see why I would assume that.

>Please explain why you keep making this point? How are you somehow separating morality from moral questions?
Because I am an animal first, a thinker second. I have to take a shit after I eat. Afterwards I can think about the moral implications of it. Are me eating, breathing, sleeping and taking a shit moral questions too? Like I explained before all viable moral systems take human nature into account and work in its limitations. So I am talking about the issue from a meta moral perspective. I have to get rid of the guy who threatens my life, I can think of a moral justification afterwards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:47:15 2018 No.12209984 >>12209977 I have a bridge to sell you >captcha: select all images with bridges kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:47:49 2018 No.12209988 the bible is entirely parable

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:49:02 2018 No.12209995 >>12209752 you've never read the bible

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:50:03 2018 No.12210004

>>12209935

Well, I already published two books (finished the third this year), work in a Law Firm, have a beautiful wife and browse /lit/ mostly to post on critique threads, were I have gained some great reviews from complete strangers that have zero reasons to be kind and compassionate towards me.

Now tell me, do you think you are going to be in a better situation when you are 30, even if you don’t browse 4chan anymore (specially someone who let the global trends and fashions mold his core-views, as stated here: >>12209582)?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:51:21 2018 No.12210009 >>12210004 how embarrassing

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:52:01 2018 No.12210010 >>12210004 i fucked your wife

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:53:58 2018 No.12210017 Pascalfag is my hero, he legitimately shits on retarded atheists; it's beautiful. I'm gonna read the pensees what's the best translation to get the meaning?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:54:20 2018 No.12210020 >>12209160 Profound Christian faith brings peace and bliss in this life too. Meditation is also not exclusive to Buddhism.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:55:08 2018 No.12210024

>>12209872
It's not faith, I directly experience God on a daily basis, as do billions of others. There is no faith involved or required, other than the basic faith which even scientists share that experience and sense data etc is based somewhat in reality

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:55:37 2018 No.12210027 >>12210017 >he legitimately shits on retarded atheists; it's beautiful. I'm gonna read the pensees what's the best translation to get the meaning? So you haven't read it but already decided that you like it?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:57:08 2018 No.12210029

>>12208412
Because there is no reason to assume that even if God exist that he is benevolent. For some reason religious people automatically assume that God, no matter how abstract their reasoning for coming to the conclusion that he exist, is loving, and wants you to have eternal bliss/peace. Not only are their reasons to believe god does not exist due to contradictions in the definition of his existence and the problem with his attributes, there is also no possible way for a material, spatial, limited being to know the mind of a immaterial, non-spatial, atemporal, limitless being. And religious people have yet to point towards any faculty of the human mind that can comprehend God's nature and communicate with it. But suppose you have sufficient reason to believe that the god of the bible is somehow the actual god of the universe communicating with us. Are we now to believe that everything God declares in the Bible to be true? I'll maintain that God is equally likely to be good or evil. Yet morality is sufficiently grounded in human thought, so God being amoral is the most likely as God is beyond good and evil. Knowing this there is no hope for a blissful afterlife for the christian. Only uncertainty on what awaits you. Pascals Wager is predicated on unintelligible assumptions and I have no use for the poisonous smog that is religion. If you believe in the existence of God and have any understanding you should instead be desperately trying to find a way to kill him, or dethrone him, perhaps by following the devil? Regardless, atheism is the only belief in accordance with reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 14:59:00 2018 No.12210039 >>12210027 No retard, read the post again. Pascalfag makes good points and some atheists shit the bed itt, so I do wanna read it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:00:22 2018 No.12210042 >>12210029 t. never read anything about God but knows what he likes God is Being and God is Good, your arguments make no sense. Do you claim existence doesn't actually exist? What are you even trying to say?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:01:04 2018 No.12210046 >>12209974 You're arguing about what is more believable which is irrelevant because Harry Potter is explicitly a fiction book

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:02:43 2018 No.12210050

>>12210039

Nah, you are a Christian for a long time and are rooting like a cheerleader for the side you want to win, even when they can’t refute reasoning such as:

>>12208484
>If you guess the wrong god, you still lose.

and:

>>12209866

You dont fool anyone.

Once again, this is the case:

>>12209582
>>There’s this movement from some 3-4 years since, that somewhat coincide with many 17-18-19-20 year old people starting to browse 4chan. Many of them are all into religiosity and the Bible and so forth because of the new waves of political conservatism that are now the fashion all over the world. They consider themselves – these young men – to be opposes to the status quo, when in fact they are echoing the fashion of the time perfectly. If they were born in the 60s they would all be hippies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:05:27 2018 No.12210055 >>12210050 Yikes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:07:33 2018 No.12210058 >>12210055 Dont hide behind memes you loser. I wish I could see your face and read your mind: I bet it would be almost 100% the kind of people that talk about religion on /pol/.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:08:24 2018 No.12210062

>>12210050
The first response has been commented on here
>>12208938
As for
>>12209866
why do you think Jesus did not specifically name Adam and Eve? Makes you wonder.

And with>>12209582
Read>>12209642

Then read Pascal, before you embarrass yourself even further

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:10:09 2018 No.12210068 >>1221002 I agree with you But if god is beyond good and evil, wouldn't that mean that what we perceive as the devil is also god's doing?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:11:32 2018 No.12210069

>>12208624

>You have to realize that the Bible is always applicable because of its spiritual message, not its scientific ones. When a part of the Bible doesn’t make sense on the surface, dig deeper.

How are any of your points not applicable to any other religious holy book or text?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:11:44 2018 No.12210071

>>12210042
>t. never read anything about God but knows what he likes
My whole post denounces the notion that we can know the mind of God. No amount of reading the works of men can help you understand the mind of the infinite. Did you just gloss over my post? Was it too much for a religious brain to handle? Read it again.
>God is Being and God is Good
You believe that God is the manifestation of those attributes, but your definitions in no way prove that those are in fact his attributes. It is merely your ignorant speculation and wishful thinking that this universe isn't completely hell that you place hope in that which you don't know.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:13:49 2018 No.12210080

>>12210062

This post:

>>12208938

Was defeated here:

>>12209074
>>12209097

>>12210062
>why do you think Jesus did not specifically name Adam and Eve? Makes you wonder.

Male and female, you genius. Unicellular organisms dont have sexes, there's not male and female. Once again, put this in your head: we already know a lot of the journey of the evolution of life on Earth, and the first sexual beings to emerge perhaps 2.5 billion years ago were what biologists call isogamous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:14:53 2018 No.12210084 >>12210062 >why do you think Jesus did not specifically name Adam and Eve? Makes you wonder lord, /pol/ fags are dumb

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:17:26 2018 No.12210096

>>12210069
Because there are multiple criteria for deciding whether or not a text, or religion, should be trusted. And Christianity checks a lot of boxes, such as, but not limited to:
>being based on another existing religion (Judaism) and being predicted with amazing beauty (Isaiah 53)
>having multiple witnesses, cocinciding with historic events
>monotheistic
>acknowledges sin and offers a remedy
Read Pascal for more :)

And personally, I believe the Bible is simply a beautiful text. When you’re not reading it in patches because you’re just an atheist consulting some part, and you’re actually reading it humbly and contextually, you realize it’s greatness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:17:30 2018 No.12210097 >>12210058 That’s not very scientific of you

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:20:11 2018 No.12210113

>>12210080
>Male and female, you genius. Unicellular organisms dont have sexes, there's not male and female. Once again, put this in your head: we already know a lot of the journey of the evolution of life on Earth, and the first sexual beings to emerge perhaps 2.5 billion years ago were what biologists call isogamous.
Jesus wasn’t referring to all life, but to humans. Might wanna re-read Mark 10

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:20:31 2018 No.12210116

>>12210071
>You believe that God is the manifestation of those attributes, but your definitions in no way prove that those are in fact his attributes.
You are very unintelligent. God is not the manifestation of Being or Good, he is them. They are not his attributes in the way you seem to think. How could they be? Is hot an attribute of hot? It makes no sense. Very low iq post

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:23:49 2018 No.12210123

>>12210113

Male and female humans are a result of millions of years of evolution, and you can hardly say when our species started to be our species. There was never a single moment when male and female were once created by God. In fact, male and female humans were also male and female apes, and once male and female fishes. God never created humans from scratch: the whole process was incredibly slow.

No matter how you look to Jesus quote, it shows a lack of comprehension of this fact of life and an affirmation of a lie.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:25:20 2018 No.12210132

>>12209981
>I don't see any use in adopting its irrational claims about the nature of existence
Christian faith is inseparable from Christian morality, hence why you talk somewhat like a Christian but are unable to defend any of those beliefs.

>it evolved according to evolutionary principles
Christian ethics is the opposite of what we would usually consider viable in evolutionary terms. It’s as pacifist as possible and yet was willingly adopted by a Roman emperor.

>Just that it is one of many workable systems. That is the higher truth.
Lots of societies are great and admirable according to Christian standards but only insofar as they have recognised moral truths inherent in God’s creation. I’m not sure what your point is.

>wishful thinking
The same Christianity that believes in eternal damnation, the wrath of God, and original sin is wishful thinking? Liberal ideology is a children’s cartoon by comparison.

>And my foundation is based on looking at what works and what does not.
Not really because you have prior moral ideas that you use to decide what “works” and what doesn’t.

>a bunch of hogwash ideas that are purely based on wishful thinking or random chance
This describes your beliefs, though. I understand where you get your ideas from, but you have no knowledge of the theology or philosophy that mine are based upon yet you call them hogwash.

>Sorry, if I don't feel like going back to that method.
Humanity has never moved beyond it. It’s merely science that deludes you into thinking that we have greater capabilities now.

>By the way that doesn't mean I am dismissing useful ideas that were created that way.
Sure thing. You just have no way of deciding between any of them apart from which belief makes you feel good and which doesn’t, that’s why you keep using the hopelessly vague and sinister word “useful.”

>No I don't actively assume these are wrong, I just don't accept them as true for no good reason.
Either you agree with them or you don’t, there’s not much grey are here. You don’t believe in them yet you have no reason that can explain why.

>I have no problem with any of these being true.
Yes you do, most would completely undermine your belief system.

>I just see no reason to assume they are true.
Right, so you assume that they are false.

>so I have to pick things that are verifiable or utterly necessary.
AGAIN I’ll ask: by what measurement? What is necessary what is not? Your belief in such thing is AGAIN unverifiable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:26:01 2018 No.12210136 File: 34 KB, 444x441, 1523467955096.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >oh look, another 300 post Pascal thread without a single citation to Pensee a whole lot of reddit spacing in this shit thread

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:26:50 2018 No.12210143

>>12209981
>But I don't see why I would assume that.
Because you only limit yourself to a wrong-headed positivist worldview. Trying to explain theology to you would be like describing the ocean to an unborn child. You’ve got blinders on.

>Because I am an animal first, a thinker second.
Another baseless assertion. How do you explain anti-natalism or philosophically driven suicides? Our thoughts are more important than animal drives.

>Are me eating, breathing, sleeping and taking a shit moral questions too?
No but you permitting the execution of innocents certainly is

>I can think of a moral justification afterwards.
I’m sure you’re a nice guy but you literally sound like a nazi executioner here. Utterly ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:28:33 2018 No.12210154 >>12210123 Jesus didn’t contradict anything you just said. He said God made us as men and women. Are we men and women? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:28:38 2018 No.12210155 OKAY NIGGERS I ORDERED THE FUCKING BOOK ON AMAZON, I SWEAR THIS WHOLE THREAD IS JUST AN AD FOR Pensées. Well, I'm agnostic anyway, so let's see if this book can swing me towards believing in God again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:30:30 2018 No.12210173 >>12210155 >Well, I'm agnostic anyway Yeah, right

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:30:47 2018 No.12210174

>>12210116
>God is not the manifestation of Being or Good, he is them
On the contrary, he is man's anthropomorphic manifestation of those notions, but if he is Being and Good as you say then he has no capability to think, speak, or perform actions.
> Is hot an attribute of hot
Heat is an attribute of hot, energy, etc.
>Very low iq post
Classic Christian Zoomer

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:31:08 2018 No.12210178

>>12210123
Did you want Jesus to be as precise as possible? Do you have any idea how his listeners would have responded to them? God created humans to be male and female. When humans were created, they were male and female. You’re stretching it a bit, don’t you think?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:31:52 2018 No.12210182 >>12210154 >God made us He didn't made us. He might have made the first unicelular life form, but from that point on it was all natural selection.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:31:56 2018 No.12210183 >>12210173 >yea, right ??

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:32:06 2018 No.12210184 >>12210174 God doesn’t think or speak or act as we do

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:33:56 2018 No.12210193 >>12210182 >God didn’t make us, he’s just completely responsible for making us

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:34:55 2018 No.12210195 >>12210184 And you'll never know how he thinks, speaks or acts. But of course you'll speak for him, perform his actions, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:34:58 2018 No.12210196 >>12210155 This thread has moved well beyond the pensees lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:35:49 2018 No.12210201 >>12210196 It never got to it, desu

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:35:59 2018 No.12210202 >>12210195 >you’ll never know *citation needed

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:36:10 2018 No.12210204

>There are no mentions to billions and billions of galaxies in the Bible, despite being a fact
>There is no mention of the ape-like ancestry of humanity on the Bible, despite being a fact
>There is no mention to the ancestry of all living things on Earth from a common single ancestor, despite being a fact
>There is no mention to the electrochemical activity of neurons inside the brain, despite being a fact
>There is no mention to the Big Bag, despite being a fact
>There is no mention of the utterly unimportant place of Earth on the cosmos, but generally it is described as the center of the Universe

All of that on a book were people were supposedly maintaining constant contact with Divinity.

Time and time again all affirmations of all religions in the world have been disproven. The only thing people cling to now is: “Well, we can’t prove it is real, but you folks also can’t prove that it isn’t real”.

Why is so important to you to be Christians? It’s over, it has already been disproven. You want to believe in God, fine, go ahead. But don’t accept tradition just because your ancestors were part of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:37:12 2018 No.12210206 >>12210193 I was being kind to you. There will be a time when the origin of life will be discovered, and then even this scrap or argument will also be taken from you.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:38:02 2018 No.12210211

>>12210174
>>>12210116
>On the contrary, he is man's anthropomorphic manifestation of those notions, but if he is Being and Good as you say then he has no capability to think, speak, or perform actions.
Yeah im also wondering this, do christians believe doing good presuppose will and consciousness? If not, then god have will and consciousness as human understand it

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:38:22 2018 No.12210213 >>12210204 None of those things are relevant to the question of God or the divine truth of the bible. It’s a holy text, not a high school science book.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:39:24 2018 No.12210216

>>12210204
How would any of that help create a spiritual message? In what parts of the Bible did it go on and on about scientific truths just to educate people? That wasn’t the purpose of the Bible. It will always be applicable BECAUSE it didn’t include any science. Imagine that it DID include the facts you mentioned. 1,000 years from now, atheists would ask why Jesus didnt mention THEIR scientific discoveries.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:40:18 2018 No.12210223

>>12210206
You were being kind to me by talking bullshit and embarrassing yourself?
>origin of life will be discovered
Not really because science, according to its own boundaries, can never and will never encounter such a thing. Enjoy your retarded worldview, though!

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:40:54 2018 No.12210224

>>12210195
>And you'll never know how he thinks, speaks or acts. But of course you'll speak for him, perform his actions, etc.

Here is the major problem. People pass laws, try to regulate the behavior of others, try to curb the freedom of others, try to rise to prominence and be influential in the world all based on this void: what God thinks.

There might be a God, yet nobody ever saw it or spoke to it. But there are lots and lots of people influencing all our lives with an authority that is based on nothing but plain fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:41:36 2018 No.12210231 >>12210224 >plain fantasy *Citation needed

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:42:13 2018 No.12210235 >>12210223 So tell me, when did you become religious? This is an anonymous board, so have some courage

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:43:16 2018 No.12210241 >>12210231 Why dont you offer us evidence to support your views?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:44:00 2018 No.12210242

>>12210235
Oops I hope you aren’t about to make the mistake of the genetic fallacy!
>The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. In other words, a fact (or belief) is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:44:10 2018 No.12210243 >>12210241 Read Pascal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:45:03 2018 No.12210247 >>12210241 What evidence would you like? A long blonde lock of God’s hair?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:46:19 2018 No.12210252

>>12210223
>Not really because science, according to its own boundaries, can never and will never encounter such a thing.

This has been stated many times in the past, and we all know what happened next.

You would be the kind of guy who would applaud the burning at the stake of people who were trying to make scientific progress in the 1500s.

Why are you so afraid of dying and nothingness, seriously?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:46:45 2018 No.12210256 >>12210247 >a long blonde lock of God’s hair? >God is blonde now

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:47:43 2018 No.12210261 >>12210247 >What evidence would you like? I would like to see Christ and spoke directly with him. >>12210247 >A long blonde lock of God’s hair? I would like to hear his voice like Jesus said he could hear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:49:32 2018 No.12210267 >>12210242 No, I am too tired for that, and it is a fallacy, after all: it would be unfair and cowardly to go in that direction. Just want to know if I guessed right. Sometimes I try to guess and miss for a long shot.

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:50:07 2018 No.12210270

>>12210252
It’s a question of the definition of science, not the ability of science to “progress” (which is also very debateable).

>so afraid of dying and nothingness
I was a committed and relatively happy nihilistic atheist for years. I just eventually realised that my beliefs were irrational and made no sense so, through slow study and commitment, I arrived at Catholicism. I have no fear, only the love of God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:50:33 2018 No.12210271 >read Penseés >Pascal isn’t actually a retard Thank you /lit/. Very cool!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:50:35 2018 No.12210272 >>12210261 >would like to see Christ and spoke and speak If Thomas can put his hand on the wound, I also want to do it

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:51:11 2018 No.12210277 >>12210261 You aren’t in the same time period and place as Jesus so you can’t encounter as a living breathing human being. And you aren’t Jesus so you can’t “hear” God as he did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:51:56 2018 No.12210281 >>12210243 >Read Pascal He took a lot from Montaigne. The book has some nice moments, but it's mostly just opinions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:52:12 2018 No.12210283 >>12210267 I describe it here. It happened about three years ago: >>12210270

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:52:49 2018 No.12210286 >>12210281 >He took a lot from Montaigne. ? He hated Montaigne

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:53:26 2018 No.12210287 >>12210281 >just opinions wanna give us some examples?

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 15:59:03 2018 No.12210308

>>12210132
>Christian faith is inseparable from Christian morality, hence why you talk somewhat like a Christian but are unable to defend any of those beliefs.
You didn't ask me to defend any. Which useful moral tenet of Christianity do you want me to defend?

>Christian ethics is the opposite of what we would usually consider viable in evolutionary terms. It’s as pacifist as possible and yet was willingly adopted by a Roman emperor.
It used to be an ideology designed to work and survive under the oppression of first the Jewish establishment and later the Romans. Basically what Nietzsche would describe as slave morality. It took over not with blunt force, but by slowly spreading among the dispossessed. Adopting Christianity was a great political move of Constantine, which gave him the support of huge parts of the population. Later once it was the hegemonic ideology it evolved into quite a different direction. And most of the moral tenets of Christianity (and even early Judaism) that were valid thousands of years ago, are now ignored or interpreted differently to fit the current conditions. Which causes quite some problems with a canon of scripture that stays static while the ideology evolves differently.

>Not really because you have prior moral ideas that you use to decide what “works” and what doesn’t.
I stated before how I define "what works" and it is not based on morals.

>Either you agree with them or you don’t, there’s not much grey are here. You don’t believe in them yet you have no reason that can explain why.
I explained why: I can't just assume everything imaginable to be true. So I have to pick things that are verifiable or utterly necessary.

>Yes you do, most would completely undermine your belief system.
Not really. Killing other people for no good reason is bad, but not because God said so. That's what I am talking about. Correct conclusions based on faulty reasoning.

>AGAIN I’ll ask: by what measurement? What is necessary what is not? Your belief in such thing is AGAIN unverifiable.
I am repeating myself again and i am getting tired of it. Necessary is what allows me to interact with reality. Verification is done with testing.

>Another baseless assertion. How do you explain anti-natalism or philosophically driven suicides? Our thoughts are more important than animal drives.
You can reason yourself into ideas that go against your human nature, but those ideas will destroy you. Either figuratively a literally. With your examples being rather obvious examples. If you refuse to eat you die. If you refuse to fight, you die. If you refuse to procreate genetically or at least societal with your ideas and contributions then you will die inside and become miserable and probably kill yourself as well.

That is why all ideologies that survive over time need to be consistent with human nature, otherwise they outright self destruct or simply get out-competed by more successful ideologies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:05:01 2018 No.12210339 >>12210308 I appreciate you responding to me but I think we should end the discussion here. You seem incapable of understanding what my arguments and objections actually are, so there’s not much point in us both repeating ourselves anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:05:51 2018 No.12210343 >>12210339 Read Pascal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:08:04 2018 No.12210349 >>12210339 Read the shit you want to argue about before arguing about it. /thread

Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:10:21 2018 No.12210359

>>12210339
I get the same impression from you. And I wish you a nice day.

If I can suggest something to you, then try to construct a world view from absolute zero and see where you end up. It probably won't be Christianity. But hopefully it will contain its best elements.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:11:27 2018 No.12210365 Dismiss it out of my asshole.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:12:46 2018 No.12210372 >>12210365 Why did this comment turn me on for a second? I even puckered my lips. P-p-post p-pic of a-asshole p-plz?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:13:39 2018 No.12210376 >>12210365 >>12210372 Read Pascal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:15:00 2018 No.12210384 >>12210376 Start with the Greeks

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:15:56 2018 No.12210388 >>12210384 There isn’t enough time. Death comes out of nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:17:39 2018 No.12210395 >>12210359 There’s no such thing an ideology made from scratch, we are already beings-in-the-world. Read ‘Being, Consciousness, Bliss’ by David Bentley Hart.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:20:19 2018 No.12210408 >>12210349 We weren’t arguing about Pascal

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:20:29 2018 No.12210409 >>12210388 Skip pre-socratic

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:20:54 2018 No.12210411 >>12210409 Then you might as well kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:23:06 2018 No.12210421 >>12210411 Maybe I'll be Socrates

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 10 16:23:52 2018 No.12210423 >>12210408 It would have prevented the discussion entirely if both members had read it

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature