/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13406142]

>atheists on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.13406169]

Most contemporaries took Kant for an atheist because he rules out all knowledge of God, and only allows knowledge "as if" God exists

[Anonymous No.13406187]

>>13406142
Atheists are always on suicide watch. I pity them

[Anonymous No.13406204]

>>13406187
I'm convinced it's better to delude yourself into being religious than to be an atheist as you have no standard of ultimate perfection to gravitate toward.

[Anonymous No.13406211]

>>13406169
>took Kant for an atheist
do you people think before posting?

[Anonymous No.13406242]

>>13406211
Why would you respond to someone who seems to know something about the topic when you clearly know nothing? It's possible I'm lying or stupid, but you and I both know for a fact that you're stupid. From your standpoint, this reply makes no sense. If you say nothing, you have nothing to lose. But if you respond with posturing as if you know something, like you did, it's a crapshoot whether you will be rebuked or not, because you (knowing nothing) have no way of determining whether I know more than you. Why wouldn't you play it safe and just say nothing?

I guess your reply is contentless and low-investment enough that you aren't really sticking your neck out much. You can always just not reply, when you're proven to be a retard who doesn't know what he's talking about. I just think you're being reckless.

[Anonymous No.13406311]

>>13406187
>>13406204
theists are fucking faggots
>but how does your life have meaning without it being made by supernatural entity?
how does yours have meaning without the deity having also been created? if God has no deity above him, his existence is meaningless, and since a meaningless being created your life, your life is meaningless
>but God gives us morality and purpose!
you don't need the threat of eternal suffering to know that some things are right and wrong
>but isn't that arbitrary?
yep, just as arbitrary as morals granted by a supernatural entity
>but muh eternal soul!
ok

[Anonymous No.13406324]

>>13406311
>respond to my projections

No thanks

[Anonymous No.13406334]

>>13406324
>you're projecting, so I'm not going to respond
>but this comment totally isn't a response, please ignore that it gives you a (You), please believe me, I'm not responding

[GOD No.13406335]

>>13406142
Kant is a real nigga bless my sons

[Anonymous No.13406354]

>>13406311
>if God has no deity above him, his existence is meaningless
God’s meaning is to be God. There’s no greater possible meaning.
>you don't need the threat of eternal suffering to know that some things are right and wrong
If I know that there is no punishment in the afterlife, then there is no reason why I shouldn’t do some things that benefit me while harming others. For example, I could steal and have no fear of punishment. All of morality is just doing what’s best for you. Secular morality will always be inferior to theistic morality.
>yep, just as arbitrary as morals granted by a supernatural entity
They’re not arbitrary as they lead to your benefit.

[Anonymous No.13406358]

>>13406242
He’s an anime poster, the run down for them is
>”depressed”
>materialist
>nihilist
>never read a book

[Anonymous No.13406367]

>>13406311
based and redpilled
>>13406324
cringe and sissypilled

[Anonymous No.13406376]

>>13406354
>God's meaning is to be God
then humanity's meaning is to be humanity
>why can't I just do X Y and Z
because people won't like it and physically punish you, not to mention that many things are immoral because they hurt the progress of humanity
>they lead to your benefit
do you actually believe that non-theist moral systems are inherently self-centered? because that's actually retarded

[Anonymous No.13406377]

>>13406367
>the projector

[Anonymous No.13406384]

>>13406376
>do you actually...
whoops, misread your comment
if God given morals aren't arbitrary because they help humanity, then non-theist morals are similarly nonarbitrary if they help humanity

[Anonymous No.13406408]

>>13406376
>then humanity's meaning is to be humanity
Vague and inferior to striving for virtue and faith in God
>because people won't like it and physically punish you, not to mention that many things are immoral because they hurt the progress of humanity
You’re right, but there are some cases when punishment in this life is almost certainly unavoidable. People with extreme wealth are a great example. They can get away with a lot of things without fear of punishment.
>do you actually believe that non-theist moral systems are inherently self-centered? because that's actually retarded
No it isn’t. By being good to others, you minimize punishment and increase the chance of reward. If being moral isn’t based on self-benefit, then why do it?

[Anonymous No.13406425]

>>13406376
>then humanity's meaning is to be humanity
what? That literally does not follow from what he said. God is a transcendental, supernatural concept. Humanity is a sensical, phenomenal concept. The meaning of God is irrelevant to us because what matters is that our life has meaning because of Him. Just like God existed before the idea of time was in place, which in turn makes it that it's nonsensical to talk about how could God have created time if time was passing when he made it. God is all encompassing and trying to apply logical contradictions that are within our world to Him is irrelevant since he is beyond our reality and our logic.

>do you actually believe that non-theist moral systems are inherently self-centered? because that's actually retarded
it's inferior because it doesn't try to justify itself, so it's a contradictory nihilistic system.

>because people won't like it and physically punish you, not to mention that many things are immoral because they hurt the progress of humanity
Redundant functionalist, utilitarian account. If I, as a human being who subscribes to the moral perspective you're talking about, have the chance to kill a person without anyone seeing or having society to punish me, then because there is no God then I will just go ahead and do it. Belief in God prevents this because morality is absolute.

[Anonymous No.13406428]

>>13406142
Atheists don't care about Kant.

[Anonymous No.13406450]

>>13406408
>>13406425

[Anonymous No.13406487]

>>13406428
>atheists don’t care about extremely significant evolutions in thought and reason
figures

[Anonymous No.13406495]

>>13406377
I am not even the person you replied to lmao, I'm just laughing at how much of a pussy you are.You saw that the number of posters increased after I posted, so you know you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.13406498]

>>13406425
>Belief in God prevents this because morality is absolute
Is that why
>most religious states have bad crime rates
>catholic church has an absurd pedophilia problem
>religious people are well represented in the prison system
You can't just make claims. You have to prove them.

[Anonymous No.13406515]

>>13406487
did Nietzsche come before Kant or after?

[Anonymous No.13406517]

>>13406142
Kant was a retard anyway

[Anonymous No.13406518]

>>13406515
After, he didn’t like kant

[Anonymous No.13406519]

>>13406515
Lmao

[Anonymous No.13406527]

>>13406515
Reminder that people like this are on /lit/ so take it easy guys

[Anonymous No.13406582]

>>13406498
>You can't just make claims. You have to prove them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jews_by_Catholics_during_the_Holocaust
An atheist living in Hitler's time would likely be swayed by his discourse since he would legitimately think that the racial anthropology of the time was legitimate and that eugenics was justifiable to improve the genetic makeup of the overall population. A catholic who believes in the teachings of Jesus, and in the emphasis of the catholic saints, scholars and intellectuals of being kind to one's neighbor and helping the poor would never be swayed by abhorrent ideas like this, and would kindly help and love the people around him.

>most religious states have bad crime rates
Brazil is the country in the world with the largest amount of Catholics, but just go there and talk to its people and you quickly see how there's nothing catholic about them whatsoever. Catholicism and its exegesis isn't preached, taught and practiced in the country. Poor people from third world countries seek comfort in God because they are taught so from early age which gives them hope and helps them live through their miserable lives. These countries are deeply secular and act as such. Religion is more about rites and traditions that help to maintain their hopes and sanity in such a terrible world, but outside the church they do whatever the fuck they want because ever since the beginning of modernity Europe has developed a vast amount of culture that is not Catholic, and these countries which have been colonized by Europe are deeply influenced by that kind of culture, alongside american secular culture since the 20th century.

>catholic church has an absurd pedophilia problem
Human beings are fallen creatures. Whether the paradise happened or is a metaphor is irrelevant, for the nature of human beings as fallen is evident everywhere from ancient times to nowadays. That's why Jesus died for our sins. The Catholic Church as an institution fails to enforce its own pursuit of ideals but the priests themselves are deeply responsible for their actions since they know that God forbids lust.

>religious people are well represented in the prison system
See second paragraph. They are not virtuous people, they are religious and being religious by itself is easy. If you don't take the extra steps to live on the teachings of Christianity then it's both on Catholicism for not enforcing it more and on the religious person for not adhering to it more. But it also has to do with them being poor, and thus means they have less time to read, less time to search about catholic moral prerogatives and such, while a fully Muslim state has all of these resources easily available to any follower.

At any rate, calling yourself a follower of Jesus and not acting upon his teachings is completely excluded from what I'm talking about, at the end of the day. I'm talking about those who believe AND follow. (cont.)

[Anonymous No.13406585]

Literally why would anyone be an atheist in 2019. It's like you don't want to belong to anything greater or admit you crave meaning

[Anonymous No.13406590]

>>13406142
I have never met an intelligent atheist.

[Anonymous No.13406593]

Lads what should I read before starting with Kant?

[Anonymous No.13406603]

>>13406590
THIS

agnostics can be chill and open minded sometimes but overall even their “I just don’t know bro” attitude is gulagworthy

[Anonymous No.13406619]

>>13406585
They don’t want to let go of their pride. They don’t want to entertain the thought of religion being true because that means there’s a chance they will regret their non-belief in the afterlife. Therefore many of them do everything they can to convince themselves that it’s all fake. They even go so far to have FAITH in God’s non-existence.

[Anonymous No.13406629]

>>13406590
Because you've never been to university

[Anonymous No.13406634]

what is the most important part in Critique of judgment and what was it derived from, platon for example? I request an ultimate short summary.

[Anonymous No.13406644]

>>13406242
post of the week

[Anonymous No.13406646]

>>13406585
I think there's a resurgence of Christianity, and if so, it is likely correlated to some degree with the resurgence of right-wing politics in the face of the more and more radical left. A desire to return to tradition, while all around us it's being attacked. The West is awful, White people are oppressive, so let us promote abortion and structure divorce laws to incentivize women to destroy their families (been ongoing for about 50-60 years thanks to 2nd wave feminism), meanwhile push for mass-migration to have all those White children that will never be, be replaced by Blacks and Arabs. SPECIFICALLY, primarily Muslim, and try to keep out Christians. This increases terrorism and murder and rape, further decreasing White numbers while they reproduce at larger rates.

Bloody Hell, things can look so bleak, but I'm looking forward to October.

[Anonymous No.13406657]

>>13406142
God is a superintelligent AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

[Anonymous No.13406677]

>>13406646
Whites will inevitably have a resurgence in their fertility rate. The liberal whores you speak of are being weeded out of the gene pool.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-geopolitics-of-the-age-of-malthusian-industrialism/

[Anonymous No.13406682]

>>13406582
(cont.)
You may accuse me of qualifying my definition of religious person, but following from my affirmation that these religious, third world countries aren't even that religious in the first place since their society is heavily modernized and secularized, as opposed to the muslim world, it's important to note two things:
1 - These people are constantly exposed to opportunities to greatly sin, and are greatly disadvantaged in life.
2 - Even if they are fallen, they have the potential to rise their moral character for they believe in Jesus and therefore if properly directed they will seek to spread love and to treat those around them well. This is possible because these are the teachings directed by the religion they believe in, which it just happens because they are religious in the first place.

An atheist who is filled by nihilism has no logical reason to give a shit about others' well being, and if he does as people do by taking for granted "human rights" or "common sense", then it's extremely vague, and uncertain because he may shape these ideas as he wills it. Because these beliefs are not fixed in a metaphysical origin, they are in a permanent state of fragility and can be easily broken ( I would argue this is one of the reasons why the left is so fragmented but I digress). Traditional muslims refuse to adapt to other cultures because their morality and worldview are based on firm, deep faith. They refuse to ignore what catholics end up ignoring.

This is anecdotal but I've met very intelligent atheists who engage in a bunch of immoral acts because it benefits them easily. I've met rich people who call themselves catholic but they do not practice their religion nor even really believe in most of what it says, and they barely give a shit about acting upon Jesus' teachings. They just care about money and catholicism is a heritage more than anything for them. Do I think that, if they followed the moral prerogatives of the catholic church of kindness, love and compassion, they would become more moral and cause more good upon the world? Yes. I see no reason to assume that would not be the case.

[Anonymous No.13406684]

>>13406629
>intelligent people
>at university

LMAOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.13406686]

>>13406142
If God exists, atheists best not be on suicide watch.

[Anonymous No.13406690]

>>13406646
Also relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdgzkqsy_z0
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html

[Anonymous No.13406693]

>>13406211
Brought to you by the same line of thinking that Jesus was gay.

[Anonymous No.13406707]

>>13406690
Dumb people (rural and suburban retards) who also believe in God because of aforementioned stupidity, breed more. This is because they have no career prospects or earning potential to truly enjoy a rewarding child-free life. All they have within their empty heads is their urge to follow biological programming. We already knew this. Religion isn't going anywhere and will never be true no matter who is alive or isn't

[Anonymous No.13406735]

>>13406707

That sounds pretty mindless but still pretty obvious, have you at least read Socrates?
I agree with the village farmers but that is no news.

[Anonymous No.13406766]

>>13406735
You really shouldn't be happy that more religious, poor people will survive and liberal people won't. Poor people need someone to guide them and converting others should be a mission for you too. Having children is a sign that you are consumed by lust. Marriage is merely to relieve sinners from the temptation, but it's merely a lesser evil. Christianity isn't about making babies. Stop appropriating it to talk about your white race fantasy. Either embrace christianity and the virtuousness associated with it, or reject it as jewish cuckshit as /pol/tards do. This frankenstein of yours is just ugly and sad.

[Anonymous No.13406799]

>>13406766
But now I'm confused, in what connection do you see Socrates with a Frankenstein?
I think you think very politically.

[Anonymous No.13406811]

>>13406799
Actually I almost never think in (modern) political terms and it's a sort of hell to me because when I bring religion to politics they flame me for not following a secular worldview and that I'm conflating two topics that shouldn't be put together.

I assumed you were >>13406646 , and if you're not, I'm sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.13406814]

>>13406311
none of that disapproves existence of god, your belief in his inexistence is on the same level as of those who do believe in it, atheism is religion of non-religion, nothingness, renunciation and nothing but an anti-thesis to already existing thesis that says nothing positive other than " lol theists are wrong".
>morality is arbitrary
it isn't, absolute conclusion of this retarded thinking is that everything is allowed, once injustice is comitted against you I dare you to be consistent with yourself fedoratipper and "let it slide because injustice isnt wrong because morality is subjective" proposing an """objective""" thesis to apparently subjective universe as would fedoraniggers would let us believe.

[Anonymous No.13406836]

>>13406582
>largest amount of Catholics
>there's nothing catholic about them whatsoever
>Catholicism and its exegesis isn't preached, taught and practiced in the country
wat

[Anonymous No.13406838]

>>13406811
I already thought that there is a confusion, no problem. I don't understand most of the bible people here anyways. But I get the
symbolic interpretation and its value from the book 12 rules for life.

[Anonymous No.13406885]

>>13406836
>there's nothing catholic about them whatsoever
Most people in Brazil who say they are catholics don't go around giving their money to charity, helping the sick and poor, and treat those around them with love. They are consumed with fear and hatred. It's a country with deeply polarized politics. There's so many sistematic problems in its society and its so influenced by toxic modernity that hope for them is bleak, though not inexistent. Similarly goes for a large chunk of Latin America, Philippines and others.

>Catholicism and its exegesis isn't preached, taught and practiced in the country
It may be so in catholic schools and churches, but again, politics and secular values predominate. Talk to anyone from Brazil who has gone to a catholic school, see how much of what they learned in the Communion they still remember. I know people who went to smoke weed right after it.

"What about all that talk of Family Values??" Family values are secular if they are not preceded by religion, and if it's religious, then if it's not consistent with the overarching set of values, it's just a distortion of religion for the sake of preserving secular values, like the bible larpers who try to merge white supremacist talk with Christianity, which are completely incompatible unless you follow some heretical protestant belief.

[Anonymous No.13406888]

>>13406187
Kek

[Anonymous No.13406913]

>>13406814
good lord you're a massive idiot
/lit/ - literature, religitards fuck off

[Anonymous No.13406929]

An issue I have with Theism is that it is intrinsically biased towards some form of intelligent design being real. Conclusions should be formed from a summation of empirical evidence. While most Theists are very competent and convincing, they are unable to shake the bias deep ingrained in them. As an Atheist I take no issue in religion or its teachings and also do not entirely deny the possible existence of a supreme being. However, to be convinced I personally would need to be presented evidence from an unbiased presenter who did not form their conclusion from previous beliefs. (Yes, atheists have this issue to, when they try to disprove God)

[Anonymous No.13407021]

>>13406677
>>13406690
I am skeptical. Whatever the case, if I manage to get a young wife who REALLY wants to be a mom and to have a BUNCH of kids, I hope I can do my part and afford that. More Whites need to act on the individual basis, and take responsibility for what's going on. Also, more deportation would be ideal...

[Anonymous No.13407027]

>>13406582
>An atheist living in Hitler's time would likely be swayed by his discourse
I have had news anon. The nazis were Christians. They had Christian shit on their uniforms and everything.
>Brazil is the country in the world with the largest amount of Catholics, but just go there and talk to its people and you quickly see how there's nothing catholic about them whatsoever
I'm taking about US states. This is no true scotsman by the way.
>Poor people from third world countries seek comfort in God because they are taught so from early age which gives them hope and helps them live through their miserable lives
>Religion is more about rites and traditions that help to maintain their hopes and sanity in such a terrible world, but outside the church they do whatever the fuck they want
Kek, are you talking about the US?
>Human beings are fallen creatures
Yes, and religion doesn't change that.
>God forbids lust
I must say, it's kind of strange that that's the sin you're invoking when we're talking about grown men raping children, but okay.
>They are not virtuous people, they are religious and being religious by itself is easy
Then what's the point of this conversation? You're not talking about religion, you're talking about virtue, which is entirely separate.
>I'm talking about those who believe AND follow
And follow what? The teachings of the Bible? You can justify any ideology based on reading it, it's full of contradictions. Like I said, no true scotsman.
>>13406682
>An atheist who is filled by nihilism has no logical reason to give a shit about others' well being
Firstly, neither do religious people, since believing in divine directive is illogical in the first place. Secondly, that's just wrong. If you act like a total piece of shit you will lose social connections (and therefore the possibility of success) and you could be punished by the law. Not to mention humans have an inherent empathy response (this is the real source of almost everyone's morality, by the way: instinct).
>it's extremely vague, and uncertain because he may shape these ideas as he wills it
Exactly like religion.

[Anonymous No.13407032]

>>13406142
Well he was wrong about a lot of other things (art, morality, human nature), why not this one too?

[Anonymous No.13407041]

>>13407032
Wasn’t he also a kuala bear?

[Anonymous No.13407046]

>>13406311
>you don't need the threat of eternal suffering to know that some things are right and wrong
I'd believe that if post-Christians didn't increasingly turn psychopathic and unable to tell even truth from false, much less right from wrong.
The only thing that kept morals going was the remnant culture of a formerly seriously Christan society.
t. atheist and not proud of it

[Anonymous No.13407057]

>>13406646
Christian orgs are some of the biggest immigration humpers after leftists and neoliberals.
It's a huge part in why I will never join them or even like them.

[Anonymous No.13407102]

>>13407027
>I have had news anon. The nazis were Christians. They had Christian shit on their uniforms and everything.

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

>Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[2] Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate Political Catholicism.

Nazis who followed christianity were directly going against Hitler's own vision, very clearly.

>This is no true scotsman by the way.
I address this in my original post. No true scotman is when you act upon the fallacy of qualifying your definition as a way of escaping an attack on the generalization you are making. This isn't a fallacy since I acknowledged I am qualifying my statement and explaining it.

>Kek, are you talking about the US?
No, I'm talking about catholicism. Protestantism is way too chaotic and diverse, and gives way too much liberty for the interpretation of the bible for virtue to come out of it.

>I must say, it's kind of strange that that's the sin you're invoking when we're talking about grown men raping children, but okay.
Lust involves any human being you feel attraction towards. It's the necessity of having sex. Priests who abuse children feel the need to relieve their sexual desires. The children are mere conduits.

>Then what's the point of this conversation? You're not talking about religion, you're talking about virtue, which is entirely separate.
Because I am claiming that virtue is much, much more likely to come from religion, specifically in this case, roman catholicism, which is the most widely practiced and one of the oldest christian churches in the world. I do not treat all religions equally and it's nonsensical to do so in the first place, as a religious person.

>Firstly, neither do religious people, since believing in divine directive is illogical in the first place.
That's an assumption. You have not proven it anywhere. There are threads on /lit/ up right now filled with arguments in favor of the existence of God. Furthermore, very clearly you are also implying here that believing in science is "logical", when there are countless assumptions surrounding science, and the definition of knowledge can get quite complicated considering there are times when a scientific experiment is later on discovered to be based upon fraudulent data ( https://retractionwatch.com/ ). The people who believe these experiments are certainly "logical", and so can be belief in God, even if it's all false. (cont.)

[Anonymous No.13407119]

>>13407102
(cont.) The religious, catholic people ARE required to give a shit about others' well being because there is a moral prerrogative in the scriptures, which is interpreted under the catholic exegical tradition,
for them to do so.
>If you act like a total piece of shit you will lose social connections (and therefore the possibility of success) and you could be punished by the law. Not to mention humans have an inherent empathy response (this is the real source of almost everyone's morality, by the way: instinct).
Some humans do not have an inherent human response towards causing harm to others. There is a reason why sociopathy is so prevalent among rich people: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ Even science seems to disagree with you. And you are still rejecting a case that is very much possible, in which this nihilistic, atheistic pseudo-morality quickly weakens because of its flimsy basis, and opens space for one to act upon one's own best individualistic interests. There WILL be cases, there WILL be people who will succeed in torturing and murdering others and die without anyone knowing.
There are serial killers whose identity was only discovered because of DNA remains. How many must have been able to live normal lives while hiding these identities? They would be much less likely to be part of these murders had they actually followedthe teachings of the bible in the legitimate exegetical traditions adequately.

>And follow what? The teachings of the Bible? You can justify any ideology based on reading it, it's full of contradictions. Like I said, no true scotsman.
That's why there exists a wide tradition of hermeneutic interpretation on the bible. It's true that anyone could interpret it in any way they want, but that's the whole point of the TRADITION and the emphasis on Jesus' deeds of mercy on the new testament. This isn't as chaotic and irrational as you would like to believe. For millenia christians have worked on creating a consistent christian theology (and if you're gonna talk about the inconsistency of the holy trinity leave it for another thread).

>Exactly like religion.
A divine prerrogative with scriptures with a metaphysical basis is not flimsy in any shape or form. As soon as you write a book, it's no longer blank so the possibilities of interpretation are no longer endless. Even in post-structuralism and critical theory, one must present arguments consistent with the work being analyzed to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.13407120]

>>13406684
>higher IQ scores on average
>more financially successful on average
Uh, yeah.

[Anonymous No.13407139]

>>13407119
(cont.) when you just pull shit out of your hat and claim to be true, that's inconsistent with itself. There's no moral imperative to be derived in the empirical world.

>This is the real source of almost everyone's morality, by the way: instinct
Go to the magnets and brains thread. Once again, while humans may have a code of morality, humans are also capable of torturing, raping and killing each other. They are capable of disregarding their morality and being consumed by evil. Christians who believe and follow the bible and its teachings are way less succeptible to that because their moral basis is much more foundational than making statements and conveniently pretending they are true as humanistic atheists do.

[Anonymous No.13407151]

>>13406646
Trump is doing nothing to "help" this, dawg. He's just a retarded capitalist pawn, stop putting faith in a meaningless buffoon

[Anonymous No.13407153]

>>13406142
Im an athiest and I really like Cunt. Why would a possible explanation for the existence of a god piss me off? Because I dont think its the best explanation available?

[Anonymous No.13407188]

>>13407119
Also, before you accuse these psycopaths and sociopaths as "unnatural" and "abnormal", if we assume there is a genetic basis as you seem to be implying when you talk about instinct, then this is no different from cyanobacteria murdering almost all species in the entire earth billions of years ago in the great oxygenation event. You have a particular species that evolves from another (sociopaths with their sociopathic genes evolving from moralistic, empathetic humans), and they succeed in hoarding resources and produce a large number of offspring. It also is the case that the behavior of this sociopathic new "species" is also detrimental to the previous species (not caring about others, only about money, so no care in protecting the environment and so on), killing it off in the process. This is why we jail psycopaths and pathologize sociopaths. It's a social convenience and a defense mechanism for the human species to protect against harmful behavior from other humans that go astray. We're just bacteria that took awareness of the fact that we're about to be murdered. But the planet will go on. Species are a construct only useful for analyzing and studying biological organisms; the definition quickly collapses when you look at bacteria freely exchanging genes with one another. It's at most a "family resemblance" of organisms. Once again, an individual human, like cyanobacteria who killed off so many species, may very well go astray from this moral prerrogative and cause suffering for the people around him. Yet, he emerges intact because he has power to defy the law. Once again, Catholicism trumps over nihilistic atheism as it gives a MORAL Prerogative for the sociopath to not be a fucking asshole. It transcends abnormalities that the capitalist system cannot catch. And a similar idea goes for Islam.

[Anonymous No.13407235]

>>13406142
Ah, Kant reveals his biases all too blatantly.

[Anonymous No.13407284]

>>13406242
Ubermensch-tier post, anon

[Anonymous No.13407288]

>>13407188
Good post.

[Anonymous No.13407289]

>>13407151
I view Trump as doing a great job. He's EASILY done more to bring some semblance of peace to the Korean Peninsula than ANY have done in DECADES, including becoming the first sitting US President to step foot into North Korea. He managed to avoid an unnecessary war with Iran by calling off an attack last-minute, and I understand his sentiment; they killed none and cost the US a few million, and then the US retaliates by killing 150+ Iranians? I mean, I can't stand Islam, and really the idea of more militant Muslims in the ground leaves me feeling pretty chill, in fact a little safer in the world, but ultimately I think it was good he avoided war there. Seems like most people agree with my sentiment. Then there's the absolutely BOOMING US economy, I even recall talking to a leftist like a year and a half ago or so. "The economy is only doing so good because of what Obama did!" I said "okay, let's assume for the time being that the US economy is indeed only doing so good because Trump is sitting on his hands and doing nothing. He's got some HUGE regulation cuts and tax-cuts planned... that's very much NOT sitting on his hands and doing nothing. So, if after all this happens, if the economy immediately goes down, it's Trump's fault. Also, if the upward trend merely maintains, then perhaps it had no effect. BUT, if the economy's improvement rises even FURTHER, then it's thanks to Trump. Can we agree on that?" I recall not getting a response, and indeed the economy is doing better than anyone could have guessed with several record-setting all-time low unemployment.

Then there's the travel ban, he's really fighting for that wall and indeed it is getting built, including some by the Trump Wall GoFundMe whom I personally have donated to, and even before the wall he's getting that border clamped down tight. Catching record numbers of illegals, detaining them, meanwhile as they become over-full and they're trying to get funding to improve conditions, the Democrats fight against it, and THEN with the lacking of funds CAUSED by them they use the suffering of the illegals against Trump, who's trying to help. He ended the useless Iran Nuclear Deal, has improved trade for America (as he should), cut funding to various nations who don't trust America nor support any of America's positions, doesn't give a damn about political correctness, isn't afraid to say 'Islamic terrorist', he's fighting for gay rights around the globe by putting economic and political pressure on nations that still have it criminalized, and he's firm against the Maduro Socialist Government that is leading to mass-starvation of the Venezuelan people and the ABSOLUTE DESTRUCTION of the Venezuelan economy and currency.

He's helping a lot in various matters, and at this rate he has his 4 more years already wrapped in a pretty bow for him. He was the biggest victor of the 1st Democrat debate where they called for radical far-left nonsense that most people don't agree with.

[Anonymous No.13407455]

>>13406885
Not that anon but by your standards is there any catholic country outside of the vactican ? If no then what was the last catholic country?

[Anonymous No.13407471]

>>13406487
should I ignore philosophy after 1800 if I want to believe in God?

[Anonymous No.13407482]

>>13406428
>atheists don't care about Kant, the only objective and secular source of moral theory

[Anonymous No.13407485]

>>13407455
I'm rather ignorant on the "de-christianization" of Europe but I would wager pre-unification Italy was probably the last catholic "country", due to the large amount of land controlled by the pope before italian unification. It's a wild guess, though, the region could very well have been intensely secular. But at any rate Italy was for sure the last country to produce the most beautiful, pre-modern (counting renaissance obviously, which was deeply religious still) catholic art.

[Anonymous No.13407503]

>>13407471
Wittgenstein, Simone Weil, Anscombe, Basil Mitchell, Edith Stein, Kierkegaard, George Pattison... verdict: no, don't do that. Learning how christians deal with their faith in God and the modern world is extremely important for someone in our age who wants to believe in God. Also stop "wanting" to believe in God. Read the arguments for and against, understand why one would believe just out of faith, and make your decision as to whether you're willing to make a leap of faith or not.

[Anonymous No.13407578]

>>13407485
Given these kind of factors then it doesn’t seem like it’s worthwhile to use an analysis of a country as a measure of a religious or atheist morality.

[Anonymous No.13407621]

>>13406498
*homosexuality problem

[Anonymous No.13407659]

>>13407578
It's more about the practices, traditions and culture than anything else. Medieval Europe really was the last time the world saw catholic nations (using the term in a very liberal sense). Not the first time since Christianity did spread throughout places like Syria before reaching Rome. I guess Constantinople and eastern europe must not be forgotten too.

[Anonymous No.13407666]

>>13406142
>that autistic title

[Anonymous No.13407771]

>philosophical argument for the existence of god
>inevitably an argument for some generalised form of a deistic entity which doesn't even have to be conscious
Why do Christfags do this? I mean it's fucking INCESSANT man. Every time you see an argument for god it's always some watered down deistic bullshit having no relevance to any of the worlds religions.
You people know that you can't justify the scientific, historical, and moral blunders in the bible so you shift the goalposts and try make it about something completely unobjectionable like deism. This is why, for all his flaws, Christopher Hitchens was so adept at just dismantling you bumbling retards. It's because you're easy fucking opposition. Every time one of these Christfag sophists like William Lane Craig tried to bring up the Kalaam Cosmological Argument or the "Moral Argument" or any of that bullshit, Hitchens would simply respond by pointing out the gross inaccuracies and abhorrent savagery in the Bible.

I don't want to hear about the first mover argument or the teleological argument from Christfags anymore. Those are obviously very interesting topics with convincing points on both sides; but when they're being used to prop up something that is only tangentially related (i.e. Your religion) it becomes clear that your only purpose in using them is to convince retards who can't tell the difference between a first mover and the Bronze Age god who genocided the Caananites.
Instead, it is incumbent on Christfags to prove the creation myths, prove the flood of Noah, prove that the exodus happened despite all the archaeological evidence contradicting it, prove that a donkey talked and Joshua stopped the sun, prove geocentrism, disprove evolution, prove the infallibility of the church, etc, etc, etc.

You can't. And you won't. Biblical Creationism/science was chased out of the halls of academia with its dick between its legs decades ago.

[Anonymous No.13407773]

>>13406211
>>13406242
Obliterated

[Anonymous !!/QsAFMQcgjT No.13407814]

>>13407771
>Instead, it is incumbent on Christfags to prove the creation myths, prove the flood of Noah,
Aaaaand you lost me.
No self respecting Christian takes the genesis or OT stories seriously. I'm surprised you don't know that. Coincidentally, you would be refering to the religious Jews, who come up with all matter of "what if"s to legitimize their ethnic legends.

The proofs for God is intended to be compounded first with Pascals Pensées and then by other Reformed thinkers, such as Calvin, Luther, etc.
You will find little contradiction where there is little idolatry or papistry.

God is truth, after all.

[Anonymous No.13407843]

>>13407102
>Historians resist however a simple equation of Nazi opposition to both Judaism and Christianity
There were religious and anti religious elements of the nazis. Religion didn't do much to deter them from being nazis.
>I acknowledged I am qualifying my statement and explaining it
You failed to justify it.
>Priests who abuse children feel the need to relieve their sexual desires. The children are mere conduits
What I'm saying is that the immoral thing there is not fulfilling sexual desires, it's harming children. I would not have a origlem with priests having consensual sex, though maybe you would.
>Because I am claiming that virtue is much, much more likely to come from religion, specifically in this case, roman catholicism
You've done a lot of conjecture on this point, but I haven't seen any statistical evidence to support this. I have given you evidence that contradicts it.
>You have not proven it anywhere
The burden of proof is on religious people to prove the existence of God. If there is not sufficient evidence, it's illogical to believe in him.
>There are threads on /lit/ up right now filled with arguments in favor of the existence of God
I'd ask you to link to some of them but I would only be disappointed. I've seen all the arguments.
>you are also implying here that believing in science is "logical"
Yup.
>there are times when a scientific experiment is later on discovered to be based upon fraudulent data
The point of science is that experiments must be replicated. Don't act like this BTFOs the scientific method, it proves it right.
>>13407119
>religious, catholic people ARE required to give a shit about others' well being because there is a moral prerrogative in the scriptures
They are required by the same things atheists are (social pressure and the law). Plenty of catholics do terrible shit, their faith doesn't prevent them from doing so.
>Some humans do not have an inherent human response towards causing harm to others
Yes, thought they're a minority.
>nihilistic, atheistic
Stop saying this. Nihilism and atheist are not entwined. There are atheists who believe in objective morality (dumb ones).
>because of its flimsy basis, and opens space for one to act upon one's own best individualistic interests
The point I keep trying to hammer home is this; religion is no different in this regard.
>it's no longer blank so the possibilities of interpretation are no longer endless
Plenty of atheist jack offs have written books, anon.
>>13407139
>There's no moral imperative to be derived in the empirical world
No objective morality, correct.
>>13407188
>if we assume there is a genetic basis
There is a genetic component, but it's mostly environment

[Anonymous No.13407846]

>>13407666
>brainlet response

[Anonymous No.13408047]

>>13406242
based

[Anonymous No.13408902]

>>13406311
>theists are fucking faggots
Says the faggot with arbitrary concept of God no greater than the larping neopagan christians of rural America use.
>meaning is meaningless without meaning
Flawless logic. Or it would be if it made any fucking sense.
>you don't need suffering
>to know what is right or wrong
>morals aren't supreme
>they can be subjective
Fucking little shit. Get outta highschool first, maybe even try to score a kiss that's not from your mom.
Fucking pled agnostic fags. Make me sick just replying to you.

[Anonymous No.13408911]

>>13406187
Came to post this

[Anonymous No.13408918]

>>13406311
>you don't need the threat of eternal suffering to know that some things are right and wrong
Humanist filth, you can barely be described as atheist

[Anonymous No.13408960]

so no one has pointed out yet that that is a pre critique text?

[Anonymous No.13409090]

>>13406242
/4chan

Go home folks, we're done

[Anonymous No.13409227]

>>13406913
>starting a fucking shitflining fest
>bitches when shit hits his face
epic fedoratipper cant stand heat he himself created

[Anonymous No.13409324]

>>13406603
>“I just don’t know bro” attitude is gulagworthy
why

[Anonymous No.13409408]

>>13409324
Perhaps he's a Marxist who perceives all religion as bullshit and toxic and so even agnostics are unacceptable and must be sent to the gulag. Only atheism is acceptable, well, in theory. In reality, the PROPER religion to adopt, in the radical left's eyes, is Marxism. Either economic and/or cultural. The modern brand of feminism is a direct off-chute of Cultural Marxism and therefore Marxism.

[Anonymous No.13409409]

>>13406515

[Anonymous No.13409503]

>>13409408
I just see it as unreasonably mean spirited to hold such disdain for agnostics specifically the ones who simply observe the fact that there is no concrete evidence (not that there ever could be, because God is by definition the ultimate concept) to prove God's existence - ambivalence seems a given in this respect

[Anonymous No.13409514]

>>13406684
I'm at uni right now. If only you knew how bad things really are.

[Anonymous No.13409524]

>>13409503
and following on from this "I don't know" seems as good a representative statement on that position as anything else they could say

[Anonymous No.13409848]

>>13409503
>>13409524
Nobody can truly have proof of God's existence, I don't think so anyways. There can be belief, there can even be certain experiences, basically... oh what's that bloody term... ANECDOTES! There can be anecdotal 'evidence', but really, having even several anecdotes does not make for proper evidence. I don't think so anyways. That's why it's called 'belief'. I cannot prove He is there, but I believe He is. More or less. I'm a Christian, more-or-less always identified as a Christian however only in the past year or two have I truly been diving into the faith to see what the Hell's going on, and thus far, I'm finding it fascinating. That said, I can still respect the agnostic position. The atheistic position, not so much. "I believe there is a God." "I don't have sufficient understanding/knowledge/proof to say there is or is not a God." "There is no God."

It doesn't seem to me like atheists tend to say "I don't believe there is a God", but rather, they seem to tend to outright say "no, there is no God, you're wrong, and that's that." So of the three statements above, really, I view the one as being the most definitive as actually being the more arrogant. The agnostic is more correct than the atheist; nobody can fully prove one way or another, so it is just as arrogant to say "yes there is a God" as it is to say "no there is no God." The word 'belief' is quite crucial.

[Anonymous No.13410178]

>>13406142

But Kant himself is Catholic, that is to say an Atheist.

[Anonymous No.13410196]

>>13406242
Based.
Gonna spam the shit out of your post now and use it when some faggot tries to outsmart me.

[Anonymous No.13410204]

>>13410178
>But Kant himself is Catholic,

[Anonymous No.13410435]

>>13407120
>score well for aptitude
>get compensated in wages
>thinks this is intelligence

[Anonymous No.13410786]

>>13406211
>>13406242
Samefagging

[Anonymous No.13411461]

>>13410435
I don't think any one metric correlates perfectly with intelligence. But every "objective" metric I can think of puts college educates people on top.