/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13512349]

I simply can't be convinced of the existence of God but I'm not an atheist. I see that religion is an important building block of anu society and without it we fall into degeneracy, with that being I can't help the fact that believing in jewish zombies and shit is ludcirous to me.

Any books that will help me resolve this dissonance?

[Anonymous No.13512359]

Gianni Vattimo, After Christianity

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13512367]

>>13512349
>fake glasses.

Religion is degeneracy

[Anonymous No.13512371]

>>13512349
Ask for books about how to improve taste in girls, jesus fuck .
No but seriously, read Soren Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.13512376]

>>13512349
just forget this philosophy crap and do something for the betterment of yourself

[Anonymous No.13512405]

>>13512349
God is a superintelligent AI. If you believe that there will be a technological singularity, and that eternalism is true, then you must accept that God exists.

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

[Anonymous No.13512412]

Nobody cares about what you think.

[Anonymous No.13512413]

>>13512349
>Any books that will help me resolve this dissonance?
God is Technology, within Mitchell Heisman's Suicide Note

[Anonymous No.13512418]

>>13512349
You are already off on the wrong foot if you think God is something that you need to be “convinced of”. Your understanding of God is likely based on some Protestant bullshit such as God being an invisible mind that acts on the natural world whenever he sees it fit.

Do not believe for a second that you have to convince yourself this is God just so you aren’t a pathetic atheist. Just study religion/philosophy and you will learn... Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, the Early church fathers. These will all help you move away from a very materialistic (Protestant) view of religion

[Anonymous No.13512428]

>>13512349
You've arrived at a Kantian view that belief in God is justified only on moral and practical grounds, so read him if you want to validate your views. Early Hegel is also in this school.

But then what is the formal, efficient, and material cause of the universe? Seems you would have to deify the universe itself as self-creating, or bracket off the causes of the universe from your thinking, to sustain a belief in a godless world.

[Anonymous No.13512436]

>>13512349
it probably has to do with you being a cumbrain

[Anonymous No.13512453]

>>13512376

[Anonymous No.13512470]

>>13512349
Name one thing in motion that has not been set in motion.

[Anonymous No.13512485]

Heaven is real
You can find it between a virgin girl's thighs

[Anonymous No.13512591]

>>13512470
What kind of "logic" is that supposed to be? That kind of thinking ends nowhere.

Traditional physics is just statistics at its heart; its inner workings are based on mechanics we do not yet comprehend, nor am I sure our brains--which are based on pattern-recognition--will be able to do so. Who knows why things are as they are? Perhaps they are because they have to be. Perhaps they are a product of chance, inevitable because of an infinite set of permutations and we are only lucky enough to be here because someone has to.

[Anonymous No.13512601]

How does you specifically becoming religious change the problem of society having dropped religion and not found an adequate replacement and instead replacing it with hedonism and entertainment

[Anonymous No.13512628]

>>13512349
what exactly is dissonant here?

[Anonymous No.13512646]

>>13512349
What dissonance? You're an agnostic who sees the social functions of organized religion but remains unconvinced by the actual dogma. It's perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous No.13512677]

>>13512349
Read Guenon, you can believe in God without all the jewish zombie crap

[Anonymous No.13512693]

>>13512591
Terrible cope post. The logic is easy, don't hand wave.
>everything in motion was set in motion by an antecedent cause
>either you accept an infinite regress of causes
>or regress to an uncaused cause that first sets things in motion

[Anonymous No.13512742]

>>13512693
>or regress to an uncaused cause [...]

That doesn't fall in line with your initial statement. Infinity is a cop-out in the same regard, because the statement also relies on the claim that everything starts from somewhere.

>"cope post"

I see that all too often on here. Not everyone has an excess amount of pride to deal with. And, even if I did (to take a charitable view of that angle), why would I need to cope on an anonymous board where there isn't even the fear of embarassment? I can be as wrong as I like. The only path forward in that case is to learn from my mistakes.

Your argument just smells like bullshit to me.

[Anonymous No.13513149]

>>13512349
"Introduction to Christianity" - Ratzinger

[Anonymous No.13513163]

>>13512349
She kinda looks like a dude. People should identify themself with their sex....

[Anonymous No.13513205]

>>13512591
To its logical conclusion.

All knowledge is learned by association. We have no other means of knowing anything at all. Try this on for size: name anything at all that we know without association.

When you realize the answer to that question, you see where my question leads. Every single thing that we are capable of perceiving is in motion. Every single thing in motion has been set in motion. What initially set things in motion? A concept we call God.

[Anonymous No.13513235]

>>13513205
What set God in motion?

[Anonymous No.13513316]

>>13513205
That is assuming a lot of things if I am understanding you correctly.

If we are incapable of perceiving something whatsoever, meaning we cannot demonstrate its existence by any measurable metric, we can also not place attributes upon it. You are claiming to know that something had to set things in motion initially. I am comfortable saying I don't necessarily know that's what happened. Just because we, in our limited perceptions, have to make associations to learn, that doesn't mean the universe has to (meaning dictionary definitions go in circles for us--the universe may not have such limitations).

Someone once told me that some people tell the universe how it's supposed to behave; others are content with describing what it does. Contrast Einstein ("God does not play dice") and Bohr ("Don't tell God what to do").

To clarify the relation, you are saying the universe had to be set in motion by something (versus, for example, being a product of statistics operating in empty space; unless you want to claim those statistics are God, which is dangerously close to "God of the Gaps"), I am saying that doesn't have to be the case.

This is not handwaving the issue, as someone else put it, it is simply an admission that our conscious understanding of logic may be incomplete by nature because our brains rely on pattern recognition (which is demonstrably faulty). Any form of human logic can be deconstructed if it is based around an axiom... That's why it's so hard to come up with a logical basis for morality that someone cannot reject based on disagreeing with the proposed central value.

I hope I made myself somewhat clear, but talking about this has proven to be somewhat of a mess for me. For that, I humbly apologize. :)

[Anonymous No.13513334]

>>13512405
>That guy
Never really paid attention to what's he's saying, but he sounds like a schizo.

[Anonymous No.13513344]

>>13512405
>that weirdo
Atleast post someone more respectable, like Tegmark.

[Anonymous No.13513388]

>>13512349
>i'm an atheist except i'm not because i think there's social utility to religion despite it being a chronic vessel for war and reactionary politics
every fucking time. cringe

[Anonymous No.13513400]

>>13513388
... Sure, there are side-effects, and it MAY even be a leftover of some other useful mechanism, but that isn't even certain.

It's a human universal, and even some animals with higher cognition engage in rituals. Saying it's a vessel for war and reactionary politics is looking at the extreme cases--not what it does in everyday life and what it does for the human mind. Though it's anecdotal to say, I find humans need a little magic to make their lives meaningful.

I found that in math and writing; others do not.

[Anonymous No.13513638]

>>13512470
>>13512693
https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/quantum-causal-relations-a-causes-b-causes-a/
At least adjust your larp to the fact atheist bro