/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13578132]

>what do you mean there are philosophic arguments for g*d??!? NOOOOOOOOO
>what do you mean greeks were theists too!! the sky fairy man was invented by dirt-eating dark age peasants because they were afraid of dying
>what do you mean I have to understand intricate ontological and metaphysical systems, concepts, and terms in order to even begin to engage in criticism of theism? NOOOOOOO I'M SUPPOSE TO JUST BE ABLE TO SAY YOU HATE SCIENCCCCCCEEE
>what do you mean Dawkins didn't refute Aquinas or Pascal and had no clue what he was talking about?? Ghahghahg Dawkins save meeee
>save me, o wise and ancient hindus--us evil white westerners only ever ripped you off in the first place
>WHAT??! advaita vedanta is a religion too???
>YOU MEAN MY BELIEF IS IN THE MINORITY AND THAT FOR THE WHOLE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN ELABORATE SYSTEMS OF THEISM PROPOUNDED BY THE MOST INTELLIGENT MINDS OF THE HUMAN RACE? NONONONOOONOONOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.13578138]

Posting in blessed thread

[Anonymous No.13578140]

>>13578132
>YOU MEAN MY BELIEF IS IN THE MINORITY AND THAT FOR THE WHOLE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN ELABORATE SYSTEMS OF THEISM PROPOUNDED BY THE MOST INTELLIGENT MINDS OF THE HUMAN RACE? NONONONOOONOONOOOOOO
appealing to history isnt a logical argument


pls present philosophic arguments for god

[Anonymous No.13578147]

>>13578132
My friend got drunk the other day and started spewing stuff like that. It's an emotional problem, much like antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.13578151]

>>13578140
present philosophical arguments for love

[Anonymous No.13578152]

>>13578151
chemicals spurt into my brain and i feel an emotion called love. this is caused by material things that all started with the big bang

[Anonymous No.13578169]

>>13578132
I'm confused are you a Jew? You reference Christian theologians but can't even write out 'God'.
If so then I want to hear justifications for the existence of the Jewish 'god'.

[Anonymous No.13578170]

>>13578140
We have deduced a single unifying source for all material being. Assuming material being works as a ground for phenomena, we can deduce that the minimum actual of our source is the maximum potential of measurable existence.
The Source has to explain the potential field of phenomena prior to the combination of simpler forms. As such, consciousness, imagination, happiness, love, mass, energy, entropy, natural law, emergence... All of it has to be within the Source.
God is a truism.

[Anonymous No.13578183]

>>13578152
This. The only existence is the material world.
>>13578170
>source
>potential
>measurable
>forms
>etc.
These are just human mental concepts. They don't actually exist as aspects of the world; if you project them onto the world, rather than just using them as functional tools, then you end up with silly nonsense like everything you just posted.

[Anonymous No.13578187]

>>13578170
The alternative view is that material being is insufficient, but can fill the role of antennae to the idea world of eternal being.
That is to say, not all forms have Divine origin, but Platonic God is an alien entity just as emotions are.

[Anonymous No.13578197]

No "philosophic" argument for god proves any religion. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.13578198]

>>13578183
>These are just human mental concepts.
Human mental concepts have their origin in the unifying Source we call Big Bang and the Event Horizon prior.
The source is something, not nothing. Mental phenomena are among other phenomena. There is no falsehood, all exists.

[Anonymous No.13578204]

>>13578140
ok


>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God.
>The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1.0. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.0. The universe began to exist.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
>The Argument from Consciousness
1. Mental events are genuine nonphysical mental entities that exist.
2. Specific mental and physical event types are regularly correlated.
3. There is an explanation for these correlations.
4. Personal explanation is different from natural scientific explanation.
5. The explanation for these correlations is either a personal or natural scientific explanation.
6. The explanation is not a natural scientific one.
7. Therefore, the explanation is a personal one.
8. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.
9. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

1/4

[Anonymous No.13578208]

>>13578204
>The Argument from Reason
1. Either at least some of the fundamental causes of the universes are more like a mind than anything else, or they are not.
2. If they are not, then it is either impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge.
3. All things being equal, worldviews that render it impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge should be rejected in favor of worldviews according to which it is not impossible and not improbable that reason should emerge.
4. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject all worldviews that reject the claim that the fundamental causes of the universe are more like a mind than anything else.
>The Ontological Argument
1. It is possible that the greatest conceivable being exists.
2. The greatest conceivable being is unlimited.
3. Everything that is unlimited is so if and only if it does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence and it neither just happens to exist nor just happens not to exist.
4. Everything that does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence is such if and only if no other being causes it to begin to exist and no other being causes it to cease to exist.
5. Anything that begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by some other being, or it just happens to begin to exist.
6. Anything that ceases to exist is caused to cease to exist by some other being, or it just happens to cease to exist.
7. Anything that neither begins nor ceases to exist exists necessarily if it exists at all, and fails to exist necessarily if it exists at all.
8. The greatest conceivable being exists.
>The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

2/4

[Anonymous No.13578214]

>>13578208
>Gödel's Ontological Argument

3/4

[Anonymous No.13578218]

>>13578198
Mental phenomena exists as mental phenomena. It does not exist as anything outside of that. They are not aspects of the world.

[Anonymous No.13578221]

>>13578214
>The Modal Perfection Argument

4/4

[Anonymous No.13578222]

>>13578197
You could lay the foundation for religions through philosophy, as either a unifying drive-carriage through time for a population, a shaper of gene/memepool.
Religions are replicator forms among others. Their use? Up to their memetic gods, traditions and so forth. Perhaps they have a transcendent quality to them of interaction with different layers of being, and shaping being accordingly. Religions seem to have lifespans of their own, and go through evolution, not unlike biological one.

>>13578183
>These are just human mental concepts. They don't actually exist as aspects of the world
Minds don't exist? NPC pls.

[Anonymous No.13578227]

>>13578222
>Minds don't exist? NPC pls.
see >>13578218

[Anonymous No.13578229]

>>13578204
>>13578208
>>13578214
>>13578221
Nice, none of these prove the war god Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites and flooded the planet, or any other religious god for that matter. Try again.

[Anonymous No.13578233]

>>13578218
>Mental phenomena exists as mental phenomena.
Having source outside of it, linking a direct line of causation to the Universal Source...
>It does not exist as anything outside of that.
???

[Anonymous No.13578239]

>>13578132
You can set this strawman up all you like, there exists nothing even close to objective proof of any particular deity.
The closest thing to proof of religion's validity is that basically every single human civilization has created and worshiped deities. But which of these civilizations was correct? How would you go about proving such a thing?
And how do you justify that basically every civilization has used their subjective metaphysical deities as a reason to enact atrocities upon others?

[Anonymous No.13578243]

>>13578218
>They are not aspects of the world.
Yes they are. Money moves apes!
Religions move apes. Beliefs move apes. Mental phenomena move apes.
>outside of that
You've never had a single thought outside of your mind!

>If I deny all existence I don't like, I can deny God!
Atheist pls.

[Anonymous No.13578248]

>>13578229
>NONONONONO WAIT STOP I MEANT THE CHRISTIAN GOD NONONONONO MOMMY TELL HIM GOD ISN'T REAL MOMMY!!

[Anonymous No.13578250]

>>13578239
>objective proof of any particular deity.
Memetic gods such as Mammon are objective and truism. Their particular abilities and limits are unknown, but them existing as shared-belief forces that shape populations, landscapes, hierarchies and life cycles of people is undeniable.

[Anonymous No.13578252]

>>13578233
>>13578243
The fact that you apply "concept X" in order to understand the world, does not mean that "concept X" is anything more than a concept in your brain. It does not mean that the world actually functions according to a concept external to your mind. I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding.

[Anonymous No.13578258]

>>13578248
Of course. When atheists say they don't believe in god do you think they're referring to some abstract deistic notion of god or the religious gods which are believed by billions of people around the world?

[Anonymous No.13578261]

>>13578250
Mammon is nothing more than the inevitable consequence of any society that uses commerce. Humans will become greedy and inequality and injustice will reign.
Does this mean the money itself is a sentient being? What can you do to prove this?

[Anonymous No.13578265]

>>13578132
Based.

[Anonymous No.13578278]

>>13578252
>The fact that you apply "concept X" in order to understand the world, does not mean that "concept X" is anything more than a concept in your brain.
That goes for your comments as well, me having read them and putting them into my mind!

Whatever produced my mind produced my concepts though the proxy of my mind, assuming there is a chronological causality link; regardless, we act and believe it into existence, making it useful for us - being useful for us makes it real on some level. Hence whatever produced my mind had the potential to produce everything my mind does.
Get it? Either my mind produces the whole world (making me God) or whatever produced the whole world produced my mind (making me 'in the image of God'). Doesn't make any sense to even think there is a world outside of my mind outside of my mind's concepts.

[Anonymous No.13578292]

>>13578248
Case in point: (>>13578265, >>13578132)

This thread is filled with Christian imagery. When we ask you to prove God we expect you to come back with proof of Yahweh and Jesus not some abstract "first cause". So try again buddy.

[Anonymous No.13578293]

>>13578261
>Mammon is nothing more than the inevitable consequence of any society that uses commerce.
What is commerce? What are the physical/chemical phenomena that give a leaflet ape moving powers? Shared belief in its value.
As such, the belief-entity now has access to all consciousnesses and subconsciousnesses that are within its domain and it interacts with them. Whether it is a minimalistic information parasite or an actual driven being is outside of this discussion. Gods are real and obvious.

[Anonymous No.13578303]

>>13578292
>STOP POSTING MEMES

[Anonymous No.13578305]

>>13578292
>When we ask you to prove God we expect you to come back with proof of Yahweh and Jesus not some abstract "first cause"
You want protestantism, not Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.13578309]

>>13578278
You've missed my point entirely. The "potential" you're arguing for is not an organizing aspect of reality, but only a man-made concept inside of your brain. Finding it "useful" to understand the world does not mean that the world functions by it.

[Anonymous No.13578311]

>>13578303
>>13578305
This is getting really tiresome lads. Do you have proof for YOUR god or no? If you don't just say so, it's okay.

[Anonymous No.13578314]

>>13578309
>You've missed my point entirely. The "potential" you're arguing for is not an organizing aspect of reality
Do you think that if we reran the Big Bang, all phenomena would be scrambled, or organized according to, say, what has been abstracted as 'laws of nature and logic'?

[Anonymous No.13578321]

>>13578132
this thread again? your insecurity is showing. can't wait until your cult is extinct
>>13578138
i hate stonetoss but this one isn't wrong

[Anonymous No.13578330]

>>13578314
How could I know the answer to that? But I reject that it is "organized" according to any particular thing as an aspect of its being.

[Anonymous No.13578333]

>>13578138
Lmao subtle

[Anonymous No.13578338]

>>13578311
>Do you have proof for YOUR god or no?
My God is the Universal God. Christ is what happens when God appears in human flesh.
DMT trees that evoke synchronicities are what happens when He appears in plants. Religions are human rulesets and are merely pathways for spiritual life, though they usually end up having to deal with population control and political one, given the value people place on them.
Prayer and meditation are ways to access God.

[Anonymous No.13578339]

>>13578152

[Anonymous No.13578345]

>>13578183
What is the source and purpose of human mental cocnepts and why do they all conform to similar formats?

[Anonymous No.13578349]

>>13578330
>But I reject that it is "organized" according to any particular thing as an aspect of its being.
Logos is the unifying aspect giving access to interactivity and emergence. Pure analysis is merely destruction.
Humans will always be dealing with these things on a human level, but given enough time, religions will have selected the breeding stock enough to produce post-humans.

[Anonymous No.13578356]

>>13578321
>this thread again? your insecurity is showing. can't wait until your cult is extinct

[Anonymous No.13578357]

>>13578330
>How could I know the answer to that?
It's a foundational question. You must have beliefs about it which you use to orient your stance on things, including the framing of the self / other or mind / other paradigm.

[Anonymous No.13578365]

>>13578339
first, i never said the age of philosophy is over. second, if you were a christian, things would not be inherently valueless.

[Anonymous No.13578368]

>>13578197
If morality exists, it is not only reality like math, but also an imperative. An imperative is a dictate. Reality acting as a dictate demands a source and will also follow a format. This is the underpinnings of religion

[Anonymous No.13578375]

>>13578349
>logos
I don't want to repeat everything I just said about mental concepts but it would apply to this as well.
>>13578345
>source
>purpose
These are human mental concepts; you're begging the question.
>>13578357
I don't consider it to be knowable.

[Anonymous No.13578376]

>>13578152
>He doesn't know about the hard problem
What a joke.

[Anonymous No.13578380]

>>13578338
So I'm going to assume that you have no proof for YOUR god, which is why you retreat to deism whenever asked for proof. Thanks, that's all I needed to know. Hopefully the cognitive dissonance will catch up with you soon and you can reformulate your beliefs to match the evidence.

[Anonymous No.13578381]

>>13578132
I’m Catholic and I really don’t like this gloating, triumphalist brand of apologetics that seems to have taken root on this website.
It’s one thing to make forceful, corrective arguments. This is something else. There’s no charity in it.

[Anonymous No.13578385]

>>13578376
>b-but Dennett responded to it

[Anonymous No.13578386]

>>13578375
Is the material world not a mental concept? How would you know?

[Anonymous No.13578390]

>>13578375
Well thats a reductionist argument
All things are mental concepts and therefore all questions possible, being framed in mental concepts, must be invalid
Isnt that tautologous and therefore useless?

[Anonymous No.13578394]

>>13578385
Absolutely based and redpilled. Dennett made the most absurd claim in the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13578396]

>>13578381
>I'm Catholic

[Anonymous No.13578400]

>>13578365
Oh, I posted the wrong meme, my bad
The one I intended says "do you trust chemicals to tell you they're chemicals"
Sorry for the inconvenience

[Anonymous No.13578465]

>>13578390
I think that we can use mental concepts as practical tools for understanding the world, as this is how our brains have evolved to conceive of the external world, but I think that we err when we project these concepts onto the world as aspects of its being, and begin to draw conclusions from them in this sense. Our brains, ultimately, are evolved to understand the world in a manner which will facilitate our survival, which is not necessarily the same as understanding the world as it really is, which is something unknowable to us. Our knowledge is asymptotic and analogous.

[Anonymous No.13578492]

>>13578465
Well evolution implies that the external world is influencing us, and therefoee exists independently and also shapes us. Wouldnt our mental concepts be conformed unto the shape and fabric of the external world and therefore be valid to use in examining it?
Excuse my shitty syntax, I'm drunk

[Anonymous No.13578493]

>>13578465
A non-mental reality is a meaningless concept - the "non-mental" distinction is embedded within the concept and is therefore mental.

[Anonymous No.13578525]

>>13578492
Well, following what I said about the evolution of our brains, I can only know this by means of my brain, so that knowledge itself is unreliable, as is the knowledge that my knowledge is unreliable. I think we can only have a practical understanding at the end of the day. We are capable of functioning, though I think human functioning has unique needs due to its advanced state of consciousness -- i.e. needs for abstractions such as meaning -- and I'm not convinced that those needs are reflective of the world and are not rather "accidents" of consciousness, and our brains function in certain ways to adapt to those accidents.
>>13578493
I indeed cannot know that anything exists outside of my mind. I'm just speaking practically.

[Anonymous No.13578547]

>>13578525
If our mental capicity is good enough for practical living, then it must conform to reality well enough to address it. Reality is external and our minds evaluate it. Therefore our ability to address reality is capable enough for reliability on philosophical concepts

[Anonymous No.13578554]

>>13578380
>So I'm going to assume that you have no proof for YOUR god, which is why you retreat to deism whenever asked for proof.
Deism? Nah, man. God is active, even interactive. Creation is ongoing. Pic in >>13578170 should suffice. Prayer and meditation are real paths to interaction with the Divine. Go ask God for proof of Him.

My God isn't stuck to a religion. All humans can be gone one day, as can all human doctrines and behaviors, and God remains.

[Anonymous No.13578563]

>>13578554
The pic doesn't prove anything. Whichever god you believe in you have to prove. If you believe in Yahweh and Jesus you have to prove Yaweh and Jesus, not "bare theism" or deism.

[Anonymous No.13578568]

>>13578547
I don't agree. It isn't even fully functional on a practical level; for example our subjectivity to things such as optical illusions and our difficulty in thinking logically and restraining ourselves from actions based on emotional outbursts. I think these sorts of material things are of a different nature than non-observable abstractions.

[Anonymous No.13578576]

>>13578568
The fact that you can even address bad reactions or failings in our perception proves the supremacy of Reason

[Anonymous No.13578592]

>>13578400
i love you and so does jesus

[Anonymous No.13578594]

>>13578576
My reason tells me that I cannot extrapolate that a human mental concept or need necessarily reflects an aspect of the world that is external to the mind.

[Anonymous No.13578598]

>>13578339
If you deny objective reality all discussion is worthless and cannot be productive, if you do not the rationalism and empiricism are the only true ways to look at the world.

[Anonymous No.13578605]

>>13578592
Thanks fren. I love Jesus too
>>13578594
Isnt that the definiton of solipsism? If reason is practical at best, then isnt a solipsism impractical and therefore contradictory to your statement?

[Anonymous No.13578652]

>>13578605
I don't really consider solipsism to be impractical. Even if I cannot know that the world of my perceptions actually exists outside of my mind, it's still the world that I have to interact with continuously, and it's not subject to my mental control. In effect I have to treat it as if it were real even if it isn't.

[Anonymous No.13578658]

>>13578652
Allow me to half ass something socratic
Do you believe that you exist?
If so, then surely you exist within something?

[Anonymous No.13578681]

>>13578658
I think so, I behave so, but I don't know so.

[Anonymous No.13578691]

I just downloaded the "Five Proofs" book last night. Is it worth my time?

[Anonymous No.13578715]

>>13578652
Why would you think that if you believe it's likely the world only exists in your mind? How could you possibly trust your senses and memories enough to know its not subject to your mental control?
Feeling you are right or understands something is just that, a feeling and might not have anything to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.13578717]

>>13578204
>>13578208
Any atheist would accept nearly every one of these arguments, but none of them provide reasoning for the existence of traits which nearly every theist would ascribe to their God (Intelligence, complexity, etc.)

[Anonymous No.13578740]

>>13578681
If you can reason well enough that you exist, why is existence useless for anything else?

[Anonymous No.13578767]

>>13578740
Fuck that was badly phrased, forgive me, I'm drunk. Why does reasoning for existence of anything else not reliable is what I meant

[Anonymous No.13578775]

cringe read feuerbach

[Anonymous No.13578813]

>>13578715
>Why would you think that if you believe it's likely the world only exists in your mind?
I'm not saying that I'm a solipsist. I'm just saying that I can't disprove it -- I can't know if there's an external world -- and even if it's true it doesn't really affect anything.
>How could you possibly trust your senses and memories enough to know its not subject to your mental control?
If I try to control it mentally nothing happens. If I'm controlling it subconsciously, then on a practical level it's the same as if I'm not controlling it.
>Feeling you are right or understands something is just that, a feeling and might not have anything to do with reality.
Very true! Much of what I'm saying is limited to practicality, i.e. what is ascertainable to my senses, unreliable as they are. But, supposing an external world exists, I don't think the practical necessarily transfers to or reflects the external, which is what my whole point was to begin with.
>>13578767
I'm not sure I follow your question, but I think what I said in the earlier part of this post applies. I'm just speaking practically. It seems that I exist, so I behave as if I do exist. Maybe I don't, though.

[Anonymous No.13578823]

>>13578229
>implying God is yahweh of the bible

lmao, cope

[Anonymous No.13578845]

>>13578775
>feuerbach

[Anonymous No.13578872]

>>13578813
Very good. I see your point but I fear you missed one of mine.

>If I try to control it mentally nothing happens. If I'm controlling it subconsciously, then on a practical level it's the same as if I'm not controlling it.

If the world is in your in mind or created by your mind, then you should not expect what you experience in one moment to have anything to do what you experience in the next. It is far more likely your are deluding yourself because you should not even expect to be able to reason in your scenario.

[Anonymous No.13578900]

>>13578872
I don't see why a world created by a human mind could not be as you described.

[Anonymous No.13578901]

>>13578204
>>13578208
>>13578214
>>13578221

Kant BTFO all of this shit

[Anonymous No.13578907]

>>13578901
Even if he did, Kant was a Deist.

[Anonymous No.13578913]

>>13578132
>he doesn't realize that the ultimate divine principle cannot have a personality

[Anonymous No.13578932]

>>13578913
The problem with this threads is moron cultists take over, is Deism what should be the focus not personal creators.

[Anonymous No.13579181]

>>13578717
>Any atheist would accept nearly every one of these arguments
They wouldn't. If they did, they would be a deist, not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.13579216]

>>13578338
>Christ is what happens when God becomes flesh
You forgot to elaborate why this part should be believed, and you also seemingly equated Yahweh, a deity found only in the Old Testament, to a status of universality unwarranted for him. I can meditate without Yahweh, and I can pray to another deity. In both cases, I can reach the Divine without knowing a single line of Christian doctrine, and certainly don't need "Jesus" to "save" me from anything. Your concept of the Divine is in actuality much smaller than what you've enlarged it to being. My own views involve a generic panpsychism and pantheism, rather than any cultural particulars, and are therefore truly universal, unlike Abraham's religions.

[Anonymous No.13579268]

>>13578554
Your God is very much limited to a religion, specifically the one you follow. And the highest ranking members of your religion, for millenia now, have clearly stated that your religion is the exclusive path to salvation. Your Scripture also claims other paths to be false. You're universalizing something that has no universality to itself, and which itself considers such a position heretical. If your God truly belongs to no religion, then abandon your beliefs in Jesus Christ or His Father. Forget everything you ever learned from Judeo-Christianity. Then go and ask a Native American tribe to accept you into their culture, and begin from the bottom in learning the ways of their culture. Their mythology, their spiritual practises, their relationship customs, and everything else which governs their way of seeing and living. If you can't give up your religion, let alone take on another, then you are clearly not worshipping any kind of "universal entity", save the one you made in your mind.

[Anonymous No.13579272]

Doesnt matter what board its on or what argument, i always have to laugh at these basedjack strawmen.

[Anonymous No.13579293]

>>13578823
That's what Christianity proclaims, yes.

[Anonymous No.13579299]

>>13578394
which is?

[Anonymous No.13579302]

>>13579272
Do you happen to have the wojak version of this image?

[Anonymous No.13579307]

>>13579293
Gnostic Christians disagree.

[Anonymous No.13579318]

>>13579302

[Anonymous No.13579344]

>>13579318
appreciated senpai

[Anonymous No.13579380]

>>13578932
Deism doesn't appeal to the sensibilities of theists, whose every remark proves they not only need a cosmic parent for them to find life meaningful ("If there's no God, what's even the point? Why should I even live?" and other absurd questions) , but also to reduce it's stature to a tiny mental idol that by understanding the ways of brings them a sense of wisdom into reality's nature. Religious people often only read philosophy that is tethered to their religious customs because they don't like the uncertainty and expanse of possibilities staple to the field, which is where something like Deism operates. Though I'm a spiritual person and have many spiritual views, I rarely hear any interesting conceptions of the Universe's significance, origin and nature simply because small-minded religious zealots have constricted an otherwise extremely interesting conversation to the smallest range of options, that which conforms to their own cultural scriptures, and which they are unwilling to accept anything beyond. It's really a shame, because our culture would benefit so much for having such a discussion, being intellectually uplifted by musings into such a domain. The concept of pan-deism is what I personally find the most interesting. That of their being an Intelligent Designer(s), but ourselves as ultimately eternal consciousnesses which are merely partaking in the designs which It/They created (rather than ourselves being mortal and itself being immortal).

[Anonymous No.13579391]

>>13579307
Fair point, but those are a rare group.

[Anonymous No.13579418]

>>13578321
>this one isn't wrong
It is in the case of stonetoss vs. Disney/Gibson/Lovecraft. Most people like Lovecraft *despite* his racism, whereas people like Stonetoss *because of* his racism. Stonetoss would never be hit by "cancel culture" which Lovecraft would have because his audience is against cancel culture to begin with.

[Anonymous No.13579421]

>>13579391
True, is Nicene Christianity the one who won over all others, that's why most people forgot how diverse in teachings/beliefs early christianity was.

[Anonymous No.13579443]

>>13578151
All you need is love
Love is all you need

[Anonymous No.13579455]

Why do people respond to these sort of bait threads? This same image literally gets posted week after week. Do you have no self control whenever the topic of religious or politics arises? Do you have to start foaming at the mouth when the most obvious of bait is posted? There is no meaningful content in this post and thus, very little in the responses.

[Anonymous No.13579465]

>>13579455
Because language has evolved. We no longer communicate with words, but rather with provocative images that convey our standpoint and the assumed standpoint of our opponent, but slightly twisted, thereby giving him a disadvantaged position to begin with. Humans are cattle and the bait tastes too good, so the opponent will always bite, even when he's being manipulated.

[Anonymous No.13579470]

>>13579268
>Your God is very much limited to a religion
> specifically the one you follow
That's like saying my math is limited by the time I grew up in. Sure, I use the apparatus given to me. However, all children know God by nature.
>have clearly stated that your religion is the exclusive path to salvation. Your Scripture also claims other paths to be false.
Yet how does it define these 'other paths'? Christ had no trouble accepting the living faith of a Roman centurion, but saw the empty ritualism of the jews as heretical.
>You're universalizing something that has no universality to itself
I suppose autism is a void in terms of God.
>, and which itself considers such a position heretical.
Not after Vatican II, and the institutions themselves have no absolute bearing on Truth. They are, however, a sanctified vessel for it.
>If your God truly belongs to no religion, then abandon your beliefs in Jesus Christ or His Father.
t. kike. The only religions that have a valid claim into denying Christ are judaism and satanism.

[Anonymous No.13579477]

>>13579465
If it has evolved, it has evolved in the wrong direction. There is less content in the words despite having written more.

[Anonymous No.13579484]

>>13579380
>Deism doesn't appeal to the sensibilities of theists
If it's a hopeless deism, surely. However, if it merely means that apes are just a few layers above dirt and that spirituality is a true path to regaining the 'link', then it most certainly does.
>whose every remark proves they not only need a cosmic parent for them to find life meaningful
Once again, you just have to put in your own bile to make sense of other people and their positions. To have sanctity of anything, we need theism. Living faith. Life after humans abandoned that has become a chore.
>("If there's no God, what's even the point? Why should I even live?" and other absurd questions)
How does one evaluate separate states of being into a hierarchy / priority list after God is out of the question? I've yet to see any serious attempts from atheists to answer, or even understand these questions.

[Anonymous No.13579495]

>>13579455
You lack ambition. Composting is what one does here, given that the subject itself is of vital interest. One may, and should ignore bait imagery.

[Anonymous No.13579504]

>>13579455
sometimes i do it for fun.

[Anonymous No.13579507]

>>13578563
>If you believe in Yahweh and Jesus you have to prove Yaweh and Jesus, not "bare theism" or deism
If I want to prove Yahweh or Jesus, surely. However, I want to disprove atheism, which I believe the 'abstract God', 'Mammon' etc. most certainly do.

[Anonymous No.13579543]

>>13579495
>You lack ambition
Projecting. I don't even know what you are trying to get at with this.
>Composting
What?
>the subject itself is of vital interest
Bait is not of vital interest

[Anonymous No.13579553]

>>13579543
>projecting
Ah, the lame man's response. It was a tongue in cheek remark about what to do with these threads.
>What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost
>Bait is not of vital interest
Theism is.

[Anonymous No.13579559]

>>13578204
>An actual infinite cannot exist.
Why not?

[Anonymous No.13579564]

>>13579559
>limited thing
>produces infinite thing
It's like a river that flows upwards.

[Anonymous No.13579566]

Is it just one deity, or are there more than one?

[Anonymous No.13579569]

>>13579564
Limited thing produces limited thing produces limited thing ad infinitum
Why can’t this be!

[Anonymous No.13579576]

>>13579380
I agree.

[Anonymous No.13579583]

>>13579566
Here we fall into the hierarchy problem. Do beings lesser than the Universal Source fit the category? Are all things humans sacrifice for counting as gods/deities? Among memetic entities, which ones are deities and which ones are 'spirits'?

[Anonymous No.13579584]

>>13579553
There is no discussion about compost in this thread. I literally cannot understand a word you are saying.

[Anonymous No.13579591]

>>13579569
>Why can’t this be!
Limited things run a limited lifespan, defined by their origin. The prior state needs an explanation, and that needs an explanation - until you find infinity itself.

[Anonymous No.13579595]

>>13579484
The problem is your conflation of spirituality and theism. These are not intrinsically connected, such that one only exists by the other. Your consciousness may itself be transcendent and the necessary ground of existence, without any need for a separate entity - or at the least that entity being an ocean to which your consciousness is a droplet. The Western world has only viewed spirituality in the context of theism, hence why their loss of belief in the latter brought them to distance themselves from the former, which resulted in the mode of living you mentioned. Meanwhile, a culture like Buddhism was quite literally born out of the rejection of deities for one's personal spiritual path, and Buddhism continues to this day with limited criticism following the Enlightenment not simply because it belongs to a region outside of the West, but because it's original variant does not fall into the intellectual trappings which the Western religions have come under scrutiny for (not to say there aren't unfalsfiable beliefs in it, of course - but it's a very different perspective on reality than Christianity holds to). Regarding the question of hierarchy, you're presuming that such a thing even exists in the first place, and that if it exists, Yahweh is what brings it to. It also presumes that your greatest fulfillment comes by following the hierarchy assigned by said deity, when there's no necessity for it to be so. This would be true as a general criticism, but speaking specifically of Abrahamic religion, I certainly don't think people of homosexual background would have the most meaningful lives under a doctrine which clearly condemns them to both death in life, and Hell in the afterlife. I'm also not an atheist, albeit my spirituality has no dependence on any separate deity.

[Anonymous No.13579596]

>>13579584
>See garbage material
>make something useful out of it
Something about improving a bad world.
> I literally cannot understand a word you are saying.
That's because you're too serious.

[Anonymous No.13579601]

>>13579591
That doesn’t explain why it can’t go on forever

[Anonymous No.13579607]

>>13579601
Heat death of the Universe won't produce a new one, or will produce a lesser one. This world, as all limited things, is a droplet from infinity.

[Anonymous No.13579610]

>>13578138
Stonetoss us a nazi

[Anonymous No.13579614]

>>13579610
He's a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.13579633]

>>13579614
That's what I said.

[Anonymous No.13579641]

>>13579633
Faggot schizo