/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14178786]

Reminder that Wolfgang Smith retroactively btfo New Atheism

[Anonymous No.14178795]

>>14178786
I believe in God, I am a Christian. But my memory is so bad I forget all the many things I found along the way, and along with that the reason for my belief in God.

Could you give me one?

[Anonymous No.14178810]

>>14178786
is this guy legit? which of his books should i start with?

[Anonymous No.14178813]

>>14178786
>Reminder that Wolfgang Smith retroactively btfo New Atheism

yet god still doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.14178815]

>>14178786
New Atheism dosen't need to be BTFOED because it provides no real arguments against Moral Nihilism other than 'muh consequentialism is logical'. Arguments against gods existence are a meme since god belongs to Metaphysics, not Science

Technically Nietzsche preemptively BTFOed New Atheism

[Anonymous No.14178862]

>>14178813
>implying God is a contingent being can either exist or not exist
>implying God isn't beyond both existence and non-existence
>implying God isn't the Necessary Unconditioned Reality that is the basis of existence itself

[Anonymous No.14178868]

>>14178786
It's not that hard to btfo them, anon

[Anonymous No.14178899]

>>14178868
True. Though the harder part is convincing there midwit fanboys they've been btfo'ed

[Anonymous No.14178923]

>>14178815
>Arguments against gods existence are a meme since god belongs to Metaphysics, not Science
Try explaining that to a federofag who solely reads popsci crap

[Anonymous No.14178935]

>>14178786
It's not very hard. Taleb BTFO the entirety of New Atheism without even making an argument for the existence of God
https://medium.com/incerto/we-dont-know-what-we-are-talking-about-when-we-talk-about-religion-3e65e6a3c44e
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a
https://medium.com/incerto/no-worship-without-skin-in-the-game-70b4aa341092
https://youtu.be/VuJD5Zfqti8
https://youtu.be/XAbSmTGJhEA
https://unherd.com/2019/03/why-god-needs-skin-in-the-game/

[Anonymous No.14178979]

>>14178862
>One unassuming anon proved god is real with ONE SIMPLE SEMANTIC WORDERY (CLICK TO SEE)

[Anonymous No.14178982]

>>14178786
There is no quote in your picture ?

[Anonymous No.14178987]

>>14178923
"fedorafags" are what we in Esoteric thinking call Hylics. They have no knowledge of anything metaphysical and are on par with animals

>>14178979
Thomas Aquinas has already proved the existance of god Metaphysically. The only argument against Aquinas's 5 ways ive ever seen, is an Atheist shifting the goalpost to:
"Hurr durr, but how do you know your god is the right god?"

which would be an okay argument against Orthodox religitards, but not against Perennialists

[Anonymous No.14178994]

>>14178813
Based

[Anonymous No.14178995]

>>14178815
if god was unironically real he wouldn’t belong in metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14178996]

>>14178987
>god exists because he must exist according to my reasoning

yes, very strong arguments from Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14179020]

>>14178996
>Aquinas is wrong because my misunderstanding

[Anonymous No.14179027]

>>14178995
Why? do you think you should be able to point to god? and say, there he is? Thats the type of thing that St Paul taught and Nietzsche refuted, he knew that the God taught by Jesus was an inner God, which he considered was the Overman.


>>14178996
Yes thats exactly what Aquinas said, nice non argument fedorafag

[Anonymous No.14179075]

>>14178979
>implying metaphysically naturalism is the default position and burden of proof lies on Theist
Classic federofag taking his own first principles for granted

[Anonymous No.14179090]

>>14178987
>Perennialists
Irrelevant anon here, I don't know how it does not works to Perennialists. What is the argument of Perennialists?

[Anonymous No.14179099]

>>14178862
>implying THE SIMULATION CREATOR OR ANY OTHER FORM OF MOVER WITHOUT REGARDS TO THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY is a contingent being can either exist or not exist
>implying THE SIMULATION CREATOR OR ANY OTHER FORM OF MOVER WITHOUT REGARDS TO THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY isn't beyond both existence and non-existence
>implying THE SIMULATION CREATOR OR ANY OTHER FORM OF MOVER WITHOUT REGARDS TO THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY isn't the Necessary Unconditioned Reality that is the basis of existence itself

[Anonymous No.14179110]

>>14179090
the broad perennialist view is that every true tradition is pointed towards the same primordial divinity, which is compatible with aquinas' argument

[Anonymous No.14179112]

>>14178813
>>14178995
>>14178996
Atheism has weak memetic fitness. You WILL lose this board to religious fags and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The religious person loves repetition, cannot be demoralised, cannot get bored, cannot ever get tired of shitposting. Dawkins God Delusion ironically BTFOs out of him when he describes belief systems as organism that replicate due to fitness. Atheism cannot replicate because the stakes are always inherently lower than a religious person who believes its heaven or hell at stake. Atheists also have lower birth rates. Atheisms cultural relevance is an intifada afforded by the extreme demoralisation of WW2. But theocracy IS coming, this board is gonna go FULL Christian fundamentalist and there is *nothing* you can do about it, incidentally Europe will probably become Muslim for similar reasons. Atheistcucks will be forever BTFO as their whimpers of 'muh science' fade into the chanting of the religious masses!

[Anonymous No.14179157]

>>14179090
Perennialist basically posit that even though the different religious traditions are different in their exoteric dimensions they contain the same truth in their esoteric dimension
See The transcendent unity of religions by Frithjof Schuon for more

[Anonymous No.14179169]

>>14178987
>They have no knowledge of anything metaphysical and are on par with animals
I think some animals, plants and mushrooms are way more spiritual than one would expect.

[Anonymous No.14179173]

>>14179157
Yeah basically this. Its hard to see the similarities between religions on the surface, but they are actually quite easy to see in the esoteric dimensions,
ie. Kabbalah, Hermeticism/Gnosticism/Neoplatonism, Sufism, Vedanta Hinduism (Upanishads/Gita), and theres many more...
They all share pretty much the same Ideas

[Anonymous No.14179179]

>>14178996
Aristotle's (one of the main influences on Aquinas) arguments are perfectly rational. Is Aristotle's god empirically observable? No.

[Anonymous No.14179184]

>>14179173
might be because they’re all made up bullshit maybe i dunno

[Anonymous No.14179185]

>>14179112
>Christian fundamentalist
If we're talking a revival of Medieval scholasticism, then I'm okay with that.

[Anonymous No.14179187]

>>14179184
>People all over the world all came up with the exact same bullshit by pure coincidence

seethe harder fedora. Guenon has made Atheism irrelevant

[Anonymous No.14179189]

>>14179184
>All the things that I think and believe are perfectly coherent and derive from SCIENCE AND REASON!

[Anonymous No.14179192]

>>14179187
It’s hardly «the exact same».

[Anonymous No.14179195]

>>14179189
Ebin strawman, mon cher.

[Anonymous No.14179212]

>>14179099
>I'm going to basically describe God but call him by any other name expect God. Checkmate theists

[Anonymous No.14179222]

>>14178786
I liked old atheism better anyway.

[Anonymous No.14179230]

>>14179192
Its close enough for it to not be a coincidence.

My favourite verse from the TaoTeChing is "The Tao that can be spoken of, is not the eternal Tao"

"Tao" is God. Everyone who has an experience of 'God', (Sages, saints, prophets etc.) all have to try and interpret it in their own words, but none of them can portray the idea 100% accurately using the words available in human language, thats why you have heaps of "Diffferent" religions.
that, and the religions get hijacked and corrupted by people with agendas or people looking to make money.

[Anonymous No.14179242]

>>14179112
Christian memes are the weakest memes on the Internet. Also, the vast majority of Christians are increasingly non-white, which is a trend that is going to continue, and everyone knows nogs can't meme.

[Anonymous No.14179289]

>>14179230
your favorite verse from tao te ching is the one everyone has heard, do better aussie cunt

[Anonymous No.14179302]

>>14179289
Good argument bro, keep seething

[Anonymous No.14179305]

>>14179302
this is lit, it’s okay to bash plebs

[Anonymous No.14179394]

>>14179242
>Christian memes are the weakest memes on the Internet.
Deus Vult is good, Christ-chan was a success, Crusader cat was good.
The only thing failing is jew/mammon worshiping boomers selling their Christian skin-pack.

[Anonymous No.14179398]

>>14179222
This. Old atheists like Marx, Nietszche and Freud described society and tried to propose radical alternatives. The new atheists appear trivial to them.

[Anonymous No.14179419]

>>14179222
Honestly Percy B. Shelley's essay 'The Necessity of Atheism' is far superior to anything the new atheists produced

[Anonymous No.14179440]

Atheism can’t support any satisfactory moral system logically. Despite what anyone thinks, human beings are just irrational at their core. If you reduce good and bad to chemical pain and pleasure the whole system falls to dehumanising dystopia shit. Whether you accept it or not, we need irrationality to exist coherently as a species. It will never ever go away.

[Anonymous No.14179445]

>>14179398
This is the state of contemporary atheist discourse

[Anonymous No.14179450]

>>14178862
>implying God isn't your own Consciousness, the very necessary, eternal, fundamental ground of existence you speak of, which allows an apparent mortal like yourself to even know of those concepts in the first place

[Anonymous No.14179474]

>>14179027
>nice non argument fedorafag

it's funny because aquinas arguments are textbook non arguments. Just a wordery you can prove anything with.

[Anonymous No.14179476]

>>14179242
Quality of a meme doesn't determine fitness, zealousness of it's adherents does.
See: Sneed

[Anonymous No.14179502]

>>14179474
>too retarded to comprehend arguements from the other side because they're too "wordy"
>claims the intellectual high ground

[Anonymous No.14179508]

>>14179440
>Atheism can’t support any satisfactory moral system logically. Despite what anyone thinks, human beings are just irrational at their core.
Even if we were wholly rational, opportunistic strategies would flourish in any system of agreement created by atheists, and generational leaps would have their tolls on the hubris that replaced holiness.

[Anonymous No.14179534]

>>14179474
They are essentially aristotlean arguments
Can you explain what isn’t sound about his reasoning

[Anonymous No.14179554]

>>14179450
Your post is not incompatible with what the other poster wrote. Both posts agree completely with the metaphysics of Vedanta which holds that God is the innermost Consiousness and at the same time is beyond existence and non-existence as the non-contingent and unconditioned Reality underlying our apparent shared reality.

[Anonymous No.14179559]

>>14179112
>You WILL lose this board to religious fags and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Oh no. what will they ever do!

[Anonymous No.14179583]

>>14179554
>>14179554
True, but given the context I felt he was arguing for an external, theistic God. Which, though possible, isn't the sole or primary manifestation his concept of an unconditional, necessary ground can take. Otherwise you may as well just say that consciousness is those items, instead of invoking the name of what is traditionally considered an entity separate from us, on a board where the concept typically refers to an actual deity one must worship.

[Anonymous No.14179618]

>>14179502
>>14179534
What isn't sound? You can prove anything with this type of arguments. They have no relation to reality. They are isolated, out of the ass taken, semantics. One day someone would prove definitely god doesn't exist and what would happen with those arguments? They would literally stay the same.

you can't take phenomenons that have no explanation and give them out of the ass explanation that fits them in your eyes.

>They are essentially aristotlean arguments

that's a non-argument

[Anonymous No.14179667]

>>14179618
How can anything be isolated from reality?

[Anonymous No.14179730]

>>14179618