/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14758432]

What's the standard book that dismantles atheism?

[Anonymous No.14758434]

I guess any book on elementary logic.

[Anonymous No.14758480]

>>14758434
You will always end up with agnosticism that way.

[Anonymous No.14758497]

>>14758434
Logic is unable to critique the existence of God. That may only be done by empirical means, as God's existence is a pure assumption. This is why people like Descartes and Malebranche failed in that regard.

[Anonymous No.14758502]

>>14758432
Read some books on religious studies. At least this will make a lot of atheist critique look very boring and shallow.

[Anonymous No.14758558]

>>14758497

[Anonymous No.14758578]

>>14758497

>searching for a metaphysical being in the physical world

[Anonymous No.14758589]

>>14758480
Perhaps a book on Bayesian probability afterwards then? But this would only reduce God to a 0 probability event, which is no concern at all for a hard-boiled monotheist.

>>14758497
How would empirical means ever critique the existence of God? Furthermore, I don't follow your point that

> Logic is unable to critique the existence of God.

Could you explain why you believe this is so?

[Anonymous No.14758812]

>>14758432
Good luck with that, OP.

[Anonymous No.14759038]

>>14758434
/thread

[Anonymous No.14759049]

>>14758432
Orthodoxy by GKC

[Anonymous No.14759054]

>>14758432
Aquinas
Jung
Campbell

[Anonymous No.14759258]

>>14758432
I don't give a shit if people believe in spiritual origins of matter. What bothers me is an ideology founded upon a bedrock of pathologic guilt. Pathologic guilt is the antithesis of sincerity. To base a belief system out of pathologic guilt is to eschew connected and meaningful reflection on one's own actions for a disassociated substitute. A substitute that praises acts motivated by non existent pathologic guilt and regards the detachment as a higher form of good and authority than one's connected understanding of their lived affairs. Pathologic guilt not only enables the development of weakness and aberration it praises it. Viewed from outside the system pathological guilt is a disease which manifests its own evidence of veracity by toiling to manufacture the dysfunction it claims exists a priori.

[Anonymous No.14759480]

>>14759049
You do realize you could reverse that quote and it would make just as much sense, right?

[Anonymous No.14759815]

>>14758432
It is a temptation so that one gets close to God so none.

[Anonymous No.14759830]

>>14758589
>Could you explain why you believe this is so?
I watched a lot of youtube.

[Anonymous No.14759879]

>>14758432
any paper that details the depression and suicide rates among them

[Anonymous No.14760017]

>>14758432
this confuses, angers, and kills the theist.

your belief is nothing but a few neurons firing. it can be turned off. and it should.

[Anonymous No.14760030]

>>14759258
>I've never been sincerely religious
>So I just copy paste summaries of Nietzche into God threads

[Anonymous No.14760040]

>>14760017
>Hahaha if you literally turn your brain off you will stop believing in God!
>Checkmate theists!!!!

[Anonymous No.14760059]

the qur'an

[Anonymous No.14760068]

>>14759879
>Truth depends on how u feel.
Religion, everyone.

[Anonymous No.14760125]

>>14760017
Life isn't all chemicals. Sorry you feel that way.

[Anonymous No.14760140]

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

[Anonymous No.14760158]

>>14758432
someone explain the op pic to me

[Anonymous No.14760167]

>>14760040
Magnets > your “relationship” with an eternal, omnipotent, transcendent being

[Anonymous No.14760393]

>>14760140
>https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://www.transformingteachers.org/en/articles/biblical-integration/mathematics/193-why-the-mathematicians-more-than-other-scientists-tend-to-believe-theres-a-god

[Anonymous No.14760410]

>>14760167
> Take a drill to your eardrums
> You are now deaf

Drills > music, right?

[Anonymous No.14760416]

>>14760140
>scientific innovation
go kys *nglo scum

[Anonymous No.14760491]

>>14758497
>thinking empiricism can prove anything
lmao

[Anonymous No.14760492]

>>14758432
why would you want to read a book being wrong and false???

[Anonymous No.14760501]

>>14760140
>Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.
good.

[Anonymous No.14760510]

>>14759480
Not really. The evolutionist's assumption is based on faith even if he claims he doesn't have it.

[Anonymous No.14760516]

>>14758502
You're right that it's boring and shallow, but that's not to say that some of their fundamental positions aren't correct or at least hard to dismantle.

[Anonymous No.14760528]

>>14760410
Yes? Are you really this fragile that you want to pretend sound waves in a certain key following certain rhythms and time signatures is some transcendental value rather than just data assimilated through the proper physical sense and apparatus that allows access to it?

And do you think that access is something sacred or important? Nope. You have ears because it is evolutionarily beneficial. you like music because it increases your social standing and offers opportunities of darwinian adaptability.

and your knowledge of all this is just chemicophysical neuronal processes. stop acting like a flustered child about it.

theism has been btfo for centuries, and modern cognitive science is putting down the last few strands of it that the more retarded among society have allowed to persist. ideals are just concept which is just language which is a socially constructed phenomenon to help communicate data quicker and more precisely so you can survive better.

if Grug had known that his first intentional grunts would eventually spiral into justifications for invisible worlds and big father figures in the sky, I wonder if he wouldn't have preferred to just let the sabertooth tiger wipe his tribe out and spare the world the embarrassment that is theism...

[Anonymous No.14760535]

>>14760068
How can you reach truth?

[Anonymous No.14760542]

>>14760528
aw jeez rick...

[Anonymous No.14760559]

>>14760528
>thinking the channel is the thing in itself
I can't help but see materialists as lobotomized people. It looks like you are missing some important part of your brain.

[Anonymous No.14760573]

>>14760125
>said the walking bag of meat
Can you give an example of a single aspect of you that is not chemical in nature?

[Anonymous No.14760579]

>>14760528
Let me put it another way: is music true or false?

[Anonymous No.14760590]

>>14760573
Not him, but my consciousness. To be very specific, the fact that I'm aware of anything at all.

[Anonymous No.14760630]

>>14760542
>t.Jerry

[Anonymous No.14760640]

>>14760528
The point of that anon's comment is that music still exists, regardless of your ability to hear it, just as God exists regardless of your ability to comprehend her.

[Anonymous No.14760641]

>>14760017

[Anonymous No.14760646]

>>14759049
this is your idea of btfoing atheism? literally /pol/ b8-tier. might as well call them evilutionists while he’s at it

[Anonymous No.14760652]

>>14760158
Atheists are going to be pissed at Hawking for convincing them to believe God wasn't real on the day that God returns.

[Anonymous No.14760665]

>>14760393
>still only 44% are believers
OH NO NO NO AHAAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.14760671]

>>14760652
kek, thanks. i thought the guy in the pic was supposed to be looking smug and it threw me off completely

[Anonymous No.14760679]

>>14760640
>her

Oh he based

[Anonymous No.14760680]

>>14760665
44% of trannies also kill themselves. who is more right, them or the ones who go on living?

[Anonymous No.14760700]

>>14758497
>God's existence is a pure assumption
Experienced phenomenon is at least as real as particle physics given the interactive element being the empirical aspect of existence.
The empirical, shallow God would therefore be an unknown force that reshapes humans, their psyche, their health, their habits and their societies.

[Anonymous No.14760703]

>>14759049
Chesterton's great: so much smugness, and not a shred of logic. The more I read by him, the more amazing it is. He's so comfy, so sure of himself, and has nothing to work with at all.

[Anonymous No.14760719]

>>14758432
The God Delusion
>>14760140
Atheists that can't notice blatantly obvious economic/social confounding factors think religious people are dumb. Ironic. Do you think their view on IQ by race is similar, or are there huge economic and historical explanations for that?

[Anonymous No.14760791]

>>14760719
>blatantly obvious economic/social confounding factors
Oh, do tell. Are Xtians in the U.S. still fighting the legacy of the days when atheists kept all those theist slaves? Are they struggling against the systematic oppression of our Marxist overlords? Are they not allowed in the good schools? LOL. Come on, anon: try that shit without accidentally proving that atheists are the disadvantaged ones whose lower IQ scores would be more predictable, if they had them.

[Anonymous No.14760835]

>>14760791
it took me a while to sift through all the reddit-tier condescension and sarcasm to figure out what the fuck you were trying to say, and my response is this:
the average IQ of a catholic priest is 125.

[Anonymous No.14760864]

>>14760835
The IQ of the people on top of the pyramid scheme is usually higher than those at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.14761042]

>>14760528
Read The Soul of the World by Roger Scruton. Human experiences are irreducible. Explaining something through biology or evolutionary psychology in no way means you have exhausted the topic or even understand what is. For example, even if you could model all neurons related to thinking about math, or perfectly derive the evolutionary casual explanation tor the emergence of math, you would in no way have a gained an understanding of what math, numbers, or sets are. To discuss math you must first enter into the domain of math. Reductionism misses the point entirely. You're like a movie critic who rates every movie 1 star, since movies are "just pixels on a screen flashing different wavelengths of light". There is an aboutness to being human. Materialist thinking discounts this reality while claiming to explain it. Pointing out a casual relationship is not an explanation.

[Anonymous No.14761080]

>>14758497
Then all gods are real. Everyone ever thought of.

[Anonymous No.14761087]

>>14761080
I think every god is a glimpse of the one God. The Bhagavad Gita states it directly.

[Anonymous No.14761103]

>>14761042
>Read The Soul of the World by Roger Scruton
recc'ing conservatard media pundits is never a good idea when trying to argue against science. at least rec scientists

>Explaining something through biology or evolutionary psychology in no way means you have exhausted the topic
actually, that's exactly what you've done.

>>14761042
>For example, even if you could model all neurons related to thinking about math, or perfectly derive the evolutionary casual explanation tor the emergence of math, you would in no way have a gained an understanding of what math, numbers, or sets are.
yes, you would. you would know that mathematics and all its subsequent processes and laws are concepts generated by certain neuronal behavior in certain locations of the brain.

>You're like a movie critic who rates every movie 1 star, since movies are "just pixels on a screen flashing different wavelengths of light".
No, it's more like recognizing that a "movie" isn't some metaphysical substance in itself but is instead just the term and concept we utilize to summarize the physical behavior of the physical things (pixels, light, actors, sounds, etc.) that we encounter.

>There is an aboutness to being human.
ah yes, the last pathetic stand of all immaterialists who resort to 20th century phenomenology to try and keep the mystique of consciousness alive. the "aboutness" is either 1) linguistic in nature (see Sellars' deconstruction of phenomenological intentionality, or hell, Dennett does a good job of btfo Brentano, too) or 2) neuronal binding in action.

either way, easily explicable without recourse to metaphysics.

>Pointing out a casual relationship is not an explanation.
"causes aren't causes"
ah, okay.

[Anonymous No.14761125]

>>14761087
I think the people believing in all those different gods would call bullshit

[Anonymous No.14761129]

>>14758434
>I guess any book on elementary logic.

[Anonymous No.14761142]

>>14761103
> yes, you would. you would know that mathematics and all its subsequent processes and laws are concepts generated by certain neuronal behavior in certain locations of the brain.

So pi is just a particular flickering of neurons? A flickering of neurons that is somehow relevant to all sorts of things across the universe?

> neuronal binding in action.

Not reductive enough, not physics. A neuron is just an agglomerate of atoms, like everything else, so what is so special about that particular bunch of atoms that it generates consciousness?

[Anonymous No.14761152]

>>14761125
So?

[Anonymous No.14761235]

>>14761042
>Human experiences are irreducible
While we're at it let's say the experiences of being an electron are irreducible.
The question: So what? What if electrons are all Hindu? Atheist? All the above like Humans? Your mysticism and pathological transcendentalism lacks any specificity to say anything about truth.

[Anonymous No.14761258]

>>14761235
Almost everything important is beyond true or false. Is music true or false? Is red? Is justice? Is charity?

[Anonymous No.14761295]

>>14761258
Are apples true or false? Is green a warrior? Can integral calculus turn a butterfly into a caterpillar?
Hiding behind nonsense constructs of grammar gets you no closer to discussing truth and reality.

[Anonymous No.14761653]

>>14760528
Atheism is the easiest religion to troll

[Anonymous No.14761714]

Is there a decent book for me to read that'll help me believe in Christ from a logical perspective? The whole leap of faith thing isn't working for me.

[Anonymous No.14761810]

>>14761714
>Christ from a logical perspective

[Anonymous No.14761858]

>>14758432
Tactics.

[Anonymous No.14762209]

>>14760641
based

>>14761714
Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

[Anonymous No.14762387]

>>14760703
>tfw you and chesterton are flippant verbalists
best feeling, anon

[Anonymous No.14762397]

>>14761152
So Purusha isn't gonna come down and shake your hand

[Anonymous No.14762451]

>>14761810
>>14762209
Thanks. I just can't blindly believe in anything.

[Anonymous No.14762949]

>>14760864
The usury based economy is the pyramid scheme and democracy is its looting tool. It spreads myths through the public and even private institutions and schools that plebians then grow into. Industrial scale population control, information distribution and malware spread.

Your worldview isn't a good one.

[Anonymous No.14762952]

>>14762451
>I just can't blindly believe in anything
Don't you blindly believe that?

[Anonymous No.14762979]

>>14760017
>Archeology>News

[Anonymous No.14763014]

>>14759049
This presupposes there was a creative act. What is is just as likely to have always been.

[Anonymous No.14763032]

>>14762451
At the end of the day though that's what it requires, that is the essence of faith. It's not a matter of likelihood or evidence, because the event - revelation - is by nature unique and not bound by natural laws. Either you believe in revelation or you do not.

[Anonymous No.14763056]

>>14759049
>evolution is out of nothing

[Anonymous No.14763289]

>>14758480
Agnosticism is stupid and purely exists as a reaction to the atheist-theist dialectic. It's no more than "hmm I look around and do not understand mayyyyybe a giant t-bone steak willed this into existence hmmmmmm". It's like being agnostic about the existence of spiderman or the existence of Astolfo hiding in your closet waiting for you to go to bed so he can rape you. Atheism makes perfectly logical sense.

[Anonymous No.14763326]

>>14761103
>recc'ing conservatard media pundits is never a good idea when trying to argue against science. at least rec scientists
The man was a philosophy professor with over 50 published books. He converted to conservatism later in his life having been convinced by reasons he outlines in his many books, but as for his work "The Soul of the World" it is not political. To give one example, on the chapter brain science he heavily quotes and responds to recent developments in cognitive science including Dennet. The fact that you dismiss him based off his political opinions and not his philosophical arguments is indicative of your hermetic worldview. If I'm being honest, your entire worldview along with all your political opinions are predictable just given this single smug sentence.

>actually, that's exactly what you've done.
Do you not understand that a thing can have multiple explanations? Let's take an object, say a car. You can describe a car through the lens of chemistry and physics: the chemicals comprising the constituent components, the chemical reactions in the engine, heats transfer throughout the engine, etc. But you can also describe a car through the lens of engineering which is a higher level view. Now neither of these claims necessitates a metaphysical reality. The engineer doesn't mock the chemist saying "hah, you believe in a transcendental reality where 'chemical reactions' exist". Nor the chemist mock the engineer saying "you believe your arbitrary delineations of matter actually exists as objects, which you give made up names like 'Piston'". They are two different accounts of reality.
Something odd happens however when we approach human experience, where materialists such as yourself like to pull out this deconstructionist card. You believe that accounting for the cause of a thing fully describes that thing, but this is patently false. You might say something like: "you only believe X because of reason Y", but this in no way takes into account the veracity of Y.
You cannot do math without entering the world of math. You cannot understand a painting without entering the world of art. You cannot understand a person as a person if you see only a lump of matter that happens to aligned in such a way for some moment of time. You can have these views AND the subjective view simultaneously, but you cannot live in only the objective materialist view.
A musician is not claiming that music exists in a metaphysical "music dimension". What he does is claims is there is a perspective of music, a way of seeing and interacting with it, that cannot be accounted for by looking only through the lens of physics/evolutionary psychology/biology. They are different realities. This Roger Scruton calls this "cognitive dualism" (as opposed to ontological dualism).
I highly recommend the book btw. All those tiny aspects you think I'm missing in these arguments take a book to explore. It is worth the read.

[Anonymous No.14763364]

>>14758432
>judgement

[Anonymous No.14763395]

>>14758432
Atheists claim God does not exist.
They cannon prove their claim.

Atheists are the dumbest people alive.

[Anonymous No.14763405]

>>14763395
I fucked your mum last night disprove that

[Anonymous No.14763408]

>>14763395
Neither can people who believe in God.

[Anonymous No.14763453]

>>14761295
According to you what does, get you closer to discussing truth and reality?

[Anonymous No.14763462]

>>14762397
Nor was I expecting him to.

[Anonymous No.14763464]

>>14762451
You already blindly believe in all sorts of things. Such as other people having a consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14763465]

>>14763408
We don't claim to be able to prove the existence of God. We claim our belief. Belief requires not proof.

As "men of science and logic," though, the Atheist fails his own doctrine. He cannot prove his claim.

Atheists are, truly, the dumbest people alive.

[Anonymous No.14763470]

>>14763289
Consider that perhaps you are a blind man claiming colors do not exist. How could the sighted ever explain to you what 'red' is?

[Anonymous No.14763494]

>>14763395
>>14763465
Kaltoomdenite is an element that actually exists. Eventually, scientists will discover it and put it on the periodic table. I mean, I've never seen it, neither has anyone else. But, it exists. You can't prove that it doesn't!
This is how dumb you sound, caring about what fedora hacks think.

[Anonymous No.14763499]

>ctrl+f Aquinas
>1 result

[Anonymous No.14763554]

>>14760140
Imagine having this in a file and ready to go.

[Anonymous No.14763575]

>>14763470
Well colour isn't so confusing. You sit the man down and say "Light reflects off of a light source to an object and then off that object into your eye. Light, electromagnetic radiation, has a frequency depending on what it bounces off of. Your eyes can differentiate between different frequencies. Red is a frequency, if you're interested I'll have you know that it is the colour of blood, sunsets, and my face when I see dummies on the internet post stuff I don't like." There, he might not see 'red' as we do but he understands the general idea.

[Anonymous No.14763731]

>>14763575
mega yikes

[Anonymous No.14763806]

>>14760017
>disabling your brain makes you accept retarded shit
Amazing.

[Anonymous No.14764073]

>>14762451
The Christian definition of faith means trust. There has to be a foundation for that trust so you're on the right path

[Anonymous No.14764175]

>>14763326
Underrated post.

[Anonymous No.14764199]

>>14760140
>Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.
Good. Fuck technophiles. Look at the world they have created

[Anonymous No.14764235]

>>14763575
The blind skeptic would just call you a schizo for babbling about so much stuff he has never perceived and has no conception of.

Just as you would call me a schizo for perceiving a profound harmony in all creation, and for having a faint sense that there's conductor for said harmony, a sense that is much more greatly developed in Saints and such men as the authors of the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.

[Anonymous No.14764295]

>>14760017
>temporary lobotomy turns you into an atheist
you're not helping your cause

[Anonymous No.14764310]

>>14764235
yeah but what if you actually are a schizo

[Anonymous No.14764322]

>>14764310
What if you're blind? I used to be blind myself.

[Anonymous No.14764377]

>>14760542
based

[Anonymous No.14764597]

>>14760017
>your belief is nothing but a few neurons firing
so is your critique. if the first is by that made invalid, why isn't the latter?

[Anonymous No.14764720]

>>14763289
>or the existence of Astolfo hiding in your closet waiting for you to go to bed so he can rape you.
I firmly believe this

[Anonymous No.14765422]

>>14760528
Based

[Anonymous No.14765489]

>>14758432
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Whether or not you believe in Christian theology specifically, the first couple parts of this book do an excellent job arguing for the existence of a higher power.
Here's the full pdf for those interested:
https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf

[Anonymous No.14765495]

>>14761714
see >>14765489

[Anonymous No.14765699]

>>14761152
So you can eat shit along with everyone else claiming wisdom on this god forsaken board

[Anonymous No.14765712]

>>14765699
You didn't know where you were going by saying followers of other religions wouldn't agree with the Gita, did you?

[Anonymous No.14766827]

>>14760590
which exists bc of your neurons.. your consciousness is not as vast as you believe it to be , it only exists within what youve seen and know which is very VERY limited

[Anonymous No.14766871]

>>14766827
I don't believe it be vast, just beyond the material. Neurons are just atoms like everything else, there is actually no explanation for why they should generate consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14766881]

>>14760017
>brain damage turns you atheist

No surprise there.

[Anonymous No.14766901]

atheism as some socio-political position is retarded but nothing is more retarded than being a christian

[Anonymous No.14766964]

>>14760528
>you like music because it increases your social standing
>and [that other nonsense]
How many people seriously believe this shit about themselves/others?

[Anonymous No.14766989]

>>14760017
>Brain damage makes you a cuck

[Anonymous No.14767009]

>>14766964
Seems oversocialized imo. Always concerning themselves with apperances

[Anonymous No.14767016]

>>14760030
nice

[Anonymous No.14767050]

>>14760017
>Humans are designed to establish and keep a mental link with God, and fight off hostile foreign invaders.
Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14767439]

>>14767050
>but the connection is wonky, that's why we have different religions across the world/time

[Anonymous No.14767593]

>>14766871
> there is actually no explanation for why they should generate consciousness

you are actually so fucking dumb hahaha

[Anonymous No.14767643]

>>14758558
>trust is good so we need to tell people a bunch of noble lies so they’ll trust others
Lol

[Anonymous No.14767844]

>>14758558
fukuyama is a painfully 19th century "modern" faggot that thinks he lives in the present

[Anonymous No.14767877]

>>14759258
In local news the color red is in fact red.

[Anonymous No.14767889]

>>14760640
So incredibly based

[Anonymous No.14768158]

>>14760140

>empirically proven

Science doesn't deal in proofs.

[Anonymous No.14768816]

>>14758432
Descartes tries, and if you want it enough you might even overlook the huge holes in his arguments. Better to take a university level course in evolution.
>>14759049
>something out of nothing
It's like watching a person who never learned to read say that he doesn't believe people could just look at symbols and hear words in their head.

[Anonymous No.14768890]

>>14767593
Go ahead, enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.14768896]

>>14768816
> It's like watching a person who never learned to read say that he doesn't believe people could just look at symbols and hear words in their head.

Funnily enough, that's how I feel explaining God to atheists.

[Anonymous No.14768943]

>>14758434
>I guess any book on elementary logic.

[Anonymous No.14769322]

>>14760590
unironically the only valid point I've seen in /lit/ in a long time. Neuroscience can't explain why experience exists, why "I" exist, not yet at least.
It's the big hole in the middle of the donut.
>Not a valid reason to believe in god, though

[Anonymous No.14769381]

>2020
>believing in God
>believing you will go to le bad place after death if you don't worship such god

Cringe. How much more dumb has /lit/ got?

[Anonymous No.14769429]

>>14758578
Yea, that's exactly why logic - a purely physical construct - cannot even say anything about the metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.14769452]

>>14761087
The Hindu concept of Brahman is extremely different from the Judeo-Christian deity Yahweh. Just because we use the same general title - "God" - for both, does not make them equivalent as entities. Doing so just diminishes the concept of God altogether, rendering it into something so malleable it becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14769478]

>>14758432
>muh original sin
>muh jesus saved us from sin
>but you are still a sinner
You can't dismantle atheism because you base your arguments on bullshit written by lying humans.
Only once the word of god is revealed to you will you be able to actually dismantle atheism until then you are just parroting the lies of madmen who misuse gods name to control people.

[Anonymous No.14769506]

>>14769381
I'm somewhere in the middle of the theist-atheist dialectic. I believe that "God" is an infinite consciousness-intelligence that all of us are the localized manifestations of. Natural Law is essentially "love", of the universal and non-anthropic variety, rather than rules on sexual orientations or dietary allowances. God enters into finitude for the sake of learning what it cannot learn while strictly infinite - creating the universe and becoming a mortal participant within it gives God a new vantage by which it can understand reality in way it could not otherwise. We don't have access to our vaster creative or intellectual capacities while embodied in these mortal human vessels, however, because we're meant to be learning things of a different nature while here - not to behave like "Gods".

I have never believed in a singular, personal God nor the idea that one has to "worship X deity or else have a bad afterlife".

Check out the "Law of One" book series online if you'd like a clearer elaboration of my worldview. It's a really fascinating series of books, even if you don't believe the information within is true.

[Anonymous No.14769545]

>>14769322
Not by itself, but it is the most visceral proof that there are things outside the scope of science. Neuroscience won't ever be able to explain it, as it's not reductive enough: the brain is just atoms like everything else. Only physics could somehow come up with an explanation, and that seems impossible because no one is expecting to find some previously unobserved physical phenomenon inside the brain.

[Anonymous No.14769553]

>>14769452
The Indians have the parable of the blind men and the elephant for this. God is the elephant, the blind men are the various religions. The atheists haven't touched the elephant, and so claim there is nothing there at all.