/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14775598]

Post books that absolutely BTFO theists!!

[Anonymous No.14775603]

>>14775598
the bible

[Anonymous No.14775607]

>>14775598
> Buddhism isn’t a religion
Discarded.

[~[[[-_-]]]~ Urantia Thought Ad(...) No.14775730]

>>14775598
>absolutely BTFO Dawkins and his God delusion

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously.

The Dawkins Confusion
Naturalism 'ad absurdum'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfA8mWGRv0w

[Anonymous No.14775766]

>>14775730
>Alvin "If I imagine something I like it must exist" Plantinga
Do theistfags really? I would think you should be familiar with a bare minimum regurgitation of Hume and Kant to post here.

[Anonymous No.14775809]

>>14775766
>believe that you're literally an inept sock puppet of physics because there's no free will and everything is naturally predetermined yet somehow keep and air of personality and personal superiority in discussions on mongol throat singing board
do atheistfags really?

[Anonymous No.14775852]

>>14775809
struck a nerve?
not my fault you fell for hucksters like plantinga or wlc, maybe you should spend more time learning and less time watching youtube, zoomer

[Anonymous No.14775905]

>>14775766
>>14775852

Naturalism is the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God. So taken, it is stronger than atheism; it is possible to be an atheist without rising to the heights (or sinking to the depths) of naturalism. A follower of Hegel could be an atheist, but, because of his belief in the Absolute, fail to qualify for naturalism; similarly for someone who believed in the Stoic's Nous, or Plato's Idea of the Good or Aristotle's Prime Mover. This definition of naturalism is a bit vague: exactly how much must an entity resemble God to be such that endorsing it disqualifies one from naturalism? Perhaps the definition will be serviceable nonetheless; clear examples of naturalists would be Bertrand Russell ("A Free Man's Worship"), Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea), Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker), the late Stephen J. Gould, David Armstrong, and the many others that are sometimes said[1] to endorse "The Scientific Worldview."

Naturalism is presumably not, as it stands, a religion. Nevertheless, it performs one of the most important functions of a religion: it provides its adherents with a worldview. It tells us what the world is fundamentally like, what is most deep and important in the world, what our place in the world is, how we are related to other creatures, what (if anything) we can expect after death, and so on. A religion typically does that and more; it also involves worship and ritual. These latter are ordinarily (but not always) absent from naturalism; naturalism, we could therefore say, performs the cognitive or doxastic function of a religion. For present purposes, therefore, we can promote it to the status of an honorary religion, or at any rate a quasi-religion. And now we must ask the following question: is there a conflict between naturalism, so understood, and science? If so, then indeed there is a science/religion conflict--not, however, between science and Christian (or Judaic, or Islamic) belief, but between science and naturalism.

Naturalism vs. Evolution: A Religion/Science Conflict?
Alvin Plantinga

[Anonymous No.14775928]

>>14775905
>orthodoxy exists
Wow. Powerful.

[Anonymous No.14775932]

>>14775598

[Anonymous No.14776010]

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins's naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science.

People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

***

The God Delusion is, in the end, full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God is mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/science-or-naturalism-the-contradictions-of-richard-dawkins/10100636

[Anonymous No.14776022]

>>14775928
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.14776037]

>>14776010
>The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe
>atheism bad because it hurts my feelings
damn. powerful.

[Anonymous No.14776050]

>>14775603
based
>>14775598
>haha LE EBIN fedora
i smell a false flag.

[Anonymous No.14776055]

>>14775852
>struck a nerve?

[Anonymous No.14776070]

>>14775852
>struck a nerve?

[Anonymous No.14776096]

>>14775730
How does one even become a philosopher? Anyone can become a philosopher and study/preach philosophy

Your entire post is just an appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.14776105]

>>14775852
>struck a nerve?

[Anonymous No.14776113]

>>14775852
>struck a nerve?

[Anonymous No.14776114]

>>14775598
This board is for the discussion of literature. Please take your pulp fiction elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.14776123]

>>14776037
>atheism is dumb because its wrong

[Anonymous No.14776144]

>>14776037
>atheist argument fails to hold any logical weight
>atheist reply doesn't even respond to this, just goes straight to insults about fee-fees
Projecting hard imo

[Anonymous No.14776150]

>>14775852
>struck a nerve?

[Anonymous No.14776175]

>>14776096
>How does one even become a philosopher?
By studying philosophy and reading texts. The purpose of doing so is to properly understand the long tradition of arguments in the subjects you're discussing, and to facilitate better reasoning. The texts are meant to engage your critical thinking by giving you patterns of argument and logic in ways summaries won't give. After all, what kind of chemist learns chemistry by restructuring al the basic principles by himself? You could say the same of an electrician, a welder, or any other occupation. Reading the previous texts opens your mind to errors and bad arguments you may have had without it.
Atheists like Dawkins make obvious errors, especially when dealing with figures like Aquinas. They didn't need to even read their books to resolve this, necessarily, just read some basic material which scholars have compiled. They are arguing strawmen, in essence, taking on fallacious caricatures that don't represent any true theistic tradition, and represent a layman or the uneducated at best.

>Anyone can become a philosopher and study/preach philosophy
I guess so. Then anyone can become a plumber, lawyer, biologist, or the President of the USA, if anyone can become a philosopher. Too bad Dawkins hasn't really tried.
>Your entire post is just an appeal to authority
His post conveys that Dawkins makes bad arguments that convince pseuds and midwits, and that he could realize how faulty they are by being trained in the field he doesn't realize he's in.

[Anonymous No.14776195]

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.14776200]

>>14776195
>Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.
WTF I love religiosity now

[Anonymous No.14776218]

>>14776195
Thanks for another edition of your astroturf shill campaign, fag.
We'll just ignore the fact that Roger Bacon, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Leonhard Euler, Kurt Goedel, and most of the founders of modern science were Christians.

[Anonymous No.14776221]

>>14776195
>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
This has been disproven many times. Furthermore, it has been empirically proven that IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14776226]

>>14775852

[Anonymous No.14776227]

>>14776221
>Furthermore, it has been empirically proven that IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14776229]

>>14776195
I'd just like to remind you that I'm aware of what your endgame is. You don't know who or where I am but you do know what I am, you've always known.
Keystones are inexchangeable.

[Anonymous No.14776235]

The funny thing is that the first time he reads this he will read it as keystones are interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.14776240]

>>14776218
>people who lived during an age where you’d be burnt at the stake for not being Christian claimed to be Christian publicly
woah...

[Anonymous No.14776264]

>>14776240
That's some flat earth tier argument right there friend. Please go check your balls for hair and report back.

[Anonymous No.14776273]

If I start my story with a flashforward, do I call it “Prologue” “Chapter 0?”
calling it chapter 1 just feels wrong

[~[[[-_-]]]~ Urantia Thought Ad(...) No.14776276]

>>14776195

Religion and Mental Health
The amassed research indicates that higher levels of religious belief and practice (known in social science as "religiosity") is associated with better mental health. In particular, the research suggests that higher levels of religiosity are associated with lower rates of depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and suicidal behavior. Religiosity is also associated with better physical health and subjective well-being.

Likewise, research indicates that religiosity can enhance recovery from mental illness, aiding in the healing process. For example, one classic research study shows that recovery from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is better in countries with higher levels of religiosity.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link

[~[[[-_-]]]~ Urantia Thought Ad(...) No.14776284]

>>14776195
The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.

CONCLUSIONS:
There is evidence that religious involvement is usually associated with better mental health.

Religiousness and mental health: a review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924349

[Anonymous No.14776289]

>>14776240
>people who lived during an age where you’d be burnt at the stake for not being Christian claimed to be Christian publicly
Have any other pseudohistorical platitudes? That's not true, and Kurt Goedel lived in the 20th century.
You realize that Descartes lived during the 30 Years War, and there were massive wars between Catholics and Protestants, and that the Church didn't have absolute control over everyone's persona life, right? There were secularized regimes in the era. Yet Descartes still laboriously went to make a proof for the existence of God and the soul.
You Realize Galileo was willing to make enemy of himself against the Pope, and insulted him, all for what he believed was true, yet never espoused athesm and was still a Christian?
You realize not only was Roger Bacon a Christian, he a Franciscan Friar?
There were atheists and nonchristian deists in these times (See: Spinoza, and he lived in a more stringent environment than most other Euro philosophers). And you would know this if you did any reading, because guys like Descartes acknowledge that atheists exist and they do make arguments.
The idea that there was some universal inquisition for an entire millennia is absurd. And you're a fucking liar for perpetuating it.

[Anonymous No.14776295]

>>14775598
How do I get familiar with the traditional arguments in this debate within a reasonable timeframe? Any unbiased /lit/?

[Anonymous No.14776299]

>>14776273
Prologue is fine. You could call it whatever number it is chronologically but it might confuse some readers from the get go if the first chapter is chapter 11

[Anonymous No.14776329]

>>14776295
Honestly, Dawkins isn't even worth debating. I learned years ago from my Lebanese friend that the best way to deal with them is to simply state that you have tried to understand evolution, you've had it explained to you, but no matter what you just don't get it probably because not intelligent enough.

[Anonymous No.14776336]

>>14776218
>We'll just ignore the fact that Roger Bacon, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Leonhard Euler, Kurt Goedel, and most of the founders of modern science were Christians.

Different times. Now you would have a hard time finding a scientist that matters who is openly christian. You know I'm right.

[Anonymous No.14776349]

>>14776284
>religion is a literal cope

[Anonymous No.14776350]

>>14776276
>people who lack the initiative to challenge absurd things their parents tell them are happier than people who may overthink things
Wow, so this is the power of theism.

[Anonymous No.14776359]

>>14776336
>Now you would have a hard time finding a scientist that matters who is openly christian
Desu that’s just because they’re all Jews or Chinese

[Anonymous No.14776363]

>>14776336
>Now you would have a hard time finding a scientist that matters who is openly christian.
So it took the educational system being centralized and reformed by atheists for this to be so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
Also , I think you miss the point. The idea that religion stifles scientific innovation is plainly refuted by the fact that almost all the founders of science were religious.

[Anonymous No.14776386]

>>14776299
Thanks a ton

[Anonymous No.14776388]

>>14776264
>>14776289
Seething christoids. Guess how I know you’re the kind of guys who autistically screech about muh subversion of academia by secularists

[Anonymous No.14776397]

>>14776363
True, if you don't maintain the religious conditioning at all times there are a lot fewer Christians. Gotta keep the brainwashing up. Except all the non believing graduates of Christian schools out there. Lots and lots of those considering how many kids in some of the best-educated and most secular states went to Catholic school.

[Anonymous No.14776404]

>>14776388
I'm not a Christian

[Anonymous No.14776407]

>>14776350
or God and spiritual values are real and being religious benefits mental health and happiness

[Anonymous No.14776408]

>>14776363
>The idea that religion stifles scientific innovation is plainly refuted by the fact that almost all the founders of science were religious.

Such a brainlet argument. The demographics of their times were completely different, and so was the intellectual development achieved during that era. Science and philosophy are far bigger now that people back then could even dream of.

[Anonymous No.14776436]

>>14776407
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

OH NO NO NO NO
THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING CHRISTBROS, MAGIC WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REAL, NOT JUST A PLACEBO

[Anonymous No.14776450]

>>14776388
>>14776397
>>14776408
>the fact that our culture is different now means that atheism is right

[Anonymous No.14776457]

>>14776408
Erm, muslim scientists in the middle ages?

[Anonymous No.14776462]

>>14776450
>learn new things
>adapt and change beliefs
No you're right that's impossible.

[Anonymous No.14776498]

>>14776408
It's funny how you always argue in bad faith, always disingenuously. It's like you're willfully misunderstanding the argument.
Here's the original thesis:
>Religion stifles science
But science was created by religious men. So how does it follow that religion stops science, when the very creators of science followed a religion? How does it follow, when some of the greatest minds and mathematicians of the last century were religious, such as Goedel, von Braun, and Ramanujan?
That's the actual argument, a refutation of the original thesis.

>The demographics of their times were completely different
The main difference was that there were far less people and automation that could facilitate massive engineering and administrative projects, via the division of labor, as we have today. Such things makes funding of further specialized and insular pursuits possible (and that's due to the Industrial revolution, which was not a direct result of the scientific revolution).

[Anonymous No.14776519]

>>14776055
>>14776070
>>14776105
>>14776113
>>14776150
>>14776218
>>14776226
>>14776227
>>14776450
(you)

[Anonymous No.14776573]

>>14776498
Science came into being as a discipline in a time and place where virtually no one was atheist, thus it shouldn’t be a surprise the first scientists were mostly religious. This does nothing to refute the original thesis, namely that the more religious societies are, the less scientifically prolific they are.

[Anonymous No.14776699]

>>14775598
Look the Atheist bible