/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14882339]

>religion isn't allegory and metaphor it is 100% literal

Is there a greater midwit opinion?

[Anonymous No.14882368]

>if there's no morality without God then how come atheists can be moral

[Anonymous No.14882376]

>>14882339
I have never seen a midwit claim that religion is supposed to be taken completely literally. It's usually very dumb people or smart people who are taking the piss that go for that position.

[Anonymous No.14882379]

>>14882368
Atheist values are secularized religious values

[Anonymous No.14882384]

>>14882339
Religion is allegorical/metaphorical and also 100% literal

[Anonymous No.14882392]

>>14882339
>>14882376
This op, the only people taking it literally are also taking unconscious liberties with other portions (because the book itself IS contradictory) i.e. dumbass American protestants who think that Christianity amounts to dressing your life up like a bible themed pageant

[Anonymous No.14882396]

>>14882384
this

[Anonymous No.14882405]

Religion is the best thing for putting a sense of goodness into one heart. This is because it exercises a part of your brain that makes other people as important. It also increases ones intuition, so you'll knowbyoureelf better and increase your emotional intelligenc, as well as develop wisdom.

[Anonymous No.14882433]

>>14882339
No, with the caveat that this is a midwit opinion in the nonreligious who think that religion is about literalism. But also >>14882384

[Anonymous No.14882518]

>>14882339
It is an IQ test. Intelligence consists of being able to conceptualize and process abstract concepts. Can you be given a platonic form and use its shadow to make it 2d instead of 3d? Most people are borderline retarded and can't. When they read the books they can't understand any abstract ideas they can only process it literally as it is written so yes they are midwits, if that, they are just stupid actually.

[Anonymous No.14882526]

>>14882339
>religion is pure 100% allegory and metaphor

[Anonymous No.14882630]

>>14882368

This has to be the worst of them all. Shows tremendous ignorance, misunderstanding and most of all arrogance.

[Anonymous No.14883123]

>>14882405
>best

Anyway, myth and fairy tales. Read some old things for children, try to understand them within their context, and you'll be pretty close to understanding religion.
The trick is oral history.

[Anonymous No.14883218]

>>14882384
Based

[Anonymous No.14884606]

>>14882339
Complete leap into faith justifies anything. Grasping of the infinite is based in (almost) all cases.

[Anonymous No.14884676]

>>14882339
>It is the privilege of true genius, and certainty of the genius that opens a new road, to make without punishment great mistakes
Anyone can feign incredulity until it is socially convenient to dispense with it. People that don't find this place and our discourse in it extremely uncanny are more deceived than the textual literalists they bemoan.

[Anonymous No.14884691]

>>14882630
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.14884702]

>>14882339
That's a high brow opinion . The Buddha and his retractable penis were 100% real.

[Anonymous No.14884755]

>>14882339
Religion is 100% literal and 100% metaphorical tehe

[Anonymous No.14885765]

>>14884691
It misunderstands the question to be about whether the existence of god makes people follow the christian morals or not, rather than about the fact that the existence of god upholds and validates these morals in the first place. When someone asks "Can you be moral without God?" the question isn't can you act in a certain way without "reward or punishment etc.", but are there any absolute morals to act by.

After this misunderstanding and ignorance on basic philosophical and religious concepts they arrogantly boast about having a true answer to one of the biggest questions of mankind, without actually having any base or support for their actual argument, which in the case of these Dawkings-types is just assumption of the morals of their time, i.e. somewhat degraded christian morals as "common sense". They are unable to answer why someone should respect their moral system, but this somehow isn't a problem for them.

[Anonymous No.14885788]

>>14885765

>They are unable to answer why someone should respect their moral system, but this somehow isn't a problem for them.

>I am not moral because I have the constitution of character and virtue, but only because I have the fear of divine retribution

If you're trying to unironically argue that morality only derives from God for fear of his wrath from breaking from his morality - you completely eradicate human capacity to act morally at all, which is a hilarious performative contradiction because - you know - there are humans who act outside of God's grace and still behave morally

[Anonymous No.14885789]

>>14882339
It's based on a literal truth but not expressed 100% literally, why is that hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.14885802]

>>14885789

>based on truth
>based on truth
>based on truth

You're a faggot. This statement is not true but based on truth.

[Anonymous No.14885923]

>>14885788

Is this the state of reading comprehension on here these days?

[Anonymous No.14886147]

>>14885788
superbly crafted bait

[Anonymous No.14886358]

>>14882339
Going a month without touching 4chan really highlights how revoltingly stupid the majority of people here are.
>>14885789
This is the only sensible post.

[Anonymous No.14887471]

>>14885788
Morals don't exist whidout God.
It's not about behaviour but about morality existing. You already presuppose that there is good when you say atheist can act good. Even tho they reject anything outside mater. If you do that then there is no good to act bay hence you can't act righteous or bad. It's all the same

[Anonymous No.14887509]

>>14882384
this. Our conception of literal and logical can only describe tiny perspectives of truth.

The full "literal" truth can only be expressed metaphorically.