/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14919263]

I'm new to this board and I can't help but notice that quite a large number of people here appear to have some form of a belief in God.

Now, assuming that these assertions are made in earnest (I apologize in advance if the irony is lost on me), but what reasoning could those of you who are theists possibly have for a presumably omniscient/omnipotent being for which no evidence exists.

Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era? Things don't need evidence to exist?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that there exists a significant positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?

[Anonymous No.14919268]

Excellent bait thread; you perfectly encapsulate the mindset of a pseud

[Anonymous No.14919269]

Didn't read whose she?

[Anonymous No.14919293]

>>14919269
I wish I knew. A creation of an all-powerful entity, some might have you believe.

*cackles in atheist*

[Anonymous No.14919323]

>>14919263
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.14919335]

>>14919263
Because of want.

[Anonymous No.14919353]

>>14919269
She?

[Anonymous No.14919361]

>>14919323
Oh I've read plenty of Classical literature. The Greeks, the Romans, all with marvelous pantheons. Could you elaborate on your point a trifle??

[Anonymous No.14919366]

>>14919263
don't mix up ontology and epistemology + that we cannot grasp God is part of His transcendent nature

[Anonymous No.14919385]

>>14919263
Read Will to Believe and Pensées

[Anonymous No.14919391]

>>14919353
ass

[Anonymous No.14919394]

>>14919366
Don't mix up what 'is' with what we can know, in other words? The two are inextricably linked.

>that we cannot grasp God is part of His transcendent nature

Is this part scripture or how did you come to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.14919406]

>>14919361
His point is that you would not be asking this question if you followed the /lit/ lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.14919410]

>>14919385
The Will to Believe has been met with nigh universal criticism. Read The Will to Doubt for the counterargument - if we don't employ doubt as our default position when determining what is true, none of our beliefs possess any value.

[Anonymous No.14919412]

>>14919263
It is more logical to believe in a god/religion then not.

[Anonymous No.14919415]

>>14919410
>none of our beliefs possess any value.
How does a belief possess value anyway?

[Anonymous No.14919441]

>>14919412
You haven't given any reasons.

>>14919415
I concede that some don't value the quest for truth. But from a philosophical standpoint, determining what is true is axiomatically a worthwhile endeavour.

[Anonymous No.14919443]

>>14919441
>But from a philosophical standpoint, determining what is true is axiomatically a worthwhile endeavor.
Why?

[Anonymous No.14919458]

>>14919269
>she

[Anonymous No.14919460]

>>14919443
Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

It is by definition concerned with truth.

[Anonymous No.14919464]

There's no truth, only the revestiment of some unreachable something. It's all ghosts in the end, you have the ability to raise a phantom castle or a small phantom hut, which one would you choose?

[Anonymous No.14919473]

>>14919269
Amanda Lee

[Anonymous No.14919475]

>>14919269
Simple image search returns Amanda Elise. At least try coomnigga

[Anonymous No.14919476]

>>14919464
What I'm hearing is: My belief may be invalid but so is yours. Therefore having a belief that is more convenient to me is the one worth having.

Am I right?

[Anonymous No.14919479]

Historically and even now to an extent, believing in God was a socially-enforced norm, such that a person who didn’t often reflect on their beliefs invariably believed in God, per their instinct toward conformity and their inability to withstand the pressures of nonconformity. Granting this, it is obvious that high intelligence would be correlated with atheism, as the former is necessary to reject the assumptions of ones peers and to form and defend a different conclusion. This isn’t evidence that atheism is correct, just that it’s unpopular. Were society almost entirely atheist, we would instead observe a correlation between theism and intelligence, by the exact same mechanism.

[Anonymous No.14919490]

>>14919460
No, it is by definition concerned with wisdom, and wisdom transcends knowing truth. Socrates said, “I know that I know nothing,” and for that, he was wise. If we cannot know the truth, then from a simply pragmatic perspective, we must believe in things that we cannot prove. Everyone does this every day, but the skeptics and atheists who pretend to be pure rationalists will try to squirm and deny this, saying that they’re merely “confident” in certain claims based on reason, not knowing that confidence and faith are synonymous. The difference between the theist and the atheist is that one believes it is better to believe in God while the other doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.14919491]

>>14919441
Pascal's wager.

[Anonymous No.14919493]

>>14919263
Can't tell if bait or you're the embodiment of Reddit.
People have religious beliefs or a spiritual life, because they need something to aim for, something transcended beyond themselves to strive to. If you don't believe there is anything above you, you're most likely doomed to live a life of apathy.
Of course this does not ring true 100% of the time, people can make their own belief systems, but that can drive a man mad.
I.E Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.14919497]

>>14919476
>Therefore having a belief that is more convenient to me is the one worth having.
Yes

[Anonymous No.14919502]

>>14919491
> mfw lose the wager because I believed in the wrong deity

[Anonymous No.14919507]

>>14919490
Socrates also said that philosophy is inextricably linked with truth in Book 6 of the Republic

[Anonymous No.14919509]

>>14919476
Depends on what you think by convenience. I don't blindly believe in any particular form of god, nor eternity, I just ponder we know such little, there's so much uncertainty, that the things I 'believe' (shit word btw) are those that suit my experience of reality the better.
There's no axioms without a leap to that axiom.

[Anonymous No.14919514]

>>14919502
Pascal showed why Christianity is the best religion in Pensées (which also contains the wager). Before even getting into the reasons concerning the validity of the religions, Christianity seems the most practical, given that Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one may come to the Father except through me.” Yet it is possible to be a good Christian and not suffer horribly in other religions.

[Anonymous No.14919526]

>>14919263
Ask a deity you feel connected with for help and not with something too vague or abstract

[Anonymous No.14919542]

i just do. why is that so hard for normies to understand?

[God1 No.14919545]

>>14919263
Dude, listen. You should read more.
There is literally nothing objective in our world. You are limited by your sensory organs.
I mean, yea, we could throw god in a trashcan for whatever reason, but together with him you have to throw your moral and ethic conclusions, your belief in linearity of time and belief in progress.
Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Most importantly, throw in the trash can your belief, that people with whom you are talking with actually understand what you are saying. Since, well, you can really objectively prove that

[Anonymous No.14919555]

>>14919406
This

>>14919361
>>14919263

If you truly read the Greeks in earnest I dont think that would be your reply, since most of the deeper metaphysical texts really dont focus on the pantheon proper much, and tend to more focus on some form of Monad. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Plotinus etc. They almost always call upon the gods plural as archetypes and points of public cohesion.

Also, In the long history of Philosophy, A singular God has been a potent force in different worldviews. From Hegel's God as geist and consiousness, To Spinoza's Pantheism, to Hindu Brahmin and Atman, and the Enlightenment view as God as the Infinite, or nature, in contrast to the finite.

In the Western, as well as Eastern Traditions, the Idea of the One God has been a powerfully one.

[God1 No.14919585]

>>14919263
Oh, and don't forget to get rid of belief of causality. Your scientific models have nothing to do with the real world and truth

[Anonymous No.14919589]

>>14919293
*cringes in materialist*

[Anonymous No.14919604]

>>14919476
If someone believes he has found validation in something like god, then mocking him simply implies you still haven't found something to validate yourself with.

[Anonymous No.14919606]

>>14919476
Sure, but you're assuming that accuracy = convenience.

[Anonymous No.14919608]

>>14919263
>Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that there exists a significant positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?
There's also a significant positive correlation between high intelligence and transgenderism, suicide, and other fundamentally insane things.

[Anonymous No.14919622]

God is an aesthetic answer to the problem of ethics

[Anonymous No.14919624]

>>14919460
>the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
you’re thinking of science desu

[Anonymous No.14919628]

>people actually replied to a thread with such obvious implicit and explicit provocations
>I am actually taking the time to complain about it
Slow night this Friday huh

[Anonymous No.14919644]

>>14919490
>not knowing that confidence and faith are synonymous
definitely not true, faith is by definition non rational whilst the "atheists" you refer to here's confidence would lie on a degree of proof (although limited, as you said, but certainly relying on more evidence than your 'faith'). An atheist would not just believe that the earth is round out of any abstract feeling or intangible sensation for example (well, not a rational one anyway).

[Anonymous No.14919656]

>>14919263
>Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era? Things don't need evidence to exist?
the way you interpret facts is going to be colored by your worldview so really it's a case by case thing. like as a Christian, the fall of man and the world has a lot to do with how I'm going to interpret scientific speculation. this is why I don't accept evolution and the big bang, but I'm not saying I don't think the Christian God can be proved or that the scientific method is false. Now, I don't think that God can be proved through the scientific method, which is where I think most apologetics fall apart and kept me as an atheist for most of my life. Really where we have to attack this is at the presuppositional level and the examine the things that are presupposed in the scientific method. These would be things like logic, identity over time, numbers, truth, being able to predicate about things in the real world. None of these things can be proved through the scientific method because they have to be presupposed the scientific method in order for you perform the scientific method. So we have these abstract concepts that are immaterial and have to be constant in order for us to have a coherent model of reality, but in the atheistic worldview you have only a few options where you can go to solve this. You can assume them in a pragmatic sense while not actually thinking they have any constant grounding in reality. The problem with this is you lose the ability to predicate about ANYTHING with justification because your very starting point is arbitrary. You can say these things do exist and are constant and suppose an entity that connects all these things together, and at this point I would just say that the only coherent entity that could do this would be the Christian God. Or you could just claim determinism but to defend the determinist world view you have to use the abstract concepts you deny to deny those abstract concepts, which is contradictory. So we would prove it through a reductio ad absurdum in the Christian God being the only thing that can provide a coherent model for the reality we exist in.
>Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that there exists a significant positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?
16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

[Anonymous No.14919664]

>>14919644
If confidence were rational, it wouldn’t be confidence, but rationality.
>confide
>con + fide
>with faith

[Anonymous No.14919669]

>>14919263
>>14919293
>>14919361
>>14919394
>>14919410
>>14919441
>>14919460
>>14919476
I believe in a god* because the alternative (that the world exists for no reason other than a series of cosmic coincidences) is depressing, and I'd rather not waste my short time in the world trying to figure out an answer to a question which will never be answered. You cannot prove that there is no god, and I cannot prove that there is a god, so the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that you feel like spending your time asking people Reddit-tier questions is a good time, somehow.
With regard to the correlation between atheism and high IQ: it's correlated with higher than average IQ, yes, but not geniuses. You're stuck squarely in the midwit section, 105 < x < 135.
*Not the Judeo-Christian God. The one true deity is Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

[Anonymous No.14919704]

Atheist
>God doesn't exist
Man of Science
>Prove your claim
Atheist
>No, you prove the inverse of my claim

[Anonymous No.14919717]

>>14919622
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14919731]

>>14919263
1. There is no conclusive evidence for or against God, and there never will be. It is an ontological paradox.
2. Science and God are not mutually exclusive, as your propaganda would have you believe.
3. Quantifying intelligence and using it to classify people is Top Tier Bullshit, and I would dissuade you from making a habit of it.

[Anonymous No.14919741]

Holy fuck you sound like a faggot

[Anonymous No.14919743]

>>14919731
first conclusion good, second questionable but more or less harmless, third wrong and harmful
intelligence can be assessed in such a way that people who clearly possess greater or lesser analytic capacity, memory recall speed, and spatial reasoning can be separated from the average. claiming otherwise is a cope

[Anonymous No.14919751]

>>14919263
If I had to guess you're probably 20-24

[Anonymous No.14919759]

>>14919743
You can quantify intelligence, sure, and you can use it to analyze a group, but you must regard an individual as an individual. It's impossible to know where any one datum stands on its respective bell curve.
Plus, it's kind of rude.

[Anonymous No.14919763]

>>14919269
based

[Anonymous No.14919770]

>>14919743
On your last point, Intelligence is an abstract Idea. I do not disagree that we can asses ones general mental ability with those things in a qualitative way, but I would hardly say its fully emperical. Its like saying you can quantify Justice, which presupposes hard definitions for what is just. You can give a general answer giving a few statistical points, like how often officers follow the letter of the law, but it will never be an objective, only indicative.

[Anonymous No.14919830]

>>14919491
pascal's wager has been universally recognized as highly biased towards the existance of a God. Whether you choose to believe in God or not, the underlying premise behind it is that there is indeed a God.

[Anonymous No.14919892]

>>14919743
Intelligence doesn't equate higher thought. Generally, people are molded by society into acceptable forms of thought, either through education, exposure to media, or the zeitgeist. For example, socialist realism in the USSR, or how millions of bright young Americans take on massive amounts of debt at the start of their lives without any further thought, only because it is expected of them and their peers. Even the smartest people are capable of adopting a position as their own by accepting the source as credible, without examining the arguments behind it. "The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it." Humans have to be challenged to think, and shocked in order to change their worldviews. It is easier, simpler, and more comfortable to not think. Ignorance is truly bliss.

[Anonymous No.14919918]

I used to be atheist when I believed science would eventually explain everything. Now that I realize science is structurally incapable of such a feat, I became open to other sources of knowledge and wisdom, which led me here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

All that is needed is the realization there is a reality beyond empiricism.

[Anonymous No.14919929]

Dismissing any real answer to your question for a second, I do believe that many on this board are earnest in their belief. However, I also believe that many on this board use religion as a nihilist act of rebellion against a world which hates religion. You see this with NEETdom also. In a world where you can do anything, the most rebellious thing to do is nothing at all. So much of this is just performance art.

[Anonymous No.14920047]

>>14919664
No, not at all, you have confidence in something because of a reason. For example, I have confidence that Simon will complete the task on time, because in the past I've seen him to be a diligent worker.

Confidence is simply not as blind as faith is, and yes you could consider confidence to have an aspect of rationality in it. And no, the word rationality wouldn't be used in its place as it specifically refers to faith based on limited and incomplete rationality or proof.

Also if you're use of the etymology confidere is insincere and dubious, the 'faith' you refer to in a religious context is not the same fide that would have been used with the verb confidere, in the same way having faith in someone or something doesn't at all mean anything to do with the religious connotations.

[Anonymous No.14920057]

>>14920047
>you have confidence in something because of a reason
As opposed to having faith in things for absolutely no reason at all?

[Anonymous No.14920086]

>>14919743
Sir, you may have wondered why you are being met with such criticism.

Believing in IQ is indeed stupid and in no way good.

1. The IQ test is developed by a Jew
2. The highest scoring IQ's are Ashkenazi Jews.

Now if we wanted to, we could see the example of, say, an African-American person's IQ test and I would wager 1000 bucks that black people would score highest on that test. Why? Because different races are different, you stupid fuck.

The only reason IQ exists is to quantify how similar someone is to an Ashkenazi Jew.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14920088]

>>14919704
>Still offended at a word
>Still fumbling around this much to cope

[Anonymous No.14920095]

>>14920057
Yes. Or no rational reasons anyway.

Just had a look at its definitions and the second definition (which we are discussing, rather than the first which is confidence/trust) was:

"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

[Anonymous No.14920103]

>>14919263
Explain the bible without splurging.

[Anonymous No.14920105]

>Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that there exists a significant positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?

yea i'm thinking bait.

nothing wrong with believing in something like God when your alternative is fuckin materialism, you bugman.

[Anonymous No.14920108]

>>14920086
bruh, I'm not a supporter of the validity of quantifying consciousness or "intelligence" based off a singular instance of a test in abstract reasoning, but this is some cringe schizo shit with no basis in rationality.

For starters, how do you even design a test in analytical and abstract reasoning with shapes and various configurations to favour a particular racial group? Anon- I...

[Anonymous No.14920109]

>>14920088
>fumbling
Nigger do you know what this word means?

[Anonymous No.14920129]

We don't know what caused existence to exist in the first place but we know there must be a reason. That reason must transcend existence and non-existence, as well as everything in particular that exists, including consciousness. If that's not a God I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.14920132]

>>14919263
Exactly what a pseudointellectual and wannabe literary would say.

/thread

[Anonymous No.14920134]

>>14920095
>based on spiritual conviction rather than proof
Who says spiritual conviction isn’t proof?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14920140]

>>14920109
What does it mean in your language?

[Anonymous No.14920147]

>>14920088
Is it not possible there are men of science in the Bible? Those who believe in the words of past people who have spoken of God and still practice different forms of science? Unhindered by lesser ideas like natural evolution and subjective morality?

Butterfly, Roger Bacon clearly says that the search for truth is difficult, no one is absolutely perfect. Almost all of what Charles Darwin has stated was proven wrong so why should we take his original theories for granted?

Have you heard of Cuvier?

I am protecting intelligence here, academic discourse and knowledge. :3

[Anonymous No.14920156]

>>14920140
Don't respond to people who use the word 'Nigger' please :3

[Anonymous No.14920159]

>>14919644
>Christian concepts of faith (pistis) were borrowed from Greek rhetorical notions of pistis.[6] Christian pistis deems its persuasion in a positive light as the New Testament concepts of pistis require that a listener be knowledgeable of the subject matter at issue and thus able to fully assent.[6] Whereas, the Greeks took the notion of pistis as persuasive discourse that was elliptical and concentrated on the "affect and effect rather than on the representation of the truth."
8th grade level atheism

[Anonymous No.14920168]

>>14920108
If you can't see the correlation you just don't understand how this works.

Perception is radically different for different races. A Jewish-born person and someone from Africa, for instance, do not see the world the same. Which may be why they are unable to climb up the contemporary social ladder without outside assistance.

Acceptance of radically different perceptions for different races leads to better things than 'HURRR DIFFERENT RACES SMURT AND SUM DUMB', because if you think that's what I've been saying you must think that contemporary civilization is 'great' or even close to great.

[Anonymous No.14920172]

>>14919263

The evidence of God's existence is all around us, in things which are contingent, changing, and composite, which could not exist (because insofar as contingent, changing and composite, they have no existence in their own right) unless they derive from something non-contingent, unchanging and non-composition: some First Cause or Causes. It's deriving the conclusion from the evidence which can trip up some people.

The divine attributes swiftly follow: because it is simple, and multiplicability entails composition (i.e., a real division between what is common to the many and unique to the particular), the First Cause is unique. If everything contingent which there is or could be is an effect of the single First Cause, then the First Cause is omnipotent.

As the First Cause, it is in itself the complete first principle of all things, out of which at every moment they arise, and from which they derive. It is thus that which knowledge in us (which consists in understanding the many by means of their general principles), characteristically resembles and approaches. Thus, the First Cause, as the first principle of all things, is also the knower of all things: the First Cause is intelligent, and omniscient.

Since the First Cause is intelligent, and being simple he has no unintelligent component, his effects (i.e., all things other than himself) must arise by acts of will. He is not just a Cause, but a Creator. Since he wills the being of all things, and the good of all things is precisely the attainment of their respective mode of being, he wills the good of all things. Hence, he loves all things: the First Cause is omnibenevolent.

[Anonymous No.14920199]

>>14920172
I agree with most of this, but God does not love all things. :3

After all, evil exists. The Old Testament God and the God in the Quran are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.14920222]

>>14920134

Because it's entirely subjective. Perhaps it would qualify by all means to be satisfactory as a proof to yourself, but to the external world and what we commonly regard as proof (which is by its defining trait objective), it fails to satisfy.

The type of fantasy world you're living in would have people justifying all manners of insanity based on the foundation of some subjective and ineffable 'sensation'

[Anonymous No.14920226]

>>14920199

Evil isn't a 'thing,' but a privation in or perversion of a thing- properly speaking, it does not 'exist,' but refers to a lack in the being of something which does exist. Hence, of course God does not love evil. He does love the creature which is diminished or perverted through having evil, however- without that love, the creature could not exist even for a moment.

[Anonymous No.14920230]

>>14920222
You can’t prove that proof is objective. People’s spiritual experiences can count as proof

[Anonymous No.14920231]

>>14919410
>if we don't employ doubt as our default position when determining what is true, none of our beliefs possess any value.

This is actually 100% true.

[Anonymous No.14920236]

>>14919669
>waa waa, I'm depressed

Grow up.

[Anonymous No.14920243]

>>14920231
>This is actually 100% true.
I doubt it

[Anonymous No.14920245]

>>14920159
> origin of Greek faith was a focus on the "affect and effect rather than on the representation of the truth."
Is this really meant to prove me wrong or..?

[Anonymous No.14920248]

>>14920156
Newfag detected.
Hate speech is free speech. Don't rise to the bait, and don't take it too seriously.

[Anonymous No.14920250]

>>14920226
Some will steadfastly not turn their ways. This is what the Christians and Muslims would call an 'infidel'. They are spoken of wisely as those whose hearts are full of sin and will not turn their course.

If Butterfly continues in this route, steadfastly professing atheism, I will consider calling her an infidel, for instance. She has adopted the term 'intellectual', which in the contemporary academic climate is almost incompatible with belief in God -- for no good reason.

This is supposed to be an example of an academic culture, which does not believe in the atheistic dogma of today's academic regimes. And for the most part it is good - we believe in spherical earth, lots of economics discussions and mathematical discussions, but something that is very important is the rejection of natural evolution.

You can see this is a thorn in many people's sides. It reinforces infidelity towards God's and creates bad philosophies in mens hearts: "Only the strong survive" or IQ or something of this nature. :3

[Anonymous No.14920252]

>>14920243
A reasonable doubt is the only real standard.

[Anonymous No.14920261]

>>14920252
I doubt it

[Anonymous No.14920265]

>>14920248
Retard detected
Don’t respond to people who use the word «nigger» please :3

[Anonymous No.14920269]

>>14920265
Not me, but I agree, again. :3

[Anonymous No.14920275]

>>14920261
Your doubt isn't reasonable.

[Anonymous No.14920279]

>>14920230

I already conceded that people's spiritual experiences could count as proof TO THEM.

In terms of how the human brain rationalises, another's subjective experience beyond one's immediate self simply cannot serve as a firm foundation for one's own belief.

You can (and I'm sure you will) devolve into all kinds of linguistic loopholes and slights of hand to try and disprove the fact of that idea, although I doubt they'll convince anyone

[Anonymous No.14920284]

>>14920230
>People’s spiritual experiences can count as proof

Only to themselves. No one else is convinced.

[Anonymous No.14920289]

>>14920279
>In terms of how the human brain rationalises, another's subjective experience beyond one's immediate self simply cannot serve as a firm foundation for one's own belief.
I agree

[Anonymous No.14920293]

>>14920279
>>14920284
Nietzsche said it best: A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

[Anonymous No.14920296]

>>14920289
Wait are you the same meme man "you can't prove prove is objective" from before or another person?

[Anonymous No.14920299]

>>14920250

Certainly some will not mend their ways. No doubt, even many believers are among them- everyone needs grace. But as bad as the infidel is, and as bound as they are for permanent estrangement from God (i.e., damnation), that estrangement is not because God does not love them. He permits such a thing, and does not annihilate the infidel even after death, precisely because he loves them.

The worst thing about damnation is that even the love of God is, in sustaining an estranged existence, a torment to the damned.

[Anonymous No.14920300]

>>14920245
did you miss the part where there was a distinction between the typical greek use and the christian use or...

[Anonymous No.14920302]

>>14920296
yes

[Anonymous No.14920307]

>>14920300
No one care.

[Anonymous No.14920308]

>>14920293
Simply invoking 'lets call that person crazy' does not help.

What if there are a lot of spiritual experiences that people have that are labeled as 'schizophrenia'? What if you have a regime that habitually discourages communication with God? Then we run into quite a few different problems I would say with the state. Separation of church and state is one thing, but trying to interfere with God's communication and man is another.

[Anonymous No.14920321]

>>14920307
epic

[Anonymous No.14920323]

>>14920299
This post reeks of Christianity, something I try to help people stay away from :3

But what have you, keep saying that God loves all when he clearly does not. I don't care, you at least believe in your Creator, and that's more than I can say for many others.

[Anonymous No.14920327]

>>14920172
>>14920226
Very nice. I agree wholly about the ''problem'' of evil. And I like your first post about the First Cause. But could you clarify a bit more on this passage:
>It is thus that which knowledge in us (which consists in understanding the many by means of their general principles), characteristically resembles and approaches.

Do you mean that our intellectual faculty strive to achieve That which explains all things (the many)?

Help me also with this:
Its effects, operations and will are the same thing as what it is or are they different from it? If the latter how can it be simple and if the former how can it be different from its effects?

[Anonymous No.14920333]

>>14920308
It's more expensive than "that person is crazy." It means "without proof, faith means nothing."

Which you have not rebutted at all.

[Anonymous No.14920335]

>>14920300
Well I mean what you're basically telling me is that the original meaning of the concept (and from where Christians originally derived it) entirely supports the description of the nature of faith that was set out.

So... basically Christians changed the original meaning and ackshually faith totally requires one to be knowledgeable (knowledge not even necessarily meaning the same thing as rational proof either). Either way, this original meaning has certainly been lost to posterity and is of no real significance in the modern usage of 'faith'.

This is meant to btfo anyone how...?

[Anonymous No.14920341]

>>14920302
Ah well glad we agree, sorry for the hostile tone anyway, formed as a result of a natural expectation of a similar response in the realm of online dialogue, a hostility which has been branded into the fibres of my being like a hot iron.

[Anonymous No.14920353]

>>14920323
>This post reeks of Christianity, something I try to help people stay away from :3
hey :3 poster, i thought you were a very wholesome poster, you disappointed me

>But what have you, keep saying that God loves all when he clearly does not.
How not? He is the Good. He gives existence and power to all things even to turn away from Him and practice evil. But the more they indulge themselves in this deviation, the more they will lack the Causa, that to which all things strive to ''return'', so to speak.

[Anonymous No.14920355]

>>14920168
>Perception is radically different for different races
Anon... I'm gonna need a proof here, this is just a wildly general statement the likes that can be made for almost anything.

>A Jewish-born person and someone from Africa, for instance, do not see the world the same.

Again, can you provide any evidence that their consciousnesses, aside from physical difference in terms of appearance etc, really differ?

[Anonymous No.14920360]

>>14919263
If empirical evidence is your epistemic deity you must be a solipsist who does not believe in the past or the future. You cannot believe in your own reason, because it appears to your mind as self-evident, nor can you believe in your sensations and ‘physical’ experience. (airquotes because physical is worthless as a metaphysical term). An epistemology without God leaves you a self locked in an empty void. Now obviously you don’t actually believe anything you’re saying, you’re just trapped in a language game you don’t understand, denying the existence of things which you imminently experience because you do not realize they are what you deny. Read a book nigger.

Truly if you want to see if you have the gift, do this. Read Descartes Discourses repeatedly while watching the Matrix repeatedly. Reflect on the fact that both stories are saying fundamentally the same thing. If you have the gift, you’ll eventually have an epiphany, a moment where everything clicks in place, and you grasp that the empirical phenomena of the dream demon and the matrix are both unified by an underlying rational essence.

If you don’t hit this epiphany after a few weeks, you don’t have the gift, and you will never think outside the zeitgeist, outside the confines of your culturally enforced linguistic interpretations. In fact, sans epiphany, It will be debatable whether you’veever thought at all

[Anonymous No.14920368]

>>14920335
>Well I mean what you're basically telling me is that the original meaning of the concept (and from where Christians originally derived it) entirely supports the description of the nature of faith that was set out
>Thus, pistis in rhetoric are the elements to induce true judgment through enthymemes, hence to give proof of a statement.[3] There are three modes by which this is employed. The first mode is the "subject matter capable of inducing a state of mind within the audience."[4] The second pistis is the "subject itself considered under an appeal to the intellect or in its logical aspects."[4] The third pistis is the "logical, rational, and intellectual aspect of the issue under discussion."[5] All three modes of pistis occur in logos as it appeals to logical persuasion.[3]
>So... basically Christians changed the original meaning and ackshually faith totally requires one to be knowledgeable (knowledge not even necessarily meaning the same thing as rational proof either).
yes, different cultures sometimes use different words in different ways. the Christian conception differs because instead of it having a mostly rhetorical use, it requires one to have a deep understanding of the subject at hand
>Either way, this original meaning has certainly been lost to posterity and is of no real significance in the modern usage of 'faith'.
it depends on what denomination you fall under. yes it is true that many protestants do subscribe to fideism, which is the type of faith you're describing, but orthodox Christianity does not. So no you're wrong

[Anonymous No.14920384]

>>14919263
Shave the neckbeard and read Edward Feser's 5 proofs of Gods existence. While you're at it thrown in some Thomas Kuhn for that religious view of science.

[Anonymous No.14920408]

>>14920355
>I'm gonna need a proof here
Real life, it's just commonly accepted. I mean, honestly, it's one of those things that aren't scientifically defined, but you can just feel from actually communicating with people in real life (you know talking with people).

If you're some kind of sociology expert and you don't even talk with people, I'm sorry for you. :3

[Anonymous No.14920418]

>>14919493
>Reddit
Nice argument anon
>People need religion in order to find meaning
Holy Cope
>Atheists are apathetic
5th grader tier argument

[Anonymous No.14920426]

>>14919542
Because you clearly don't either

[Anonymous No.14920438]

>>14919263
> what reasoning could those of you who are theists possibly have for a...
-> There are countless books that explain the reasoning of belief: Lao Tzu, Zhuangzhhi, Homer, Bhagavad Gita, Plato, the Sufi poets, Buber, Augustine, Pascal, Alesteir Crowley, Abraham J. Heschel, Simone Weil, Paul Tillich, Boethius, James Joyce, Carl Jung, ... I could go on.

>... have [a reasoning] for a... for which no evidence exists.
-> You could ask atheists the same thing: "Why would you NOT believe in something for which you don't have any evidence" Yea, this is the unpopular counter argument, but ok, nevermind, here's the real one:
It is obviously the case that through all of human culture, history, society that there was some kind of religion present (heck even Marxism is by "smart" atheists considered a religion since it doesn't fit into their western secular world view shaped by Christianity). It's a fact that there's gotta be some kind of order/will to the universe/reality/world, but not because the universe/reality/world system require or don't require one, but because we humans do: we need one in order to explain the world to us: why we live, why we die, why we do anything and everything really. Because religion is not focused (solely) on some metaphysical grounds, it's (also) very practical and poetical, like the human mind. Religion works through stories, symbols, visions of the fantastical and the absurd, through parables and morals, through art, through human relationships, and so on.

> Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era?
-> Why would anyone "simply subscribe" to the scientific consensus. Scientists don't do this either. You have to test and prove something, you can't just subscribe to the concensus. No one should do this, we should question everything, it doesn't matter whether you are a theist or atheist (and you are being a bad atheist for assuming or suggesting something like this, because you don't spread your gospel, that is, the atheist gospel: "Don't just follow what some old book says, be rational and question everything")

> Things don't need evidence to exist?
-> To really answer this, we would have to know and understand how exactly things come into existence or non-existence, how exactly language, the senses, consciousness and the human brain works and so on... Anyway, again, if you look at history and the human need for religion in society and in the individual, you'll find a lot of evidence (where's the atheist utopia?)

> What are your thoughts ... that there exists a ... positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?
-> Doesn't mean shit if you don't cite anything. Still, it's impossible to say, since it depends on the place and time age and culture. Also, some of smartest people were, religious (Da Vinci, Pascal, the Greeks...)
Anyway, why would this even matter, isn't the atheistic argument: "We are supported by science and logic, not by the fallible human masses"

[Anonymous No.14920442]

>>14920418
It is because you obviously come from Reddit and are an atheist so it's.. .

TIME TO GO BACK :3

[Anonymous No.14920445]

>>14920368
Yeah orthodox Christians certainly do not base their faith on this kind of logical framework or proofing you've described.

Irregardless of your unique and original interpretation of what the Christian faith was based upon certainly by the modern understanding of the word (which was the essence of the previous discussion).

Your opinion on what faith really should be, as you had already forfeited is largely obsolete even in the modern Christian world outside of Orthodoxy, a claim which I am highly dubious of, my family themselves being Russian Orthodox certainly don't hold faith as something based on a rational or logical point of view, and neither did the likes of Dostoevsky - who from my understand adopted faith as an antidote to existential nihilism, rather than from any rational platform and indeed often he juxtaposes and pits rationality and faith against one another, such as in Ivan & Alyosha in BK (who off the top of my head is perhaps one of Orthodoxy's largest literary proponents) .

[Anonymous No.14920454]

>>14919460
What about philosophies that outright deny truth?

[Anonymous No.14920467]

>>14920408
>Well... there's no proof so to say for it but bruh, real life it's just commonly accepted bro, heh if you just talk to people (which I totally do and am not just a light-fearing troglodyte)

[Anonymous No.14920472]

Actualising your beliefs when faced with absolute conviction to the contrary, and still maintaining the cognitive agility necessary to honestly and fairly consider the beliefs of the opposition as valid, is practically the qualifying exam to the 115+ IQ club.
T. Atheist

[Anonymous No.14920479]

>>14920327

>Do you mean that our intellectual faculty strive to achieve That which explains all things (the many)?

Yes. It is our intellect which directs us toward the general principles of reality, and which remains unsatisfied as long as union with the first principle of all things eludes us. I'd quibble a bit with calling a first principle an 'explanation,' inasmuch as 'explanation' has connotations of some kind of proposition. The first principle of all things is the ontological reality which our attempts at explanation via propositions and language dimly approximate.

The interesting thing is, of course, that the creaturely intellect is unequal to the task it sets for itself. It is a signpost to the profounder union which is possible through faith (the supernatural orientation of the human being toward union with God) in God incarnate.

>Its effects, operations and will are the same thing as what it is or are they different from it? If the latter how can it be simple and if the former how can it be different from its effects?

The former. God is different from his effects (i.e., he is eternal, and they are not), because he does not create his effects through first generating a change in himself. He creates ex nihilo, without an ontological 'partner' (not even his own parts). In other words, he changes other things without himself changing. He is the cause of all things in the sense of being that upon which they rely at every instant of their being, but not in the sense of being some deterministic 'sufficient condition.'

[Anonymous No.14920488]

>>14919545
For as long as I have been, so have been others. I am aware my senses can lie, but I won't live my life fully devoted to solipsism. The only rational faith is the existence of others.

[Anonymous No.14920495]

>>14920472
Imagine coping this hard. I mean could you even imagine being religious for two seconds?

What kind of intellectual wall is in the way when you consider God's existence? Do people you know IRL laugh when you mention God or something? Where do you fucking live bro?

[Anonymous No.14920498]

>>14920445
considering the orthodox church fathers wrote volumes and volumes of apologetics I don't understand how you could possibly claim that orthodox christianity is pro-fideism
where in the fount of knowledge john of damascus does it resemble anything close to fideism?
by the Roman Catholics also reject fideism

[Anonymous No.14920568]

>>14920495
>What kind of intellectual wall is in the way when you consider God's existence?
Like what? Do you forget how to wipe your ass or something?

[Anonymous No.14920569]

>>14920495
Have you actually read the post you're responding to you fucking imbecile?

[Anonymous No.14920594]

>>14920454
>tfw epistemological anti-realist

lmao these fags think you can actually have unmediated knowledge fo what reality is in 2020

[Anonymous No.14920598]

>>14920454
is it true that truth isn't real?

[Anonymous No.14920601]

>>14920598
>real

lmao like you could tell what's real.

[Anonymous No.14920634]

>>14920594
>epistemology
Now that is a field that should be mentioned more often, considering some people are anti-evolution and pro-spherical earth, anti-this pro-that.

How does scientific progress develop? How does the philosophy of science grow and get more accurate? Should we admit there are things we think we know materially, scientifically that are wrong, or should we just accept everything we hear from any academic institution?

These are all important theories of the development of knowledge. :3

[Anonymous No.14920639]

>>14920594
>>14920601
You can know for certain that when you drop a ball, unless some external object affects it's trajectory, it will fall down. Do you disagree with this?

[Anonymous No.14920674]

>>14920634
Better question: What has a bigger impact on us, reality or things that are fundamentally not real?

>>14920639
I'm not making a metaphysical claim,I'm not saying that physics doesn't exist. I'm denying the truth, the principle of reality, the determinancy that we claim to find in many things. That we make decisions from, that entire lives are based off. I'm claiming that our reality that we regularly interact with is generated from a series of models, and that these objects have triumphed over all subjects. I'm claiming that all our interactions are mediated by these models, and reality without them is fundamentally unknowable. Any attempt to reclaim reality will only create more models, never reality. I'm claiming that there is no denotative meaning, only sly connotative meanings. Signifiers have no guarantor that ties them to the signified.

[Anonymous No.14920675]

>>14920639
I disagree whole-heartedly

[Anonymous No.14920678]

>>14920426
retard

[Anonymous No.14920688]

>>14920675
I get your point, but his phrasing is circular. It's not dropping a ball unless the ball is falling.

[Anonymous No.14920707]

>>14920674
I warrant you that engaging with genuine philosophy and metaphysics changed me profoundly. But then again, what is reality? What changes or what does not change? The traditional implication of philosophy as a rite of rebirth is the only real definition of what (again, genuine) philosophy is

[Anonymous No.14920727]

>>14920688
pedantic. He means “let go”

[Anonymous No.14920734]

>>14920707
That's more metaphysical. An example of what I'm saying is that a news report of a terrorist attack that didn't happen will cause more impact to the world than an actual attack that goes unreported. Non-real things, events, signifiers, models, have overtaken reality, have left us in a place that's more real than real. False representations tied to non-truths have not overtaken any sort of reality that we can know, they fundamentally hide the non-existence of their signified.

>>14920727
Either way the guy's retarded.

[Anonymous No.14920743]

>>14920479
>The interesting thing is, of course, that the creaturely intellect is unequal to the task it sets for itself. It is a signpost to the profounder union which is possible through faith (the supernatural orientation of the human being toward union with God) in God incarnate.
Yes, exactly.

Apropos of God's operations and wills, so does He act and will with his essence?

>not in the sense of being some deterministic 'sufficient condition
Yes because He is what conditions and is obviously unconditioned, right? But does He comprehend Himself?

[Anonymous No.14920768]

>>14920734
>An example of what I'm saying is that a news report of a terrorist attack that didn't happen will cause more impact to the world than an actual attack that goes unreported
That's difficult to know, very tied to contigency.

>Non-real things, events, signifiers, models, have overtaken reality, have left us in a place that's more real than real.
I agree but I don't think they left us in a place that's more real than real (if I get what you mean by this), but they cover reality with a false copy which consequently is deemed as reality, no?

[Anonymous No.14920772]

>>14919263
just because you read a lot of wordy books and have bad haircuts and wear shitty glasses doesnt mean your smart. Just because your a plumber and you dont wash your hand doesn't mean your an idiot. In each persons way they are smart. Most people who aren't classically intellectual can hold a better conversation and are more socially intelligent. So theres no real correlation between disbelief and intelligence, and even if there was one, intelligent people are the most unbearable people on the face of the earth holy shit man are they irritating. Your words spoke a truth that you are too naive to comprehend. Yes, science is a faith bound system, you subscribe to science, just as you subscribe to everything. All we can truly knkow is thjat we know absolutely nothing. Its simple. Its not entertaining at all. But the pursuit of knowledge is all based on tacit presuppositions that are so preliminary we don't usually realize them. And science is not about consensus you utter retard. There was no consensus for the heliocentric model of the solar system but its correct dumbfuck. If science had worked on consensus the earth would still be in the center of the universe. The multitudes of worthless scientists seethe when they hear this, they want to all believe they are useful and special. No. All histories of any intelliegence based field (which is all elaborate untruth as mentioned) are defined by a few great personages. No more. Calculus you have newton and that german fellow, i cant be bothered to find his name. Philosophy you have socrates, and then everyone else was varying shades of incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14920785]

>>14920743

>Apropos of God's operations and wills, so does He act and will with his essence?

Yes. His acts and his will require nothing more than his essence. Whatever is contingent in those acts and wills, are in his effects. The necessary principle which gives rise to that contingency, the act of his act and the will of his will, is none other than his own essence.

>But does He comprehend Himself?

Yes. By analogy to ourselves, in our own self-understanding we are only united to our own first principles in a qualified way. As creatures, the only complete comprehension of ourselves is in our relation to God. Since we do not know God unqualifiedly, our self-understanding is (in the natural order) likewise qualified. God, unlike us, as utterly non-composite, is perfectly unified to himself, since he above all things is most perfectly One.

[Anonymous No.14920787]

>>14919263
Its more like this: There needs to be evidence for existence itself. Either the universe comes from absolutely nothing, in which case it is a miracle, or something created it. I do not mean created in a temporal sense as in a first cause of causes, rather an ontological creation in which all things currently existing are propped up, so to speak, by God's continued essential existence. I'd read experience of God by David Bentley Hart to understand that the question whether God exists is poorly formed. Existence is prior to God's essence. God doesn't exist, existence follows from God's essence.

Therefore, you should stop saying "things don't need evidence to exist." Existence itself needs evidence, which is God.

Atheism comes at the midwit curve of 110-135, beyond that everyone is a theist.

[Anonymous No.14920788]

>>14919263
God is the processor of karma.

[Anonymous No.14920805]

>>14920787
>Either the universe comes from absolutely nothing, in which case it is a miracle, or something created it

Discussing "before' the creation of the universe is nonsensical. Also, the Big Bang theory, as an example, doesn't have a zero point: it just randomly expanded from a singularity, i.e. a mass the size of a briefcase, or so, it's surmised.

The universe ex nihilo is purely a religious standpoint, i.e. it was created from nothing.

[Anonymous No.14920815]

>>14920743
>>14920768
>>14920785
>>14920805
R E D D I T S P A C I N G G T F O

[Anonymous No.14920830]

>>14920768
>That's difficult to know, very tied to contigency
It's an example of the principle that's meant to be simple enough to convey the idea. We could come up with tons of examples if we wanted.

>I agree but I don't think they left us in a place that's more real than real (if I get what you mean by this), but they cover reality with a false copy which consequently is deemed as reality, no?
At first. You could imagine what your saying as being like a photograph. A decent representation of reality. But we're so far past that point that we couldn't even tell when we crossed it. Everything is distorted now. Now, nothing draws reality, they draw solely from other representations of reality. Any attempt to draw from reality will only draw from other models. Take romance and dating, for example. How many gestures of love can you think of that don't come from representations in media? Television, movies, advertisements, songs, or even just mimicking the people around you. Even if you make an honest attempt to discover "real" romance you'll just end up making more copies.

If you're honestly interested in these ideas, they come from Baudrillard. I'm a rather dedicated Baudrillardian.

>>14920788
God is dead. But His judgement remains.

[Anonymous No.14920837]

>>14920805
you obviously did not read my comment as I EXPLICITLY said God is a first cause in a different sense than the temporal.

Everything on earth is contingent, meaning it is contingent upon something else to exist, nothing has pure being in itself. There are no things where they could will themselves into existence. The universe is the space of all contingent things, the universe itself either as a collection or as the substance of all these things is itself contingent, this means that AT THIS VERY MOMENT the universe is contingent upon something for its continued existence. This thing we call God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9gLvLYF5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz2QjGHlLuM

here are some videos for you to understand the difference between essential and accidental (temporal) causation.

[Anonymous No.14920844]

>>14920674
>Better question: What has a bigger impact on us, reality or things that are fundamentally not real?
Apparently you don't understand the object of epistemology.

That was exactly what I was saying with my post.

[Anonymous No.14920849]

Why do so many women in their 20's look like women in their 40's trying to look like women in their 20's now?

[Anonymous No.14920863]

>>14920844
Apparently you don't understand the impact people like Mcluhan, Baudrillard, Latour, DeBord, and Deleuze have had on epistemology. My posts aren't comments on the world of academic institutions engaged in science. They're more about how our supposed knowledge of reality shapes our interactions with the world.

[Anonymous No.14920869]

>>14920849
That's just what 'trashy' happens to look like

[Anonymous No.14920885]

>>14919410
Why dont you doubt the nonexistence of God as default

[Anonymous No.14920918]

>>14919263
is not my feeling that he exists evidence for his existence?

[Anonymous No.14920926]

>>14920918
Can you doubt your feeling? Can you prove your feeling?

[Anonymous No.14920928]

>>14920675
no you don’t.

[Anonymous No.14920931]

>>14919263
>Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era? Things don't need evidence to exist?

Yes. Evidence is gay.

[Anonymous No.14920934]

>>14920830
Would god have died if Nietzsche didn't make it his theses?

[Anonymous No.14920935]

>>14920926
yes by experiencing it, then relaying my experience

[Anonymous No.14920939]

>>14920928
I don’t know that the laws of physics are constant, and neither do you

[Anonymous No.14920947]

>>14920934
Yeah it's the side effect of the industrial revolution. God, the guarantor of the denotative truth within the semiotic chain is a casualty of modernity. Signifiers float free, and the object is lost in representation. God's judgement remains.

[Anonymous No.14920948]

>>14920939
I do though

[Anonymous No.14920963]

>>14920935
i don't think it's your feeling your doubting. when you say you obt your feelings. what i mean is one is not saying: "i doubt that i actually had the sensation that I experienced/interpreted as happiness".

i think the common way doubting your feelings is understood is the doubting of a forecast/estimation which is influenced by your feelings

[Anonymous No.14920966]

>>14920947
What if I were to say that Shakespeare is God?

[Anonymous No.14920968]

this >>14920963 was a supplemental reply to >>14920926

[Anonymous No.14920976]

>>14920948
how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.14920977]

>>14920966
Go for it.

[Anonymous No.14921019]

>>14920785
But then there is no distinction between His essence and His acts, operations and will. And if no difference between these, His essence is always constrained by His acts, operations and acts, and at last by what is willed, what is acted/operated.
This is what confuses me and makes me more sympathetic toward the Essence-energy distinction doctrine.

>The necessary principle which gives rise to that contingency, the act of his act and the will of his will, is none other than his own essence.
Ok, now this seems to make more sense. The Will of His will and the Act of His act would then be a ''superabundance'' of His essence and the ''secondary'' will and act would be His energies (operations) as an emptying without emptying It whatsoever?

[Anonymous No.14921205]

>>14920977
Without regurgitating Bloom?

[Anonymous No.14921254]

>>14920688
>It's not dropping a ball unless the ball is falling
Are you high? My point was that you can predict the consequences of an event. Predicting that your actions will make the ball fall -> the ball falling, is exactly my fucking point. Nothing circular about it.

>>14920674
There are things we can know for sure. Of course the fundamental matter as it exists in all it's facets is imperceptible to humanity, but the models our senses create for us are knowable, causal and predictable. Reality exists, it is all the forms an object can be perceived as, and it is the specific form humans perceive an object as. One cannot "reclaim reality" because there's an actual reason reality manifests to us in the way it does, that reason being the limitations of human senses. You're not actually denying truth, you're just making the valid observation that humans cannot sense every facet, every kind of radiation, every extradimensional curve that might be sensed as a part of the called the object.

[Anonymous No.14921288]

>>14921254
No, but my point stands. Your wording is poor. I can't drop a ball without it falling. You can predict the consequences of physical forces operating in a vacuum.

>>14921254
>There are things we can know for sure. Of course the fundamental matter as it exists in all it's facets is imperceptible to humanity, but the models our senses create for us are knowable, causal and predictable. Reality exists, it is all the forms an object can be perceived as, and it is the specific form humans perceive an object as. One cannot "reclaim reality" because there's an actual reason reality manifests to us in the way it does, that reason being the limitations of human senses. You're not actually denying truth, you're just making the valid observation that humans cannot sense every facet, every kind of radiation, every extradimensional curve that might be sensed as a part of the called the object.

No, I'm stating that our relationship to the real is mediated by models of reality. That our reality is shattered into fragments then rearranged into a new whole that cannot be disassembled. I'm not talking about "models our sense create". Side point, senses don't create models, your interpretation of sense data does. Those aren't the models I'm talking about. Your making metaphysical claims, I'm not. I'm making claims about culture, and economics. I'm claiming that there is no truth behind any happening. I'm claiming that in the sea of information that defines modern media there is no meaning. That information fundamentally destroys meaning. That the object has triumphed over the subject.

[Anonymous No.14921294]

>>14921254
The only thing you know is your own perception. In other words, you only know what you think you know.

[Anonymous No.14921339]

People who'd rather lie to themselves than face reality. Kind of sad

[Anonymous No.14921342]

>>14919263
I can't dispute this & am now no longer a Theist. In this moment, I am enlightened by OPs intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14921348]

>>14921339
*commits suicide*

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2003-06077-010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1064748112604503

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-18209-001

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en-US&publication_year=2005&pages=797-823&author=F+Van+Tubergen&author=M+Te+Grotenhuis&author=W.+Ultee&title=Denomination%2C+religious+context%2C+and+suicide%3A+Neo-Durkheimian+multilevel+explanations+tested+with+individual+and+contextual+data#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DG5Quu87ycCkJ

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link%3famp

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people-files/faculty/si105/FINAL_Fruehwirth_Iyer_Zhang_Dec2017.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482518/

[Anonymous No.14921355]

>>14921339
>implying you can even tell what reality is
>implying your existence isn't made up of a series of free floating signifiers forming a mobius-strip of self-referential signification

[Anonymous No.14921373]

>>14919263
>Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era? Things don't need evidence to exist?
Imagine thinking that God isn’t the origin of the scientific knowledge you uncover

[Anonymous No.14921472]

>>14921355
>dude u can’t know nuffin lmao

[Anonymous No.14921474]

>>14920976
I read books instead of shitposting on /lit/ for 7 hours a day

[Anonymous No.14921498]

>>14919656
this right here, thread’s over

[Anonymous No.14921523]

0/5 theist bait

[Anonymous No.14921586]

>>14920384
>ifunny

[Anonymous No.14921599]

>>14921472
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14922803]

>>14921472
Wrong, we all can know you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.14922806]

how come there's so many of you religious fucknuts around today
are you all bored because you're stuck at home hiding from the virus your god sent to you?
why don't you all go and hang out together? your god will protect you

[Anonymous No.14922873]

>>14919263
It appears that you have confused the irrational with the non-rational. This must be quite an embarrassing moment for you, I will thus restrain myself from merely dismissing you as a total and complete hylic (i.e. cringetard) and instead point you in the direction of the truth........... read....... Guenon (PBUH)....... brother.....

[Anonymous No.14922882]

>>14919918
brother...... You are right..... But these Hylics are blind.......

[Anonymous No.14922895]

>>14919268
Cringe
>>14919269
Based

[Anonymous No.14923057]

>>14920168
The correct terms are "kike" and "nigger" my good man.