[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 49 KB, 300x299, 1297785225608.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581979 No.1581979 [Reply] [Original]

Hello c/lit/s

Have recently been on a tirade of reading Christian Apologetics to purposefully torture and somewhat educate myself on the BULLSHIT arguments that are concocted by the theists.

Currently reading "An Angel at my Shoulder" a strange bunch of crap about Angel's in daily life, very weak at the moment not so much an apologist book as it is a long drawn out case of proselytism.

Already read "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis and I have to say I am stunned at the fact Lewis was ever considered in any way a good many at formulating an argument. I know he's on the back foot and all but its pretty fucking pathetic the conclusions he pulls out of his bullshit assertions.

And lastly reading this other book called Darwin's Angels which is just a book attacking Richard Dawkins.

So does anyone else read any books which directly counters their views or opinions?

>> No.1581992

>>1581979
I use to read the newspapers. I've also read Kant, Descartes, Mill, and Hegel.

>> No.1582002

>>1581992
Not a single newspaper you read is similar to your politics? Sounds like you're doing Newspapers wrong bro.

>> No.1582010

You obviously don't know what the word tirade means

>> No.1582007

>>1582002
Is there any newspaper about moral egoism?

>> No.1582017

>>1582010
I understand that contextually it can be considered misused but I was just using it as an exaggeration and adverb.

>> No.1582019

>>1582007
Loads of them.

>> No.1582026

OP,

I have taken on such a mission. Personally, I have found the Mormons to be the most challenging lot. Despite what you know, it is several orders of difficulty higher trying to convince a Mormon of it.

I have debated Jews, Christians and Muslims. I think perhaps, I have helped a few find (or lose) their way, but, perhaps, they were upon that path before they encountered me.

The first Chapter of Prometheus Rising is really all you need to know. Evidence is useful, but the real trick is to change how a person feels about a religion to get them to leave. Unfortunately, this isn't the honest way to win a debate, and it seems intellect and reason never actually prevail. (Well... almost never.)

Several times I have posted on /b/ pretending to be Mormon or Christian... they stand up poorly compared to many other places I have been.

>> No.1582029

>>1582017
>contextually it can be considered misused
how else would you determine if a word were misused other than in the context in which it appears
>using it as an adverb
I don't think you know what an adverb is either. What do they teach you kids in school these days

>> No.1582051

>>1582026
Just wondering in what way is a Mormon's religiosity is stronger than say a Catholic or Evangelist in the Christian field? Is it part of the fact they're extremely elitist and localized?

I have only read one book on Mormonism and that was just a history regarding its creation.

>> No.1582062

If you are into torturing yourself with opposing views, you should check out The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.

Hilarious book.

>> No.1582073

>>1582062
I'll check that out next time I am at the library. Live in rather religious area so they have quiet a large section.

The one book I have been wanting to read the most is The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens. Mostly because its badass Christopher motherfucking Hitchens brother.

>> No.1582096

>>1582051

It is a number of things, really, including what you mention. I would say that their religiosity is stronger, and would most likely attribute it to the fact that they must sacrifice more to gain status... cognitive dissonance at its finest.

But, more than that, you will find them practiced at debate with more unified responses. There is a propaganda machine in their organization called the Correlation Committee, and they do their job well.

Their debate usually consists of wily ways to get you bogged down in details until you give up.

>> No.1582103

>>1582096
Huh never heard this before. I'll google some of this now, but on a personal note from your knowledge, do they have a specific style of debate?

I mean is it apologetics in stating how science is faith or is it one of those strange moral arguments placing the burden on non-believers?

>> No.1582111

>>1582073
>badass Christopher motherfucking Hitchens

Why are new atheists such fucking dickheads?

>> No.1582128
File: 813 KB, 1000x928, atheists-vs-theists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1582128

enjoy being a terror to society op

>> No.1582130

>>1582103

Well, they'll throw everything at you, if you know what you are talking about, and some are better than others.

There are a group of apologists that unofficially (but secretly, officially, since they get paid by the church) work together working on counter arguments for specific points.

For example, if you say that there were no horses in North America before the Europeans brought them, (The Book of Mormon mentions horses, elephants, and other anachronisms) they will quickly jump to how you don't know when the horses died out and that you don't have enough evidence to back up the claim. Of course, it is possible the translation is wrong, and horse was used in place of llama, or some other beast of burden. But it could be horses that the Israelites brought that simply died off.You don't know for sure, and that certainly wouldn't prove the LDS faith wrong even if you did.

If you get this far, you might even get someone to admit that it is as historically accurate as the Bible, and perhaps some of it shouldn't be taken so literally.

>> No.1582135

>>1582111
It's because they're vulgar, reductionist materialists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9S3vvPe9IM

>> No.1582142

>>1582128

lol, there are so many things wrong with that list

Einstein is the most obvious...

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

>> No.1582148

>>1582130
Why would you start to argue about things like mentions of horses when their entire world view is completely unfounded and based on a work of fiction. Arguing with theists seems to me more and more to be work of Sisyphus as they'll just discredit your entire argument by saying "OH BUT IT'S FAITH you don't need to apply any rules of logic or argumentation to it". Or come up with some dumb anecdote about how they've felt the hand of god or how their deity of choice has helped them or a relative in their life.

>> No.1582149

>>1582142
>thinks "no personal God" and "not religious" means "not a theist"

>> No.1582158

Why should we help you find more stuff, OP?

It's pretty obvious you've made up your mind and that you're very, very resolute about it.

In a word, you're boring.

>> No.1582165

>>1582149

I'm an autotheist, and so technically a theist, but I don't think Chrisians posting that image would necessarily want me on their side. Similarly, deists are basically the dont-give-a-fucks of theology, and are arguably more dangerous than atheists in that they are every bit as blasphemous while appearing more reasonable to believers due to still believing in "god". The whole "spiritual but not religious" thing is far more cancerous to Christianity than is atheism.

>> No.1582169

itt
>christianity is bad! all they do is shove their opinions down your throat in stupid ways! only retards believe in God! be an atheist!

>> No.1582191

>Christian apologetic thread
>no G. K. Chesterton
wtfareyoudoingniggers.jpg

OP, read The Everlasting Man.

>> No.1582218
File: 43 KB, 460x500, 1289119-this_thread_again_super..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1582218

>Christians are so stupid!
>Yeah, OP, I agree.
>What that guy said, Christians are totally dumb.
>Dude, you read my mind! I hate Christians.
>You know what would be really cool? If I sucked all of your dicks.
>Yeah, OP, I agree.

>> No.1582230

>>1582148

Well, personally, I wouldn't argue with Mormons about horses. It is just a common argument people use against them.

The real question you must ask them is...

There are billions of other people in the world with religious experiences just as profound and convincing as your own. What make yours more valid, more reliable than everyone else's? How do you know?

>>1582149

He basically says he is an atheist in more than one place, but I am lazier than the one who would dig up quotes.

>>1582169

Having debated with many religious people, I can tell you that religion is the product of an intelligent, curious mind. The problem is that it is easy for the human mind to find correlations between events that aren't really there. Religion serves a number of purposes, and plausible explanations happens to be the least of these purposes. It is the social needs of humans that bind them to religion.

But thanks for your over exaggerated gross generalization.

>> No.1582238

>>1582230

>There are billions of other people in the world with religious experiences just as profound and convincing as your own. What make yours more valid, more reliable than everyone else's?

Are you implying that only one religion can be "true"?

>> No.1582244

>>1582230
>Having debated with many religious people, I can tell you that religion is the product of an intelligent, curious mind.

So, the people who lack religion are dumb, content minds.

>> No.1582251

>>1582238

Mormonism claims to be "The One True Church." Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

>>1582244

Are you putting words in my mouth, or are you just that dense?

>> No.1582257

>>1582238

It is very typical of religions to declare themselves incompatible with all other religions. That way, the people know, for sure, who to give their money to.

>> No.1582261

>>1582244

You are either horrible at debating, or horrible at trolling. In either endeavor, this response is fail.

>> No.1582266

The so-called "tortures" perpetrated by christians can be easily justified.

Imagine you witness a random guy doing something incredibly stupid thing to himself, like chopping off his limbs or whatever.

Wouldn't you do everything on your power to stop him from such harmful behaviour?

It's the same thing with atheists and antichristians.

Christian everywhere saw people purposely damning their souls to eternal hell, and they concluded the best course of action was to do the right thing - By saving their souls through the love of Jesus Christ

I hope that cleared things up

Also, Chesterton is excellent, i just finished reading The Man who was Thursday

>> No.1582271
File: 123 KB, 500x500, educateyou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1582271

>>1582251
>Mormonism claims to be "The One True Church." Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

yeah, but mormons also believe that God speaks to everyone, and that there is truth in every religion. My dads mormon, and i've caught him reading the koran, the upanishads, the tao teh ching, etc. etc.

>> No.1582276

>>1582271
>i've caught him reading

Jesus. I got the mental image of a little gay kid opening the closet to find his Mormon dad with the Koran and a flashlight.

>> No.1582286

>>1582266

In some cases, you are right, but there is more behind the motivation to convert than that. First, there is always leadership at the top that is taking advantage for profit/power. They have an agenda and more converts serve that agenda.

Then there exists the fear of non believers. Xenophobia is strongest in the most isolated of groups, and people unwilling to convert can also pose a threat in a variety of ways. The worst threat they pose comes from merely existing. The fact that people can exist and be good and successful while holding an opposing point of view can be inherently dangerous by providing an example and resulting in the inevitable cultural syncretism that has occurred in all religions... a sacrifice of fundamental principles to be more successful in their social situation.

>> No.1582291

>>1582271

Come on, now. Are you really going to try and pull that shit? Mormons believe that the power of the Holy Ghost can only be acquired through the laying on of hands by other priesthood holders.

What were you saying, again? About everyone having access?

>> No.1582294
File: 91 KB, 464x476, 1298318848213.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1582294

>>1582276

>> No.1582304

>>1582286

>First, there is always leadership at the top that is taking advantage for profit/power. They have an agenda and more converts serve that agenda.
If you examine the historical record you'll see that willing conversions were far more common than the forced ones. Typically, the leader of a barbaric tribe would convert for political reasons. His people would necessarily follow suit. The converts were usually the ones initiating the process for "profit/power".

>> No.1582309
File: 5 KB, 239x258, 1296459404237.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1582309

>>1582291
according to mormon doctrine the power of the holy ghost is the ability to have the holy ghost with you at all times (if your acting in accordance with the laws of God), and that comes through the power of priesthood holders. Mormons think the light of Christ is in everyone, and God/the holy ghost would aid those who would call on him: ex, getting a 'testimony' or what have you- a moment of inspiration, blah blah blah- you don't need the laying of the hands for that.

>> No.1582313

>>1582304

Religion serves social needs, and people change religion when that religion is no longer able to meet those needs. Conversions require some form of mechanism to convert, and this is typically manifested in missionary and various outreach programs.

>> No.1582337

>>1582309

So how does that make the Mormon church compatible with other religions? I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing and forgetting the point.

The Mormon church claims to be the "One True Church."

If everyone has a minuscule chance of feeling the light of Christ long enough to receive the revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, then that doesn't mean they will be able to attain Celestial Salvation. Only Priesthood holders and their families can reach the Celestial Kingdom.

>> No.1582344

>>1582313

You are very right to emphasize the social function of religion. Far too many people follow William James in restricting religion to the private sphere. For most of humanity's history, religion was first and foremost a public reality.

That said, I would be careful not to reduce religion to the political sphere. Religion definitely governs social interactions, but that's not all it does.

>> No.1582362

>>1582344

I concur. I would posit that the social aspects of religion are the most influential and important to people. At one time, religion was science. It was the attempt to explain how everything worked. At one time, religion was government... even a government of governments. It's power and authority have dissipated greatly, but that is not to say that tendrils don't remain.

>> No.1582372

>>1582218
this

>> No.1582384

>>1582372

at least put a little effort into your trolling

>> No.1582429

>>1582309

To anyone...

Where in Mormon Doctrine does it say that?

>> No.1582451

i read (as a born again atheist) the mind of god by paul davies. how can he call himself a scientist?

>> No.1582476

some post-modern stuff is really useless in the big picture but i still read it for some reason. cue to call me a moron.

>> No.1583044

>>1582218
I understand your statement and find it as idiotic as me responding to it.

>>1582158
If it were displayed to me that a god exists certainly than I would believe it. I am an agnostic atheist, so as such I am not devout in my non-belief. Although I do hold the opinion that theism was correct that would be a detestable opinion.

>> No.1583107

>>1581979

If you think that's what you need to read to give you the slightest insight on "theists", you've been sadly misinformed.

Those pieces of shit you list are the equivalent of trashy beach reading.

Then again, it would suggest that your are in fact feeble of mind, explaining your selections.

feelsgoodman.jpg

>> No.1583111

Screwtape Letters was a comedy. Ist ed, don't take it seriously.