/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16866526]

THIS is my gospel.

[Anonymous No.16866580]

>>16866526
based af.
00 counterculture was great.

the damage religion, not spirituality does is enormous.

[Anonymous No.16866594]

C'est basé

[Anonymous No.16866596]

>>16866580
S O Y af.

[Anonymous No.16866602]

>>16866526
ahh, thanks for the nostalgia hit, OP.

back in the good old days when we actually had to contest with the last hold outs of the sky-god mythos in our culture. i was actually just thinking about all this the other day. like how Marlin Manson was paraded around on foxnews and all the conservatards shit themselves and we still had rubes in academia who were literally denying evolution. all of those primitive forum flame wars we had about the latest Daniel Lane Craig and Sam Harris debate. All of those tours that Dawkins gave in america where he massacred every hick that stepped up to the mic and the inevitable YouTube compilations that would follow. it was all so much simpler.

at least the good guys won and progress steadily onward.

[Anonymous No.16866618]

>>16866602
Progress to what? Is anyone happier or better off? People are offing themselves at greater rates? Fedoralords contribute nothing.

[Anonymous No.16866620]

>>16866526
My favourite part was when he blows Aquinas the FUCK out.

[Anonymous No.16866638]

>>16866602
>>16866526
>>16866580

[Anonymous No.16866641]

>>16866618
Dawkins has accomplished 10x more in his life than any Christdoomer on /lit will ever amount to.

[Anonymous No.16866656]

>>16866641
Accomplished anything positive? Doubt

[Anonymous No.16866669]

>destroys nu-atheism

[Anonymous No.16866715]

>>16866656
Dawkins
+Decorated biologist employed at the most prestigious university on Earth.
+Discovered the phenomena of memes
+Spoke out for race-realism
+Freed millions from the illusion of religion
+Active enemy of the Islamification of Britain
You
+Shitposts bad apologetics on /lit/

[Anonymous No.16866720]

>>16866715
Those are only positives on reddit.

[Anonymous No.16866730]

>>16866641
>>16866715
Dawkins is pretty cool but there's a lot I disagree with in his works. Any atheist writer will cop flak from, but he's an intelligent guy and worth reading even if you disagree.

[Anonymous No.16866737]

Cool bro

[Anonymous No.16866756]

>>16866720
>All races are equal
>Muslims aren't a problem
This is why Christfags are going extinct among white people.

[Urantia dude No.16866899]

>>16866526
>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.

[Anonymous No.16866900]

>>16866526
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.16866914]

>THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT BUT THIS ONE IS MINE

[Anonymous No.16866915]

>>16866899
Notice he gives no exampled or break downs of where Dawkins' arguments fail.

[Anonymous No.16866918]

>God doesn't exist because... um... I can't see him and evil exists okay?

[Anonymous No.16866924]

>>16866918
sounds reasonable

[Anonymous No.16866945]

>>16866924
The existence of God is self-evident.

[Anonymous No.16866946]

>>16866618
Well atheism hasn't necessarily taken over yet, so that's the fault of christianity. Remember that feminism started as a christian women's club.

[Anonymous No.16866953]

>>16866900
t. Jew

[Anonymous No.16866954]

>>16866945

[Anonymous No.16866965]

>>16866918
What in the hell is wrong with you, that's a PERFECT fucking reason to assume something is not real - my gawd I hope this is bait if not ... Off yourself you know? Fuck, you know how I know the mighty G.O.D. isn't real? The same reason you know santa isn't real, and toothfairy, odin ect.

[Anonymous No.16866998]

>

[Anonymous No.16867000]

>>16866954
>>16866965
A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as Man is an animal, for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says, there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space. Therefore I say that this proposition, God exists, of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown. Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects.

[Anonymous No.16867011]

>>16866915
Of course he does.

>So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.
https://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/09/dawkins-confusion.html

[Anonymous No.16867023]

ITT

[Anonymous No.16867027]

>>16867000

[Anonymous No.16867040]

>>16867023
>here are some cherrypicked images of idiotic Christians
>this means they are all idiotic and the religion is too
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.16867069]

>>16867023
Evangelicals are a blight. Does anybody like them?

[Anonymous No.16867084]

The homophobia is the only thing that’s preventing me from considering Christianity seriously.

[Anonymous No.16867088]

>>16866602
what do you think of the new trend of tradcarth zoomers online?

[Anonymous No.16867093]

>>16866526
It's really a wonder to me how quickly atheism fell out of favor.

[Anonymous No.16867114]

>>16867084
it's only against the bad kind of homosexuality

[Anonymous No.16867121]

>>16867114
>I HEARD THAT!!!111
>I HEARD THAT!!!111
>I HEARD THAT!!!111
I HEARD THAT!!!111

[Anonymous No.16867147]

>>16866715
>Islam is the majority religion in one of the most destabilized areas in the worlds
>Destabilized areas tend to turn to ultra tier religious fundamentalism
>WHY ARE THERE MORE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS ATTACKS THEN CHRISTIAN ONES
I'm sorry, is Dawkins retarded? Even if Islam is more violent then Christianity this can only be determined by a reading of the text not through how many terrorist attacks are committed by them? It seems kind of ridiculous to say "Well there are less Christian terrorist attacks then Muslim" When the majority of Christianity's practicers live in stable Western Countries while the Majority of Muslims live in destabilized wartorn shitholes. Dawkins is an ultra tier brainlet for saying this.

[Anonymous No.16867156]

>>16866526

[Anonymous No.16867162]

>>16867156
What the fuck that horned woman

[Anonymous No.16867164]

>>16867040
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.16867174]

>>16867000
Where I come from in europe, we have a saying: "To study youself blind". And that is what you have done. You are making something extremely simple, extremely difficult. Why is Odin not real? He was abandoned by the vikings in favour of christianity, but theres literature? How is he not real then? Why is this a global consensus? 1. No one has ever seen him, and theres no evidence of such. 2. He doesn't operate within parameters of reality, furthering evidence of foul. 3. No one is paying attention. (This is important, as humans are social beings)
Bottom line: Odin is not real.
How is G.O.D. Different? Except 3, wich is why people still believe, because it isn't embarrassing, albeit it should be. Religion is finally replaced by mindless media, wich is better in my opinion. Religion even back in Martin Luther days has been nothing but a way to create ease in awfull times and controle the masses, I get that. But it's time to let go. Era of religion is over, and skynet and clouds are in.

[Anonymous No.16867176]

>>16867147
im no defender of dawkins because he's retarded, but muslims created those war torn, destabalized shit holes, they aren't some grand victims of pure chance

[Anonymous No.16867179]

>>16867147
>durr dey be terrorists bcoz ebil westeners made them do it.
The majority of Christianity's adherents live in LatAm shitholes or in Africa you white-guilt nincompoop. Where's the Christian terrorists from Venezuela? The CIA's been fucking them up good for about a decade now.

[Anonymous No.16867184]

[Anonymous No.16867189]

>>16867088
I can't fucking wait until it's over

[Anonymous No.16867191]

>>16867174
I'm not going to take your post seriously.

[Anonymous No.16867197]

>>16867162
>woman

do you not know of drag queen story hour?

[Anonymous No.16867202]

>>16867147
I think Dawkins is a pseud faggot, but we see islamic terrorist attacks in the west as well, never a Christian one. Violence against anyone who refuses to submit to Islam is in the Qur'an as opposed to the Bible where loving your neighbour is preached instead.

What I'm saying is if both Christians and Muslims lived in the west and the west suddenly broke down (we can use Syria as a slight example of a secular country containing both religions) then we'd only see Muslims blowing shit up and killing people.

[Anonymous No.16867209]

>>16867184
Hell isn't punishment from God

Hell is the absence of God, because that's what the person chose. Hell is the absence of all goodness, hope, kindness, joy, etc

[Anonymous No.16867230]

>>16867191
Why not?

[Anonymous No.16867231]

>>16867209
Can I choose to experience that for a few minutes before making the final decision though?

[Anonymous No.16867255]

God, hell... Lol. We are balls of energy that gets inflated like a balloon. The joy is to breathe out, let the enegy back into the earth, univers with zero attachments. And think about it, isn't that way better than a god telling you that you aren't good enough, and if not this then this. Lol, we may not be free from nature, or the sick human minds that are economy, but we are free. Enjoy the your energy, and leave it behind for all and others with joy.

[Anonymous No.16867261]

>>16867231
people create little bits of hell on earth all the time, it's never good and it never causes any joy

[Anonymous No.16867270]

>>16867255
Everything, is energy. The rest is our sick mind. There is no rhyme or reason and this entire discussion is lol. Energy, that's the answer.

[Anonymous No.16867273]

>>16867023
Seething cocksucking degenerate atheist

[Anonymous No.16867275]

>>16867255
this is the most mid-wit post I've ever seen lol

head on back to redd1t so you can watch some neil degrasse tyson and think yourself a genius you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.16867278]

>>16867176
>muslims created those war torn, destabalized shit holes, they aren't some grand victims of pure chance
I'm sorry, are we going to ignore NATO? The shit ton of intervention by western powers destabilizing the entire region? The funding of Religious Terrorist groups by America to counter Soviet Influence?
>>16867179
>Latin America and the Middle East are comparable situations
Ya sure, America funded religious terrorist groups in Latin America. You clearly don't know anything about either situation if you think you can compare them. Latin America is mostly Catholic, while the Middle East is separated Hard by Sunni and Shia lines. This along with strict ethnic tensions exasperated by American influence and funding rapidly destabilized the region. Along with Western Powers supporting groups that employ religious extremists (Things like France Supporting Haftar who employs Sunni Death Squads.) while destabilizing Secular Ba'athist governments like Syria and Iraq. America also never had wars like the Iraq or Gulf Wars that bred hatred and radicalized population members into these religious groups. These situations aren't comparable at all, and only a retard who throws out all nuance thinks they are. I'm not defending Islam or making claims that it's not violent or whatever, I just think it's retarded to make these claims.

[Anonymous No.16867285]

>>16867230
I dont like it
goes against my arguments

[Anonymous No.16867293]

>>16867275
What do you mean. You post contained letters, words and sentences yet nothing of meaning to me or anyone else. The mid-wit must be you? Yeah? But please do elaborate. I have never used reddit and don't understand why anyone would.

[Anonymous No.16867301]

>>16867202
>we see islamic terrorist attacks in the west as well, never a Christian one
I'm sorry, why the fuck would you see Christian terrorist attacks in Majority Christian countries. Terrorist attacks tend to be done by minorities through radicalization because they aren't integrated. Why the fuck would you see Christian terrorist attacks.
>inb4 you see islamic terrorist attacks in Islamic countries
There terrorist attacks are typically Shia vs Sunni in destabilized regions. The West isn't a destabilized region and Christianity isn't as split by sectarianism in the west as Islam is in the Middle East.
>Violence against anyone who refuses to submit to Islam is in the Qur'an as opposed to the Bible where loving your neighbour is preached instead.
This is analysis of Text which I'm not against.
>What I'm saying is if both Christians and Muslims lived in the west and the west suddenly broke down (we can use Syria as a slight example of a secular country containing both religions) then we'd only see Muslims blowing shit up and killing people.
This is a retarded tier analysis I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.16867321]

>>16867278
> I'm not defending Islam or making claims that it's not violent or whatever, I just think it's retarded to make these claims.
Right, you're just saying everything Muslims do isn't their fault because bad evil America made them do it, everyone knows only white people have any agency whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.16867323]

>>16867301
You don't see many Christian terrorist attacks in places like Nigeria or Syria where they are minorities.

[Anonymous No.16867331]

>>16867285
That's fair enough. But I want you to know, that like with vegan and vegetarianism, it's not about "restricting" youself, but rather about opening up to other and new joys and experiences. If you have been a believer for a while, or need more time sure. But don't spend your whole life on one thing. The world is infinently bigger than "god, hell and earth". I have a doctorate in philosophy, (barrely passed) and I wish I knew this when younger.

[Anonymous No.16867356]

>>16867331
I'll take your advice. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.16867365]

>>16866526
>Richard Dawkins tries to debate John Lennox, Get's Owned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F38w1b38Dms

[Anonymous No.16867369]

>>16867301
>Christian terrorist attacks in Majority Christian countries
They're not Christian countries. Christians aren't integrated into secular France either and could easily justify any terrorist attacks they want, but they don't.
>The West isn't a destabilized region
The stability doesn't matter since we obviously see islamic terrorist attacks in the west anyway.
>This is a retarded tier analysis I'm sorry.
No, it's a great example. Both religious people living in a war torn country and we still see only one side committing the attacks. It isn't just Shia/Sunni, Christians also have their divide in the middle east and they've not taken advantage of the chaos to murder others.

[Anonymous No.16867398]

>>16867321
No one said anything about White people, I'm just making a factual claim that Western Powers (And the USSR) destabilized the region. You're projecting hard here.
>>16867323
Sorry I should've clarified, they're usually done by minorities in stabilized countries. In destabilized countries where Muslim extremists are funded by the military, Christian terrorists attacks are outnumbered tremendously by Muslim ones, so much so, you rarely hear of Christian fundamentalists attacks. For Nigeria specifically, this is a very bad example on your point considering the entire region has a religious riot against one side or the other, also to say that Christianity is a minority is really disingenuous considering Christianity is 45.9% of the population, it's true they're a minority but still. When you make up nearly 50% you don't feel as marginalized as you would when you make up 20% or 10%

[Anonymous No.16867440]

>>16867398
>When you make up nearly 50% you don't feel as marginalized as you would when you make up 20% or 10%
Like the millions of Christians that comprise 20% of Egypt's population. Where's the Egyptian Christian terrorists?

[Anonymous No.16867456]

>>16867369
>They're not Christian countries. Christians aren't integrated into secular France either and could easily justify any terrorist attacks they want, but they don't.
So we can say that France isn't a Christian country but when around 66% identify as catholic, and around 7% identify as Muslim my point still stands about integration. A lot of religious tension exists in France and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Also lol you're acting like terrorist attacks in France are on the level of terrorist attacks in the Middle East when it was only like 9 so far in 2020,
>The stability doesn't matter since we obviously see islamic terrorist attacks in the west anyway.
Like I said only 9 in france this year also what? The Stability doesn't matter? If you honestly believe this, I'm going to stop replying to you because you're clearly a brainlet.
>No, it's a great example. Both religious people living in a war torn country and we still see only one side committing the attacks.
It really isn't, Christian militant groups aren't being funded like Islamic ones are in Syria. Christians are also siding with Baathist's in Syria because they don't want Islamic Fundamentalism while Islamic terrorist groups where funded and Muslims where radicalized. These situations just aren't comparable.
>Christians also have their divide in the middle east and they've not taken advantage of the chaos to murder others
What?!?!? Syrian Christians vastly belong to Eastern Communions, they aren't nearly as split as the Shia Sunni divide. Anyways it's late at night and I'll be going to sleep, if this thread is still up tomorrow I'll continue.

[Anonymous No.16867460]

>>16866638
>the enlightenment began the process into modern society
>literally emphasises critical thought and separation of church and state
>world gets better because of it

Just because a lot of important people in history were of a Judeo-Christian belief, doesn't mean these beliefs benefitted them in their successes or discoveries.

[Anonymous No.16867468]

>>16867440
>Like the millions of Christians that comprise 20% of Egypt's population. Where's the Egyptian Christian terrorists?
Aren't Copts incredibly integrated? They're way more Integrated then Nafri's in France, that I'm sure of. Also Egypt isn't what I Would call a destabilized region.

[Anonymous No.16867471]

>>16867440
He's full of it and he knows it. He's trying to act like the only condition for terrorism is destabilisation when that's obviously not the case. Destabilisation only gives a higher opportunity to commit the attacks as described in their book.

[Anonymous No.16867476]

>>16866669
Craig's arguments are flawed and clearly not designed to convince atheists but instead preach to the choir and have theists believe they have some kind of gotcha when they really have fuck all.

[Anonymous No.16867484]

>>16866756
>all races
>races
>Muslim
Just leave the thread now bro

[Anonymous No.16867498]

>>16867468
Then how come there's so many Muslim terrorists from Egypt?

[Anonymous No.16867503]

>>16867484
Based Dawkin's comments on race realism are separate from his comments on Islamofication.

[Anonymous No.16867543]

>>16867460
>>world gets better because of it
Idk about that. I'm pretty sure the firearm and the atomic bomb was invented due to these events, but I'm just a LARPing religious-fag that have neuron deficiency and 2 missing chromosomes.

[Anonymous No.16867548]

>>16867456
>So we can say that France isn't a Christian country but when around 66% identify as catholic, and around 7% identify as Muslim my point still stands about integration.
Who gives a shit? It's not a Christian country, it's not just about integrating people into society that prevents it when their fundamental beliefs are completely in contradiction with the state.
>Like I said only 9 in france this year also what?
Literally every single terrorist attack in Europe has been from Muslims. None from Christians. You're not making a good case for yourself here.
>Stability doesn't matter?
You're not worth replying to if you think France is a destabilized country.
>These situations just aren't comparable.
Yeah, they are. Christians could technically blow themselves up in an armoured truck ramming into the local village or invent some IED to kill a random passerby, but they don't. You're putting too much emphasis on foreign intervention when all they needed was a slight nudge to delve into violence.
>What?!?!?
Kek boomer
>Syrian Christians vastly belong to Eastern Communions, they aren't nearly as split as the Shia Sunni divide
They're definitely split in Syria and Iraq and have been for over a millennium, we haven't seen them behave like the Muslims do.

[Anonymous No.16867555]

>>16867476
It is more probable that (you) are a faggot than (you) not being a faggot

[Anonymous No.16867567]

>>16866638
The guy who made Piss Christ is Catholic, not atheist.

[Anonymous No.16867583]

>>16867543
The firearm is unironically one of the greatest inventions of all time. Were it not for firearms 99% of the human population would still be literal serfs toiling for their feudal lords all day. The true reason universal rights were conceived, is because firearms made it universally possible to blow another man's head off.

[Anonymous No.16867606]

https://youtu.be/2MFmC6BD1B4
https://youtu.be/RB3g6mXLEKk

[Anonymous No.16867741]

>>16867583
Yes the based firearm allowed for the peasant majority to fight back against the aristocratic minority when in the past a few armored knights could mow down a bunch of peasants. But the reason most people aren't serfs is because of industrialization. We went from rural serfs to urban wage slaves

[Anonymous No.16867742]

>>16867460
>world gets better because of it
Is that suppose to be a fucking joke? Does the current world look "better'?

[Anonymous No.16867746]

>>16866526
THIS is you

[Anonymous No.16867756]

I genuinely never read this, even though I did have my hardcore anti-theist phase. Can someone just give me a quick rundown, or I guess more specifically is there anything in the book that's worthwhile or is it basically content you'd read from a collection of Reddit comments?

[Anonymous No.16867769]

>>16867741
We at least had a period of agrarianism without serfdom before industrial technology reached small towns. I believe this is the ideal.

[Anonymous No.16867770]

>>16866602
holy fucking cringe lol

[Anonymous No.16867795]

>>16867548
>Literally every single terrorist attack in Europe has been from Muslims. None from Christians.
This is not true.

[Anonymous No.16867814]

>>16867795
Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.16867851]

bali bombings of indonesia in the 2000's. its an 80 % muslim country. they attacked whites and non muslims. radical muslims are just a hateful bunch.

[Anonymous No.16867874]

>>16867814
No, it's not true. Have you heard of Wikipedia?

[Anonymous No.16867905]

>>16867769
This is true and based. This would the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian era in the US but I don't think agrarianism was that common outside of the US during that time. What agrarianism did to serfdom is what (libertarian) socialism needs to do to capitalism

[Anonymous No.16867915]

>>16867851
Target was predominantly Australians at a nightclub. Bali itself is not majority Muslim not that it makes any difference. Australia was one of the nations which invaded Iraq in 2003, coalition of the willing it was called. The other 2 were America and Britain.

[Anonymous No.16868124]

>>16866526
>Evolution is a steady long term process with overwhelming evidence
>complicated mechanisms like eyes and cell processes can be explained by evolution clearly despite claims that science can't deal with it
>ok yes
>God is a delusion
>ok yes, I'm not Christian, I think their description of God is very inferior
>but
>There are spiritual disciplines that don't have an equivalent of the abrahamic singular God
>Just because the biblical description of God is stupid doesn't mean there is no ultimate transcendant metaphysical nature to reality or the universe

>Although evolution can be explained by science, the most obvious and present mysteries actually can not be
>such as the fact that time moves forwards for some reason, or what the universe actually is, or what the purpose of it actually is, why there are set limits to laws of physics
>the fact that the universe is completely irrational and not logical at all - many things are simply descriptions and not reasons or answers
>the mere existence of a solid object is a completely irrational event
>the fact that without living beings to see the universe there literally is no evidence the universe exists in any way shape or form - the concept of measurement is a product of sentience
>the fact that nothing can exist within the universe without therefore being a part of the universe, meaning that whatever consciousness is, the fabric of the universe contains ethereal consciousness ambiently or else the universe would not be able to host sentient life inside of it - this would be like saying Iron exists in your blood but it isn't part of the periodic table
>If you don't think the universe is sentient/alive that means you cannot be either, but sentience is self evident - you know you exist
>sentience is self evident - sentience creates the evidence of itself - the concept of measurement is a product of sentience - without living eyes to see the universe there literally is no evidence the universe exists in any way shape or form
>the self evidence of sentience is repeating irrational loop
>what is the purpose of meaning? What is the value of purpose? What is the concept of value? Without communication, no concepts have meaning. Without the mind, purpose has no value
>all concepts and values only exist in relationship to the judgement and perception of sentience
>there is no meaning, purpose, or value to the existence of the universe without life

[Anonymous No.16868160]

Anyone read Scott Turner's work on vitalism here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRoJcFD9VFM

[Anonymous No.16868201]

>>16866580
dumb redditor

[Anonymous No.16868218]

>>16867460
The figures of the enlightenment like Kant or Rousseau were religious you dumb retard.

Kant literally says at the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason that “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” ...

[Anonymous No.16868230]

>>16867606
>animeposter
>braindead
like pottery

[Anonymous No.16868232]

>>16868201
>propositional logic

[Anonymous No.16868245]

>>16867460
>, doesn't mean these beliefs benefitted them in their successes or discoveries.

Jesus christ, you are quite an ignorant fuck aren't you?

Why don't you read about how Kepler derived his three laws for the celestial bodies. Let me give you a hint

>God manifests himself not only in the words of the Scriptures but also in the wonderful arrangement of the universe and in its conformity with the human intellect. Thus, astronomy represents for Kepler, if done philosophically, the best path to God

And Newton who later derived Kepler laws... dedicated his whole theory to God and was more interested in studying theology.

[Anonymous No.16868248]

Ah the nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.16868255]

>>16867460
>doesn't mean these beliefs benefitted them in their successes or discoveries
Doesn't mean holding such beliefs negate them either, though.
The material and the supernatural can coexist separately in human mental space, you know.

[Anonymous No.16868265]

>>16867915
there were still bombings in jakarta anon in 2 hotels, granted that they were killing whites. but they dont give a fuck if other indos die in the process. there a big islamic fundamentalist fanatic movement goiing on here. i really hope out government can standup and wipe those scum out from society like one of our prior president did.

[Anonymous No.16868269]

>>16868248
>tfw you are no longer a 13 year old atheist who hangs out in the religious section of a forum that no longer exists

[Anonymous No.16868287]

What's he up to these days?

[Anonymous No.16868353]

>>16868124
85% Dawkins doesn't understand Spinoza

[Anonymous No.16868380]

>>16866737
I like how when you read DBH and go back to Dawkins it's like reading Dostoevsky and going back to the Hungry Caterpillar. The difference in vocabulary and depth of thought is staggering. The sad thing is Dawkins styles himself as an intellectual when his philosophy is as shallow as a puddle. "Hur if God real y no empiricism find him?"

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/richard-dawkins-discovers-his-ideal-idiom-and-audience/

[Anonymous No.16868389]

>>16868380
>With Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide, all of that has changed. The warm, languid sunlight of those idyllic revels positively spills across its pages. At last, Dawkins has found an authorial voice entirely adequate to his theme. And it is charming. Yes, of course, the confused and chaotic quality of his arguments remains a constant, and the basic conceptual mistakes have not altered appreciably since the earliest days of his polemics; but here it all comes across as the delightful babble of a toddler. “Do you believe in God?” he asks on the first page, tugging at your sleeve, eager to inform you of all the interesting things he has learned about religion this week. “Which god? Thousands of gods have been worshipped throughout the world, throughout history.” Do tell. And, in fact, tell he does, breathlessly emptying out his whole little hoard of knowledge about the local deities of ancient peoples. The sheer earnest impishness of his manner is almost enough to make you ignore his continued inability—despite decades of attempts by more refined logicians to explain his error to him—to distinguish between the mythic and devotional stories that peoples tell about their gods and the ontological and modal claims that the great monotheistic traditions of the “axial age” and after have made about God, or to grasp the qualitative conceptual gulf that separates them.

Daaaaamn. Dawkins BTFO

[Anonymous No.16868831]

>>16868124
a good post at last

[Anonymous No.16868897]

>>16868380
And I had almost lost confidence in Hart after hearing his views on BLM and Howard Zinn.

[Anonymous No.16868925]

>>16866638
believing in bullshit is better, thats right anon

[Anonymous No.16868935]

>>16867000
here comes the world salad

[Anonymous No.16868937]

>>16867460
yee it´s hilarious. It´s like saying the church was a source of intellectualism in the middle ages, when they were just filling a gap.

Being a christian says absolutely nothing about a human being anymore.

[Anonymous No.16868975]

>>16866900
Bertrand Reddit

[Anonymous No.16868990]

>>16868897
Hart is a bit of a cuck. He's a universalist and huffs his own farts but he's in a different intellectual league than any modern atheist.

[Anonymous No.16869043]

>>16866526
But really though, how is this book?
I've heard way too many stories of people, even learned people, losing faith in their religion altogether after reading it. It has to have -some- weight as an argument against classical theism at the very least, right? But I haven't taken the time to read it because it has become such a meme (the irony is intentional...).

[Anonymous No.16869320]

>>16867231
>for a few minutes
God exists outside of time anon.

[Anonymous No.16869347]

>>16867023
we tradcath larpers now

[Anonymous No.16869395]

>>16867084
Eh all the passages saying men shouldnt sleep with another man were mistranslated in the 1950's, instead it is about pedophilia

[Anonymous No.16869423]

>>16866641
He's a charlatan dealing in a field he clearly didn't understand, got btfo by actual philosophers (theist and atheist alike, some of whom died centuries before he was even born) and got so buttfurious about the situation that he basically dismissed philosophy as a field altogether.
His book is the absolute and final definition of midwittery, you will not find The God Delusion on the shelf of any academic or even any halfway serious philosophy buff, but you will find it in the basements of many a failson.

[Anonymous No.16869439]

>>16869423
>he basically dismissed philosophy as a field altogether.
BASED
Can Dawkins get any more based? Not likely

[Anonymous No.16869468]

>>16869439
>gets refuted
>"w-well it doesn't matter because philosophy is a bunch of nonsense anyway!"
Didn't know people still liked this STEMfag brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16869483]

>>16869395
Fake and gay cope. God hates fags. Literally. Your diseased prolapse is visible proof.

[Anonymous No.16870975]

>>16867460
>the enlightenment
Mostly deists, not atheists.

[Anonymous No.16870990]

>>16869439
>Can Dawkins get any more based? Not likely
Dawkins is just a modern pseud

[Anonymous No.16870997]

>>16866526
>>16870990

[Anonymous No.16871017]

>>16867209
But I am happy on earth. I feel joy and kindness as atheist. Maybe you think it's fake joy, but why cant I have that fake joy after death? Its a total bs statement.

[Anonymous No.16871077]

>>16867741
>the reason most people aren't serfs is because of industrialization
Also a product of the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.16871091]

>>16868124
>such as the fact that time moves forwards for some reason
Easy to explain, and in multiple ways.
>the concept of measurement is a product of sentience
no

[Anonymous No.16871132]

>>16866618
>christfags are literal dogs and the promise of a better afterlife is dangling a treat in front of them
People offing themselves has nothing to do with religion and is more of a result of economic inequality btw

[Anonymous No.16871154]

>all the theistfags seething in this thread
blessed be

[Anonymous No.16871186]

>>16867023
>every christian is a dumbfuck american

[Anonymous No.16871209]

>>16868287
sucking trannie cocks, literally

[Anonymous No.16871212]

>>16867365
kek he got owned in the first fucking minute

[Anonymous No.16871253]

>>16871186
>european christians are much more sophisti-

[Anonymous No.16871264]

>>16868218
>Kant literally says at the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason that “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” ...
Niceee

[Anonymous No.16871283]

>>16871253
kek

[Anonymous No.16871312]

>>16868935
you just have a low IQ

[Anonymous No.16871315]

>>16871253
I'm sure that this is an American, maybe not officially but certainly spiritually.

[Anonymous No.16871319]

>>16871132
>and is more of a result of economic inequality btw
Are you suggesting that people kill themselves when they discover that they're not making as much as Elon Musk? Would making Elon Musk poorer solve this problem?

[Anonymous No.16871371]

>>16866526
There's a common denominator between these pop "scientists" from many fields such as Dawkins or Tyson or Krauss. Wether or not they're irreligious or anti religious to various degrees they all seem to hate philosophy. Why is that?

[Anonymous No.16871540]

>>16866526
I'll never understand why anyone cares about popsci authors like Dawkins, or about pointless books such as these. All the necessary arguments against Christianity were made in the 19th century. The works of far superior scientists like those of the Copenhagen group and their opponents (EPR, etc.) are so much more interesting to read.

[Anonymous No.16871560]

>>16867088
irrelevent numbers

[Anonymous No.16871577]

>>16866526
i love how he admited to being a homo

[Anonymous No.16871591]

>>16871540
>popsci authors like Dawkins
how to spot a christc*ck with a grudge

[Anonymous No.16871633]

>>16871591
Nah, I just don't see the point in the OP book, when there's better books rejecting Christianity by better thinkers.

[Anonymous No.16871653]

>>16871633
it might surprise you to learn, zoomzoom, that dawkins had very successful books and a career in biology decades before said book

[Anonymous No.16871668]

https://youtu.be/GNxnGQDT0As

Dawkins is clearly exposed here as a fraud. Why does anyone take him seriously?

[Anonymous No.16871679]

>>16871668
Aquinas was already exposed as a fraud, so it cancels out

[Anonymous No.16871706]

>>16871679
Where was Aquinas exposed?

And at least you admit Dawkins is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.16871733]

>>16871706
Kant thoroughly exposed Aquinas
not to mention that fat retard put forward too many intellectually bankrupt arguments to even keep track of
>Thomas Aquinas said that although reason could not prove Mary's perpetual virginity it must be accepted because it was "fitting" that Jesus as the only-begotten son of God should also be the only-begotten son of Mary

[Anonymous No.16871737]

>>16871668
>buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.16871753]

>>16871733
>Thomas Aquinas said that although reason could not prove Mary's perpetual virginity it must be accepted because it was "fitting" that Jesus as the only-begotten son of God should also be the only-begotten son of Mary
I don't see a flaw in this reasoning

[Anonymous No.16871756]

>>16871733
I haven't read Kant (I don't like what I've heard, but I won't say anything without giving him a chance first.) but can you show me what Aquinas specifically said about Mary? I haven't ever read anything unreasonable by him.

[Anonymous No.16871770]

>>16871540
>>16871653
You are old, dumb fanboy anon. Dawkins is popsci author and had been doing popular science stuff for at least two decades now.

[Anonymous No.16871771]

>>16871737
Those aren't buzzwords, but I figured that one sentence isn't enough, so I also provided a long video. He clearly demonstrates why Dawkins is literally a child trying to play with power tools in the video, but you won't give it a fair shot.

>Not actually consuming content and making arguments just being a sophist

never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.16871782]

>>16871753
>I don't see a flaw in this reasoning
Doesn't surprise me tbqh
>>16871756
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm
if you read what he said about incest, specifically it is wrong because brother-sister love combined with romantic love is wrong because it would lead to TOO much sex, you might enjoy that as well

[Anonymous No.16871786]

>>16871770
Dawkins discovered memes. In the future meme-scientists are going to be venerating him like Newton.

[Anonymous No.16871808]

>>16871770
dawkins has left his mark on science with contributions to evobio and memes, no amount of seething over his role in culture wars will change that

[Anonymous No.16871859]

>>16866526
Why is it the guy who basically invents meme theory can't possibly conceive human observations of the physical world are also equally memes that require power in hierarchy to disseminate as a "truth?"
Why does he think the current hierarchy of Western "truthsayers" in academia are somehow free from meme mutation and infection in how their observations are interpreted and applied sociologically and politically?

[Anonymous No.16871863]

>>16871782
>Provides the objections
>Answers with why it makes sense Mary is a virgin
>Answers why the objections don't hold up

I'm not sure what you want, this is a theological discussion based on sacred scripture. He clearly applies reason to the scriptures as much as he can, and the conclusions follow.

[Anonymous No.16871893]

>>16871863
Do you have scriptural evidence that Mary was a lifelong virgin?

[Anonymous No.16871949]

>>16871863
He already knows the end point, that is perpetual virginity. The scripture says Jesus had brothers, and even if you apply the full force of trained cope to try to negate that, the scripture says nothing about her continued virginity.

Are you Catholic? Why are you trying to make excuses for blatant posthoc rationalizing of dogma in the guise of "reason"

[Anonymous No.16871972]

>>16871893
I missed the emphasis on perpetual and only read the first part in the link. I see what you mean now.

And you are saying that this portion is a good example of him being a fraud, or what exactly?

Also Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura for good reason. So if your point is that he lacks scripture, that doesn't necessarily mean anything off the bat.

[Anonymous No.16872008]

>>16869320
does he exist inside time too?

[Anonymous No.16872018]

>>16871949
Sort of, I'm progressing towards the Church over time it seems. No I'm not making excuses it was a misunderstanding. See my below post for the response.

As for your argument above, there are plenty of reasons not to read the Bible at face value alone to draw conclusions. I haven't actually looked into this so I won't make any cases one way or the other, I should look into it though. My current topic of discussion is whether or not Aquinas is unreliable.

[Anonymous No.16872025]

>>16867147
>>16867278
>>16867301
>>16867398
Dangerously based and too \lit\ for these people to understand.

[Anonymous No.16872042]

>>16867301
>I'm sorry, why the fuck would you see Christian terrorist attacks in Majority Christian countries. Terrorist attacks tend to be done by minorities through radicalization because they aren't integrated. Why the fuck would you see Christian terrorist attacks.
most islamic terorism are in muslim countries

[Anonymous No.16872043]

>>16866737
>>16871668
the people who routinely criticise dawkins know fuck all about evolutionary biology. dawkins' agnosticism-leaning-towards-atheism arises from his knowledge of biological processes which historically godbotherers have either dismissed as unknowable or offered some lame excuse for. it's easy for some mystical thinker to dismiss dawkins by saying "ah, but you don't understand all our special excuses". maybe not. but none of these people have the faintest idea about what a fucking chromosome is. the pitiful level of understanding of something as simple as evolution on this board, populated by the followers of these idiots, is proof enough.
>>16871753
>muh aquinas
aquinas also believed in literal witches that fly on broomsticks and feed their familiars with the devil's milk from their third nipple

[Anonymous No.16872064]

>>16871771
>>16871668
I listened to the whole thing and it's just as spiritually desolating as any other theist cope. God I feel sorry for some Christians.

[Anonymous No.16872065]

>>16869423
>you will not find The God Delusion on the shelf of any academic or even any halfway serious philosophy buff,
he didn't write it for those audiences. he wrote it for people who were fed up of religious fucknuts telling them what to do.

[Anonymous No.16872074]

>>16871972
>And you are saying that this portion is a good example of him being a fraud, or what exactly?
I'm a different anon but the suggestion is he's applying faulty logic deliberately to arrive at that desired conclusion.

[Anonymous No.16872088]

>>16872018
>Sort of, I'm progressing towards the Church over time it seems. No I'm not making excuses it was a misunderstanding. See my below post for the response.
Ah alright
>As for your argument above, there are plenty of reasons not to read the Bible at face value alone to draw conclusions. I haven't actually looked into this so I won't make any cases one way or the other, I should look into it though. My current topic of discussion is whether or not Aquinas is unreliable.
I'm not religious, I've never been Christian, and so my interest in this is purely secular and obviously skeptical.
For you or someone in your position of belief, of course you could literally just go "God told me Mary was perpetually a virgin" and that would settle it, its not a conversation about reason or evidence anymore.
For us, millennia removed from all this, all we can say is that the emergence of this idea is confusing and was not a part of either the scripture or much of earlier Christianity. Aquinas, to me, is just a deep well of rationalizations in the most pejorative sense of the word. When you look at how the Catholic church operates, and does things like accidentally label Mary Magdalene a prostitute for almost 2000 years, it's hard to think that their dogmas are somehow divinely or rationally derived

[Anonymous No.16872095]

>>16872064
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16872178]

>>16872088
>For you or someone in your position of belief, of course you could literally just go "God told me Mary was perpetually a virgin" and that would settle it
That's not true, reason is the bedrock. The church is ready and willing to defend WHY it is infact God who said what he said, and thus making what he said reliable, because it is God. But you have to progress through all the logical steps before you can claim God did anything.

Understanding develops over time, as long as we have a hermeneutic of continuity then I don't see any problem. The church is a source of truth as much as the scriptures, in the right contexts. We have sacred scriptures AND sacred tradition. The early church father's are a great source for truth, however so is Aquinas. He is absolutely foundational, frankly.

I don't believe off the bat that the church was in error about Mary Magdalene. I've heard plenty of similar things said and it never turns out to be the case / the whole story. I'd be happy to look into it.

>>16872074
It doesn't seem faulty per se, just weaker than average. Why is it wrong to discuss what is fitting and what makes the most sense in a particular context?

[Anonymous No.16872234]

>>16872178
>That's not true, reason is the bedrock. The church is ready and willing to defend WHY it is infact God who said what he said, and thus making what he said reliable, because it is God. But you have to progress through all the logical steps before you can claim God did anything.
How is this tenable? There is no such thing as a statement which goes back to any god without first passing through some subjective assumption. Logic doesn't enter the picture at any point.

>Understanding develops over time, as long as we have a hermeneutic of continuity then I don't see any problem. The church is a source of truth as much as the scriptures, in the right contexts. We have sacred scriptures AND sacred tradition. The early church father's are a great source for truth, however so is Aquinas. He is absolutely foundational, frankly.
The problem is you have competing traditions which hold to the records and beliefs more strongly. When the bible casually mentions Jesus having brothers, it is not very convincing to anyone who hasn't already bought into the authority of whatever church, to hear that "actually they weren't brothers, please believe Paul meant it in the colloquial way like brethren haha, cause Mary needs to have always been a virgin, for reasons..."

>I don't believe off the bat that the church was in error about Mary Magdalene. I've heard plenty of similar things said and it never turns out to be the case / the whole story. I'd be happy to look into it.
The Catholic church itself quietly admitted it was in error already, so you don't need to suppose anything on behalf of it.

[Anonymous No.16872257]

>>16866526
This is weak bait, fuck off and sage

[Anonymous No.16872329]

>>16872234
>Prophecies fortell Christ
>He comes and fullfills the prophecies
>Rises from the dead
Theres an example of a reason why someone would believe what they are dealing with is divinity. After the fact, we can examine the historical case, and the case is quite strong, that this is truth.

>The problem is you have competing traditions which hold to the records and beliefs more strongly
What do you mean more strongly? Obviously the Catholic Church could be right and them wrong, and thats what seems to be the case which is why I am progressing to them. And, again, I'm not interested in our personal exegesis. As I have said there are a plethora of examples in which any biblical scholar or Catholic theologian would say the Bible can not be taken at face value.

>The church admitted
There is a specific point to be made here that the church can not lead souls to hell, because of the promise Jesus made. I don't know if this error would constitute pernicious error or not. Feel free to link me to a source on what the church said. By the way if it was post vatican 2 I'm not interested.

[Anonymous No.16872414]

>>16872329
>Prophecies fortell Christ
I'm just going to stop here. You've already gone through the subjective step and are trying to pass it off as given. I'm afraid if you can't see and analyze that, then this really is just asserting you have knowledge of a god that others don't but that it is somehow "logic"

>What do you mean more strongly?
A tradition claiming Jesus had brothers has support in scripture, among other obvious modes of thinking. Strongly in the sense that I can provide more than reasons that materialize out of niche traditions and obsessions.

>There is a specific point to be made here that the church can not lead souls...
Doesn't concern me, and feel free to divine into Mary if it concerns you. I'll lead a horse to water, but I'm not going to drag its nose through it and argue about whether it is water or wine.

[Anonymous No.16872433]

>>16866602
>yeah dude like Jackass on MTV and poping up a 7-up can with fido dido on it, and browsing 4chan in the mid 00's while I'm wearing an element t-shirt and trolling scene girls on myspace yeah those were the times bro
Did you pick up stereotypes around ""nu atheism""" to say exactly what?
This is so incredible romanticized, theist vs atheist online debates are still happening why is it so hard to understand? Nerd culture is bigger than ever but the internet changed, whores on tik tok, instagram and only fans it's what rules the internet now, this doesn't mean neckbeards dies, it just SEEMS irrelevant now.

[Anonymous No.16872494]

>>16872414
I'm not passing it off as a given, I'm using it as an example. Within the example it is indeed a given, but that's how examples work.

What do you mean "if you can't see and analyze that". You can do both, which the people around during that time did. Now we can not see, but we can analyze based on what evidence we have. This is all done via reason.

Certainly you admit that if a prophecy is made, it is possible for that prophecy to be objectively fulfilled.

>Among other obvious modes of thinking
Huh?
>Strongly
Alright, then make the actual case. Although I'm sure it's already been made and I'm glad to find that information myself to see what is said. I suppose my point of our personal exegesis being useless here still stands though, so let's move on from this.

>Doesn't concern me
I'm pretty much just letting you know that the church is metaphysically bound to certain things and I am simply unsure of where this would fit in, however that would be very important clearly, because if it is metaphysically bound to say X and instead says Y then you have an inconsistency. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just adding information. The reason I said I'm not interested in post Vatican 2 content is for the above reason, percieved inconsistency in the v2 texts.

[Anonymous No.16872552]

>>16872043
Dawkins addressed those "special excuses" himself, and got BTFO for being ignorant. Stop coping about muh chromosomes as if that has anything to do with philosophy.

And stop with the rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.16872585]

>>16867069
No. They are as bad as Pentecostals.

[Anonymous No.16872795]

>>16872494
>Certainly you admit that if a prophecy is made, it is possible for that prophecy to be objectively fulfilled.
There is already the interpretative step that it is a prophecy, that it concerned Jesus, etc etc.
One of the biggest problems with any of this prophecy talk is the blatant ways the writers of the gospels created narratives, and especially concerning Mary's virginity, created narratives out of likely mistranslations.
There is no obvious point anywhere where someone can claim a tradition or scripture is divinely inspired, whereas this one is not, and so on.

>Huh?
Married people have sex
>Alright, then make the actual case. Although I'm sure it's already been made and I'm glad to find that information myself to see what is said. I suppose my point of our personal exegesis being useless here still stands though, so let's move on from this.
I already have, Paul (and other passages) flatly say Jesus had brothers. I'd say matter of fact statements in scripture are fairly strong claims to what the scripture means. If you want passages concerning this, there are plenty here for you to investigate and dissect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

[Anonymous No.16872952]

>>16872795
>This will happen, I was told by an angel or I was told by God himself.
>Well you might interpret that as a prophecy but maybe it's not, it's subjective.
??????

??? What are you getting at here. That we live in a world without objective reality? And, please, I used this as an example, you don't need to attempt to explain why you don't like this particular prophecy and fullfilment. The point is - this is one reasonable way of discerning divinity.

>Married people have sex
Aquinas literally addressed this in objection 2.

>Brothers of Jesus
Why are you ignoring my true statements about not taking the Bible at face value every time. It's even addressed in objection 5. There are further objections in the Wikipedia article you posted too. Very unreasonable stance to take by you.

[Anonymous No.16872987]

>>16871782
>if you read what he said about incest, specifically it is wrong because brother-sister love combined with romantic love is wrong because it would lead to TOO much sex, you might enjoy that as well
Is he wrong though?

[Anonymous No.16873024]

>>16872952
>What are you getting at here.
You are relating this as if they are events, when they are things written and repeated until they've reached you.
>That we live in a world without objective reality?
So I take it you also believe in the Quran? Or perhaps you are discriminating against some stories for reasons not made clear in this conversation yet

>Aquinas literally addressed this in objection 2
>For, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:27: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union."
lol

>Why are you ignoring my true statements about not taking the Bible at face value every time. It's even addressed in objection 5. There are further objections in the Wikipedia article you posted too. Very unreasonable stance to take by you.
I am, the problem is that this discussion is not caught up in the first point, which is how you distinguish what is divinely inspired vs. what isnt. There is nothing left of this conversation besides asserting random subjective feelings of divine authority in one tradition or another.

[Anonymous No.16873045]

>>16872987
>step bro
not true incest, the sex must be diminished compared to the passion full blooded siblings would have

[Anonymous No.16873051]

>>16870990
This image makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.16873076]

>>16873051
People used to be a LOT more well read before the 1950s since there was no TV and less distractions so people would read more, especially scientists. That combined with the fact that universities no longer try to balance their STEM curriculum with liberal arts that would provide historical context for the discipline means that modern scientists are hyper specialized know nothings who are experts in a narrow discipline but know next to fuck all about philosophy or history. This is especially damaging when they decide to become public figures to popularize science and then push their retarded narratives out to the public.

[Anonymous No.16873095]

>>16873076
Yes surely Bill Nye is the appropriate modern day comparison to use when contrasting against Schrodinger.
It is a shame how far we've fallen, this 100% accurate snapshot of intellectual development has brought me closer to Christ and Vishnu.

[Anonymous No.16873124]

>>16873024
>You are relating this as if they are events, when they are things written and repeated until they've reached you.

Which is literally how I know 99.9% of what I know.

Furthermore my point was still merely that it is possible to reliably discern that what you hear is the word of God. I'm not making this personal. If those events did indeed happen the way it is written, then it is reasonable to say this is God, at least for people directly involved.

Having said that...

I did mention the historical case (which I would be forced to use), and there is in fact a very compelling historical case that seems to surpass the competition in reliability. Again, not a subjective thing, just takes some effort to understand.

>Lol
Lol

>Divinely inspired
No, this is a question of honest and reliable biblical scholarship, which you seem to think you are above.

[Anonymous No.16873143]

>>16873024
Also -

No I don't believe in the Quran, it has been unimpressive so far. This is a matter of having choices and making the most reasonable choice based on the facts. Please stay on topic, this isn't about biblical apologetics but rather if it is possible to know God's will directly from him, rather than human reason ALONE.

[Anonymous No.16873179]

>>16873095
Go ahead and name any relatively well known contemporary scientist and we'll see how they stack up then.

[Anonymous No.16873187]

>>16873124
>Which is literally how I know 99.9% of what I know.
And yet you don't believe 99.9% of what you've heard.
>Furthermore my point was still merely that it is possible to reliably discern that what you hear is the word of God
How?
>I did mention the historical case (which I would be forced to use), and there is in fact a very compelling historical case that seems to surpass the competition in reliability. Again, not a subjective thing, just takes some effort to understand.
And what is this? Why don't you believe in Advaita Vedanta, for example?
>No, this is a question of honest and reliable biblical scholarship, which you seem to think you are above.
Not to toot my own horn, but I'm almost certain I read more biblical scholarship than you. The problem here is that you seem to think you're above scholarship that doesn't feed into whatever sectarian eisegesis you prefer. Scholarship, for example, is fairly settled on Psalm 29 being plagiarized from a tradition to Baal. Scholarship is settled on Daniels prophecies about Alexander being ex eventu. There are many, many examples of scholarly consensus that does not fit well into any faithful, univocal interpretation of the bible, and I can't help but feel your suggestion that I'm ignorant of any of this is just a blatant desperate attempt to resort to ad hominem
>Please stay on topic, this isn't about biblical apologetics but rather if it is possible to know God's will directly from him, rather than human reason ALONE.
And you have yet to reveal your method

[Anonymous No.16873204]

>>16872065
Yeah exactly. It was written at a time when evangelical Christians were especially obnoxious and intrusive (much like idpol is now, just all encompassing bullshit), but it is clearly of its time and frankly pretty embarrassing to read nowadays when Christianity as a whole is basically neutralised (for better or worse). It's a butthurt rant against something that doesn't really exist anymore.

[Anonymous No.16873212]

>>16873179
Go as deep as Penrose or as shallow as Sean Carroll, you'd have a hard time finding prominent physicists as cringey as Krauss, Bill Nye is just the way the image signals it's a joke rather than a serious criticism
Weird that you take it seriously

[Anonymous No.16873238]

>>16873187
Unfortunately based on what you're saying the responses I'd give would be more reiterations of the same points I've already made for the most part, which, after having done so already several times, I have no interest in doing again.

Sorry to disappoint you if you found this exchange enjoyable. I hope things go well for you sir, I just don't want to continue because of the apparent talking past eachother resulting in no fruits and only frustrations. Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous No.16873252]

>>16873187
How 2 into biblical scholarship

[Anonymous No.16873692]

>>16867040
>here are some cherrypicked images of idiotic Christians
you mean like when people cherrypick stupid quotes from retards like bill nye?

[Anonymous No.16874129]

>>16867023
I'm Orthodox, sweaty.

[Anonymous No.16874135]

>>16874129
>Orthodox

[Anonymous No.16874260]

>>16867084
What? It's the best part.

[Anonymous No.16874296]

>>16867114
based gutsybird

[Anonymous No.16874460]

>>16874135
It's Christianity mixed with paganism, what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.16875282]

>>16871786
And they'll be made of floating magnets.

[Anonymous No.16875344]

>>16874135

[Anonymous No.16875595]

>>16866526
ill pray for u all

[Anonymous No.16876161]

daily reminder that a god who allows the devil to exist makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.16876305]

Thing A cannot have certain contradictory properties
Therefore, Thing B must exist, and have those contradictory properties

This is your brain on Summa
refute this
you cant't

[Anonymous No.16876386]

>>16867756
I didn't read the book but saw the documentary. The documentary at least I can confirm that it is Reddit tier garbage.

[Anonymous No.16876481]

>>16866526
If Richard Dawkins wasn't such an egotistical piece of shit he would probably see the irony in that.

[Anonymous No.16877699]

>>16876161
the devil doesn't exist, he's a metaphor for temptation away from god

[Anonymous No.16878055]

>>16877699
>699
Or does he, hmm???

[Anonymous No.16878543]

>>16866526
Being a fanboy is a dead giveaway that you're sub-human.
This is a thread where sub-humans celebrate being sub-human.

[Anonymous No.16878651]

>>16866620
>Blew Aquinas the FAHK out
> Ok heathen

You're joking right? You really think this delusional retard can go "bLew Aquinas oUt"? Let's get one thing straight, neckbeard.

Your dip-ass Reeeeeetard Dawkins is about as successful in debunking Aquinas as his half-assed predecessor Bertrand Russel who could hardly distinguish important elements of his philosophy from one another like bread and butter.

[Anonymous No.16878964]

>>16874135
uma delicia...