[ 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: 39 KB, 657x527, 1525734904215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17839014 No.17839014 [Reply] [Original]

Watching and partaking in cringe religion vs. atheism debates when you were young is embarrassing now but it probably did help frame your mind for future development and help you cognitively process arguments and ideas with the proper filters.

>> No.17839026

>>17839014
Watching Christianity versus atheist debates assured me of the trustworthiness of the Christian religion and made me aware of the lapses in atheist logic

>> No.17839043

no, it did not. nigger.

>> No.17839823

>>17839014
sorry op but you're posting Apu. i don't think it helped. (i love apu tho)

>> No.17839828

>>17839014
I look back on my youth where I would start debates about feminism and atheism fondly.

>> No.17839845

>>17839014
The New Atheists of the 2000s were a strange phenomenon. So strident and belligerent about a Christianity that's dying out anyway.

>> No.17839854

>>17839014
>tfw became atheist at really young age while everyone is still religious
>think i am so smart
>tfw become religious in my 20s when all my peers are now atheist
>think i am so smart

maybe i am just contrarian

>> No.17839855

>>17839014
I always sided with the atheists because they made use of arguments with premises basically baked into our cultural understanding at this point, namely that science is the only means to discover truth. That and liberal individualistic morality. Their arguments boiled down to "science cannot deal with God, science alone can determine truth, religion is socially harmful, therefore we should not believe in God" or something of that nature. But they veil it in the pretense that their position is that of a rational skeptic instead of a dogmatist trying to avoid deep metaphysical questions.

>> No.17839888

>>17839828
oh man you were probably that annoying ass motherfucker at the lans weren't you?

>> No.17839911

>>17839014
Why did you make this thread?

>> No.17839930

>>17839854
One thing you definitely aren't is self aware.

>> No.17839934

>>17839888
???

>> No.17840056

>>17839845
Psyops telling people where to direct their attention and where not to.

That and the internet was first utilized by nerds who needed an outlet to vent their secular views that disagreed with muh mom and dad.

>> No.17841559

>>17839828
Fun times.

>> No.17841578

>>17839026
>lapses in atheist logic
What lapses in logic may this be? And how do they outweigh the lapses of christian logic? The side which has to convince themselves and others of a god would inherently be more prone to lapses in logic, no?

>> No.17842164
File: 7 KB, 249x250, 1615136825462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17842164

>>17839014
keyword: debates. keyword: frogposter. clowns debated for thousands of years, still debate, and have no idea why.

>> No.17842222

Will Religion LARPers ever leave this board?

>> No.17842262

>>17839854
this describes the whole of /lit/ cath-larping

>> No.17842287

religion is dead in the first world, only discussion that remains is the one on the net, mostly among people with too much time.

>> No.17842724

>>17841578
The side which fails to account for how matter and the universe came to be is the lapsed one. Several cosmological arguments prove theism.

>> No.17843287

>>17842222
Based quads.

>> No.17843314

>>17842724
>Several cosmological arguments prove theism.
How does that prove just the Christian god and not every god?

>> No.17843321

>>17842287
It's actually growing in most of the first world. Atheists don't really have kids on average, religious people do, and most of the mass immigration to the first world is religious people as well. Peak atheism already came and went. Also a lot of atheists actually believe in stuff like astrology

>> No.17843345

>>17843321
What a dishonest statement. kek.

>> No.17843352

>>17843321
>Atheists don't really have kids on average, religious people do
I keep hearing this argument yet not a single statistic shows anything of that sort. The % of religious people in first world is steadily decreasing.

>> No.17843369
File: 310 KB, 705x535, ruins your board.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17843369

>>17842222
Checked. They'll grow out of their LARP in about two years.

>> No.17843383

>>17839026
Then telling us about those should be a piece of cake to you, plus what evidence there is for the existence of any god, and why that god is specifically your god

>> No.17843388

>>17843369
kek.

>> No.17843393

>>17843352
We probably shouldn’t tell the religious that you don’t actually need to have kids to spread ideas

>> No.17843394

>>17843352
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/
It's basically just because religion is a proxy for traditional gender roles and social structures.

And it doesn't matter because the first world doesn't reproduce itself, it is being replenished by religious immigrants. Apart from Israel, but there too the high birth rate is due to religious people.

>> No.17843426

>>17843314
>How does that prove just the Christian god and not every god?
Not him but this an irrelevant question. Realize the difference between Capital G God and lowercase g god(s).

>> No.17843437

>>17843426
That is in fact very relevant, especially when you claim yours is the only correct one and all the other gods will lead you to eternal hellfire. So, how do we know that yours is the true and correct one?

>> No.17843449
File: 82 KB, 672x366, original.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17843449

>>17843394
You keep relying on the uneducated brown masses to hold on to religion, but what I see in my country - France - is that second generation has about 50% drop rate in their parents' beliefs. The original migrants stay religious because that's all they know, but the kids just chase social media attention, pussy and weed like the natives youngsters. No idea what's the situation like in US and their mexican catholic border crossers but I found pic related from the most comprehensive study on topic.
The paper you linked is irrelevant btw.

>> No.17843457

>>17843426
I know that. What has that got to do with my question. Anon specifically said it assured him of the trustworthiness of the Christian religion>>17839026 and his argument for that is>>17842724 I just don't how it proves just the Christian "God" when the same argument can be used for gods of other religion?

>> No.17843478

>>17843449
One could argue the amount of political religious larpers are growing rapidly? Because of the whole left vs right thing happened. I thing its safe to assume the whole of right is religious even if they don't strictly follow their religion.

>> No.17843479

>>17843449
>- is that second generation has about 50% drop rate in their parents' beliefs.
That doesn't matter if the mass immigration from religious countries continues. The religious immigrants will have more kids too. There will be an increase in % irreligious people in West as baby boomers die off, but the new generations have the opposite trend

Why do you think the paper is irrelevant?

>> No.17843518
File: 423 KB, 1019x558, Divine Simplicity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17843518

>>17843437
>>17843457
To be fair, the anon was talking about how these arguments prove theism.
>Several cosmological arguments prove theism.

Now, the existence of the Christian religion being true are based on historical and philosophical facts that are partly to do with faith and revelation but reason as well.

To reason, I would point towards divine simplicity and the trinity, the common theme of "the One" throughout history (Egyptian mythology etc.), the improbability of polytheism, and the historicity of the resurrection (Craig debate would be a good one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5_nJYSKyk

>> No.17843533

>>17843518
>historical and philosophical facts that are partly to do with faith and revelation but reason as well.
Such as? And how does any of that differ from the faith, revelation and reason a Muslim has for his beliefs?

> (Egyptian mythology etc.),
Which was at best dualistic, not monotheistic. Akhenaton’s reign was a complete failure

>the improbability of polytheism
Your data sample showed this?

>> No.17843537
File: 60 KB, 641x847, PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_projectedChange640px.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17843537

>>17843479
Even on global scale 30 years into future, only Islam will keep rising. This is taking into consideration all factors such as migration and rapid population growth in developing countries, but even so Christians are projected to remain at identical %. Consequently, the religion will move from civilized world into Africa, South America and Southeast Asia where the population growth is occuring.

Personally, I'm not really concerned what they do there.

>> No.17843552

>>17843518
>Now, the existence of the Christian religion being true are based on historical and philosophical facts that are partly to do with faith and revelation but reason as well.
That is the same foe all religions.

>> No.17843563

>>17843537
The US is being colonized by Catholic Latinos, Europe by Muslims from MENA. The most fertile white populations in the US are religious as well. Christianity worldwide is growing anyway, just not as fast as Islam

>> No.17843567

>>17843552
for*

>> No.17843749

>>17839855
lol The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’science’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ reality is composed by mathematical objects.

Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.

It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system, say a particle, is supposed to know how to behave, ie following the immaterial rules during an interaction, before it interacts.
5/all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

>> No.17843760

>>17843749
Should be pretty obvious based on the very structure of the scientific experiment that its findings are purely pragmatic, they are concerned with the manipulation of the world, with effects relating to causes.

>> No.17843778

>>17839855
>>17843749
>>17843760
Holy shit, imagine being part of such a self congratulating circlejerk

>> No.17843779

>>17843760
yeah, but these atheists use it as the ultimate standard of truth. They don't limit its application to pragmatism.

>> No.17843790

>>17843779
I totally agree, other Christian poster who’s totally not me! Let’s suck each other’s dicks!

>> No.17843805

>>17843790
You’re absolutely right, not-me! We should 69 each other, lick each others balls and take turns coming in each other’s assholes!

>> No.17843816

>>17843779
That's because science is astonishingly successful, way, way better than anything else humans have ever come up with. It's natural that philosophically uneducated people confuse this for being an answer to everything, especially when philosophy and religion are such fractured and ambiguous subjects.

>> No.17843822

>>17843805
Wow, also-not-me, you’re really smart, clever and handsome! I’m getting rock hard just thinking about how totally smart you are!

>> No.17843832

>>17843822
You’re right, not-me! All these uneducated atheists don’t even know what’s it’s like to wear a cockring and clamps on your nipples! Only us brilliant and scholarly Christians know that!

>> No.17844689

>>17843314
That's a secondary irrelevant question

>> No.17844824

>>17844689
How is that irrelevant?

>> No.17846397

>>17844824
Because one does not need to prove a certain theistic conception of God to disprove atheism, which is the claim that no deity exists