/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19187105]

Which are the best books refuting atheism? Particularly from a Christian standpoint but not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.19187112]

>>19187105
>If God is real why do I like to take it up the ass
kek

[Anonymous No.19187120]

>>19187105
This shit sucks and you're gay and retarded. Refute them yourself if it's so easy.

[Anonymous No.19187157]

>>19187105
Five Proofs by Ed Feser. Check out Cameron Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity as well.

[Anonymous No.19187163]

>>19187105
dumb image

[Anonymous No.19187173]

>>19187105
Christlarpers are so cringe.

[Anonymous No.19187183]

>>19187105
Emotional responses to an emotional claim. There is no rational reason to believe in god. Theists are more hysterical than atheists

[Anonymous No.19187184]

>>19187173
>Christlarpers are so cringe

[Anonymous No.19187189]

>>19187183
>Theists are more hysterical than atheists
Then why are atheists more suicidal?

[Anonymous No.19187190]

>>19187105
kek, it's unironically true even looking at /lit/

[Anonymous No.19187199]

>>19187189
Emotional reason to keep living. Rationality can't save you from suicide. And besides I'm pretty sure there have been more deaths due to religion than atheism if you count the murders along with the suicides

[Anonymous No.19187201]

>>19187105
You forgot:
>God not real because space big.

[Anonymous No.19187207]

>>19187199
> And besides I'm pretty sure there have been more deaths due to religion than atheism if you count the murders along with the suicides
Atheism has killed more through communism alone.

[Anonymous No.19187212]

>>19187105
Religious arguments for the existence of God: if you don't believe in God you have beard down your chin.

[Anonymous No.19187217]

>>19187199
>Suicidal people are more rational than people who aren't.
Nigga?

[Anonymous No.19187228]

>>19187105
>Aquinas's five ways
>1-3. Everything has a cause. Except for god
>4. If it can get bigger there is a biggest. Ignore numbers
>5. The banana was made to fit the human hand. That is its telos

[Anonymous No.19187233]

>>19187105
Typical theist argument:
Things move
But what was the first thing that moved?
This proves that there is a bearded guy in the sky.

[Anonymous No.19187240]

>>19187217
I didn't say suicidal people are more rational. Rationality won't prevent or cause you to commit suicide by itself. You need some type of motivation to keep living.

[Anonymous No.19187243]

>>19187228
>>19187233

[Anonymous No.19187247]

>>19187240
So atheists statistically and consistently are less able to find the will to live, but are somehow less hysterical?

[Anonymous No.19187252]

>>19187233
also a middle eastern guy in roman times was the incarnation of the bearded sky guy and he walked on water and you have to believe this or you go to hell

[Anonymous No.19187257]

>>19187183
This, and I'm saying this as someone that doesn't even doubt the existence of god(s) due to personal reasons. I don't even get why theists are trying to convert atheists/follower of different religions with logic. There's no logcial reason to follow any religion and there ought to be none; belief based on nothing but logic along the lines of "following god A is right because he's greatest, the only true god, etc." will only last until you find someone bigger/more powerful and has less to do with god A and more with his arbitrary ranking in your mind. Things like these are why half of my family doesn't mind christianity and it's god itself, but is deeply disturbed by the almost cult like behaviour of it's followers.

[Anonymous No.19187258]

>>19187247
You can have hysterical reasons to keep living as well as hysterical reasons to commit suicide. Thinking you can't kill yourself because sky daddy(or evil underground uncle) will burn you for eternity if you do is a hysterical reason.

[Anonymous No.19187265]

>>19187233
>>19187252
>BEARDED MAN IN THE SKY!

[Anonymous No.19187279]

>>19187265
So god isn't anthropomorphic and doesn't have a personal relationship with us? The human being Jesus didn't exist either?

[Anonymous No.19187288]

>>19187233
It's easy to tell which retards have never actually read Aquinas. Read Feser and see that this isn't at all what he argued.

[Anonymous No.19187299]

>>19187201
Except Baron used this argument for Job's suffering and it turned me into an atheist again
>God and suffering real because universe big

[Anonymous No.19187300]

Christians are decent at arguing against atheists about the necessity of God's existence but they hide behind memes when challenged on the Christian faith itself.

[Anonymous No.19187305]

>>19187279
>So god isn't anthropomorphic
No, you retard.
>and doesn't have a personal relationship with us
Not if you reject him.
>The human being Jesus didn't exist either?
Stop stretching your argument so much, you'll hurt yourself.

[Anonymous No.19187307]

>>19187288
OP is based on stupid caricatures of atheist arguments.

[Anonymous No.19187315]

>>19187258
>UM ACKSHULLY ATHEISTS KILL THEMSELVES MORE OFTEN BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE STABLE!
>>19187307
That are indistinguishable from the very atheist arguments in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19187317]

>>19187305
A god that gets angry, talks to people, and has a living son is equivalent to a bearded man in the sky. Seethe all you want you still believe in the adult Santa

[Anonymous No.19187320]

>>19187105
Cringe

[Anonymous No.19187321]

>>19187257
What I'm trying to say is: if you want people to believe in your god you should try to not act like the hoodie (your religion, which, in the way it's sold, can be arbitrarily changed for a different one tommorow) you're trying to sell to me is going to save me from a coming biblical flood, but rather just have me come to the conclusion that he's someone I want to believe in myself and (at most) give me ample oppurtunities to come in contact with him on my own terms.

[Anonymous No.19187322]

>>19187300
What challenges? All you retards have been doing is shouting "sky daddy" again and again.

[Anonymous No.19187329]

>>19187315
And Aquinas is indistinguishable from >>19187228. Christcucks are desperate for any type of intellectual argument to make them not seem like angry children.

[Anonymous No.19187330]

>>19187317
>I'm too stupid to conceive of how anything could have emotions that isn't a human body

[Anonymous No.19187332]

>google "christian depictions of God"
>it's all bearded guys

[Anonymous No.19187337]

>>19187329
>Christcucks
>angry children
You can't even argue without using meme insults. Read Feser if understanding Aquinas is too much for you.

[Anonymous No.19187341]

>>19187228
BIG CHOO CHOO IN THE SKY CHOO CHOO ALL BY ITSELF
t. thomist the tank

[Anonymous No.19187343]

>>19187332
We got to cocky christbros

[Anonymous No.19187344]

>>19187332
It's almost like artists use symbolism or something.

[Anonymous No.19187354]

>>19187322
>What challenges?
Do you believe this >>19187252
if so, why?

[Anonymous No.19187355]

>>19187317
>the adult Santa
No that would be Odin, perhaps Saturn. Not the same as the volcano demon Jahve

[Anonymous No.19187363]

>>19187344
You're getting close to understanding. Next step is could god be symbolic? And why do I care what the symbolism is in some ancient mythology?

[Anonymous No.19187372]

IT'S A SYMBOLIC BEARD YOU FRIGGIN CHUDCEL

[Anonymous No.19187374]

>>19187354
This isn't a challenge, this is just another temper tantrum with
>sky daddy
and
>Miracles can''t happen because...THEY JUST CAN'T, OKAY!

[Anonymous No.19187381]

>>19187355
>Not the same as the volcano demon Jahve
Why do you keep regurgitating Freud's discredited theories.

[Anonymous No.19187386]

>>19187105
>zoomers converting en masse because their favorite e-celebs are doing it and because of politics
I hate this trend

[Anonymous No.19187392]

>>19187363
This is a a pathetic level of sophistry. You're comparing renaissance paintings made centuries later using symbolism to represent a higher being to the foundational texts itself. You people are stuck in high school.

[Anonymous No.19187394]

>>19187381
I'm sure he was more familiar with the god of abraham than you'll ever be christer

[Anonymous No.19187397]

this really just draws attention to how many actual arguments we have lol

[Anonymous No.19187402]

>>19187372
No, that's real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soCkftBBsBo

[Anonymous No.19187403]

>>19187386
Literally how it happened the first time around.
>omg did you hear, the heckin emperino converted! based based based

[Anonymous No.19187405]

>>19187374
My question is WHY do you believe that Jesus was the son of God and walked on water, etc. And not that Muhammad was God's messenger and flew on a little horse to Jerusalem. Or that Amitabha Buddha built a paradise you can enter if you chant the nembutsu.

[Anonymous No.19187407]

>>19187386
Where the fuck have you been? Most e-celebs are pushing secular globohomo.
>>19187397
You consider those actual arguments?

[Anonymous No.19187408]

>>19187392
Why does when it's made or being foundational matter to whether it's symbolic? Multiple stories in the Bible are clearly allegorical. Shit major fields of Biblical criticism are devoted to typology. So just take the final step god is symbolic not real.

[Anonymous No.19187416]

>>19187322
But your whole argument is basically:
>Atheism is...LE WRONG!
>You just don't get it, you shout SKY DADDY
>Le no arguments!

Even this thread started as a plea to find anything at all to use as an argument in order to cope better.

I mean you are the ones with ridiculous leap in logic so it's on you to defend it and prove you're actually not delusional.

In any case "sky daddy" caricature should be pretty easy to counter if you had any arguments at all that would make you look less like a retard.
>ACTUALLY it's 3 entities: a god, a ghost and a dude all in one and like the dude resurrected

[Anonymous No.19187429]

>>19187337
Is "read Feser" a meme?

Did any of you christcucks actually read this? Because nobody ever explains it here. Is it an overcomplicated cope?

[Anonymous No.19187430]

>>19187408
A symbol represents something else. If God is a symbol, he must be a symbol of what is necessarily not-God, otherwise the symbol would be the symbolized—immediately apprehensible with no need for the symbolic. So you're an atheist too?

[Anonymous No.19187447]

>>19187429
The only "proof" of his that could be seriously entertained is that he appears to be married with six children.

[Anonymous No.19187453]

>>19187405
Because the historical and contemporary evidence of Christianity is greater.
See
>>19187402
> Multiple stories in the Bible are clearly allegorical.
Says you.
>Shit major fields of Biblical criticism are devoted to typology.
Because history repeats itself.
>So just take the final step god is symbolic not real
I'm not a midwit. If you have trouble confusing symbolism for what the symbol represents than I can't help you.
>>19187416
>reddit spacing
That asiide, there haven't been any substiantial arguments offered than haven't been "sky daddy"
>Even this thread started as a plea to find anything at all to use as an argument in order to cope better.
Nice strawman.
>I mean you are the ones with ridiculous leap in logic so it's on you to defend it and prove you're actually not delusional.
You haven't made any logical arguments of postures in the first place.
>In any case "sky daddy" caricature should be pretty easy to counter if you had any arguments at all that would make you look less like a retard.
It doesn't need to be countered, it shows the emotional rejection that atheists make and structure their rejection around.
>>19187429
>Stop telling me to read things!
It's a suggestion, you faggot. You keep spouting the same tired accusations that have already been addressed.

[Anonymous No.19187456]

>>19187429
He's an academic sideshow that writes polemics against atheists. If you want to learn about neothomism he's okay I guess. I don't really know enough to say either way. I've read The Last Superstition and glanced through Scholastic Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19187465]

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
> And that, I submit, is the reason why the stupid “Everything has a cause” argument – a complete fabrication, an urban legend, something no philosopher has ever defended – perpetually haunts the debate over the cosmological argument. It gives atheists an easy target, and a way rhetorically to make even their most sophisticated opponents seem silly and not worth bothering with. It‘s a slimy debating trick, nothing more – a shameless exercise in what I have elsewhere called “meta-sophistry.” (I make no judgment about whether Le Poidevin’s or Dennett’s sleaziness was deliberate. But that they should know better is beyond question.)
>What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause. These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.” Defenders of the cosmological argument also provide arguments for these claims about causation. You may disagree with the claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics, you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.
>This gives us what I regard as “the basic” test for determining whether an atheist is informed and intellectually honest. If he thinks that the cosmological argument rests on the claim that “everything has a cause,” then he is simply ignorant of the basic facts. If he persists in asserting that it rests on this claim after being informed otherwise, then he is intellectually dishonest. And if he is an academic philosopher like Le Poidevin or Dennett who is professionally obligated to know these things and to eschew cheap debating tricks, then… well, you do the math.

[Anonymous No.19187467]

>>19187407
Not the "I'm stoopid" paraphrasing, obviously, but literally all of those (even the faggot one) have a pretty solid argument behind them that christians struggle hard to respond to.

[Anonymous No.19187490]

>>19187453
>Because the historical and contemporary evidence of Christianity is greater.
What was the evidence that convinced you of Christ's divinity?

[Anonymous No.19187494]

>>19187465
Everything that is caused has a cause is a tautology and always true I'll give him that. But if he tosses away everything has a cause how can he say the universe has to have a cause?

[Anonymous No.19187515]

>>19187453
Shit, I never thought of it that way, but I guess the only correct definition of what Christians believe in is "not in skydaddy"...

[Anonymous No.19187533]

>>19187407
>Where the fuck have you been? Most e-celebs are pushing secular globohomo.
what is this odd cope? you know there are e-celebs on the right doing exactly what I said don’t be disingenuous about it

[Anonymous No.19187537]

>>19187184
a w....wojak...!

[Anonymous No.19187538]

>>19187465
>>What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause. These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.”
Ah so in other words God does not 'come into existence' therefore he has no cause. But this is actually what the atheist is charging, that the theist has not supplied a cause for God. So the theist says "I don't have to." But for someone who is not playing word games, God does not come into existence—because he does not exist!
>you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.
Sure you can. The theist is trying to prove that God, who he admits cannot or does not "come into existence," is bringing other entities into existence. Something not brought into existence, does not exist. So what does not exist cannot have efficacy or operate and cannot be the cause of anything.
>>This gives us what I regard as “the basic” test for determining whether an atheist is informed and intellectually honest. If he thinks that the cosmological argument rests on the claim that “everything has a cause,” then he is simply ignorant of the basic facts. If he persists in asserting that it rests on this claim after being informed otherwise, then he is intellectually dishonest.
It's intellectually dishonest for the theist to suggest the cosmological argument is proof of god, since its premise is that god does not exist.

[Anonymous No.19187541]

>>19187403
And atheists only converted because of comedians and cartoons.

[Anonymous No.19187543]

It's time to take the Islampill.

[Anonymous No.19187548]

>>19187465
>999/1000 christians you meet will present the argument in a retarded way but it's not fair to respond to this argument because the 1000th has a slightly more complicated version of the argument

[Anonymous No.19187553]

>>19187533
>C-COPE!
Can you faggots do anything but repeat buzzwords?
Look at the media landscape right now. Secularism and neo-liberalism are being pushed, not religion. So acting like zoomers are converting because of the media is retarded at best.

[Anonymous No.19187554]

>>19187541
Atheism isn't a thing you "convert" to. It is just a simple binary disbelief in god or gods.

[Anonymous No.19187558]

>>19187494
>But if he tosses away everything has a cause how can he say the universe has to have a cause?
Because he didn't?

[Anonymous No.19187561]

>>19187553
>Can you faggots do anything but repeat buzzwords?
>neo-liberalism

[Anonymous No.19187575]

>>19187558
Isn't the cosmological argument that for the universe to have been caused to exist you need God?

[Anonymous No.19187592]

even if the existence of God was proved to be correct, that wouldn't mean Christian dogma is true. so why do atheists always try to "disprove God" when it's easier to just point out the insane basis of the religion

[Anonymous No.19187595]

>>19187173
>nooooo you can't sincerely hold beliefs contrary to my own, you must be larping!

[Anonymous No.19187621]

>>19187592
/thread

[Anonymous No.19187626]

>some hysteric itt spamming 'read fester'
lmao

[Anonymous No.19187735]

>>19187558
i think ur topiuc threads on the rationality and possibilty of that giant dinosaur natur.

[Anonymous No.19187771]

>>19187228
>1-3. Everything has a cause. Except for god
yea
>>19187317
>anger and communication are solely human traits
impressive anthropocentrism

[Anonymous No.19187798]

>>19187771
So why do we need to assume the existence of god to cause the universe? Just assume the universe has no cause either. And if anger and communication aren't anthropomorphic traits what the hell are?

[Anonymous No.19187800]

>>19187300
>hide behind memes
use faith as a shield against demons*
there will never be a path of pure reason to any god
reason can show you why you have to walk a path
but in the end you have to choose what to trust