/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19380923]

>In my piece entitled ‘The Future of an Illusion’ I was much less concerned with the most profound sources of religious sentiment than with what the common man understands by his religion, the system of teachings and promises that on the one hand explains to him, with enviable thoroughness, the riddles of this world, and on the other assures him that a careful providence will watch over his life and compensate him in a future existence for any privations he suffers in this. The common man cannot imagine this providence otherwise than as an immensely exalted father. Only such a being can know the needs of the children of men, be softened by their pleas and propitiated by signs of their remorse. All this is so patently infantile, so remote from reality, that it pains a philanthropic temperament to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above such a view of life. It is still more embarrassing to learn how many of those living today, who cannot help seeing that this religion is untenable, nevertheless seek to defend it, bit by bit, in pathetic rearguard actions.

[Anonymous No.19380930]

>>19380923
Keep your problems to yourself.

[Anonymous No.19380936]

>>19380930
Jung is better than Freud but he has his own things that are hard to believe
>dude a little girl having slightly weird dreams meant that looked into the future and saw she was about to die lmao

[Anonymous No.19380984]

>>19380936
She saw the future and atheists will seethe.

>b- but it was just coincidence!
Exactly. Besides, it's not impossible that the unconscious (if it is all so knowledgeable in the first place) could be aware of a sickness.

[Anonymous No.19381152]

>my surface-level analysis of religion is infantile
>therefore religion is infantile
brilliant

[Anonymous No.19381179]

>>19381152
based.

fuck this seething jewborg

[Anonymous No.19381315]

>>19380923

More to the point that Freud goes ploppy in Jung's mouth.

[Anonymous No.19381446]

>>19381152
>waaaah it's not infantile
>daddy, punish this bad man and send him to time out forever

[Anonymous No.19381504]

>>19381446
god isn't some dude that punishes people, anthropomorphization is symbolic

[Anonymous No.19381572]

>>19380936
Jung argued that the unconscious could be aware of miniscule symptoms of an oncoming sickness. The dreams "predict", but not literally.

[Anonymous No.19381585]

>>19381504
Not true for most theists but ok

[Anonymous No.19381621]

>>19381585
Being personal does not mean anthropomorphized. Imago Deo is not having hair beard nose mouth

[Anonymous No.19381628]

>>19381621
Well I've heard that he's a big guy

[Anonymous No.19381632]

>>19381628
For you

[Anonymous No.19381660]

>>19381628
He is but not in the usual physical way we think. But how about you start reading more theology and attend to the Church now that you know God is not the common childish image low iq people think He is?

[Anonymous No.19381675]

>>19380923
freud was definitely influenced by nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19381783]

>>19381675
Yes especially his Moses and Monotheism, which egyptologist Jan Assmann considers an example of N's "genealogical" method
>>19381660
No thanks I'd go for pantheisn if I were a theist. Wouldn't have to square it with as many anti-reality narratives and tropes

[Anonymous No.19381791]

>>19381783
So you reject something a priori without knowing anything about it? And something that is one of the most important questions of life? Thank you for showing us how your kind operates.

[Anonymous No.19381817]

>>19381791
>without knowing anything about it
What do you know, exactly, about anything other than other people's theories, of which there are many, about god, which allows you to so arrogantly claim one to the exclusion of all others?

[Anonymous No.19381837]

>>19381817
>what do you know
Exactly, what do YOU know?

[Anonymous No.19382054]

>>19381837
>the christer resorts to annihilating epistemology to defend god
Didn't realize you posed as a Buddhist in other threads