/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19795367]

>Flynn effect means IQ is dropping drastically in western countries
>Suddenly new christians start popping up like mushrooms
Was this ever refuted?

[Anonymous No.19795382]

>>19795367
>>Suddenly new christians start popping up like mushrooms
They're former fedora atheists who "converted" when it became counter culture to be a christian

[Anonymous No.19795415]

>>19795367
>point that has been discussed for literally two millenia and refuted countless times
>*op tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.19795430]

>>19795415
If by countless times you mean never, yeah

[Anonymous No.19795441]

>>19795382
t. one of those people

[Anonymous No.19795445]

>>19795441
I was never a fedora atheist nor a christian, try again

[Anonymous No.19795473]

>>19795382
I wonder if it really is just a case of contrarianism, the neckbeard fedora tipper seemed to disappeared and was replaced with either narcissistic redditors or christlarpers

[Anonymous No.19795481]

[Anonymous No.19795487]

>>19795481
Then you're ready for the final step.

[Anonymous No.19795492]

>>19795382
I think its a little more complicated than that. I was raised catholic, went to catholic school for 12 years, but turned hard atheist to agnostic by the time I hit my teens. But with some personal problems from ages 20-23 which I'm many people attracted to sites like this experience, I was on that path of the newage "christian", not to be a contrarian, but to make sense of the world and provide myself with a much needed foundation
I think secular ideologies and lifestyles in the west are beginning to show their cracks and now you'll start seeing reactions to it

[Anonymous No.19795495]

>>19795481
You could just end with step 2, the rest is larp and cope. Maybe read the actual skeptics though instead of just RAW.

[Anonymous No.19795496]

>>19795473
I think its more that the neckbeard fedora tipper is finding out that he is ill-suited to a liberal and atheistic world.

This stems from gamergate and the collision between spergs and feminists, and the rise of incel culture. It's what transformed 4chan from the home of Anonymous, being generally a left/Anarchst space, to a more conservative place overrun by poltards. In that online environment of concentrated reactionary traditionalism, combined with an external world filled with obese trans activists and CRT totalitarians, in which it has become very difficult for a lot of men to have sex, it's only natural that you'd see a rejection of modernity, women, and liberalism, and a return to more traditional approaches to the universe -- that is, to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19795500]

>>19795487
No. You reach the gnostic heresy about half-way through. It's actually one of the steps.

[Anonymous No.19795505]

>>19795500
Sorry bro, you're coping, and so were Iranaeus, Plotinus and the rest. Stop worshiping a demon.

[Anonymous No.19795506]

>>19795495
RAW is more for the exercises. And you don't read him for scepticism about religion -- you read him for scepticism about materialism.

[Anonymous No.19795511]

>>19795506
>And you don't read him for scepticism about religion -- you read him for scepticism about materialism.
You can't just pick and choose what to be skeptical about if you're intellectually honest.

[Anonymous No.19795517]

>>19795511
You don't understand, sorry. You've clearly never engaged with his work. The point of the chart is that you start from a modern position of scepticism, atheism and committed materialism.

[Anonymous No.19795522]

>>19795511
You don't need to read about how to be sceptical of the claims of religion -- because anyone with half a brain and the most minimal education already is. And this chart isn't for the stupid.

[Anonymous No.19795523]

>>19795517
I've read PR, dumbass. I don't care about the point of the chart, you can't recommend RAW for "skepticism regarding materialistic atheism" but simultaneously say his skepticism doesn't also apply to metaphysical dogma, especially when he explicitly states the contrary in the first dozen pages of the book.

[Anonymous No.19795530]

>>19795523
Obviously his scepticism also applies to metaphysical dogma. The chart is a path, and you have to pass through those mental stages before really understanding. You are a very dense person.

[Anonymous No.19795533]

>>19795492
>to make sense of the world and provide myself with a much needed foundation
You were raised a Christian, so when you see the failures of militant atheism, you default back to Christianity and that's not even a criticism.
However, I highly doubt the average ortholarper who replies to every thread with "the bible" and throws a tantrum every time an alternative to his metaphysical model is mentioned has been raised a Christian. A protestant perhaps. It's usually easy to distinguish between genuine Christians and those who use Christianity as a pretext to underpin and justify their political beliefs, as >>19795496 suggests.

>>19795522
>You don't need to read about how to be sceptical of the claims of religion
I think you do, because it's easy, when you reject materialism, to immediately default back to another dogma that you subscribe to simply because it rejects your previous materialist framework.

[Anonymous No.19795535]

>>19795522
>this chart isn't for the stupid.
>implies the endgame of everything to be the Bible
Yeah, I don't know about that.

[Anonymous No.19795538]

>>19795511
are you implying what you are skeptical of is therefore determined for you?

[Anonymous No.19795543]

>>19795530
>The chart is a path
Towards what?
>>19795538
No, but if you're skeptical of one metaphysical claim (reductionist physicalism), you should be equally skeptical of other metaphysical claims. Why pick and choose if you don't have an underlying agenda?

[Anonymous No.19795550]

>>19795535
It doesn't imply the Bible is the endgame of everything. It implies that without the consciousness change of reading through the chart (and properly engaging with the ideas, and doing the exercises), then Christianity will never make sense to you.

This is why Seraphim Rose could become an orthodox Christian -- he started out studying Eastern religion (and translating classical Chinese texts) under Alan Watts.

>>19795533
I wasn't suggesting that. Again, you are being dense and have misunderstood.

[Anonymous No.19795559]

>>19795543
You make scepticism sound like an ideology in itself. Which I think it probably is to you, which is precisely the kind of attitude RAW criticised. He wasn't a 'Skeptic', he was a general agnostic -- an agnostic about everything.

[Anonymous No.19795561]

>>19795550
>It doesn't imply the Bible is the endgame of everything
It heavily implies that at the end of your philosophical journey you can only accept Christianity, otherwise the chart wouldn't be suggesting Rose which was an extremely biased writer (and didn't understand eastern religion very well, only new age bastardizations of them)

[Anonymous No.19795562]

>>19795550
>I wasn't suggesting that.
Your post provides a justification as to why many disenfranchised men have turned to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19795566]

>>19795559
>You make scepticism sound like an ideology in itself
No, I'm just trying to remain impartial. If you suspend judgment regarding the truth of physicalism, why wouldn't you suspend judgment regarding the truth of deism, panpsychism, buddhism, christianity and all other metaphysical frameworks? This isn't a rhetorical question.
>he was a general agnostic
I'm aware. And I'm not an "ideological skeptic", I don't deny knowledge can exist or anything like that.

[Anonymous No.19795575]

>>19795550
>It doesn't imply the Bible is the endgame of everything.
>chart is literally titled "the road to christ"

[Anonymous No.19795578]

>>19795543
all u have really said to me is that if A therefore B, its an inference, MUST B, you lose autonomy in this way

cheers for teaching me something about reductionist physicalism

[Anonymous No.19795579]

>>19795415
>t. christian '''philosopher''' who loves to debate idiots to lord his superiority over them and feed his fragile intellectual ego

[Anonymous No.19795580]

>>19795561
He understood it very well -- I don't think his original translations of classical Chinese texts were 'bastardisations'.

>>19795562
You need to learn to distinguish between descriptive and normative claims. To say that people turn to Christianity in response to political and social developments is not to undermine the truth of the claims of Christianity, or their sincerity in doing so. One could say that they have discovered the error of their Atheistic liberalism by seeing what happens when society turns post-Christian -- this isn't the same as 'Christianity is just a justification for political beliefs'.

>>19795561
The sceptical attitude is established from the start; the writings of chesterton and rose do not need to accepted in their totality; the purpose of the chart is to provide you with the mental tools to fully understand what the Bible is.