/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19853904]

How does he make religious nutcrackers seethe so hard?

[Anonymous No.19853907]

Whos dat?

[Anonymous No.19853919]

>>19853907
Some nutter

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0

[Anonymous No.19854591]

>>19853904
I think he makes some of the single worst arguments against religon and I am not even religious.

[Anonymous No.19854596]

>>19853904
Mind-numbingly stupid.

[Anonymous No.19854705]

Does he he is kind of a joke, to anyone who has even a bit of philosophical knowledge

[Anonymous No.19854713]

>>19853904
seethe? not really. a lot of his arguments are far from people like Epicurus or Sextus Empiricus or even Nietzsche. he's a typical "Christians make my feelbads hurt so I'm gonna whine about on twatter" nothing even resembling egoism or utilitarianism or "might is right" type of thinking. just a really reddit individual altogether.

[Anonymous No.19854740]

>>19853904
>well then who caused God!?!?!?
Aquinas btfo

[Anonymous No.19854756]

>>19853904
>religious nutcrackers *giggle* *wheeze*

[Anonymous No.19855008]

>>19853904

[Anonymous No.19855011]

>>19853904
Dude is too scared to try mushrooms or dmt.

[Anonymous No.19855016]

>>19855011
based brojogan-pilled

[Anonymous No.19855167]

>>19853904
OP thinks Dawkins is based, kek

[Anonymous No.19855182]

>>19855011
But it's all the brain producing those images.

Is it really that far fetched to say that something that is the product of billions of years of evolution and billions more iterations can produce complex images?

[Anonymous No.19855187]

>>19855182
Doesn't matter, he's too shook.

[Anonymous No.19855202]

The Extended Phenotype is a good book

[Anonymous No.19855696]

>>19853904
He's extremely low IQ. I am surprised at his lack of knowledge

[Anonymous No.19856723]

>>19854740
Yes. You're memeing but Aquinas is so shit that even such a juvenile retort tears his philosophy a new one

[Anonymous No.19856749]

>>19855008
The lengths men will go to to avoid acknowledging they're gay

[Anonymous No.19856751]

lol he's great in his field unlike the illiterate buffoons would have you believe. but for the rest he's dogshit

[Anonymous No.19856790]

>>19853904
Does he? In 2022?

Sorry anon, he was "relevant" until 2012.

[Anonymous No.19856829]

>>19856790
This
Back then I used to think I was cool for being a contrarian
So cringe

[Anonymous No.19856861]

>>19855008
Who Is his boyfriend?

[Anonymous No.19856870]

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.19856878]

>>19856829
Based
And now you're a Christian I assume? Good job! You really showed r/atheism who's boss! Way to fight the mainstream!

[Anonymous No.19856893]

>>19856870
That he is a "cultural christian"

[Anonymous No.19856924]

>>19856870
He knows he fucked up and the alternative to Christianity is not le enlightened world of science, but man-made horrors beyond human comprehension.
Someone else can post the
>what atheists think society without religion would look like
>vs what society without religion actually looks
image with the demon teaching gender mutilation to children

[Anonymous No.19856934]

>>19856870
>>19856893
>>19853904

This guy is like the Frenchmen of the 1800s who thought "I don't believe in God, but I hope my neighbours do"
He wants Christian society without God. But you can't have that.

The problem is you can't justify "society should work this way" without God, while not believing in good and evil, and keeping a relativistic mindset.
Christian religion is what tells you "polygamy isn't legal" "you can't marry your first cousin" "greed is a bad thing" "the rich should do things that help the poor and their communities".
Even the communist states of the xxth century, kept those cultural leftovers from Christian society. Liberal philosophy can't justify those prohibitions or mandates.

Gay marriage was the atomic bomb of western civilization. Now the walls are broken.

[Anonymous No.19857262]

>>19856934
>This guy is like the Frenchmen of the 1800s who thought "I don't believe in God, but I hope my neighbours do"
>He wants Christian society without God. But you can't have that.
>The problem is you can't justify "society should work this way" without God, while not believing in good and evil, and keeping a relativistic mindset.
>Christian religion is what tells you "polygamy isn't legal" "you can't marry your first cousin" "greed is a bad thing" "the rich should do things that help the poor and their communities".
>Even the communist states of the xxth century, kept those cultural leftovers from Christian society. Liberal philosophy can't justify those prohibitions or mandates.
>Gay marriage was the atomic bomb of western civilization. Now the walls are broken.

[Anonymous No.19857308]

>>19853904
he doesn’t anymore? there are so many books available for free on the internet about metaphysics, the occult, and god at this point. any atheist that browses this board for a year will end up believing in god

[Anonymous No.19857313]

>>19853904
>seethe
I have not felt genuinely upset in more than 20 years. Thank God, I've had sprinkles of happiness here and there; otherwise I'd have ended myself long time ago.

[Anonymous No.19857431]

>>19853904
I've seen him seethe plenty himself. Not impressed.

[Anonymous No.19857485]

>>19857313
Liar

[Anonymous No.19857506]

>>19856934
>A Christian society would never engage in bad things because God
>Also please ignore the entire history of slavery, God didn't figure out it was bad until recently

[Anonymous No.19857676]

>>19857506
The Church condamned slavery at every moment and were the main defenders of the native americans against the hacienderos, what the hell are you on about?

[Anonymous No.19857696]

>>19857676
The Bible itself lays out exactly how you can keep slaves and how much you're allowed to beat them (as much as you want as long as they don't die within a few days)

[Anonymous No.19857715]

>>19857696
No, the Bible says that God's Chosen People get to own slaves. Goyim don't.

[Anonymous No.19857743]

>>19856924

[Anonymous No.19857816]

>>19857715
You should make that the Church slogan

[Anonymous No.19857862]

>>19857715
Ancient socioeconomic systems were not stable or reliable. Evaluating them through a modern lense is pointless. Most slaves didn't even have an option of a better life. They would not otherwise have food, or shelter, or safety. There were certain families that managed to accumulate some stability of resources. If a slave served the leader of that clan it would provide rare and valuable security, which goes a lot farther than merely wages would. You couldn't even guarantee a reliable market place adequate enough to support living conditions as a free man.

[Anonymous No.19857907]

>>19856924
>>19857743
A society does not need God to be stable. It only needs a unifying belief.

[Anonymous No.19857942]

>>19857907
>stable
>CCCP

[Anonymous No.19857968]

>>19855182
Read Critique of Pure Reason. Also, understand that psychedelics have more effects that involve more than the visual.

[Anonymous No.19857988]

>>19857942
At its peak, far more stable than any other society of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.19858060]

>>19857988
>peak
It lasted less than 70 years retard. Also, bragging about stability is pretty hilarious when countries all over the world were experiencing massive growth. Cope.

[Anonymous No.19858652]

>>19857862
God was a utilitarian who adapted his edicts to the conditions of the times? Was God a relativist?

[Anonymous No.19858663]

Japan is almost entirely atheist and they have good morals

[Anonymous No.19858688]

>>19858652
Maybe so. There are passages that suggest conditions influence what is considered righteousness.

[Anonymous No.19858696]

>>19858663
Tell that to Nanking

[Anonymous No.19858771]

>>19858652
Your argument necessitates that civilization can't evolve and social/ethical mores have to remain completely stable and somehow fleshed out apriori to human experience and the ability to interpret collective and individual change. That betrays a pretty shallow take for someone on a literature board.