[ 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: 103 KB, 800x600, Winter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488740 No.2488740 [Reply] [Original]

Okay, /lit/, let's have us a chat.

There seems to be a lot of "hurr durr religion is retarded" sentiment on /lit/. While everyone is entitled to his or her (as if there are girls on here) opinion, it irks me how you think religious people are dumb.

For the record, I am a Christian, I believe in the inerrancy and authority of scripture, and I also have SAT scores and an IQ in the 99th percentile. I'm not saying I'm a genius, but I'm not an idiot.

It's just that you people on here are the only ones I can really relate to. I love you guys, even though a lot of you tend to be really bitter about religion.

Let the hating/youhaveapersecutioncomplex begin.

>> No.2488742
File: 19 KB, 300x354, 1330270120442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488742

Religion is something even teenagers can figure out, why couldn't you?

>> No.2488744

>>2488742
I have "figured it out." I've not accepted it on blind faith.

>> No.2488745

Nigga I took the SAT high as shit and got above a 2200.

An autistic kid could take those fucking tests and get a perfect score.

Sorry some of us don't like your irrational beliefs. You can criticize my various irrational paranoid ideas all you want and I can't really do anything to stop you because they are irrational. That doesn't mean I don't still believe in them, and you are exactly the same with your religious beliefs.

Though I do think the inward reflection religions do have some value (Ones that deny all reason and simply say look into your heart to know what is true, because your mind is totally separate), because they at least recognize that religion isn't logical or rational.

>> No.2488750

>>2488740
>Believes in talking snakes
>Thinks he's not only intelligent but a cut above the rest

lmaoatuchristfag

>> No.2488763

OP, it's not that you're stupid. It's that you're BEING stupid. You're holding on to ridiculous beliefs for no good reason.

>> No.2488761

>>2488744
>Not admitting to yourself that you are accepting it on blind faith.

If you can't even admit that you are taking the leap of faith, then you are delusional and that is why we mock you.

>> No.2488771

Don't worry OP, many atheists don't think you're stupid. They think you're intellectually timid, weak, or confused, which are things that only seem stupid to stupid atheists.

>> No.2488772
File: 332 KB, 1280x881, 1329552486661.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488772

>>2488744
>not blind faith
You believe you'll prance around in some magical la-la-land, watch old favourite VCRs (and you never have to rewind them - heaven!) and drink pepsi with jesus after you die.

Why don't you get on with it, don't use seatbelts, swim with sharks etc. so you can go to jesus faster.

>> No.2488773

You aren't stupid, but you are not reasonable. You have the ability to be willfully ignorant, which renders you, as a human being, worthless and worthy of precisely none of my time.

>> No.2488780
File: 188 KB, 500x375, contemplation with drink.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488780

Sure is fifteen in here.

>> No.2488783

I knew a kid that had a perfect on the ACT, nearly a perfect of the SAT, all A's and 5's, and was a young earth creationist. It is sad when intelligence is squandered so.

>> No.2488784

In b4
>SAT online-IQ-test /sci/ pissing contest

>> No.2488785

Meh. I don't understand theists or atheists.

To be absolutely certain of the existence or absence of a higher being seems like hubris to me.

Organized religion is ridiculous, but I see nothing wrong with believing in some kind of benevolent, organizing force.

>> No.2488789

Any person who claims to have knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods is dumb. Agnosticism, be it agnostic theism or agnostic atheism, is the only logical position to take.

>> No.2488795
File: 1.47 MB, 270x214, didnt read lol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488795

One of my best friends is a particle physicist at one of the world's most prestigious astro/particle physics universities on Earth, and he is a devout Christian. He has literally helped to unlock the secrets of the creation of the universe (worked on LIGO, studied under one of the lead researchers that developed CERN) and still holds to his faith. And dammit, I respect the everloving shit out of him for it. His understanding of science has helped to advance not only his own understanding of the Universe but the collective knowledge of Man's place within said Universe, and his faith has helped him become one of the kindest, most empathetic people I know.

There's way too many people who believe science and religion operate on some warped binary system where they're always in opposition. There are ways to accommodate for both science and religion.

Pic related, it's how most of you will respond.

>> No.2488796
File: 17 KB, 373x330, 1294276208363.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2488796

>>2488785
>To be absolutely certain of the existence or absence
You'd be hard-pressed to find an atheist willing to claim certainty.

>>2488789
Agnostics are atheists, and agnostic theist is a misnomer.

>> No.2488797

>>2488785
An appeal to ignorance is intellectual suicide. It is a rare atheist who argues for their absolute certainty that there is not god. They argue for the reasonable assumption that there is no god. And I'm tired of agnostics getting press for not taking sides in these petty bitchfits. These are important petty bitchfits. The people who win will get to decide how people in the future think. It's a big goddamn deal.

>> No.2488801

>>2488795

What this shows is not the extraordinary nature of religion, but rather the extraordinarily susceptible nature of children.

>> No.2488832

>>2488796
I know plenty of atheists who are completely certain because their atheism is mainly a response to what they perceive as the stupidity of theists rather than a thought-through belief.

>>2488797
Is the idea of a sentient, organizing force unreasonable? Both positions seem equally defensible, and my objection to both is that atheists AND theists are often equally bullheaded in their certainty. I'm not preaching willful ignorance.

>> No.2488837

when you say "biblical inerrancy" OP, do you mean you believe in the creation story and the events of genesis? Because I refuse to believe someone so you claim as smart as you will believe in things that demonstrably didn't happen.

>> No.2488931

>>2488796
>Agnostics are atheists, and agnostic theist is a misnomer.

Because being 'right' is more important than using the same language. x3

>> No.2488982

>>2488785
>Meh. I don't understand theists or atheists.
>
>To be absolutely certain of the existence or absence of a higher being seems like hubris to me.

Neither theism nor atheism need involve absolute certainty. In general, taking a position, having a considered opinion, need not involve absolute certainty.

>Organized religion is ridiculous, but I see nothing wrong with believing in some kind of benevolent, organizing force.

Well, surely there's something wrong with believing something for no reason whatsoever.

>> No.2489187

Bitches need to read more about science in here.

If there is a god, it/he/she can only be within two major instances

Prior to the Big Bang
Or within some force we cannot detect, some dimension that is not possible to perceive even with our understanding of elementary particles

Even so, if we ever found a God within our physical universe, or any opposing universe or whatever, I think he would be far more scientific than divine or mystic.

An omnipotent force? An infinite/unstoppable force? I just don't know if that can possibly exist regardless of how huge the universe is, or whatever surpasses our universe. And just to think that "being" would spend its time caring about us? It probably wouldn't even notice our existence for how minuscule we are.

>> No.2489194

>>2488740
Question:
Where in the Bible does it referr to its own inerrancy?
Specifically for the NT? (since those writers didn't have it)

>> No.2489195

>>2489187

I really have a huge problem when people try to force a dichotomy - when something can "only" be one thing or the other