/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3541731]

Why hasn't humanity figured out religion yet?

We have been havin this discussion for over two thousand years.

[Anonymous No.3541744]

this is the literature board faggot
>>>/pol/
>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.3541755]

>>3541744

/lit/ is the closest thing we have to /Phil/.

[Anonymous No.3541761]

>>3541755
if you think religion is something humanity can collectively "figure out" then you don't belong on /lit/ but on one of those boards

[Anonymous No.3541772]

>>3541744
Serious discussion of any topic on /pol/ is strictly forbidden. It eventually spirals down into accusations of being Jewish, being from Rettid, or being a liberal, or all three simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.3541775]

>religion

[Anonymous No.3541779]

There are over 4000 religions in the world and growing. I think it's fair to say we figured it out pragmaticaly enough

[Anonymous No.3541795]

>>3541779

But what about the most popular ones: Abrahamic religion?

Islam seems like a good candidate.

[Anonymous No.3541798]

idk about humanity, but i figured it out for myself and i don't really care any further

[Anonymous No.3541804]

>>3541798

And your conclusion was?

[Anonymous No.3541809]

>>3541804
there aint no god to watch me

[Anonymous No.3541811]

What do you mean by figured out?

[Anonymous No.3541824]

World population: 7,021,836,029

Christian 33.35%
--Roman Catholic 16.83%,
--Protestant 6.08%
--Orthodox 4.03%
--Anglican 1.26%

Muslim 22.43%
Hindu 13.78%
Buddhist 7.13%
Sikh 0.36%
Jewish 0.21%
Baha'i 0.11%
Other religion 11.17%
Non-religious 9.42%
Atheist 2.04%

[Anonymous No.3541827]

>>3541824
So few atheists? I know that China has like 50% atheists and there's a lot of Chinese on this planet. There were also some nordic countries pretty atheistic. I don't believe your stats

[Anonymous No.3541830]

>>3541824

Why is there so few of us?

[Anonymous No.3541833]

>>3541824
>>3541827
non-religious an atheist is the same thing, so maybe that's what he means. Still though, china is big as fuck

[Anonymous No.3541845]

>>3541833
My guess is that India is dragging it down a lot. They have less than 1% atheists and their population is huge as well

[Anonymous No.3541847]

>>3541845

What about all those Muslim countries?

[Anonymous No.3541849]

>>3541795

What about them?
Good candidate for what? religion?

That number '4000' includes all the major established religions as well. What's the question here? We have already figured out religion, you can tell by the number of religions and their long history.

[Anonymous No.3541854]

>>3541833
>non-religious an atheist is the same thing

Non-religious is non-relgious - they simply don't give a damn. They may still believe in God though.

Atheists deny the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.3541856]

>>3541827
>I don't believe your stats
I must confess, I didn't actually compile the list. I stole it from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

[Anonymous No.3541860]

>>3541854
That's gnostic atheists. There's also agnostic atheists who say there's no way to deny or prove the existence of God but they simply don't take the leap of faith to believe in something unproven.

[Anonymous No.3541865]

>>3541856
Why is China not there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

[Anonymous No.3541868]

>>3541731
there is no "humanity"
check your axioms, CIS scum

religion has been figured out tens of thousands years ago, you think mayan priests ripping hearts out to prevent perfectly predicted eclipses and placate the masses didn't know what's going on?

actually you are the pleb here, your simplistic view on the subject spoon-fed by leddit dawkins retards shows

[Anonymous No.3541878]

>The Gallup poll has the most broad definition of irreligion: the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" was asked

RIP Jebus

[Anonymous No.3541880]

>>3541856
>Geographic distribution of the main religions.

[Anonymous No.3541885]

>>3541827
>I know that China has like 50% atheists

China is not a half atheist country. Just because they don't have a religious temperance that is some what familiar looking with Christianity doesn't mean China is half atheist. In other words just because a religion is non-theistic, doesn't discount it from being a religion.

[Anonymous No.3541888]

>>3541868
>the masses didn't know what's going on?
>implying most people arent desperate enough to believe in everything just to lesser their own faggotory and fears.

[Anonymous No.3541890]

>>3541885
>>3541865

[Anonymous No.3541895]

>>3541880
I didn't realise Islam was so popular around Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and Indonesia. I thought they would be mainly Buddhist/Christian.

[Anonymous No.3541899]

>>3541888
so what?

exploitation, like with religion, is the only incentive for humans to progress, religion allows the exploitation

if you couldn't fuck other people up you wouldn't do shit

[Anonymous No.3541903]

>>3541880
The Greek/Roman, the Norse, the Egyptian, and the Babylonian pantheons should make a comeback.

[Anonymous No.3541908]

Religion is all lies. Deceit is not something to figure out, it is something to eradicate.

[Anonymous No.3541914]

>mfw educated countries are the less religious countries

[Anonymous No.3541920]

>>3541827
As communist oppression in China is easing, more and more people are returning to religion. Also in India younger people among high and middle classes have showed more interest towards religion than their parents did. Most of the population growth of the world is happening in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia where religion is deeply rooted and even anti religious ideologies have not been able to remove it. Large numbers of non-religious people and atheists in Europe were mainly product of enlightenment philosophies which have not found popularity outside parts of western Europe. As Europeans do not breed much and are accepting other cultures widely these ideals will not grow. In future the number of atheists is not going to increase but rather decrease.

In addition in China religion is different meaning Europeans often mislabel the either just philosophies or only superstition depending on the goals of the labeller.

[Anonymous No.3541926]

>>3541920
>more and more people are returning to religion

Yeah, I see >>3541878

[Anonymous No.3541930]

>>3541868

Elaborate please.

[Anonymous No.3541935]

>>3541880

Day Islam.

[Anonymous No.3541934]

>>3541914
define 'educated'

[Anonymous No.3541936]

>>3541934
define 'define'

[Anonymous No.3541939]

>>3541903
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Huehueteotl is the only true God.

One annual virgin sacrifice is all he needs to be appeased, and you shall have full harvests. The occasional animal sacrifice, and we can drink fermented fruit juices and roast pigs on a spit every day of the year, with extravagant feasts and celebrations – complete with psychedelic jungle drugs – every month.

[Anonymous No.3541948]

>>3541939
Oh yeah, bring back the North and South American native gods too. They were pretty cool dudes.

So Huehueteotl sounds a lot like Odin bro.

[Anonymous No.3541950]

>>3541930
what is there to elaborate?
uneducated people are manipulated - they don't know how toilet flush works, why would they understand other things

majority of educated believers are existentialists aka they arrived at religion after existential/moral nihilism phase - they simply play religion for fun and don't give a fuck

the cynics manipulate the uneducated for personal gain

all off them don't give a fuck about the real basis for religion because only science can address fundamental questions religion tries to answer and only 0,00003% (out of ass number) of humans are top tier scientists.

[Anonymous No.3541960]

>>3541908
>eradicate deceit
ROFL
it's like trying to eradicate empathy

cool eugenics, bro, don't forget to set up some death camps

[Anonymous No.3542010]

>>3541890

If you can't see the bold categorical errors with that picture, you're a lot dumber than you think.

[Anonymous No.3542051]

>>3541950
> majority of educated believers are existentialists aka they arrived at religion after existential/moral nihilism phase - they simply play religion for fun and don't give a fuck

This is not true for Muslims.

[Anonymous No.3542111]

http://blip.tv/enneagon/sapolsky-on-religion-2215838

[Anonymous No.3542130]

>>3541865

Taoism is a folk religion?
Agnostic and Athiest are equivocal categories?
Ethnic minorities indigenous religions? WTF?

Why not just go ahead and label the chart:

Divisions of Chinese who aren't doing Religion like the rest of us civilized folks.

That way you can be up front about how your chart has absolutely no relevance to the study of Religions of the world, or theology, or anthropology for that matter.

The fact that chart came from Wikipedia should be testament that Wikipedia can be an extremely biased source. That article looks as if its written to appease the prejudiced that frequent /pol/ or /r/atheism.

[Anonymous No.3542138]

>>3542051
sure is, this is the key to understanding religious people

this is my claim and I have nothing to back it up but tabula rasa unbiased look at world as it is: most of deception is volunatary self-deception in face of pointless, ridiculous, meaningless life and world

your fundamentalist bigot down the road is a grown up babby playing the game of religion because why not

[Anonymous No.3542145]

>>3542130
How is Taoism not a folk religion?

[Anonymous No.3542156]

>>3542138
(cont) playing religion for existentialist purposes might be a painful self-deception (like in a homosexual repressing his sexuality) or a painless self-deception - as is with not-a-single-fuck-given existentialists lying to themselves without a single drop of sweat

[Anonymous No.3542167]

>>3542145
I'd say everything that meddles with 'morality' is religious in nature

[Anonymous No.3542176]

"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"

"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."

The supernatural perception and explanation of the physical realm and morality has died since the age of lights.

You just haven't heard of it yet.

[Anonymous No.3542177]

>>3541856
Stats on religion should be taken with a grain of salt. Countries have different registration methods for the religious. Some are registered simply by being born.

[Anonymous No.3542183]

>>3542051
How do you decide when someone is truly a believer? If a muslim realises his religion's claims are retarded (let's say for 10 seconds) and then does everything in his power to suppress that realization and succeeds in it for the rest of his/her life is he a 'real' believer or a really skilled/cynical liar (to himself)? What's the metric?

Don't underestimate how perceptive people are. Realize it's their decisions in the face of truth you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.3542219]

>>3542177
>Some are registered simply by being born.

That's why these are important. If you were baptised, but don't think of yourself as religious, register a debaptism certificate otherwise your are still recorded in church membership numbers. It forces the church to remove your name from church records.

[Anonymous No.3542233]

>>3542219
>that preachy arrogant style
hilarious
leddit alright

[Anonymous No.3542236]

>>3541731
>figured out religion

[Anonymous No.3542243]

>>3542219
But that's the thing. People don't care enough about religion in the first place to do that.

[Anonymous No.3542251]

I had a vision of a dove flying down into me, so I walk with Christ. People who exude an aura of not wanting to believe in God will never be visited by Him.

[Anonymous No.3542254]

>>3541914
What a surprise.

>>3541899
Why that? Sure its a big point for the trade but isnt deceit and exploitation contra productive for lets say science?

[Anonymous No.3542255]

We have figured it out, it's mass mind control, too bad the people under the thrall can't break the spell.

[Anonymous No.3542263]

>>3542251
I rather not being visited by a bearded jew.

[Anonymous No.3542286]

>>3542263
Then you don't have to worry.

[Anonymous No.3542293]

>>3542219
>In the Year of No Lord

[Anonymous No.3542304]

We've pretty much figured out that religion is bullshit.

Any reasonable person won't deny the possibility of a god, though, but it sure as hell doesn't seem very likely or even necessary.

[Anonymous No.3542319]

>>3542254
parasitism, exploitation are simply the winning moves; humans as well as other life forms have evolved predisposition for energy/effort saving strategies. Laziness evolved. A liar usually wins with an honest agent, especially when the liar has reasons to believe others aren't liars, hence deception. Cooperation somethimes works, but is risky.
See prisoner dilemma and others.

for a case study see the history of big business on this planet, fuck, just see the history of humanity; something neoliberals won't ever tell you

this is the hilarity of evolution that humans have both a predisposition to perceive the fact that exploiting the other is a winning move AND simultaneously an innate, overevolved sense of justice. We are doomed for hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.3542323]

>>3542219

>before embracing freethought and reason

That is an unbearably hilarious image.

[Anonymous No.3542336]

>>3542145

the term is oxymoronic

Folk religion is that like pagan beliefs? Because if it is why isn't Christianity bundled there as well? Before Christianity's spread it was a pagan thing, a folk religion--something other than the status qou. And because Christianity didn't come from China, and is really the foreign religion there, it should be in the context of China's own religious fabric that Christianity be the folk religion, not Taoism.

That term 'folk religion' when deliberately placed to contrast with the others, signifies boldly this chart is a categorization prescribed exclusively from a Western tradition. It's about saying how their things aren't really things at all, because they have no equivocation to how we have are own things--if doesn't look like are stuff, it ain't stuff.

Taoism is a religion to its own people, not to you or your idea of religion. That is how Taoism is not a 'folk religion'

[Anonymous No.3542347]

>>3541731
um, more like over 10,000, OP. take an anthropology class, please. and a diversity class... there's more to life than fucking christianity and western religions.

[Anonymous No.3542355]

>>3542304
>Any reasonable person won't deny the possibility of a god
I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person WOULD.

[Anonymous No.3542379]

>>3542355

So you can with certainty say that there is no god in any shape, way or form?

[Anonymous No.3542381]

>>3542336
yeah, religious beliefs don't differ from any other beliefs. It's religious poeple that lobbied religious beliefs to a special status

[Anonymous No.3542394]

>>3542379
>So you can with certainty say that there is no god in any shape, way or form?
this is a red herring dude
blah blah I play with a natural language and I can't lose any argument ever

so what?

defining god is a never ending game, ultimately pointless

[Anonymous No.3542413]

>>3542394
No he's actually right. Maybe you can say with positive certainty that the god of the bible or some other strictly defined god doesn't exist, if his attributes are paradoxical, but can you say there is no prime mover and that's that?

I mean I'm a negative atheist, too, but it's not as simple as you present it.

[Anonymous No.3542415]

>>3542394

Although unlikely and probably not the case, you can't deny the possibility.

[Anonymous No.3542424]

>>3542394

And how the hell is that a red herring?

[Anonymous No.3542443]

>>3542336
>Folk religion is that like pagan beliefs?
Yes.

>Because if it is why isn't Christianity bundled there as well?
Because Christianity is not by intention or consequence a traditional practice of a specific ethnic group.

>Before Christianity's spread it was a pagan thing, a folk religion--something other than the status [quo].
Your problem is that that is not the operating definition of pagan or folk. It has nothing to do with "status quo". Obviously.

Everything else in your post fails because of that misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.3542451]

>>3542424
>>3542415
>>3542413
because disregarding a theory of knowledge just to win an argument is retarded

you can move the goal post of what is certain and what is not forever as long as it suits you but having to live through the day forces you to stop being a smartsy pants

the most imporant thing in
>Any reasonable person won't deny the possibility of a god
is not possiblity or lack thereof but the fact that 'god' is a retarded meme. both sides (or all 999999 sides) disagree what it actually is and when you are forced to actually define it detail, CERTAINTY can be brought into picture

being vague just to win an argument stopped being edgy long time ego

[Anonymous No.3542463]

>>3542451

"Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite... at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t... it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true." - Bertrand Russell

Suspend judgement. You can believe that there is no god - I do too - but you cannot bring certainty into it.

[Anonymous No.3542465]

>>3542451
>the fact that 'god' is a retarded meme.

Oh wow.

[Anonymous No.3542475]

>>3542347
muh nigga.
I wish more people would say stuff like that in online arguments.

[Anonymous No.3542485]

>>3542463
>Suspend judgement
Why, so I can placate the god of "never taking stance on anything without 100% certainty which actually is not even in theory achievable"?

I live in a world that demands decisions from me to continue living.

also, just for you i' gonna suspend judgement on a test next week when professor asks me how many planets are there in our solar system, i'll say "you never can't be sure" i bet he will respect my decision

[Anonymous No.3542489]

>>3542319
>Cooperation somethimes works, but is risky.
But without taking this risks we wouldnt involve either. Capitalism is a great example, a minority exploits the majority but if they go too far, they will get fucked, so parasites have to take care of the host to some levels, worker rights for example, since no host - no parasites. Tada, cooperation. If it would be all exploitation, the revolution scenario would repeat itself and the parasites couldnt survive anymore either. Lose-lose for both.

Now while trade is a fast way to involve for civilizations and its based on exploitation there is an other piller, science, something where exploitation will only slow us down. Prisoner dilemma is just an other situation, where people lower their profit by trying to exploit each other. If both were simpletons and trusted each other, both would be better of.

Sooo basically, too much exploitation will only harm progress. Though I forget how the exploitation of religion is important now, fuck its late.

[Anonymous No.3542496]

>>3542485

[Anonymous No.3542512]

>>3542496
ouch burrrrrrrrrrrnt dude
good you didn't post any paint comic, I would feel so wrekt

[Anonymous No.3542524]

>>3542512

ten bucks this guy is between 14 and 16.

[Anonymous No.3542528]

>>3542524
>Seriously saying "retarded meme" anywhere

There was never a doubt

[Anonymous No.3542534]

>>3542524
noice using no interpunction and saying something vague about hypothetical tests in a hypothetical school makes newfriend swallow the whole bait

don't try to bring any arguments in though you might damage your fragile brain

[Anonymous No.3542572]

>>3542489
the host is mostly the planet and it's limited resources (humans, their labour are those resources as well) - I leave it to your judgement whether capitalism is taking care of the host

A liar usually wins with an honest agent, especially when the liar has reasons to believe others aren't liars, hence deception.
This is the core of the problem

[Anonymous No.3542575]

>>3542528
stay stupid, it makes me stronger

[Anonymous No.3542600]

>>3542451
Have you read any of the agnostics? Kierkegaard, Kant, Protagora?

Any of the serious Theists? Spinoza? Descartes?

Or are you arguing based on such anti-intellectual posers as Hitchens or Dawkins? I mean they are ok, but they couldn't argue a philosophical subject if their life depended on it.

The subject is not simple at all and philosophy is to an extent the realm of the abstract. We deal almost in exclusivity with "vague" concepts.

[Anonymous No.3542605]

>>3542600

Wasn't Kierkegaard a theist?

[Anonymous No.3542617]

>>3542572
Hm, thats a quiet high viewing point but even then, its still interest of the humans to take care of the host, going full stop exploitation will bite in the ass sooner or later, even if its a progress temporary. So exploitation stays a negative strategy and with it, so is religion.

Sure the liar will usually win but thats just progress for the individual, now if we all turn into liars, it will be almost a lottery to decide who wins, while if everybody would stay honest, more profit would be made for everybody.

[Anonymous No.3542615]

>>3542605
He was a mixed bag. I personally define him as an agnostic because he admitted that the existence of a god can't be rationally proven. He considered god an absurdity that we should never the less embrace.

He's a strange philosopher, but I think for him god reflected the idea of love, which he considered crucial for creativity to take place. The foundation that should be presupposed in order for a structure to come to existence over it.

[Anonymous No.3542619]

>>3542605

He was agnostic in a qualified sense and scoffed at anyone who tried to prove the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.3542620]

>>3542600
convince me there is a reason to consider (existence of) god rather than bubbalapapullpak

What is your basis for considering god? What question do you ask when you have 'god' as an answer?


oh wait a second, does it force you to define god? but i thought it was a no-no and Seriously saying it is a "retarded meme" anywhere means you are between 14 and 16

[Anonymous No.3542629]

>>3542600
how can discussing a sky wizard be complicated? The whole idea is totally absurd
"hurr durr I have an imaginary friend, prove me wrong"

[Anonymous No.3542630]

>>3542619

He wasn't a Christian thinker?

[Anonymous No.3542637]

>>3542443

And lo, onto /lit/ this day,
An idiot made a post,
And the idiot doth posted:
"Because your stuff had not,
the intentions or consequence as mine,
nor the spread as my group,
Then justly it is to said,
your things are not things at all"
And the Anons did shrug,
for it was much fucking stupid.

"Dafuq?," said one Anon
and with the post 3541731,
the Anon did post:
"You speak as if the Christian,
were not once ethnic in origin
were not a grouping of peoples
made from culture practice
made intentionally from a cultured grouping
and a consequence of a ethnic people."

And the anon didst ask,
"Do you even History?"
"Do you even Religious Studies?"
"Do you even Anthropology?"

[Anonymous No.3542651]

>>3542617
yeah but then there is the liar's realization of his/her mortality in the face of pointless, meaningless life/reality aka becoming an existentialist through moral/existential nihilism

"why care for anything when I'm gone?"

[Anonymous No.3542654]

>>3542620
Inhale, exhale, gather your thoughts and calm the fuck down.

You are embarassing yourself and showing your newfaggotry.

Anon is not a single person and though I agree that disregarding one of the most complicated issues of philosophy as a "retarded meme" is at least immature, I wasn't the one that said that.

>What is your basis for considering god?

You want a prime cause? the pantheistic substance of spinoza's determinism? the ontological argument of descartes? There are a lot of philosophical systems of thought that lead to a deistic (for example) god as a realistic concept.

The very fact that we are discussing now whether god exists, is reason enough to take the subject seriously. perhaps someone did put the idea of god in us. Now I don't agree with this, but it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

>>3542629
>how can discussing a sky wizard be complicated?
perhaps this isn't the board for you. Maybe you should go circlejerk with people with your frame of mind over at a specific subreadit.

[Anonymous No.3542676]

>>3542654
i'm perfectly calm, newfriend, and my post was a reply to your single post, nothing else

uh oh so you are saying that me, and possibly everyone else should, MUST bring a god figure into the picture because something something muh prime cause something something dark side

i am not discussing whether god exists with you, we are not that far yet

i am trying to get a reason from you why bring something you call god into the picture at all

you somehow make a connection between a concept of prime cause and this god something, explain why?

you still think you can go without defining shit and being strategicaly vague to plug the holes when you must without exposing yourself to ridicule?

[Anonymous No.3542678]

>>3541856

What happened to Russia?

I thought during the Soviet era they were an 'atheist' nation - why'd it drop so dramatically?

[Anonymous No.3542685]

>>3542678
the regime repressed religion, both orthodoxy and islam, not eradicated it; the populace were secretely religious and the customs carried on

also a lot of siberian population were animists/tribal shit even during commie times

[Anonymous No.3542697]

>>3542676
I sincerely hope you are attempting to troll me. Which will not work, but you seriously sound like a 12 year old that got insulted and is trying to utter the right comeback.

The memespouting isn't helping the conversation, neither is the fact that you are not bothering to structure your sentences in a way that they would be understandable.

>i am trying to get a reason from you why bring something you call god into the picture at all

This is a little difficult for me, considering that I don't believe in god, but I'll humour you.

Do you believe certain things can be causally connected to other things? If so, are effects unequivocally caused by causes? And if so, are effects also causing other effects?

[Anonymous No.3542726]

>>3542697
it is funny that you don't realize all you do is spout memes of religiontards who shaped how you perceive things: the baseless assumption that a hypothetical prime mover is an agent that requires ascribing it a god status (still strategically not defined to leave enough loopholes for a tactical retreat). In face of untestable (hypothetica) phenomena lets throw meaningless 'god' meme around like it helps the process in any way, like it simplifies things, like it was some kind of placeholder answer

[Anonymous No.3542732]

>>3542726
zzzzz

[Anonymous No.3542737]

>>3542697
you basically ask yourself "if there was a prime mover who/what would that be: and answer with a random meme 'god'." Oh wow that explains everything! I'm glad I arrived at this groundbreaking conclusion!

all the while playing with natural language, a bunch of memes which arose for simple evolutionary purposes and thinking it's perfectly safe to assume using it you might discover and describe the mysteries of teh universe!111

[Anonymous No.3542739]

>>3542726
I was about to recurgitate spinoza actually, so the prime mover is irrelevant here, but whatever.

Apparently you are not interested in serious debate. You just want a pat in the back to reaffirm your opinion and verify your sense of self-worth.

It's also painfully obvious you know jack-shit about philosophy and should probably go read some books to exit this tragicomic stage of self-imposed immaturity.

Funny enough you are also merely parroting what some less than intelligent individuals coined.

[Anonymous No.3542749]

>>3542637
>"You speak as if the Christian, were not once ethnic in origin
They weren't.

>were not a grouping of peoples made from culture practice
They weren't.

>made intentionally from a cultured grouping
and a consequence of a ethnic people."
That's gibberish, so they weren't.

Are you honestly thi bombastically pseudo-intellectual?

>"Do you even History?"
>"Do you even Religious Studies?"
>"Do you even Anthropology?"
You obviously can't, or you'd be aware that the from day fucking one Christianity was practiced by Jews and Gentiles, Greek or otherwise. You obviously can't, or you'd be aware that the definition of pagan and folk religions has shit all to do with being practiced by majority groups since they've clearly been practiced by minority groups since forever.

Go back to lurking, moron.

[Anonymous No.3542751]

>>3542654
>perhaps this isn't the board for you. Maybe you should go circlejerk with people with your frame of mind over at a specific subreadit.
dat ad hominem, guess I asked for too much

[Anonymous No.3542754]

>>3542751
>Ad hominem

You really don't know what an ad hominem is, do you?

[Anonymous No.3542757]

>>3542739
that's fine, son
you are free to go back to your fetishised classic authors egotistical enough to publish shit, who are cool, smart and most of all infallible because they died 4+ centuries. Dayum, philosophy is the best cos you can never be wrong, it's like with wine, the longer you wait the more suckers are gonna value you!

all those posts and all you did was dancing around and being as vague as possible to seem deep and sophisticated

[Anonymous No.3542762]

>>3542754
moving away further and further, good job anon

[Anonymous No.3542765]

>>3542757
>>3542762
You are both kind of pathetic.

[Anonymous No.3542767]

>>3542765
and you still cant say anything that would help your point, wonder why...

[Anonymous No.3542770]

>>3542762
An argumentum ad hominem is the argument in which you claim that the thesis argued by the interlocutor is invalid because of one of his qualities.

You didn't even argue a thesis. It was literally impossible for me to make an ad hominem. And no insults are not ad hominems.

What I did was an Ad Rem which is not a fallacy. It's an observation about your behaviour.

[Anonymous No.3542772]

i don't understand why "does god exist?" is even a question in the first place

it doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.3542778]

>>3542772
lel you still go further than me because you allow the meme 'god' into play in the first place

the fuck is this god something, what's the point of bringing it up at all

[Anonymous No.3542779]

>>3542757
You are retardation incarnate.

You are practically delirious.

>you are free to go back to your fetishised classic authors egotistical enough to publish shit

Laughingwhores.png

>who are cool, smart and most of all infallible because they died 4+ centuries

Perhaps you missed the part where I don't agree with them, therefore I don consider them quite fallible. The major difference being that I don't actually need to agree with someone to admit the importance of his argument or respect it. Maybe you should try educating yourself, then you will realise the exact same thing. Brilliance is not relevant with whether you agree with someone or not.

>Dayum, philosophy is the best cos you can never be wrong

lel.

>all those posts and all you did was dancing around and being as vague as possible to seem deep and sophisticated

I asked you very specific questions which you did not answer. You are the one dancing around.

[Anonymous No.3542782]

>>3542778
you know i have no idea what you're talking about anymore
what's all this about memes and shit?

[Anonymous No.3542784]

>>3542770
and yet we still talk about me and not about the question, so feel free to put the rage boner down and try again...

whats so complicated with a discussion about unicorns and sky wizards? What makes God ANY different than an unicorn?

[Anonymous No.3542787]

>>3542778
that's what i meant though

i only typed 'god' because that's the common term

[Anonymous No.3542788]

>>3542784
Did you seriously just use the unicorn example?

And you expect to be taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.3542796]

>>3542788
reply #5(?) and still cant answer such a simple question. If the unicorn example is so retarded, it shouldnt be a problem to refute it, not?

[Anonymous No.3542799]

>>3542788
he could have used any figure of myth. replace unicorn with a less cliche example

[Anonymous No.3542801]

>>3542784
what are you even arguing against?
are you arguing against "magic think"?
i don't think anyone is saying god literally exists
you just can't prove a god's existance or nonexistance
it's outside of logic and reason itself, that's why there's this thing called 'faith'
saying you can know anything about an unknowable concept is stupid either way

"there's this thing you can't truly know anything about, does it exist?"
you can't answer yes
you can't answer no either
that's why there is faith

[Anonymous No.3542810]

>>3542801
he's claiming, i think, that the 'god question' itself is absurd and baseless

[Anonymous No.3542817]

>>3542779
>Perhaps you missed the part where I don't agree with them, therefore I don consider them quite fallible. The major difference being that I don't actually need to agree with someone to admit the importance of his argument or respect it. Maybe you should try educating yourself, then you will realise the exact same thing. Brilliance is not relevant with whether you agree with someone or not.
that's retarded, son
when you defend an argument like a religiontard does why would i care whether you actually are a religiontard or not, i also don't give a fuck about your personal feelies toward that argument or other, no brownie points here


"the first move" is not an argument, yours and oldfag philosopher's essays don't tackle the actual problem, all it is, is trying to substite actual knowledge of untestable things and unknown unknowns with natural language memes and pretending some work was done

this is mental masturbation, evolutionary fart, not addressing and answering questions about reality et al

[Anonymous No.3542820]

>ctrl-F
>Feuerbach
>no results

I am dissapoint, /lit/

[Anonymous No.3542833]

>>3542801
Yes which is far from complicated...

This was the post...
>The subject is not simple at all and philosophy is to an extent the realm of the abstract. We deal almost in exclusivity with "vague" concepts.

and I anon still couldnt explain whats so complicated about existence of something that nobody knows anything about, while it basically boils down to logic and that since something is undefined, it can be everything, which is pretty retarded and leaves us where we started (if we ignore faith, which leads to unicorns)

Now if we start to give God a form like the organized religion does, it either will be destroyed by the current knowledge or get obscured at points where the definition is lacking, aka. back to start or unicorns.

So the whole question about God existence doesnt lead anywhere when discussed rationally and therefore is just as meaningful as discussing the hobbies of our imaginary friends.

[Anonymous No.3542835]

>>3542796
The unicorn example is not retarded you fucking faggot. It's spot on. That's the problem.

Take russel's teapot for example. is there an invisible intangible teapot somewhere between mars and earth?

We don't know. We just don't have proof that it does, therefore we can't found positive knowledge of its existence. It's a glorified analogy about the burden of proof.

But not proving something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you have no reason to believe it does. But all positive claims, i.e. claims of positive knowledge that something is the case, need to be proven, hence the burden of proof is a two-edged knife.

Can you claim that "I know that the intangible, invisible teapot doesn't exist"?, this, being a positive claim would necessitate proof to be backed up, based on the same burden of proof.

Hence, the point of the analogy is not to claim positive knowledge of god's inexistence, which can't possibly be proven, but to reinforce the negative claim that "I don't believe god exists, I lift my belief in that positive claim, until such time when proof has been provided to back it up".

It doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

if you want to view this in terms of formal logic, saying that the violation of the burden of proof by theists (i.e. the fact that they don't prove their positive claim that god exists) means god doesn't exist is a fallacy fallacy. Meaning that flaws in the argumentation do not necessitate the inacuracy of the thesis.

[Anonymous No.3542839]

>>3542787
yeah, well, personally I haven't encountered 'god' thingie until the age of 15, and researched what people mean by it by 17, call me extremely lucky/unlucky

the concept is superfluous for me, a red herring, an anachronistic meme of alien culture, comparable to aether

[Anonymous No.3542843]

>>3542801
>you just can't prove a god's existance or nonexistance
I don't get this statement
why would you ever say such a thing
I can't prove the existence or nonexistence of ratatabalalbalarabekok
why would I ever say such a thing?

WHY?
i tell you why because stupid fucking socially pressured and imbede meme

natural language ain't reality

[Anonymous No.3542844]

>>3542835
there still is something as simple as probability, ignoring it, we can start ignoring all nature laws because there is a minimal chance that they wont apply in X situation.

[Anonymous No.3542858]

can a carrot be the prime mover?

why/why not

[Anonymous No.3542866]

>>3542844
This is philosophy. You question everything. Hume even questioned the existence of causal links in nature, and his critique was fucking brilliant.

Besides, this conversation is problematic because it is centered around a concept with differing interpretations. You can't ask: Does god exist? Because god takes different attributes by different theories.

You need to ask: Does this specific god exist?

Then things become simpler, until you reach spinoza's pantheistic substance, or Aquinas' first cause where it is compounded again.

[Anonymous No.3542900]

>>3542844
"probability" isn't a thing, it's a series of competing systems and theories

also, how would apply probability to this, what the fuck would be your priors?

the most important thing about the story with orbiting teapots and gods and shit is the fact that we NEVER care, use, think etc about certainty apart from retarded mental masturbation

certainty is a pointless, useless red herring

[Anonymous No.3542905]

Average age in this thread: 12 years old

[Anonymous No.3542915]

>>3542905
average age of this shitposting aborted fetus: 3 nanoseconds

[Anonymous No.3542939]

This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.

[Anonymous No.3542952]

>>3542939
This.

[Anonymous No.3542959]

>>3542637
>thinks ethnic isn't a population subgroup
>thinks religious activity is not a culture practice
>from day fucking one Christianity was practiced by Jews and Gentiles, Greek or otherwise.

This how I know you're fucking idiot.

Christianity did not appear 'dev novo'.

Pagan is nothing more than a grouping of religious followers who are not a part of the dominate religion. Believe it or not, Christianity was considered a pagan thing.

Read real books

[Anonymous No.3542962]

>>3542939
>>3542952
Can I jump in and feel as edgy as you guys? I'm a failure too.

[Anonymous No.3542968]

>>3542900
The number of teapots located in space is a great start. .

"certainty is a pointless, useless red herring"
Isnt our life based on it? Observation gave us a pretty good idea about certainty of certain events, for example you have a great chance to predict correct, that you wont die after finishing your post. A certain age, sickness or location (take a 120 year old negro with 50 different problems living in a cardbox in Somalia) lowers the chance and given enough knowledge about all this factors, we can be pretty certain if person A will survive his post or not.

Same with teapots, unicorns, God and imaginary friends. The more defined they are, the better we can use the data we have. Using a "question everything" approach might work for Philosophy but doesnt help to acquire actual data after all. Fishing after the 0,0000feelfreetoaddmorezeros probability that there might be a invisible talking teapot in the sky might be valid and hard to prove wrong but with our current knowledge, we can be pretty certain assume, that there isnt.

Then again we can speculate that added knowledge will change it and the nature of the added knowledge but this isnt going anywhere near productive.

[Anonymous No.3542974]

>>3542968
>Isnt our life based on it?
nope, (absolute) certainty is pretty much irrelevant to anything

[Anonymous No.3542981]

>>3542968
a prime example of an armchair theoretical intellectual that hasn't read anything besides russell

[Anonymous No.3542986]

>>3541854
>Atheists deny the existence of God.
No they don't, they claim it is impossible to prove a god's existence (and thus impossible to disprove it as well). Why is /lit/ always so confused about this?

>>3541860
I don't think it's fair to distinguish between gnostic and agnostic atheists. Atheism is technically all agnostic. It is what I described above: impossible to disprove a god, but still acknowledges one may exist until a way of disproving it is found. Atheists who go around claiming they know god doesn't exist make about 1% of the entire atheist movement, I'm willing to bet (you can't use anecdotal encounters with 'new internet atheists' as a serious gauge of the entire movement).

[Anonymous No.3542993]

>>3542974
Absolute certainty doesnt exist but the "almost absolute" one is deciding for every decision. I mean totally basic shit like starting the pc and having the certainty that it will start up. Walking outside and having the certainty that, we wont get hit by a flying pig. Kicking somebody in the balls and having the certainty that he wont like it.

If we didnt have the certainty that A will cause B, our actions would be completely different.

>>3542981
A pretty good guess but way over the top. I never had the intend to be theoretical intellectual, "random guy thinking" is totally fine.

[Anonymous No.3543002]

>>3542993
there is a qualitative difference between certainty (100%/0%) and probabilities (anything in between), not only quantitative

[Anonymous No.3543067]

>>3542986

>>Atheists deny the existence of God.
>No they don't, they claim it is impossible to prove a god's existence
No, an atheistic position is against any theistic position. It flat states there is no god or gods.

>(and thus impossible to disprove it as well).
No, that's Agnosticism

Why is /lit/ always so confused about this?
Because people like you deflate the word 'deny' to always mean refuse, even though sometimes 'deny' can also mean to declare something untrue

[Anonymous No.3543074]

>>3543067
>It flat states there is no god or gods.
0/10

>No, that's Agnosticism
-10/10

[Anonymous No.3543113]

Do you guys think the role of religion in nowadays society is mainly beneficial, detrimental, or how?

[Anonymous No.3543177]

>>3543113
I think religion as an institution (organized religion) is largely undesirable and detrimental. It no longer plays the central role it used to prior to the modern period in moral and even scientific progress, political +social organization etc. But we still have all the horrid things that organized religion encourages. Sure, you can point to religious charity and humanitarian organizations, but fact is that the good that is the result of organized religion is far outweighed by the bad. Plus, those organizations can and do exist as secular entities.

Religion as faith/an established creed *without* its formal hierarchical structure is what should be aimed for. I think religion will always make people perform/say/think repulsive things that that a person without faith wouldn't do. And that should always be criticized. But to use that as a justification for preventing people believing what they want to believe is equally wrong.

[Anonymous No.3543188]

>>3542219
My sides left the building.
But shit like that causes me such secondhand embarrassment. 2edgy4me r/atheism written all over it.

[Anonymous No.3543192]

>>3541744

this was me.

150 posts later, nothing good came of this thread, and this still applies. fucking idiots

[Anonymous No.3543204]

>>3542900
>>3542974
as a student of both stats and philosophy, I must agree with this. "Certainty" (i.e., 100% certainty, anything less, like "degrees of certainty" is probability by another name) creates irreconcilable epistemic problems.

[Anonymous No.3543534]

>>3543192
at least we have your thread where you successfuly cured cancer

retard

[Anonymous No.3544349]

>>3541731
> over two thousand years!!!!

>implying that's anything on a cosmic scale.

When you look at humanity's timeline from its beginning to its current state, it actually looks like an exponential growth curve.

Metaphoriacally speaking we were all just nomadic hunter/gatherers just yesterday.

[Anonymous No.3544354]

>>3541772
seriously,
/pol is hard to distinguish from /x

political conspiracy theories are usually as poorly constructed as alien abduction theories

[Ysbryda !HBaLzDfu3k No.3544380]

can we all get along

[Anonymous No.3544393]

>religion is only 2000 years old

Oh boy.

[Anonymous No.3544410]

Lots of post without substance other than mere insults or idiotic remarks. Why pollute /lit/? If you are butthurt enough to make a response to a post, would it be to much to ask for an articulated argument instead of some superficial remark?