/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3962374]

If life has no external significance or meaning, how exactly are the religious worse off for believing otherwise?

[Anonymous No.3962378]

Ass.

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962375]

>yfw god exists

[Anonymous No.3962383]

It gives the drive to pursue goals which I envy, I've nearly given up on everything.

[Anonymous No.3962385]

Stop making this fucking thread, asshole.

[Anonymous No.3962386]

Naturally, they aren't. Provided, of course, that they're respectful of other individuals and their search for meaning.

[Anonymous No.3962389]

everytime somebody brings up meaning and significance of "life" i always get bogged down trying to figure out what they're talking about. Is it purpose, or goal, or use or what? and what's the import of external meaning versus internal meaning? external and internal to what?

[Anonymous No.3962390]

>>3962385
The only other time I made it I got 0 serious responses. I'd like some discussion.

[Anonymous No.3962417]

>>3962390
What, this time?

[Anonymous No.3962421]

>>3962390
>>3962417
Or these times?

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962430]

>>3962390
bullshit

bullshit bullshit bullshit
don't think you're any better than the idiots who post '>yfw god exists' every day on /pol/

[Anonymous No.3962437]

useless tautologies

[Anonymous No.3962443]

>>3962421
Those weren't threads. Those were posts in threads. And as you can see no one answered.

[Anonymous No.3962454]

Is OP trying to generate opinions, or just vent (and possibly seek validation for) his own views.

I'm not sure how anybody would determine whther life had any "external significance or meaning" of any description without either totally loading the question, defining the terms into overspecific meaninglessness or employing embedded assumptions about "life".

But who am i to say that fecal coliform bacteria don't benefit in some way from my belief or disbelief in their immaterial numen or whatever?

[Anonymous No.3962455]

>>3962430
>>3962437
elaborate

[Anonymous No.3962460]

>>3962374
They're missing out on a lot of pleasant things by needlessly depriving themselves.

They also tend to feel guilt, which is unpleasant.

[Anonymous No.3962463]

>>3962454
>Is OP trying to generate opinions

Yes.

>I'm not sure how anybody would determine whther life had any "external significance or meaning" of any description

Well, according to the religious, we were meant to exist by God/the divine yet impersonal cosmos, depending on who you ask.

[Anonymous No.3962483]

>>3962463
yeah, but just because one individual, however divine, thinks or intends you to have meaning doesn't automatically give you general meaning. If i draw a picture that i "mean" to represent a giraffe and it looks like a turtle to you, what is the "meaning" of my drawing? In other words, just because god has a purpose for your life doesn't imply that your life has a purpose, externally. or invalidate any other individual's purpose for you such as, as the great philospoher Hobbes pointed out "tiger food".

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962489]

>>3962455
I was calling bullshit, I've seen these threads and every time they have a huge amount of replies with very simple, straightforward reasons why they may be disadvantadged by that few. you maybe disagree with them sure. but posting this a ton makes you pretty much as bad as the daily threads on /pol/ (I dont know if they still happen) where someone basically posts the first reply to this thread. Everytime there were reasons for and against but every day again it was posted and its not asking a question (although you pretend to be) its trying to get out that statement. because the question has been answered. Its you on a promontory bearing your crotch against the salty wind saying: bet u kant proof me wrogn!!1!"

[Anonymous No.3962497]

>>3962483
First of all the divine yet impersonal cosmos wouldn't be an individual.

Secondly, in the case of a God, God isn't just an individual either. God is "the" individual and God's intended meaning would be the general meaning.

[Anonymous No.3962499]

>>3962489
>I was calling bullshit, I've seen these threads and every time they have a huge amount of replies with very simple, straightforward reasons why they may be disadvantadged by that few.

Well those weren't my threads. This is the second time I've made this thread.

See, anon isn't one person, Mr. Tripfag.

[Anonymous No.3962502]

not literature
>>>/b/

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962510]

>>3962499
>same exact content
>similar wording
>thinking I am actually Sunhawk

[Anonymous No.3962516]

a hurrr durr fedora dicks

[Anonymous No.3962523]

>>3962374
Because they miss out on hedonism, which is really the only intuitive pursuit of people and the closest thing to a goal you can have in life.

[Anonymous No.3962525]

>>3962510
I want discussion on this point, which I haven't gotten.

[Anonymous No.3962528]

>>3962523
Might some people find asceticism more fulfilling than hedonism?

[Anonymous No.3962541]

>>3962528
Asceticism is a merely a less obvious and straightforward form of hedonism.

[Anonymous No.3962544]

>>3962497
god's meaning would be the general meaning is silly. lots of theings have lots of different meanings. how would you ever know which one was god's intended meaning, at any one time? and what if god changes his mind and says "no, wait, i think it IS a turtle" ? does that become the new general meaning? and is it retroactive? And invalidate all other meanings? silliness. I'm willing to allow that gods might exist, and might make things, and might attach meanings to them, and might have a high opinion of their own meanings, but i don't think you can generalize.

[Anonymous No.3962547]

>>3962528
Buddhists are (negative) hedonists.

[Anonymous No.3962553]

>>3962547
Why just Buddhists? Other religions have ascetics also.

>>3962541
Perhaps. But in that case the religious aren't missing out on hedonism after all.

[Anonymous No.3962566]

>>3962544
I don't think you're following the general definition of "God" here.

God meaning the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, and eternal creator entity, the source of all truth.

That which brought all things into existence would surely be the one to say what exactly their general meaning was, wouldn't you think?

[Anonymous No.3962575]

>>3962553
>Why just Buddhists? Other religions have ascetics also.
I thought the picture served as an example. Still, I don't think it would be hard to expose the ascetic practices of other religions as hedonistic as well.

>Perhaps. But in that case the religious aren't missing out on hedonism after all.
Just because everyone strives for pleasure and strives to diminish suffering in their own way doesn't mean that all methods are equally effective. Of course, not all people find pleasure in the same things. It might very well be that being religious is the most pleasant way to live for some people, but I don't think all religious people fall in that category. I think a lot of people are religious in spite of themselves and that when they are offered a relatively uncontroversial chance to opt out they tend to do so.

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962576]

>>3962525
there was a huge thread on it, even this thread has given you answers.

what I think is the 'better' or 'worse' needs to be defined more concretely if you want anything like an objective answer. You'll need more specific than you can actually get for any point to be made. Even if you narrow it down to something like 'moneywise' there could be religious that have more money because of their religion and irreligious that have less money because of their irreligion. (that was supposed to be a reverse of the common case). It's really a pointless question to ask anyway. This doesnt work: The religious are better off because of their religion therefore I believe in god/god exists (stop typing that 'Oh no thats not what I'm saying at all, that is not it, at all' reply, and read the rest of the post) Due to life not being an extremely simple process the religious could be both better or worse off because of their religion and vice versa. and honestly, why do you care so much about other people? Do you think 'I gotta care about other peoples, look at those people (irreligious) caring about other people (religous)! they shouldnt do that!'. Of course, even though the reverse (switch the parentheses in that 'quote') would be more accurate to reality, still why would you care so much about other people if thats exactly what you are mad about?

>>3962421 the first post in this picture has a problem with it (other than the insults and strawmen), the idea that the religious do not 'inconvenience' the irreligious in any large way. If you think that you are objectively incorrect. Look at any muslim shithole country. Hell, look outside your secular urban environment (or imagined perspective) to the united states' bible belt. Not to mention laws elsewhere put in by religious ideas and fellows. "silliness". Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.3962579]

>>3962566
again, you're guessing. Assigning meaning to things might be the last thing he would want. And omniscience and omnipotence might, for all we know, demand cotradictory and arbitrary meanings,or no meanings whatsoever, and an omnipresent god would by definition exist in all numbers, from one to infinity, depending on how you limit "existence".

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962581]

>>3962576 cont.

>>3962421
>silliness
>silly gooses
>Pascal 1 Atheists 0

are we really supposed to take this as an attempt to "generate opinions".( >>3962463 )
instead of "just vent" or to "seek validation"

[Anonymous No.3962586]

>>3962576
>the idea that the religious do not 'inconvenience' the irreligious in any large way. If you think that you are objectively incorrect. Look at any muslim shithole country. Hell, look outside your secular urban environment (or imagined perspective) to the united states' bible belt. Not to mention laws elsewhere put in by religious ideas and fellows. "silliness". Fuck you.

The argument that religion is a social cancer seems pretty subjective to me.

You think it's objective. What sort of empirical data are you basing this assumption off of?

Because people kill others on behalf of religion? People kill each other for other reasons too.

>>3962575
>It might very well be that being religious is the most pleasant way to live for some people

That's all I was asking.

[Anonymous No.3962592]

>>3962579
>again, you're guessing

No, I'm basing this definition on how monotheists define God. If we want to assume that God isn't anything like practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths think then how are we defining "God" exactly?

[Anonymous No.3962589]

>>3962374
They would be worse off for not embracing the truth, which is better than convenient fantasies. However, no one has established nor, will they ever establish, that religious belief is necessarily untrue, nor that atheism is true, so they aren't worse off.

[Anonymous No.3962598]

>>3962386
>that image

Is this a real quote? Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.3962603]

>>3962598

No, friend. It's not a real quote.

[Anonymous No.3962612]

>>3962598

[Anonymous No.3962615]

>>3962603
>>3962612
Well I chuckled anyway

[Anonymous No.3962619]

>>3962612

[Anonymous No.3962620]

>>3962592
and that's one of those embedded assumptions i as referring to. You assume the definition purportedly subscribed to by some members of some sects of some faiths. Maybe.
Meaning is something that can be said to be in the eye of the beholder, and while one beholder may assume he has precedence or his belivers may ascribe that belief to him (don't recall "the right to assign meaning" being anything any religion saiys their god claims for himself, let alone as an exclusive priviledge)

but "god" is one of those weasel words that bogs down discussion. While god (by whatever definition) might be perfectly capable of assigning meaning to your life, he might easily consider it to be an abomination. He did give people free will: giving them purpose as well might seem needlessly cruel, or even stupid. And he''s supposed to be omniscient, an benevolent.

[Anonymous No.3962628]

>>3962620
>You assume the definition purportedly subscribed to by some members of some sects of some faiths.

That definition of God is pretty universal. Especially the part about God being perfect. And not just to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but monotheistic Hindus and whatnot.

Therefore if we want to discuss God we can't assume that God is stupid or cruel as that's something God is incapable of being.

[Anonymous No.3962637]

>>3962628
if god is omnipotent he should be "perfectly" capable of being stupid and malevolent. Trying to define god as all powerful and then say he can't do something is... not incredibly reasonable.

[Anonymous No.3962655]

>>3962637
>Trying to define god as all powerful and then say he can't do something is... not incredibly reasonable.

Let's not get bogged down in the contradictions within the terms omnipotent, alright?

There is a pretty generally accepted definition of God that you aren't acknowledging. Here I think that the important part you're missing is that God is perfect. And even if God wasn't actually omnipotent because he (or it rather) were incapable of being less than perfect, the point is that God is not stupid or malevolent.

[Sunhawk !M9PhF5nIzs No.3962704]

>>3962586
did I say 'religion is a social cancer'? No, I said 'the idea that the religous do not 'inconvenience the irreligious in any large way is false.' Are you willing to be so provincial that you ignore any non-secularized city? Are you going to say, "the religious do not inconvenience the irreligious in any large way"? Are you really going to stand for that and say that the argument against that is subjective, just opinion, not supported by evidence, all the same things would happen even if their (religious) reasons were not present? that because crimes committed sometimes by people with religious causes are also commited by people with other causes, because of that the religious causes don't exist? are you really going to tell me I was not fucked up during my childhood? that i wasn't bothered at all? that I'm not still traumatized by that bullshit and the constant search for god? I'm sick of this argument. I'm sick of seeing reactionary 'nu-edgy' theists take up this tertiary shit with their 'enlightened' and defferential attitudes.

Parts of this were subjective, but parts of this weren't. not everyone can talk about religion with a distance, I guess I can't. and, of course, only reply to the part of my post you can easily attack. heh. If you take this subjectivity to extend to my ideas about whether god exists or not, you would have made a mistake. I didn't leave religion willingly, I clawed for every little piece but couldnt catch hold. I'm not going to continue this. If you tell me for what reason you believe in god, and I haven't seen it before, I'll reply. If you respond 'oh, I dont believe in god' etc, then why are you such a fucking asshole?

[Anonymous No.3962716]

>>3962704
>that because crimes committed sometimes by people with religious causes are also committed by people with other causes, because of that the religious causes don't exist?

Uh, no.

My point is getting rid of religion won't solve the world's problems.

>are you really going to tell me I was not fucked up during my childhood? that i wasn't bothered at all? that I'm not still traumatized by that bullshit and the constant search for god?

You must have been pretty sheltered if that was a terrible trauma for you.

[Anonymous No.3962756]

There's nothing wrong with religion or a lack thereof.

[Anonymous No.3962835]

Because belief in something so illogical and utterly without proof is tantamount to committing philosophical suicide.

[Anonymous No.3962842]

>>3962835
>there are people who sincerely believe this

[Anonymous No.3962844]

>>3962835
Stop misusing Camus's expressions pls

[Anonymous No.3962866]

>>3962842
Perhaps because it's correct?

The way I see it, God's absence is proof of his non-existence, but even so, if he does exist yet allows rampant evil to permeate our world, he simply isn't worthy of worship. Trust, respect and faith need to be earned, only a tyrant demands them.

[Anonymous No.3962886]

So, do you believe in a specific religion without any reason to create a meaning?

Stay prayer tier.

[Anonymous No.3962884]

>>3962483
I like your metaphor with the picture however, what if the picture is randomly generated by some incredible coincidence and it resembles a turtle?

[Anonymous No.3962891]

they're worse off because the religious form their thought process and way of living on the bases of faith rather than rationality and logic and are prone to do things they never would merely off the belief of something. sometimes this is as small a thing and not cursing because you believe your ''god'' does not approve, while others take it to such extremes as murdering innocent people in the name of their religion

[Anonymous No.3962915]

>>3962866
What if god is the ultimate libertarian and evil has no meaning aside from inefficiency, what does that makes all of us?

tip: its a trick question, the answer is that it doesn't matter jack shit, and you are about to take it up your ass anyway

[Anonymous No.3962920]

>>3962891
>they're worse off because the religious form their thought process and way of living on the bases of faith rather than rationality and logic and are prone to do things they never would merely off the belief of something

This couldn't be anything further from the truth. Actually, realizing how easy it is to be a "good Christian", I have reached a new level of Christian Nihilism. Life is so easy. I can do anything. The only sin is to sin against the holy spirit. You can do anything else and as long as you sincerely repent, it will be forgiven. You are limited by your atheism and your atheist morals. I can kill a man if I wanted to, but you can't. You have less freedom than me, a smaller mind.

[Anonymous No.3962934]

>>3962891
>they are worse off
How are their values any different from those of people who live nowadays?

Extrapolate christian ethics to humanist ethics and you have pretty much the same thing, word by word almost

What knowledge we have now only allows us to see what in the old shit is just mere suppersitition and what's not, but have we trully got that much farther?

[Anonymous No.3962955]

>>3962915
It makes God a cunt. Someone who is not worthy of worship. I really don't understand why so many people are concerned with subservience - the term "God-fearing people" makes me cringe. Even if he does exist, fuck him, what's he going to do?

[Anonymous No.3962959]

>>3962920
> You can do anything else and as long as you sincerely repent, it will be forgiven. You are limited by your atheism and your atheist morals. I can kill a man if I wanted to, but you can't

all right, one of us here is a total fucking idiot. it's either you by proving my point while believing you are proving me wrong, or myself for severly mistaking what you just said

so are you saying you can murder somebody all you want, as long as you repent and apologize to your master? am I in the ball park here with the way I took your statement or am I fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.3962964]

They're not worse off, the rest of us are worse off. Fucking religitards amassing power and disturbing everyone.

[Anonymous No.3962973]

>>3962716
I'm not going to waste too much time on you, but your argument of "people will still kill each other regardless of religion"
"eliminating religion won't solve the worlds problems"
is too flawed for me to not comment on. You could make the same argument for just about anything, really, since no one solution can ever eliminate humanity's inherent flaws. However eliminating religion (or imagining a world without religion) gives us one less (arguably) needless difference to fight and kill each other over. Examine religion through a rationalist perspective, weighing the evidence in a net gain vs. net loss perspective; the supposed benefit pales in comparison to what it has cost us.

[Anonymous No.3962978]

>>3962955
>It makes God a cunt. Someone who is not worthy of worship.
Why would god be such a gigantic cunt if it weren't for giving us a tip of how to be better?

>I really don't understand why so many people are concerned with subservience
Neither do I, its like they read the entire work and didn't learn a single fucking thing

>the term "God-fearing people" makes me cringe.
Yep, because it means they are actually afraid of moving a finger because muh god will condemn them, even though it explicitly says in the damn book, that god condemns them for not moving a finger ALREADY

And that they are condemned by their own cowardice. But what does people do? Oh no, godfearing, muh rules, muh live for others, muh be entirely dedicated to ascetism and do jack shit nothing other than masturbate

>Even if he does exist, fuck him, what's he going to do?
Just spice up things because uncertainty principle and because if he does exist he is the most bored troll in the universe

[Anonymous No.3963354]

>>3962655
Except that the contradictions within the term omnipotent are kind of the big glaring logical inconsistency with the God you are talking about (not the generally accepted definition at all, by the way.)

And the Old Testament God is malevolent as fuck. He literally puts His own people into generations of slavery for disobeying Him, REPEATEDLY, and that's only a single example.

[Anonymous No.3963365]

Well religion sometimes helps people come together and work harder because they want to please the god they fear. A lot of people don't have the guts to man up by themselves, but they get up every morning and try their best because they think that's what will make god happy.

It's a damn strong motivational mechanism, it's illogical so it resists criticism, it has no fundamental principles so it can't be argued against.

Of course, it would be much better if people just stopped being pathetic and did the things just to help each other. You know, to make the world a nicer place to live in. But we won't. We're too selfish. We don't give a monkey's about other people. That's what we need rules and moral guidance from fake people that we think are better than us.

[Anonymous No.3963388]

I guess you have to view existence, or the universe, as having two distinct, but overlapping, aspects. The metaphysical, which is a more objective view of the universe, a view that argues very convincely that life has no intrinsic meaning, and the physical, which is a more mundane stance, one that focuses on the subjective; a way of looking at things entirely through the heavily tinted glasses of humanity. This level is influenced by history, by politics, by relationships, by emotions, etc. It is, from a metaphysical perspective, a more diluted view of the universe, one centered around a single green and blue speck of dust in the vast cosmos.

Of course on the metaphysical level nobody is better or worse off for believing, or not believing, anything at all, given that 'better' or 'worse' are inherently human constructs, and thus devoid of meaning. You are free to do whatever you want. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

But I think it's all about relativity. On universal scale nothing matters. But on a human scale many things do. Ultimately, you're a human, and you must judge things, you must place values, on the scale that is appropriate to you.

This is rambling as all fuck, but it's about 2 in the morning and I haven't slept yet. If even one person understand what my point was then I can sleep easy.

[Anonymous No.3963420]

Without trying to be funny or edgy, seducing a beautiful nun is one of my deepest, most powerful fantasies. I feel like I'm missing out on one of life's greatest gifts by not experiencing it.

[Anonymous No.3963422]

>>3963420
>beautiful
>nun

[Anonymous No.3963431]

Do you have your foreskin?

No?

Well that's why.