Religion

[Anonymous No.4058806]

I know most of us hate fedora atheists on reddit but what religion or belief does /lit/ have?
Is it foolish to believe in a god?
Is it foolish to believe in religion?

[Anonymous No.4058811]

>not being a Spinozist

[Anonymous No.4058813]

U best believe in the Lord

[Anonymous No.4058816]

I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism when I was 22. I used to have a 'Jesus is my Ecstasy' kind of speech ready to justify my choice to incredulous peers, but I dropped it after I left university, because I now move in circles that require no explanation for such matters. I think the majority of problems between atheist and believers stem from category mistakes revolving around the application of the concept of 'existence' to a range of terms across different ontologies, so that statements are misevaluated in frameworks in which they were never made.

[Anonymous No.4058817]

what's that nietzsche quote about atheism being crass

[Anonymous No.4058819]

>>4058816

Pretty, empty words.

[Anonymous No.4058823]

Ignostic.

Actually, that's not true. Just plain apathetic.

[Anonymous No.4058825]

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?

Belief has to do with your own self, not the society you live in. This question reeks of teenage angst derived from the first realization that life is hard.

I have a lot of shit I can do nothing about in my life, a sick brother for example. Am I a fool for praying for my sick brother when there's nothing more to do? Even if atheists cynical vision of the universe is true, it at least gives me comfort.

[Anonymous No.4058826]

>>4058816
>I think the majority of problems between atheist and believers stem from category mistakes revolving around the application of the concept of 'existence' to a range of terms across different ontologies, so that statements are misevaluated in frameworks in which they were never made.
lmao you annoying obscurist fuck this is the most simple idea and could be written really simply, eat a dick

[Anonymous No.4058828]

Buddhist.

Not foolish to believe in a pantheistic sense of God.

Theistic morality and an omniscient, universe-creating God, however, is comparably farfetched.

[Anonymous No.4058833]

>>4058816
> I think the majority of problems between atheist and believers stem from category mistakes revolving around the application of the concept of 'existence' to a range of terms across different ontologies, so that statements are misevaluated in frameworks in which they were never made.

dude wuuut that was a ridiculous sentence
basically ur argument is "they dont really GET each other"
which is a fine argument, but wow dude good job communicating nothing

[Anonymous No.4058836]

the eternal jew is watching at all times!

[Anonymous No.4058834]

>>4058811
I also find myself heavily agreeing with almost everything he says. Dude was insightful as fuck.

[Anonymous No.4058835]

We're half atheist and half agnostic.

[Anonymous No.4058837]

>>4058828
>Not foolish to believe in a pantheistic sense of God.
yea it is dude what
its a nice basis upon which to act, but its sort of retarded to actually believe

[Anonymous No.4058840]

Republican

[Anonymous No.4058845]

>>4058837
What are you, a pluralist?

[Anonymous No.4058849]

I'm an atheist unless I'm in great pain, in which case I pray to the Protestant god to end the suffering.

[Anonymous No.4058855]

I used to be your typical edgy teen but I'm kind of coming around recently by studying Christianity more deeply. However I have more far respect for people who actively studied the history and theology of their belief system, not just going "I believe in Jesus" and pray and not care about much else. I think that actual belief should take a larger part in your life, surely enough to at least read the basic book of your religion.

[Anonymous No.4058856]

why do religion threads flock to /lit/?

There are so many other boards more appropriate for this sort of discussion.

[Anonymous No.4058860]

>>4058856
>There are so many other boards more appropriate for this sort of discussion.

Like what?
/lit/ simply has more people that take an interest in religion and are less judgmental and stupid about the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.4058861]

>>4058856
I guess I just find /lit/ more intellectual and um... well-read. I'm a little lost right now and just wanted to see some people toss some ideas around.

[Anonymous No.4058862]

>>4058856
They flock to /x/ mostly.

[Anonymous No.4058882]

>>4058856
>/lit/ is the only board where religion is an actual relevant subject

[Anonymous No.4058883]

Catholic here. 'Didn't care' about god and religion until a friend brought me to mass for the first time in a while and I met a really pretty girl. She's Catholic so now I am too. Apparently I'm pretty flexible with the right incentives.

[Anonymous No.4058885]

>>4058883
Catholicism is very penile oriented.

[Anonymous No.4058891]

>>4058885
yeah catholicism is way too gay for me

[Anonymous No.4059198]

>>4058817

>'If there were gods, how could I stand not to be one?'

[Anonymous No.4059237]

>>4058806
I'm an atheist. I was Catholic until I was around twelve and remained a theist until sixteen.

I think it depends on what you mean by 'foolish.' Obviously, I think the position that God exists is an illogical one, but I don't think that people who believe in God are idiots or less intelligent than those who don't.

[Anonymous No.4059242]

a person believe in god is like a poor person voting republican

[Anonymous No.4059254]

Apatheticist. Whether or not there is a god, reality still is.

[Anonymous No.4059255]

I think I'm a kind of an agnostic pantheist (if that means anything really - it's more asthetic than logical anyway).

Since faith is all about an individual perception of the world it would seem silly to me for one to subscribe to a certain, dogmatic religion, rather than constructing your spirituality out of your observations. And ''God'' is also a perception thing. Is it foolish to believe to a personal, magical skydaddy? Yes. Are there any people who have really thougth about the subject that do? I don't really think so.
Also,
>Is it foolish to
why do you concern yourself about the reaction of the public, which is largely based on consequences? For example, if you're are personality type which reacts poorly to a relatively nihilistic worldview, it would be in a way foolish to ''be'' an atheist. Or if you have a very dogmatic personality, it might be detrimental to subscribe to a single one religion. And, if pursuit of truth is your tea, these dilemmas shouldn't even exist, since truth cannot be foolish. So the question is - what do you trust more - your logic, or your intuition? Logically it's very hard to find reasons for a belief in a single, specific, godly entity, whereas by means of intuition many have felt a concrete ground for faith. Can you trust yourself enough to base your beliefs upon intuition? (And ancient many cultures have achieved things just through that BTW)

[Anonymous No.4059260]

/lit/ believes in god because they are not very smart

[Anonymous No.4059301]

>pantheism

[Anonymous No.4059308]

>>4059255
Why do you like calling yourself an agnostic pantheist? Why not simply atheist?

I'm also agnostic, but only in the same way I'm agnostic about the tooth fairy or Australia.

I'm also pantheist, but only if you want to call God a natural object and not a supernatural one. In other words, God is just another name for the Universe. I prefer God to mean something explicitly supernatural.

[Anonymous No.4059309]

i don't believe but i'm open to the possibility that i might.

it's so subjective. for some people it makes perfect sense that there's a god, for others not.

plenty of people have experiences that convince them there's something else. we can sit here and rationalise these experiences but it won't convince those that have them. and it could happen to any of us.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.4059311]

yes yes
i believe there isn't a god

and i don't hate reddit atheists at all, fedoras are Sick :)

[Anonymous No.4059315]

>>4059301
>this anon

[Anonymous No.4059321]

>>4059315
if something is related to eros we call it erotic but if something is related to thanatos what the fuck do you call it? thanatalic or some shit?

[Anonymous No.4059328]

>>4059321
>Thanatotic

[Anonymous No.4059334]

>>4059308
I don't really call myself anything, but I guess in the current zeitgeist ''atheist'' seems like a very closed statement which seems to imply that a person has this incredibly ultrapragmatic, narrow minded perception of world. Obviosly, it's all bs semantics wars, but, well, if I didn't find them interesting, wouldn't be on 4chan.

And, yeah, my ''pantheism'' more or less is the same as yours.

[Anonymous No.4059345]

>>4058856
Religion threads occasionally pop up on /adv/, but they reside here mostly because /lit/ is the homeland of the more well-read and least ignorant members of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.4059349]

>>4059345
well, let's not forget about /pol/

[Anonymous No.4059354]

>>4058806
I'm a Christian who values critical thinking. If it wasn't for my own experiences, I would most likely not be a believer, and so I don't expect anyone who didn't have experiences on a similar level to believe either. Instead, I respect their worldview and ask the same.

[Anonymous No.4059372]

>>4059349
This is every /pol/ religion thread:
>Whats a /pol/ approved religion?
>Christianity because x
>Implying everyone isn't Jewish already
>Jews
>Jews
>"How do you know he isnt jewish?" "Because we havent circumcised him yet"

[Anonymous No.4059680]

I'm a secular physicalist who admires Epicurus and modern science.
>inb4 fedora
new atheism is shit. neckbeard fedoras and angry teens listening to screamo.

[Anonymous No.4059687]

most of us atheist but we don't flaunt it and actually respect religion as a legitimate mode of living.

[Anonymous No.4059694]

Atheist. Based on my experiences, really; I'm not a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4059703]

>>4058819

What?

[Anonymous No.4059708]

I'm agnostic.
No. I tend to sympathize more with a more pantheistic/Spinozan deity view, because it seems to make a lot more sense than most of the mainstream theological conceptions of higher powers.
No, one can believe and adhere to religions for a variety of valid reasons, including, but not limited to, that they believe it is the truth.

[Anonymous No.4059710]

I'm a…atheist, I guess. I think religion is stupid and I think people that hold religious beliefs to be true are ignorant. Not necessarily stupid or bad, simply ignorant.

I don't believe in god, but I don't reject the idea of a god. I simply don't have enough evidence for either. So what do I do? I shrug and don't worry too much. Religious people, faced with lack of evidence, immediately choose to believe in the existence of god rather than in it's non-existence. Why? It probably has to do with the positive effect in most people's lives, it gives them a reason to exist, someone in whom they can believe, someone that wants the to become better and progress every day.

If it works for those people, who am I to tell them they're wrong? I'm digressing now. Basically, I'm an atheist.

[Anonymous No.4059711]

Well, it is "foolish", I guess, simply to "believe" in something that, by necessity, is unknown in terms of its reality. But I prefer not to call any philosophical position anything that offensive, because it's unproductive and just plain dumb.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.4059737]

It's illogical so yes it's foolish in that you won't accept logic and instead cling to 1000 year old myths simply because of age. You berate scientology and mormonism yet you keep christianity safe only because it's been around longer. Most people who automatically claim a God aren't really theists. They're casuals who only interpret what's good for them. You're either a fundamentalist or not, pick a side.

If no one ever taught you about religion whatsoever as a a kid, and you walked into a book store as an adult, saw the Bible or any other equivalent and read it, you wouldn't damn say "wow these are the absolute truths of universe and existence".

[Anonymous No.4059739]

>>4058806

I guess the question of whether it's foolish to believe in God is really the question of whether it's justified to believe in God.

What makes belief justified? "Evidence" is the answer most people like to give, but what if there's no evidence for against a particular belief.

It's meaningful to say "God is X" or "God is" or whatever, so we know that when someone asks "Does God exist?" we have to give an answer. But what makes the answer "no" more justified than the answer "yes"? It's a meaningful question with no evidence in favor of either response.

Why should absence of evidence be evidence of absence? Why should we assume that something isn't until there's evidence for it?

"We could say "I don't know"" Is this foolish? Maybe you do know; again, how do you know what you may think is the right answer isn't right without evidence?

It almost seems like it's never foolish to believe in something when we have 0 evidence in favor of any one position. So as for your question, the answer is "no".

It's never foolish to believe in God (or disbelieve)

[Anonymous No.4059742]

I think fear of mortality and, ultimately, pain, is a major motivator in the pursuit of piety. Even those who are only casually religious stay so, 'just in case'.

I contend that fear is still the principal reason for piety.

[Anonymous No.4059786]

>>4059737
>illogical

What are the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God then? If anything, atheism defies logic. I have yet to hear of a logical argument for atheism that is not, quote on quote "evidential", whatever that word means. There really is no evidence for the existence or absence of God.

[Anonymous No.4059790]

>>4059786
>There really is no evidence for the existence or absence of God.
so why believe in any of them and not just stay in the middle?

[Anonymous No.4059792]

The only logical conclusion is agnostic deism. Everything else assumes things that cannot be known.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.4059800]

>>4059790
BECAUSE MUH FAITH TRUMPS ALL

WHY ARE ATHEISTS SO ARROGANT?

I BEIEVE IN THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

THAT'S NOT ARROGANT AT ALL.

[Anonymous No.4059803]

>>4059790

Because logic points to a creator. Logic itself is not evidence, it is merely an attempt by humans to understand what is real. For all we "know", the world itself is a simulation and nothing exists. Within the confines of human "knowledge" and reasoning however, the most likely explanation is an indifferent God that set the universe in motion as a sort of observational experiment and either abandoned it or did not change anything within it.

[Anonymous No.4059807]

>>4059792
Why must the conclusion follow human logic?

[Anonymous No.4059808]

>>4059800
Atheists are known for their strawman arguments, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.4059812]

>>4059807
What else is there to follow? I mean, you could go all out zen and completely dismiss logic, but I would advise against that for practical purposes.

[Anonymous No.4059816]

>>4059803
>Because logic points to a creator

Uh, not really. Logic points to "Who the fuck knows?"

[Anonymous No.4059817]

>>4059790

William James would argue that you'd make a decision because it is in the nature of a human being to make a decision, regardless of whether it is groundless decision. To decide not to believe on lack of evidence is to be passionless and without vision. He goes further to say that for every claim posed, we intuitively adopt a position by virtue of being able to do so.

[Anonymous No.4059829]

>>4059817
I guess you are right to a certain extent. I was arguing something like that the other day, someone was saying that people can believe two contradictory statements and I was saying that we probably just pick up one even if we're not completely aware of our choice.

[Anonymous No.4059832]

>>4058806
>on reddit

[Anonymous No.4059840]

>>4059816

I'm sorry, but what is your definition of logic?

Obviously you're not referring to formal logic, because within the confines of formal logic, the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God have yet to be refuted successfully. Of course, the only thing we can know is that we know nothing, but logic the discipline and field of study dictates the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.4059847]

>>4059829

yeah, in psychology it's called compartmentalization.

It's how a lot of people are able to reconcile their beliefs with other beliefs, facts, or any claim that opposes those beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4059856]

>>4059803
If logic points to a creator, and science is based on logic (hint: it is), then science points to a creator.

Also, logic is evidence. How strong that evidence is depends on the type of logical argument employed.

Where do all these people come from that think religion and science are somehow diametrically opposed?

[Anonymous No.4059860]

>>4059840
I can refute all three right now if you like. Would you like me to?

[Anonymous No.4059861]

>>4059812
Well, I'm not going to claim to be an expert in quantum physics, but I have read that at the quantum level, the universe ceases to follow any recognizable logical patterns. Now, it obviously wouldn't make sense for me to say because of that, the universe's origin is doesn't follow logic. Rather, it just means that we shouldn't count out the possibility. And there's always that hypothesis that says time was created with the universe, so there was no "before" the universe. I won't deny that logic leads to some form of deism. Though, personally, I think all we can do is suspend judgment, as we don't presently know enough about the universe to determine its origins.

[Anonymous No.4060030]

To answer your two questions: no and yes.

[Anonymous No.4060042]

>>4059860
Go ahead, surprise me.

[Anonymous No.4060053]

>>4059856
Science is generally based on inductive reasoning, which is inherently faulty.

[Anonymous No.4060139]

>>4060053
Inductive reasoning isn't inherently faulty, it just doesn't intend to provide absolute proof, but rather reasonable proof.

>>4060042
Cosmological argument:
Fallacy of Composition, Bertrand Russell famously took this argument on.

Teleological argument:
Arguments from analogy are notoriously weak, and simply because something in nature does something, it doesn't mean it does it for a reason.

We have mechanism that allow us to explain away the teleological argument, for instance evolution and how we now understand the mechanics of the universe. Look to Hume and Darwin specifically for more eloquent elaborations on this.

Ontological arguments:
These either beg the question, equivocate, assume that there is an order from the top-down and not bottom-up, or even just assume the interlocutor already believes in God. They take many forms, but all of them have very serious flaws logically.

Hume provides on his own a response to each of these arguments, so you should read up on his work and perhaps read some of it before making blanket statements about the logical validity of arguments for the existence of god(s).

[Anonymous No.4060160]

>>4059812
>implying zen dismisses logic
>implying zen doesn't merely keep knowledge in it's rightful place instead of applying it to things it can't be applied to

[Anonymous No.4060360]

>>4060160
So yes, it dismisses logic

[Anonymous No.4060364]

>>4060360
No more than using food for eating is dismissing food.

[Anonymous No.4060413]

>>4060160
>can't be applied to
are you people even reading what you're typing?

[FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I No.4060450]

>>4058806
I swear that the anti-atheist circlejerk is nowadays more annoying than the atheist one.

Agnostic atheist here.

Beforehand, I was catholic then non-denominatial christian and finally deist.

[Anonymous No.4060451]

>>4059792
You people talk about logic as if its absolute. It's just a tool, that you use to determine conclusions from premises.

If you start with scientific materialism, as your premises, then you can only end up with agnosticism or atheism. Most thinking people in our culture accept those premises, so that's why they end up agnostic/atheist.

If you start with other premises you get other conclusions. Logic isn't some absolute standard of measurement. It can't determine the true or the real.

And the premises of science are wrong by the way.

[Anonymous No.4060452]

>>4060451
>It can't determine the true or the real.

that's exactly what it does

[Anonymous No.4060455]

>>4060450
I don't know what that seems to surprise you, circle jerks in general are no fun unless you're a part of them.

[Anonymous No.4060456]

I'm catholic not best one around...but still, I tend to avoid the subject because people seem to have a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.4060458]

>>4060452
No. you will never describe reality with nothing but the a priori. Logic goes nowhere without first assuming premises.

[Anonymous No.4060475]

It's not foolish to believe in a god. I'm incredibly foolish and I believe in no gods. There are also incredibly intelligent people who do believe in a god.

I am atheist, but believing in a god or religion is very much like being a part of a political party: It makes no fucking difference because good people will be good and bad people will be bad and it becomes increasingly difficult to do good things when you become a fundamentalist who allows power-mongers to dictate their actions through a guise of belief (be it in religion or, in my comparison, politics.)

[Anonymous No.4060577]

>>4058806
Cite theology or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4060584]

Everything is foolish

[Anonymous No.4060585]

>>4060451
Very well said. ITT (and in any discourse on religion) we find ourselves dealing with a plurality of inconsistent philosophical angles that never properly agree on the necessary principles that underlie religious belief.

>>4060452
Absolutely not, truth and reality and entirely separate. Logic can simply operate on them once they've been established, often with the help of logic but not always.

/basic philosophy


Personally I'm agnostic, leaning strongly towards atheism. I say that very cautiously, though, since I find the stereotypical fedora atheists to be just as odious as evangelical Christians. My fav is when fedora atheists cite the fact disbelief in god often correlates with a higher IQ and greater level of education and automatically assume the relationship to be causal or necessarily the case for their own circumstances.

[Anonymous No.4060586]

>>4058806
>2013
>not following the gods of your ancestors.
Step it up /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4060617]

>there are people on /lit/ right now who choose Catholicism over Protestantism
Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity, it's basically polytheism with a Pope

[Anonymous No.4060621]

>>4060617
Protestant scum, you are destroying America with your evangelism.

[Anonymous No.4060627]

It is foolish to believe that you HAVE to believe in a God, or Religion.
It is not necessarily foolish to believe in God or Religion.
People who believe in God or Religion because they choose too, and knowing that they choose to is fine. That's not the problem. The problem comes from those who forget that they made a choice to believe and instead try to behave as if their beliefs are empirically derived from the universe.
Intellectual honesty, whether you're a believer or an atheist. Mindfulness is key

[Anonymous No.4060629]

>>4060617
>Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity, it's basically polytheism with a Pope
Lol, spoken like a true theology connoisseur. (Did you study theology at Jack Chick's Mailorder Diplomamill University?)

[Anonymous No.4060647]

>>4060452
You clearly haven't studied logic.

Logic says nothing about what is true, just what follows from what.

[Anonymous No.4060648]

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
No
>Is it foolish to believe in the current established religions?
Yes

[Anonymous No.4060649]

>>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
Yes.
>>Is it foolish to believe in religion?
Yes.

To be quite blunt and offensive, gods and religions are fairy tales for adults.

[Anonymous No.4060681]

I can't think of a more foolish superstition than atheism.

[Anonymous No.4060709]

>>4058840

[Anonymous No.4060722]

>>4060681
>I can't think of a more foolish superstition than atheism.

Oh you...

The problem with these debates always peter out in definitions. Is atheism believing that there is no god, or not believing there is a god?
When you ascribe something to the supernatural or spiritual, of course we can't know about it through means of the corporeal.
I call myself atheist, but I don't claim to know no "higher being" exists.

All this "new atheism" and fedora tipping seems to be merely a reaction to the religious extremism in the US. Here in Sweden, the amount of nonbelievers is fairly high, but nobody cares if you have a faith.

I think it is foolish to believe in the supernatural, but humans are foolish beings. As long as the nation is secular, knock yourselves out.

[Anonymous No.4060726]

Why do people feel the need to qualify their atheism with the term "agnostic"?

I don't believe in leprechauns but it surely assumed that ultimately, I have to be agnostic about it.

[Anonymous No.4060733]

I'm an atheist.

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
Not necessarily. I don't mind people who believe in a creator, even though I find the idea of one incredibly unecessary and something that only complicates matters. I've written this elsewhere on /lit/ many times and I'll do it again: if you can believe in a deity coming into being ex nihilo, why do you brush off the idea that the universe came into being ex nihilo as an impossible possibility? This, to me, is just intellectually unjustifiable.
Not to mention the infinite regress problem one has to just ignore (while ironically calling belief in a creator "logical").
>Is it foolish to believe in religion?
This is the most arrogant of all possible positions. Not only do you know that there is a god, but you know what god it is, and he actually loves you and cares for you and so on. It's pretty dumb.

“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”

[Anonymous No.4060743]

>>4058806
I've got a question: Who cares?
Does it really matter if you have a faith or not? The question shouldn't be about which belief or, non-belief, is right or wrong because there will never be an absolute definitive answer either way. So why waste your life debating and wondering and getting mad, when you can just get on with things believing what you want to believe?

[Anonymous No.4060744]

I believe in me.

[Anonymous No.4060745]

I have no religion in which I believe in.

[Anonymous No.4060746]

>>4060621
>implying I live in America
Reformed Protestantism is best

[Anonymous No.4060748]

>>4060744
You will die.

[Anonymous No.4060750]

>>4060743
fucking this!

[Anonymous No.4060753]

>>4060744
>>4060748
I believe in me and I believe that I will die.

>fixed.

[Anonymous No.4060903]

If there is a god, it must be me.
If there is none, I may not really be here.

[Anonymous No.4060917]

i don't believe in an interventionist god

[Anonymous No.4060942]

>>4060917
>liberal parenting

[Anonymous No.4060945]

I appreciate the imagination and the mythology behind religion. I like the idea of an all powerful being who reigns over us, with his adversary chained to the centre of the earth. I like the idea of deities who wage wars and lace the sky with lightning. I like the idea of angels who descend from on high to gift people with prophecies and words of old.

I don't believe in them, but I like them. Though I hate people who cram it down my throat and tell me I'm going to burn for all eternity for not believing in them.

[Anonymous No.4060963]

>>4060903
That's a bit conceited, really.
>Inb4 shallow

[Anonymous No.4060971]

>>4058806
>I know most of us hate fedora atheists
Actually, it isn't most of us. It's just a few who keep spamming the buzzwords, and others who pick up on it cause it's a good insult. Though the stereotypical beta atheist IS pretty arrogant, there are too many of them on 4chan to really say "most of us" hate them.
Determinist, meaning is what we make it, help others, and I'm mostly a naturalist but don't rule out that .1% chance of spirituality.

[Anonymous No.4060975]

>>4060942
>implying random political shit
back to /pol/?

[Anonymous No.4060986]

I believe in God and in a hybrid of pantheism and monotheism. I'm not really sure about the correct name for it, but it's close to hinduism. We are all a part of God, like a raindrop falling from the sky and into the ocean. Ocean is God and we are all the raindrops that have temporarily been separated from God and think we are our own ocean in the sky, our own Gods.

I'm not religious, I don't trust religions because they are made by man and by definition cannot describe God or his motives as he is perfect and thus cannot exist in this world that has nothing perfect in it.

[Anonymous No.4060989]

>what religion or belief does /lit/ have?

I'm a confirmed Episcopalian. It was neat.
I like Panentheism. Go to church sometimes. On my own, I meditate and do the LBRP ritual regularly. I like mythological lore too, and the thread from Zoroaster to modern stuff in the West.

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
>Is it foolish to believe in religion?

Whatever, man. Think what you want.
If my beliefs weren't beneficial, I wouldn't have them. I'd have different ones. Give me some credit here.

[Anonymous No.4060991]

>>4060989
>If my beliefs weren't beneficial, I wouldn't have them. I'd have different ones. Give me some credit here.
Not everyone is spiritually opportunistic.

[Anonymous No.4060998]

>>4058811

Yes, Spinoza is great.

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?

No. It is foolish to worry about beliefs. It is not what you believe but what you do that is important. Choosing to be an atheist or a theist is to voluntarily constraint your own functionality.

[Anonymous No.4061003]

>>4060998
>It is not what you believe but what you do that is important.
Cool belief bro.

[Anonymous No.4061005]

>>4060986
>I don't trust religions because they are made by man and by definition cannot describe God or his motives

The way I think of it, is that religions are a systemic framework for humans to more easily deal with very abstract concepts. Religions are tools for thinking about/dealing with whatever's happening in the Astral plane of existence. Also, humans like rituals.

So if you believe in this sort of thing, religions can be useful guides. When approached properly.

[Anonymous No.4061009]

>>4061003
And a correct belief too. Belief itself can sometimes be a form of action, but usually it is not, and usually it is foolish to spend any time worrying about beliefs, and beliefs often get in the way of doing things. It is better it get on with things and let go and not worry about being wrong or right.

[Anonymous No.4061038]

>>4060998
> It is not what you believe but what you do that is important.

Don't dismiss fundamental questions as irrelevant. Even if you do all the right things, if it's for the wrong reasons, then you're still only a hypocrite. Ultimately, you are going to be affected by your motivations and ideals, and become a radically different person than you could have been, had you only second guessed yourself a little more.

[Anonymous No.4061053]

>>4059840
>the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God have yet to be refuted successfully.
Failure to refute things does not mean they have been proven to exist.

[Anonymous No.4061058]

>>4061053
Well, no shit. I don't think anyone here wasn't aware of that previously.

[Anonymous No.4061060]

>>4059861
The problem is really that if you introduce a creator of the universe, you're just adding a step: What made the creator? If the creator need not be created, then why must the universe be?

It's a cliché argument, I know, but why is the introduction of a creating agent so necessary?

[Anonymous No.4061062]

>>4061009
>usually it is foolish to spend any time worrying about beliefs, and beliefs often get in the way of doing things. It is better it get on with things and let go and not worry about being wrong or right.

Maybe you mean that it is foolish to spend excess time on labelling what you think? (which is usually meant to create an impression in the minds of other people).

At some point you have to have done some strategizing. Had some original plan or intention before action.

[Anonymous No.4061067]

>>4061060
>then why must the universe be?

DUN DUN DUNNNNNN...

[Anonymous No.4061136]

>>4058811
Can someone explain Spinozistism to me like im six? I kind of get the gist of it but im probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.4061140]

Catholic master race reporting in

[Marxist-Leninist-Maoist !quM58wnvXA No.4061147]

"...Communists need to focus on the material basis for religious belief and practice. To argue that religious claims about the material world have no (or little) scientific support is beside the point. People turn to religions because they provide community, ritual, solace, connection to something larger than themselves - things that atheism and science don't and can't provide, but what we often need to pull through day-to-day. This is all grounded in the alienating effects of class society, capitalism in particular."

A friend I agreed with.

[Marxist-Leninist-Maoist !quM58wnvXA No.4061152]

Also, since this is /lit/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Here.

[Anonymous No.4061160]

>>4061140
>druggy sodomist murder accessory cardinal sinner alcoholic
>religion mocking comic with a life depreciating shtick that attacks the institution of marriage and family
>dadrock killer of art that kills with dullness
>iconoclast pied noir commie nihilist (inb4 no he's absurdist, absurdism is just nihilism for people from sunny places) that spent his life destroying people's faith

Nope.

[Anonymous No.4061183]

>>4061160
How is it possible for all 4 to be 2d4u?
The only thing you got right was 'alcoholic'.
Don't even know where 'iconoclast' comes from. You're just spouting whatever criticisms makes you the most edgy. Ironically, you're iconoclast and trying to hard with it to boot
>dadrock
back to /mu/ with you

[Anonymous No.4061200]

>The only thing you got right was 'alcoholic'.
So you don't know about Kerouacs drug use, helping his friend to cover up a murder and experimenting sexually with men?

Why are you praising people you don't know shit about? All my other criticisms are also valid, but you probably know little about those people as well.

[Anonymous No.4061206]

>>4061200
>helping his friend to cover up a murder

In his defense, that's what friends are for.

Also,
>experimenting sexually with men

Haha, what are you, 80? This is 2013. Nobody cares, dude.

[Anonymous No.4061212]

>>4061206
I don't care myself either, but using Kerouac as an example of the glory of Catholicism while he spend most of his life dabbling in mortal sin is a bit of a stretch.

[Anonymous No.4061214]

>>4061200
I wasn't objecting to those facts, you tard. I was stating a general point about how wrong you are as concisely as possible.
I know all about them. I could go into detail but you're not worth it because I know you were only being confrontational because you were provoked by my troll phrasing.

[Anonymous No.4061223]

>>4061212
>glory of Catholicism
Why do you even think that's what I was doing?
it should be clear to you that most of those guys were not practicing Catholics. The point of the picture is that the Catholic tradition informed their life and work.
of course, he was a sinner. That's the whole point of Catholicism. We're all sinners.

[Anonymous No.4061269]

Protestant master race reporting in

[Anonymous No.4061271]

>>4061223
>We're all sinners

[Anonymous No.4061305]

Communist master race reporting in, why are they so based?

inb4 they weren't communists, the communist tradition informed their life and work

[Anonymous No.4061328]

>>4058806
Psalm 14:1
For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

[Anonymous No.4061337]

>>4061140
>Louis CK
I don't think joking about sex and masturbation on stage is very Christ-like

[Anonymous No.4061364]

i'm not sure where i stand, really. i feel i am spiritual, but definitely not religious. i grew up believing in jesus, so obviously i lean more towards christianity in those moments where i feel spiritual, but i've also been heavily influenced by zen and a few philosophers that are influenced by eastern thought. i don't know. but i believe in a vague god. foolish to believe? i don't know. maybe. i happen to think it's important though, and can be very rewarding to a person. it's all about context. contet is very important.

[Anonymous No.4061385]

>>4061269
– Then, said Cranly, you do not intend to become a protestant?
– I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

Portrait of the Artist, Joyce

[Anonymous No.4061390]

>>4061337
>1337
neither is that epic 1337 get you just get get get get got got got got blood rush to my head lit hot lock poppin off the fuckin block knot clockin wrist slit watch bent thought bot

[Anonymous No.4061401]

I am man of faith.

[Anonymous No.4061403]

Naturalized Buddhism, mostly Zen & modern Insight meditation, but I like to add Stoic practices as well

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
Kind of, but I don't concern myself with that

>"The unquestioned authority of the vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathings; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin; - these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men." - Dharmakirti

[Anonymous No.4061429]

>>4061403
>Naturalized Buddhism
Please elaborate, what would that look like?

[Anonymous No.4061433]

>>4058856
/lit/ is basically /phi/ too

[Anonymous No.4061435]

>>4061337
None of them are christlike. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.4061469]

Catholic.

I started believing when I had weird paranormal experiences after a session of Ouija.

[Anonymous No.4061481]

>>4061385
>implying the dissonance doesn't lead to hightened tension and creative activity

[Anonymous No.4061490]

>>4061403
>these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men
Now _that_ is some world-class vintage edge!

[Anonymous No.4061492]

>>4061469
>weird paranormal experiences after a session of Ouija.

Do tell, please?

[Anonymous No.4061499]

Fedora atheists aren't worse than religious. But they're mostly Americans on the internet. Maybe it's a country thing.

[Anonymous No.4061520]

I like to pretend my subconscious is some sort of divine being, and I like to characterize it as Anubis. I like to meditate and perform spells and rituals. I wouldn't say I have a religion, rather I prefer to believe in a world where subtle magic exists despite knowing that it most likely doesn't. It just makes the day to day a little less mundane.

[Anonymous No.4061525]

>>4061499
I suppose it would make sense to be weird about religion when you're from one of the few places where people still take it too seriously.

[Anonymous No.4061527]

Experiences and reality are subjective. Respect other people's beliefs because they are just as far-fetched as yours, no matter how much you wish they were not.

[Anonymous No.4061542]

I'll probably get shit for this because all of you are well-read and inherently egotistical, but I try to practice Christianity.

I like to have a divine/cosmic power to thank for the good things in my life.

[Anonymous No.4061549]

>>4061527

That's not true at all. Some beliefs are just blatantly untrue.

[Anonymous No.4061558]

>>4061542
>I like to have a divine/cosmic power to thank for the good things in my life.

...and the shitty things?

I'm reminded by this thing that David Attenborough said in an interview about this sort of thinking once. He keeps getting mails and letters from people angry that he doesn't praise the lord for making all the beautiful things he describes and narrates. Well, he says, presumably that same god also made that worm that's crawling through the eye of a small African child right at this moment. Is such a god praiseworthy? Hardly.

So this sort of thinking is so incredibly insane to me in light of this. I just cannot understand how people can think this way.

[Anonymous No.4061559]

>>4061549
Way to completely miss the first sentence.

[Anonymous No.4061564]

>>4061559

Reality as we know it isn't subjective. Your sensory experiences are subjective. There's a big difference.

[Anonymous No.4061568]

>>4061527
Except I have none, so I can be as dismissive as I want.

[Anonymous No.4061571]

>>4061564
>he thinks he knows the ding an sich

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4061574]

>>4061558
>...and the shitty things?
;)

[Anonymous No.4061577]

>>4061558
>that worm that's crawling through the eye of a small African child

Bet the worm's stoked to be eating a yummy eyeball. Why so speciesist? That's unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.4061578]

>>4061574

[Anonymous No.4061579]

>>4061558

I don't like to think of the Christian "God" if you want to call him/her/it that, perhaps we should say the Christian deity, as the main force in the universe that has a strict regiment on everybody's life. I like to think of this force as something that occasionally steps in, and if shitty things happen to me, so be it. I don't believe this force/deity/God is actively punishing those African children, or declares me unworthy and that's why I don't get this promotion or that winning lottery ticket.

[Anonymous No.4061584]

>>4061564
>Reality as we know it isn't subjective
Prove it. You're making that claim, the burden of proof lies upon you. Look, I recognize that your belief is that reality is completely objective and that you experience it through your sensory perceptions in a subjective way and I recognize that as true. But I recognize that as true in the same way I recognize the Christian belief to be true and all other beliefs.
It is true because that is the way you experience your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4061588]

>>4061579

Blinded by your own narcissism and need to believe. Try doubt for a change, and see how long you last before you drop your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4061593]

I'm atheist because I see no reason to believe in a god, and atheism seems to be the explanation of the world.

I'm sure there will be 5 posts jumping me with
>have you even read [Author]?

[Anonymous No.4061595]

>>4061588

I honestly don't understand how that's narcissism.

[Anonymous No.4061596]

>>4061584

For humans it is pointless to argue about what is beyond reality as we know it. In the end though, the laws of physics are the same for you as they are for me, and some beliefs about them are just blatantly false. People who think the flood actually happened are simply objectively wrong, for instance.

[Anonymous No.4061597]

>>4061595

God loves me, don't you know? He helped me find my car keys this morning. He made me feel good when I woke up this morning. He really does love me. Sometimes bad things happen to me but I know he's looking after me and that there's a purpose.

Meanwhile, in Africa...or even the nearest street corner where a rape might be ongoing...

You're just failing to reason honestly when you think this way. It's the perfection of narcissism.

[Anonymous No.4061598]

>>4061597
God helps us, he helps us find our car keys, he really does love us.

Your argument would work if I sincerely thought God only helps me.

[Anonymous No.4061599]

>>4061598
>he helps us find our car keys

Someone replaced your brain with chimp shit.

[Anonymous No.4061601]

>>4061599
Whatever dude.

[Anonymous No.4061613]

>>4061599
typical edgy atheist, resorting to ad-hominem when and strawmaning people trying to explain their own view of the world and their belief, when my argument for moderate belief of one individual still remains without reply hours later
>>4058825

[Anonymous No.4061655]

>>4061558
Karma, bro.

[Anonymous No.4061658]

>Is it foolish to believe in a god?
Yes, since there is 0% proof of one.

[Anonymous No.4061664]

>The universe was created by an omnipotent or at least extremely powerful being
Alright, I could see that.

>This being is invested in our lives and concerned for our well-being
Nah.

>This being has continuously played a role in our universe outside of creating it
Unlikely.

[Anonymous No.4062103]

I sound shallow as fuck right now, but atheist because I just don't believe in anything.
Sure, spinozism or agnosticism has some appeal, but in the end, I know to myself that I honestly don't think there's any deity or deity-like creature, being or power.

[Anonymous No.4062134]

>>4059242
Why don't you form an actual statement with some meaning besides "these two things are similar in a way I don't care to explain?"

[Anonymous No.4062530]

>>4061658
There is also 0% proof of not one.

[Anonymous No.4062534]

>>4062530
That's because you can't prove a negative, ya dingus.

[Anonymous No.4062537]

>>4062534
novel insight

[Anonymous No.4062543]

>>4061136

Everything is already perfected in the mind of God as causa sui. Cause and effect. Ultra-determinism. Extremely complicated style of discourse. That's about all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.4062545]

>>4062530
do you believe in all things that aren't proved not to exist then?

[Anonymous No.4062548]

>>4061136

Also, God has no omnipotence outside of the universe and its laws. God=Nature. He is not anthropomorphized as a being of free will that dictates affairs by volition.

[Anonymous No.4062552]

>>4062545
He's one of those goofballs who is agnostic towards everything that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4062565]

I'm considering becoming a Sikh.
I don't think it's foolish.
I don't think it's foolish.

[Anonymous No.4062668]

>>4061481
>implying that Joyce didn't find that with Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.4062672]

>>4061469
do you not see the irony in that?

[Anonymous No.4062675]

>>4062530
Therefore there's a 50% chance according to logic. But the validity of logic itself is based on faith or circular argument.

Disregard judgements, suspend all belief.

[Anonymous No.4062680]

>>4061564
>Reality as we know it
>as we know it
>Your sensory experiences are subjective

ha ha

[Anonymous No.4062700]

>>4058825
What does your brother have? What makes him sick. God willing, I believe I can help him through the power of Christ's name someday very soon. If you just contact me at [e-mail] that works too

[Anonymous No.4062717]

>>4062675
You haven't studied logic. Logic isn't about probabilities, its about what conclusions follow from what premises. It doesn't tell us what is true or real in itself, just what follows from what.

It always confounds me when I see atheists saying its more 'logical' to be an atheist. That makes no sense unless you don't know anything about logic. Atheism makes sense only as the conclusion from certain premises.

[Anonymous No.4062721]

>>4062717
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT BAYES AND ELIEZER YUDKOSWKY!!!!!!!

/sci

[Anonymous No.4062726]

>>4062717
On what basis can logic show us what follows from what? Logic is completely arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.4062737]

>>4062726
How uninformed can you get.

There are certain things you can know outside experience. We can verify them through experience sure, but there are simple truths we are fundamentally able to reason. Try the majority of math. Try definitional synthesis. Really try to study up on logic if you think it is arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.4062739]

>>4062726
Read a fucking book about it you ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.4062778]

>>4062103
I find agnosticism to be the way to go. I mean we don't know if there is a god or higher power, but I find no reason to refute the idea as it is.

[Anonymous No.4062793]

>>4062737
>There are certain things you can know outside experience.
We have created them. We decide how they are. That's the way in which we 'know' them. 1+1=2 is a linguistic convention, nothing more. Logical is arbitrary in the sense that the structure of it is based on nothing more than that we have made it such. Just like every other language.

[Anonymous No.4062818]

>>4061269
>Bill Hicks
>A nigger jazz musician

Do you even know what Nietzsche believed?

[Anonymous No.4062826]

>>4062818
The Protestant tradition informed their life and work.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063015]

>>4058819
Just because you can't understand what he says does not mean you need to insult him.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063021]

>>4058816
I think I may be the only one that properly understands what you are trying to communicate. Well said, Anon. I may be wrong, but are you saying that the mis-communication is that arguments often focus around whether or not some sort of God exists, when instead it should be about all the intricacies of religion?

[Anonymous No.4063025]

>most of us
>on reddit
Reddit proselytizer pls go

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063028]

>>4058855
I like this. Very often, teens will say that they are athiest or agnostic despite growing up in a religious background. A lot of the problem is that adult figures in their lives try to shove the religion on them, especially Christianity, when they are young out of a fear of them not being saved. This leads to unpleasant experiences and bad memories of Sunday School. So they end up thinking that that's what it is all about. I never ever critisize a religion without studying properly.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063045]

>>4059354
Same here. For a while my faith was wavering, mainly because I went through a phase where I tried to let logic dictate 100% of my life. I started to meet with other christians more often, and there's something that I realized; whether or not I am 100% sure there is God( I am), I see the way Christianity and faith helps people, and makes them happy. It makes me happy as well. People can use the crusades as a point for their anti-Christianity debates, but the fact of the matter is, Christianity has made more people happy than it has ever hurt people. That's why I am a Christian.

[Anonymous No.4063047]

>>4058806
How does one believe in an organized religion?
I can understand the belief that something (possibly an entity with greater scale and properties than we can even comprehend, and hence, a "god") created the universe and everything in it. However, when you get to organized religion, I don't see how an educated person can believe that a 2000 year old book (Old Testament obviously being even older than that) is the word of God, and therefore Christianity/Catholicism (chose these for familiarity's sake) is true without being brainwashed into believing it at a young age. Controversial and conflicting messages aside, the gospels of the New Testament are far from reliable first-person accounts of things, and as such, there is no solid evidence to support any miraculous events, nor have we seen any actual documentation of miraculous interventions by God, yet some people are dead set on believing everything the book states as fact.

[Anonymous No.4063061]

>>4058806
I gave up Christianity awhile ago. The dogma I lived under held that God was the answer to everything. Nuclear War? God will sort it out, etc. Even at my highest point of faith, it was suffocating. I don't think about the fact that I don't believe in god very often. Christians think about God all of the time and seem to think that everyone else does too. Unfortunately, you see many people step forward to fulfill that expectation for them and play the role of the villain. That being said, I don't think it is foolish to believe in god or religion. It really is about community and culture that can be stronger and more positive than anywhere else I've seen. This is something I have really come to respect. Some of the communities are healthy, some aren't. Anyways, whenever people "defend their faith" or try to convert people, this is what they subconsciously supporting. I've met many people with varying degrees of self-awareness about this. Some will openly admit this. And it depends on the person whether it is healthy for them. For me it was poison. However, I still benefit from the community since most of my family is heavily involved in it and I enjoy it. With regards to the actual "debates" about the "truth" of god or religion, it is just masturbation among the intellectuals, trying to get one up on another. Show who has the longer penis. For me, it just a really boring topic.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063068]

>>4060722
> Is atheism believing that there is no god, or not believing there is a god?
Very well, said, I like this point. Error in interpretation of these two can ruin good discussions.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063074]

>>4060945
I'm Christian, and I strongly dislike those people those people.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.4063079]

Most people bullshit with religion anyway. If you're not a fundamentalist you're a bullshitter picking the shit you like about religion and ignoring the shit you don't like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5DaTIF1a0

I BELEIVE IN GOD MAAAAAN LIKE THE COSMOS AND SHIT GOD IS NATURE NATURE IS GOD BUT I DON'T GO TO CHURCH BLAH BLAH BLAH

[Anonymous No.4063080]

>>4063047
Like I said here >>4063047, it is about culture and community. I would say 99% (probably more) percent of people don't seriously believe. Even the people that think they seriously believe don't REALLY believe it. To the religious, I'm not saying you don't believe prayer works. I'm not saying you don't believe in miracles. But you still save money in the bank. You still look both ways before crossing the street. You generate complicated arguments for the inevitable conclusion that both you and I know you will come too. If that is what you need to to justify your subconscious participation in the community, fine. You can let yourself be somewhat aware of it and not leave your community though. Seriously, grow up little and do introspection and recognize what really motivates you.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063085]

>>4061147
Hmm. I want to say Marx, but the style seems a little different. Who is this? I haven't read too much on Commnism, but my best friend is a very hard-line communist/socialist, and he teaches me a lot.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063087]

>>4061337
If Louis CK is Catholic, then he doesn't strive for Christ-like behavour like Christians do.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063091]

>>4061520
I, too, believe that there is presence in my subconscious. I believe that my subconscious thoughts that come to the surface is "God speaking to me." I think that's what a lot of Christians see as God communicating with them as well.

[Anonymous No.4063105]

>>4063080
Oops I mean't here>>4063061

[Anonymous No.4063203]

>be god
>create sin (or at the very least allow sin to exist in the world)
>punish people for falling into sin
>send yourself in the form of your own son to the world, kill yourself, revive yourself so that you can "save the world" from sin
>punish people that don't believe you actually did this

why no just fucking get rid of sin entirely?

[Anonymous No.4063207]

>>4063203
Because then people wouldn't be people.

[Mr.Monarchy No.4063224]

>>4063203
Man created sin. God gave free will so we had the option to chose whether or not to believe in Him. Jesus was representative of the sacrifices that people of the Old Testament had to make regularly to wash themselves of the sin they are born with. Prior to Jesus' sacrfice, we were all born with sin. Afterwards, we no longer were required to sacrifice animals. You go to Hell if you do not accept Jesus as your savior, not because you don't believe. The whole point was to ask for forgiveness for the sins you have committed.

[Anonymous No.4063644]

>>4063203
Free will, karma, because we are a part of God endowed with the ability to defy Him. But in the cycle of life we find, this is to our detriment as part of the past choices we made to arrive at this plane for this spiritual growth we necessitate.
Christ became the Way for us out of this reciprocal cycle of sin back the Father in being that unblemished Sacrifice as the propitiation for our trangressions as long as we call on His name.

[Anonymous No.4063680]

>>4063203
I believe Scandinavian churches have done away with hell since it seems not nice.

[Anonymous No.4063697]

>>4063224

>these ridiculous excuses

I'm glad I live in a place where people don't buy into this inane crap anymore. The new generation here is 99% atheist. Feels fucking great.

[Anonymous No.4063702]

>>4063021
I'm pretty sure everyone understood the anon was saying that.