[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 563 KB, 2399x1799, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6071466 No.6071466 [Reply] [Original]

http://youtu.be/gW7607YiBso
Okay, how many of these are yours, /lit/? Be honest.

>> No.6071471

Wasn't Hitler a christian? And even if he wasn't, didn't the party push for Protestantism?

>> No.6071477
File: 18 KB, 720x480, k1togw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6071477

Ever had your PRRROTEstantism pushed in

>> No.6071485

>>6071471
Hitler had contradictory religious views but he despised orthodox Christianity for the most part, the Nazis wanted to either dechristianise the country or twist Christianity into a pro-nazi religon

Some protestants went along with the Nazis but I think most protestants didn't and neither did the catholic church, the church actually saved thousands of Jews and was persecuted under the Nazis

>> No.6071487

>>6071471
he was cultural christian be denounced it privately,he sure wasn't an atheist or secular in anyway

>> No.6071503

Honestly the funniest shit I've seen on Youtube. Cheers, OP.

>> No.6071519

>>6071466
The one guy actually had a point when he said that he was a hypocrite because he has faith in science just as religious people have faith in their religion.

>> No.6071535

>>6071519
No.

>> No.6071555

>>6071519
That was from Bill O'Reilly

>> No.6071559

>>6071466
>implying even half of those are real

>> No.6071588
File: 148 KB, 600x600, Pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6071588

>mfw deist
>mfw blowing everyone out on a daily basis

>> No.6071620
File: 86 KB, 650x560, BSG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6071620

>mfw i wrote the richard dickkins one

>> No.6071961

>>6071466
I want to send him a lovely email as a non hate filled religious person
Where can I send it

>> No.6071972

>>6071961
maybe you can just not address it to anyone and pray for God to deliver it to him

>> No.6071986

Yeah but they weren't driven by atheism, they were driven by political beliefs.

>> No.6071988

>>6071972
I hope god takes pity on you for being a sarcastic jerk

>> No.6072573
File: 6 KB, 290x174, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6072573

>>6071986
Autism is essential to communism

>> No.6072591

>>6071588

Deism is the only true way. Evolution and natural selection have too many gaps and don't account for consciousness. But the likelihood that any of the religions on earth are accurate very low. Live a good life and occasionally engage in thankful prayer. Feels good.

>> No.6072617

>>6072591
How does deism answer consciousness in any way? And how does it answer "gaps in evolution and natural selection"? (whatever the heck you mean by that). And praying is totally pointless for a deist, because a deist god doesn't intervene in the universe.

In case you're going to reply with "le edgy atheist", I'm agnostic towards deism. I just don't understand your reasons for being a deist.

>> No.6072618

It's 2015. Why do people still think that Freemasons are in a religious cult that is in opposition to Christianity? Quite a large number of Freemasons are Christians. In some countries like Sweden it's a requirement that you be a Christian before you can even join. It's a bunch of old fucks hanging out and jerking each other off. Conspiracy theorists are the worst.
>muh all-seeing eye
>muh illuminati

>> No.6072628

>>6072618
You have to admit, Freemasons have some cult-like practices. Like their rituals that only members are allowed to learn and the strong fraternity between members.

They're not really an anti-Christian cult, but from a non-mason Christian's perspective, you can see how it might look that way.

>> No.6072630

>>6072591
Consciousness is an illusion. There is no "soul". The only thing that seperates us from the animals we eat is a more evolved brain.

>> No.6072633

>>6072617

Evolution doesn't explain the development of consciousness. I don't understand what you mean when you ask why deism would answer it. Is that a question that needs asking?

And notice I said "thankful prayer." I don't pray often and I don't pray for intervention. I occasionally thank God for all he has created. And that is all. It's calming. I like it. I don't really care if God gives a shit or not.

>> No.6072638

>>6072617
see
>>6072630

This is what brainwashed atheists who follow the reductionist, materialist scientific method think. They simply deny the existence of consciousness because evolution and natural selection can't explain it.

>> No.6072645

>>6072633
>Evolution doesn't explain the development of consciousness.
No, it doesn't at the moment. Who's to say it wont in the future though?

> I don't understand what you mean when you ask why deism would answer it.
You said that evolution and natural selection alone don't explain consciousness. Since this followed on from "deism is the only true way" it heavily implied deism has something to do with it. And I didn't understand since as we both know, a deist god doesn't intervene.

>And notice I said "thankful prayer." I don't pray often and I don't pray for intervention.
Fair enough. I made a bad assumption there, sorry about that.

>> No.6072649

>>6072630
I'm not a religiofag or an atheistfag but the concept of a "more evolved brain", or something being "more evolved" than something else, is a huge misconcept when it comes to evolution. It doesn't just stop for populations and evolution has (probably) no direction.

There's a good chance that modern "living fossils" like coelacanths, who people sometimes label as "less evolved", couldn't produce offspring with coelacanths from 65 million years ago due to large genetic differences.

>> No.6072656

>>6072645
>No, it doesn't at the moment. Who's to say it wont in the future though?
I do. You can believe that science holds the answer in the future, but consciousness as I understand it it outside of the realm of physical science.

>You said that evolution and natural selection alone don't explain consciousness. Since this followed on from "deism is the only true way" it heavily implied deism has something to do with it. And I didn't understand since as we both know, a deist god doesn't intervene.
He doesn't intervene, but he created the earth or at least started creation. Development of consciousness doesn't require any intervention past creation.

>> No.6072686

>>6072656
>but consciousness as I understand it it outside of the realm of physical science.
Ok, but what's that got to do with deism? Like you say, there's no intervention, so either way consciousness isn't influenced by forces outside the universe. Whether the universe stems from a deist creator or not doesn't have a bearing on the nature of consciousness. I'm just talking about its relationship to deism here, not the nature of consciousness itself. It's just that I don't see how it's related to you being a deist.

>You can believe that science holds the answer in the future
I don't. I just said that it might. There's far from consensus on consciousness, at best we have educated guesses.

>> No.6072701

>>6071620
>mfw i wrote the richard dickkins one
Nice one. I laughed heartily at that.

Suspected it was a joke one because of how funny it was.

>> No.6072706

Wasn't Frederick the Great an atheist?

>> No.6072710

I want to write him a nice letter now but I can't be get half as creative as these
>noam chomsky's cock
>dikkins
making me feel insecure :(

>> No.6072783

>>6072591
scientists do not know why animals yawn nor why it is contagious. perhaps deism can answer that one for us too?

>> No.6072790

>>6072591
how about colds and sneezing? science isn't too sure about them, what does deism say?

>> No.6072801

>>6072618
According to the Roman Catholic Church it is impossible to be a Christian and a freemason at the same time.
Also conspiracy theories may not be correct, but many of them make perfect sense.
A bunch of people with power and influence trying to order the world to their will, seems perfectly possible to me.

>> No.6072820

i want to be Dawkin's little baby tampon boy. i want to turn into a little crying baby and then suck on his breasts. his atheist breast milk would turn me into a little baby tampon boy. he would stick me into his hoo-hoo and i would wait with anticipation spouting little baby goo-goo ga-gas waiting for him to science all over me. i want to feel his richard dawkins science inside my little goo-goo ga-ga baby tampon body. i want to absorb his hoo-hoo juices inside my little baby tampon boy body and goo-goo ga-ga like a little rolly-polly baby boy. it would be orgasmic to know i am one with his hoo-hoo richard dawkins science and i would giggle and goo-goo ga-ga and yelp with little baby boy excitement as i roll around in his richard dawkins hoo-hoo and revel in him science juices, slurping them into my soft little baby tampon boy goo-goo ga-ga body. then i want him to pull me out and squeeze and wring my little baby tampon boy body so that his richard dawkins hoo-hoo science and juices spill all over his richard dawkins face. it would hurt and i would scream in pained goo-goo ga-gas as pain envelops my little baby tampon boy body until i reach full climax and turn back into grown human man.

>> No.6072822

>>6072801
Mozart was a Freemason and a devout Catholic.

>> No.6072850

>>6071466
Haha, oh, God. You know some of those aren't actually trolls either. That's the best part.

>> No.6072867

>>6072822
This is the teaching of the church. Mozzart doesn't change much for freemason/christian relationship today.

>> No.6072890

>>6072573
I would support those goals 100%.

>> No.6072894

>>6071466
Mine. They're all mine.

>> No.6072911

>>6072618
My Grandfather is a Freemason and he's an Anglican. Not sure what it is like in the rest of the world, but Freemasonry in the UK has some Jesus worship woven in to it.

>> No.6072920

>>6072911
It's heresy for the RCC and you can be excomunicated for freemasonry.

>> No.6072951

>>6072591
>But the likelihood that any of the religions on earth are accurate very low

Kek

>2014
>not being a thomist

>> No.6072963

Mine didn't get in but it sounded like the rest anyway.

>> No.6072966

>>6072951
why the fuck did he assume there could be no first term and then just declare that god must exist because of it. There is no logic in that, he is just picking and choosing where his starting point of reasoning is.

>> No.6072986

>>6072911
Fun question: how many of us here have a freemason background?
I've got a 33rd degree great great grandfather on my mother's side and 33rd degree great grandfather on father's side.

>> No.6072997

>>6071466
This is exactly what internet atheists sound like just replace "satanic" with "sky daddy" and "god" with "I'm a logical thinker".
And the irony is gonna be lost on all of them.

>> No.6073036

>>6072591
>Evolution and natural selection have too many gaps and don't account for consciousness.

So basically the old 'we don't know, therefore God did it'

>> No.6073042

>>6072638

As opposed to religious people, who claim that it's the result of magic?

>> No.6073066

>>6072997
i like how you try to turn this around into atheists being the bad guys

like, seriously? can christians ever take any fuckin responsibility? for anything? ur always cunts and act like it's the other christians who are cunts, not you, while you're being a cunt

>> No.6073098

>>6073066
That's the new edgy theism for you

I for one am glad that I saw the whole process from "I'm an atheist, debate me" to "I'm a theist, debate me"

>> No.6073125

>>6073066
>implying I'm christian
>implying you're not fulfilling the stereotype right now
>implying you aren't the bad guys
>implying

>> No.6073147

>>6073098
>I for one am glad that I saw the whole process from "I'm an atheist, debate me" to "I'm a theist, debate me"

I can still remember when /lit/ was an atheist board, before r/atheism and Dawkins had spread. The entire shift from majority atheist to majority faux-theist relative to the popularity of atheism on the internet was fascinating.

>> No.6073152

>>6071519
I don't think you understand how science works m80.

>> No.6073199

I think the worst thing about atheism is that it's not a big deal in Europe. Most people are very moderate about their views, and when pressed, a huge portion will either say they don't care or they probably identify as atheist. Not that it matters, as moderate European atheists and moderate European theists get along, with religion an afterthought.

But when America brought back a bizarre fundamentalism during the civil war, as both sides declared that God was on their side; the south claiming that slavery was justified in the bible, this distinctly American fundamentalism infected the internet. It entered in the US and seeps out in Europe, contaminating European universities.

This non-issue is such a big deal online, and the non-existent Christian Vs Atheist war is such a big battle, that these previously moderate countries now have huge portions of Atheist undergraduates who are extremely vocal and passionate and riled up, yet have nothing to fight. An invisible enemy.

Thank you America.

>> No.6073203

>>6073152
>not knowing the induction fallacy
Its all faith.

>> No.6073205

>>6073199
No problem. And hey, since we came up, buy our bonds. pls respond.

>> No.6073209

>>6073125
Lol whether you're a Christian or not has no impact on the point. The fact that you see Christians doing retarded shit and say "yeah but atheists too" is pretty stupid

Tell me, if you're not a Christian then why is it your knee jerk reaction to criticize atheists when that's not even the topic of discussion?

>> No.6073222

>>6073203

And yet planes fly and magic broomsticks don't. Why is that?

>> No.6073237

>>6072630
How do you explain qualia, then? Or What Mary Didn't Know? Or Descartes meditations? Or the Chinese Room thought experiment?

>> No.6073251

>>6073222
It just does. That's why.
Nothing says planes will continue to work as planes tomorrow. We just take for granted they will.

>> No.6073255

>>6073237
>muh qualia, John Searle, dualism...

You can apply your semantic frameworks to a crude understanding of neuroscience all you want, but it wont impact subjective experience arising from a mass of neurons at all. The Chinese Room is particularly bad, as his "Script for the computer" is just as applied to a human via infinite-valued indeterminism.

>> No.6073290

>>6071588
>>6072591
deism masterrace
reporting in

>> No.6073302

>>6072591
Polydeist reporting in. Functionally Hellenismos, but it's just my chosen way to pay my respects to the divine.

>> No.6073312

>>6073251
>Nothing says planes will continue to work as planes tomorrow.

The current trend to hate science isn't to deny it altogether. The scientific method has internal bayesianism to justify the entire framework and that's all it needs. The current trend to hate aspects of science comes from the postmodernist angle - as humanity transcends universals, and from a general public ignorance perspective - as consumers are fed products backed with biased, faulty, and inconclusive studies, and will eat their tablets because "it's scientifically proven to boost brain function." From a philosophy view, there is no hatred.

Arguing a juvenile stance like planes only exist in the matrix, or you can't objectively prove planes exist, doesn't further anything, and doesn't allow you to progress any deeper, and is just bad thinking. An aerospace technician, a physicist studying aerodynamics, and a user flying economy class, probably all know of the underlying issues you have, yet they each have their own linguistic structural framework, and a broader inter-subjective one to communicate with, and underpinning both of these is the *internal* verifiability of a greater than 95% chance that the plane will take off.

>> No.6073314

>>6073237
>Chinese Room thought experiment?

Anyone who's not a retard doesn't even take that "problem" seriously

>> No.6073317

>>6073251
>It just does. That's why.

But according to you this is false, so you've refuted your own point

>> No.6073334

>>6073312
>The scientific method has internal bayesianism to justify the entire framework and that's all it needs.
Not the guy you are responding to, but: There is no, single "scientific method", let alone what type of inductive method it employs (not all scientists prefer Bayesianism). Do you people ever read? Name-dropping buzzwords won't help you here.

I won't comment the rest.

>> No.6073347

>>6073334

>Name-dropping buzzwords won't help you here.

That's not the impression I get from edgy theists on here

>> No.6073350

>>6071466
Who's the guy between Hitler and Stalin?

>> No.6073351

>>6073347
SHUT UP U HAVEN'T READ AQUINAS

>> No.6073353

>>6073317
No I didn't.
The induction fallacy states that just because something works now there is literally no indication that is will work under the same conditions next time.
We just take for granted it will.

>> No.6073360

>>6073353
>The induction fallacy states that just because something works now there is literally no indication that is will work under the same conditions next time
That's more like the problem of induction by Hume, which you clearly have never read and don't understand

>> No.6073362

>>6073203

>the induction fallacy
>the induction fallacy
>the induction fallacy


This is what happens when you get your philosophy education from wikipedia and rebbit.

>> No.6073363

>>6073360
Oh sue me, you know what I meant you faggot.

>> No.6073368

>>6073363
i just think you don't know what you're talking about and are posturing really hard

>> No.6073370

>>6071485
Didn't the pope of that time refrain from saving any Jews because they helped in crucifying Jesus? I'm sure there's a quote or something somewhere

>> No.6073539

>>6073302
>deism
>hellenism

But don't the Olympian deities act to shape the fortunes of mortals in real time?

>> No.6073568

>>6073539
That would be fate.

>> No.6073635

>>6073312
>The scientific method has internal bayesianism to justify the entire framework

This 100%.

I really don't get why so many people like to bash science. It's just descriptive models of what we perceive to be reality that attempt to predict events. There is no objectivity because if one model has a lower bayesian value than another it's falsified until more data is accumulated. The bayesian value creeps closer to 100%, and eventually gets called a truth or law or becomes axiomatic but can never hits 100%. It has complete internal consistency.

>> No.6073646

>>6073312
>>6073635
>sucking the dick of Bayesianism

I don't even know what made you think that science is internally verified by Bayesianism (it's verified by statistics, whether frequentist or Bayesian, it doesn't matter), what the hell is wrong with you?

>> No.6073682

>>6071466

Gott mitt uns belts.

>> No.6073686

>>6073646
>>sucking the dick of Bayesianism
huh. What have you got against bayesian probability values of empirical models?

>I don't even know what made you think that science is internally verified by Bayesianism
I'm not sure what you are attempting to say. Could you explain what you think you mean by "science being verified by Bayesianism".

>what the hell is wrong with you?
Why are you angry? I just said I don't get why people like to bash science, and you seemed to be triggered by bayesianism.

>> No.6073723

>>6073646
Science is simply causal Bayesian induction, with some extra bits tacked on to account for human frailty. "proof" or "disproof" is superfluous, it automatically converges on the best weighted evidence, starting from a random Markov distribution.

>> No.6074028
File: 66 KB, 500x500, 1411329419271.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6074028

This is the biggest troll thread I've seen yet. You never let me down, /lit/

>> No.6074256

>>6073370
The Lateran Accords forced the pope into political neutrality.

>> No.6074269

The rich are killing children.

>> No.6074281

Concept so beyond. No point.

>> No.6074296

protip: if you want to piss off Catholics tell them Vatican 2 created a new religion and every pope since has been a heretic

>> No.6074300

>>6074269
If you were rich you would do the same. I would kill all other children except my own in order to eliminate their competition. Then I would impregnate every woman possible with my own seed.

This is for the best I'm sure.

>> No.6074309

>>6074296
this'll only work on /pol/ catholics who never bothered to google SSPX.

>> No.6074312

>We should believe in God because people who havn't have allegedly caused earthly suffering.

Pure Mammonism.