/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6105681]

What's wrong with New Atheism?
Try not to mention Reddit or their fanbase.

[Anonymous No.6105697]

You make too many judgements and distinctions about and in things which are only ever meaningful and never real.

[Anonymous No.6105699]

>>6105681

Please try to post about /lit/erature, and not unrelated subjects. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.6105710]

Almost all New Atheists were either born into it or else arrived at it through wholly uncritical means via pop culture. Either way its an ignorant and unexamined position.

[Anonymous No.6105716]

>>6105710
So is making retarded quasi-generalizations, without even laying out your arguments properly.
Almost all people of any belief were more or less born into their doctrine.

[Anonymous No.6105745]

>>6105716
Nothing of what you said is contradictory to >>6105710 except perhaps the tone. This isn't a very interesting debate.

[Anonymous No.6105763]

>>6105745
What?
He made the claim that the issue with New Atheism is that it's an ignorant position, because everyone is merely conditioned into believing it either by being born into an Atheistic household and/or through peer pressure (what he means by pop culture).
I only made the comment that he's actually a hypocritical anti-intellectual for asserting that the New Atheism movement is exactly this and for making a baseless generalization that he in no way can back up with any form of evidence, not even an anecdotal one, because all the great New Atheist intellectuals have shown to have extensive knowledge of religion, mostly of the Abrahamic faith systems.
You would know this if you ever actually spent some time looking into their content.

Now again, if he was actually making a comment about their fanbase rather than the authors and critics who lead the movement, I already addressed that in the opening point.

Additionally, the assertion that (New) Atheism is stupid because people are born into it under some deterministic scope is massively stupid and irrelevant, because any other way of thinking -mostly- comes into existence through the same path, so it says absolutely nothing about New Atheism once you accept the premise that this is the norm and there's no alternative (on a generalized level, as he put it, of course the preferred angle is individualization, but that's a different topic).

[Anonymous No.6105767]

>>6105763
Do you not like people hating the same things as you?

[Anonymous No.6105776]

>>6105767
No, I like people who think in the same way I do, the conclusion occurs only during the last few steps of forming an opinion.

[Anonymous No.6105779]

>>6105681
There's nothing "wrong" with them, except being silly and shallow.

If you haven't read, say, Nietzsche, then I don't give a fuck about your atheist.

Same goes for theists. If you haven't at least read Kierkegaard, go away.

[Anonymous No.6105780]

>>6105776
You missed getting trips tho

[Anonymous No.6105781]

>>6105779

[Anonymous No.6105790]

>>6105779
I'm an atheist and I've read both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

Nietzsche is incidentally also the reason I'm no longer a person on the left, since he made me realize that leftism is just Christian morality without God.

[Anonymous No.6105807]

>>6105790
and the right is Christian morality with god, so...

[Anonymous No.6105823]

>>6105807
Well I'm not on the Right either.

Besides, the right-left dichotomy is open to interpretation. Being on the right doesn't axiomatically mean you're religious, it could just mean that you support individual rights and free markets.

[Anonymous No.6105826]

>>6105790
>that leftism is just Christian morality without God.
can you expand on this ? what makes you take this stance ?

[Anonymous No.6105831]

[Anonymous No.6105838]

>>6105826
Equality, brotherhood, a revulsion for social and economic hierarchy etc, are all planks of socialism, and also incidentally something one can draw from the preachments of the Nazarene.

[Anonymous No.6105840]

>>6105831
Don't post this again

[Anonymous No.6105847]

>>6105831
Have an upvote!

[Anonymous No.6105848]

>>6105823
> it could just mean that you support individual rights
>rights
Are you sure you read Nietzsche? because I'm pretty sure he called you a betabitch and technically dead in Genealogy

[Anonymous No.6105854]

>>6105838
What came first? Your love of masters or your disbelief in God?

[Anonymous No.6105865]

>>6105848
>Are you sure you read Nietzsche? because I'm pretty sure he called you a betabitch and technically dead in Genealogy

Oh, yes, I have certainly read him. But like Aristotle said, it's a mark of an intelligent mind to entertain thoughts without adhering to them. While I agree with Nietzsche on certain things, I don't agree with him on everything, as it should be.

>>6105854
What does this even mean? I have never believed in deities for as long as I can remember.

[Anonymous No.6105874]

>>6105865
You believe hierarchies are good, hence you love masters.

[Anonymous No.6105877]

>>6105865
I think Nietzsche was right about you being a betabitch tbh

[Anonymous No.6105881]

>>6105874
No I don't. Where have I said I believe hierarchies are good?

[Anonymous No.6105884]

>>6105877
And I think I'm right if I say you're a shitposting faggot.

[Anonymous No.6105890]

>>6105681
>implying there is something wrong with New Atheism.
Well meme'd m'lord *tips halo* pray for my soul!

[Anonymous No.6105892]

>>6105884
Fine, defend rights in opposition to Nietzsche's position that you're beta

[Anonymous No.6105898]

>>6105881
You said you stopped being a leftist because anti-hierarchical tendencies are Christian.

Either you didn't want to be a Christian because that would entail rejecting hierarchy, or you didn't want to be a leftist because that would entail rejecting hierarchy.

Same logic with equality.

If you don't actually have an opinion on hierarchy, then your original response is unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.6105900]

>>6105892
Where have you even gotten the idea in your head that I even believe rights exist?

[Anonymous No.6105904]

>>6105898
My personal opinion is that hierarchies are morally neutral. They can have negative functions, as in a hegemonic and totalitarian State over it's people, or it can have positive connotations as a collaboration between workers and their superiors.

I don't believe it is intrinsically evil.

>Either you didn't want to be a Christian because that would entail rejecting hierarchy

No, I'm not a Christian because there's not a shred of evidence that the stories in the Bible are true. My being atheist has nothing to do with sentiments, it has to do with my refusal to take things on faith.

[Anonymous No.6105905]

What is New Atheism and how does it differ from 'old Atheism'?

[Anonymous No.6105907]

New atheism's criticism of religion mostly only apply to monotheist religion. And they tend to use their platform to be horribly racist.

[Anonymous No.6105917]

>>6105907
>And they tend to use their platform to be horribly racist.

Elaborate. This is a serious accusation.

[Anonymous No.6105919]

>>6105905
Specifically tailored arguments for why people who are still involved in ancient cults in the 2000's are dangerous retards at worst and patronizing hypocrits at best. It's bad because some americans on the internet are really upset that the brainwashing their shitty community subjected them to is being criticized. I think maybe some muslims as well but fuck those violent retards even more.
>Muh submission

Go get assfucked

[Anonymous No.6105921]

>>6105900
>Where have you even gotten the idea in your head that I even believe rights exist?
>>6105865 seems to indicate that you are responding to the point you are quoting. Perhaps you're just beta because you can't greentext, but still beta in that case, and doubly so for apparently creating a debate in relation to a point you no longer want to be quoting and now insisting I prove the reference I made was yours. You kind of argue like a girl in that last respect.

[Anonymous No.6105923]

>>6105917
Muslims are obviously a race now that it's become apparent their behavior is inseperable from their being. Don't you watch Big Media?

[Anonymous No.6105931]

>>6105921
>Perhaps you're just beta because you can't greentext

Either you're a pathetic troll, or a shitposter, and I don't really don't care about you anymore.

You have good day now.

>>6105923
>Muslims are obviously a race now that it's become apparent their behavior is inseperable from their being. Don't you watch Big Media?

I get you're being ironic, but criticizing Islam is only racist, if you don't know what you're talking about, and discussing religion with people who don't know what they are talking about is a bad thing to be doing in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6105932]

>>6105904

Collaboration between workers and superiors is a left-wing idea, though. Most collectives vote on representative leaders like in a democratic republic.

[Anonymous No.6105941]

>>6105931
So you don't actually want to talk about Nietzsche's views on rights. I'd advise not quoting posts about them then. It might make you happier, if you believe in that sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.6105947]

>>6105932
>Collaboration between workers and superiors is a left-wing idea, though.

Really? I mean, destruction of all hierarchies, from the family to the workplace has been a staple plank of the socialist movement since it's inception.

It seems hypocritical for a leftist to argue in favor of hierarchical institutions whatever they may be.

[Anonymous No.6105953]

>>6105941
>So you don't actually want to talk about Nietzsche's views on rights.

I haven't even brought up Nietzsche's views on rights in this thread. You did.

I said that the Right-wing in politics isn't necessarily tied to being religious, because libertarians and free-marketers in general are considered on the right because of their support of individual rights.

[Anonymous No.6105954]

>>6105919

I agree with most of what you said but how is this 'New Atheism'? Why are they trying to artificially split the Atheist community by asserting that Atheists that criticize religion are on some other level than those that don't?

[Anonymous No.6105958]

>>6105947
You're thinking anarchy. Its ok, know they are easy to confuse, given that they are spelled and pronounced differently.

[Anonymous No.6105960]

>>6105954
I'm not OP and I actually think more people should be openly anti-theistic so lets watch the shitstorm unfold together

[Anonymous No.6105964]

>>6105958
Communism is stateless and anti-hierarchical, and it is supposed to be the goal of socialism to get to a communist society.

[Anonymous No.6105965]

>>6105953
>I haven't even brought up Nietzsche's views on rights in this thread. You did.
So you don't actually want to talk about Nietzsche's views on rights. I'd advise not quoting posts about them then. You'll get there, tiger.

[Anonymous No.6105967]

>>6105840
>>6105847
:^)

[Anonymous No.6105970]

>>6105965
>I'd advise not quoting posts about them then.

When did I do that you fag, apart from mentioning that Nietzsche thought leftism was Christian morality without the God ?

[Anonymous No.6105971]

>>6105967
Retard

[Anonymous No.6105972]

Saying you have no appreciation for religion, is just as plebby as having no affinity for poetry or theater. Religion is culture.

[Anonymous No.6105974]

>>6105972
>If god wasn't real I'd have sex and rob banks all the time

Direct quote, beautiful culture that is.

[Anonymous No.6105984]

>>6105972
None of the New Atheist intellectuals actually claim that, Sam Harris wrote an entire book on the fallacy that Religion equals spirituality.
>plebby
Oh, low-IQ memeposter.

[Anonymous No.6105986]

>>6105964
A goal off in the infinite future is not a plan for now. No socialist - as opposed to anarchists - has ever tried to get rid of hierarchy because the world would have to be unrecognizably different for it to work.

If there was a non-hierarchical society that was prosperous, would you support it?

[Anonymous No.6105987]

>>6105971
This is our board now.

[Anonymous No.6105991]

>>6105987
Low IQ

[Anonymous No.6105992]

>>6105970
>Where did I do that [quoting posts about Nietzsche's views on rights]
Well, >>6105970, >>6105953, >>6105931, >>6105865 all are responding to posts talking about Nietzsche's views on rights and quoting those posts. Though in one you did show more interest in quoting about greentext than Nietzsche, which isn't very literary of you, beta. Perhaps you would like to think one side of this conversation could not have possibly been posts about Nietzsche on rights, but look at them being there in the quote chain unaffected by your betathoughts of impotent rage that you did in fact quote someone repeatedly talking about Nietzsche's views on rights, slowly adding more of these posts you quote to the archive.

[Anonymous No.6105993]

>>6105987
for gods sake get some new material

[Anonymous No.6105999]

>>6105991
>>6105993
Repent.

[Anonymous No.6106000]

>>6105986
>>6105986
>No socialist - as opposed to anarchists - has ever tried to get rid of hierarchy

I'm not so sure you're right about that. Everything from labor movements, and the women's movement are attempts at removing traditional hierarchies, and wouldn't you agree that it is typical for socialists and leftists to argue in favor of women's rights and labor rights?

I would say it is typical.

Though I agree, it might not be as serious a goal for socialists to remove hierarchy as it is for anarchists, but you should understand what I mean by now.

>If there was a non-hierarchical society that was prosperous, would you support it?

Sure, but it depends on what you mean by prosperous. It is hard to imagine, though not impossible, a society in which people are not governed in some sense by social order, or economic order.

[Anonymous No.6106007]

>>6105992
I really have no idea what your problem is.

I came into this thread talking about being an atheist, and having read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and I also said that I also no longer was a leftist because of Nietzsche view on leftism which I agreed with him on.

And then you started rattling on about me being a beta, because he railed against rights in the Genealogy of Morals, which seems like a massive non-sequitur that didn't have anything to do with the discussion, because I never said I believed rights exist at all, and thus you don't have a bone to pick with me.

It seems right now, that you are more interested in picking a shitposting fight on a imageboard, and being a pathetic troll than actually having any fruitful discussion, so I'm just going to leave you to it right now. You can stop responding now.

[Anonymous No.6106009]

>>6106000
Well yeah, lefties want to get rid of or change *some* hierarchies, but you've already said some hierarchies are bad, so what's wrong with that?

It isn't hierarchy as such that is the target, this side of the Marxist Parousia. Just shitty hierarchies. Hierarchies driven by forcing people into roles they do not want or recognize and that take from the fruit of their labor.

[Anonymous No.6106018]

They fail to adress classical theism and respond to two thousand years of western philosophy in a meaningful and respectful way. Most of their wisdom is rhetoric and flippant dismissal of arguments. From the standpoint of academic philosophy, they're a failure, and from the standpoint of actual scientists, they're an embarrassment. What exactly is their merit? Conditioning a culture of self-assured, non-reflective materialists? They seem to be doing that well.

[Anonymous No.6106021]

>>6105681

I'll give you a straight answer anon, without memes.

The problem with New Atheism is that it is an incredibly hypocritical movement. New Atheists (or at least the majority of them) claim an air of superiority, champion an ideal which they believe is superior than any other, and then go on to tell the world how wrong they are and how stupid they are for believing something else. They rage against religion (Christianity specifically) and absolutely ABHOR religious people who push their beliefs onto others while at the same time shoving their trite and ignorant shit in everyone's faces and essentially damning them to 'atheist hell' (aka-you're an ignorant piece of uninformed trash who should kill themselves).

They place all of their faith into their doctrine of MUH SCIENCE while dismissing other forms of knowledge outright--very much like a hardcore evangelical does with their own doctrine.

Lastly, they are a hive-mind that do not think for themselves while claiming to be independent, free-thinkers who have transcended societal or cultural influences on their formation of thought when in fact they've simply replaced one societal influence with another. They also like to disown philosophy, theology, etc. without actually understanding what it is or why it's important to the human experience.

[Anonymous No.6106026]

>>6106007
I could also keep responding with reference to Nietzsche on rights as being beta like you. As evidenced by your need to tell me I can to stop responding to the conversation I want to have about Nietzsche on weaklings such as yourself. If you don't want to have that conversation, I'm sure you can do something about that without my help, betabitchboy.

[Anonymous No.6106028]

>>6106009
>Well yeah, lefties want to get rid of or change *some* hierarchies, but you've already said some hierarchies are bad, so what's wrong with that?

I never said it was automatically wrong, but I do believe that some form of hierarchy is intrinsic to humanity, such as the level of merit or skill between individuals, which can be deemed unfair by leftists.

Take for example quotas for women to certain parts of the workforce. Is it really fair that a better suited individual is denied a job prospect, because the corporation needs to, by law, to have X amount of women working there?

[Anonymous No.6106032]

>>6106026
Good job man, 10/10, I haven't been so trolled in while.

[Anonymous No.6106039]

>>6105681
Because they are highly ignorant of history, philosophy, logic, and theology. They also tend to be massive manchildren.

[Anonymous No.6106042]

New Atheism is a basically anti-intellectual movement that openly professes its ignorance and contempt of at least two hugely important concepts in favor of a nebulously-defined, dog-whistle brand of "science." Those two concepts are:

1) Philosophical history. Harris is a proponent of naive utilitarianism, equating it falsely and bizarrely with science (he calls it something like "scientific morality"), but hand-waves away any of the many philosophical arguments against utilitarianism and actively encourages his followers to remain ignorant of philosophical history. David Hume's is-ought problem is dismissed as if anyone following Hume would also ask why doctors want patients to get better, a reading of Hume that is disingenous at best and shows Harris's genuine stupidity at worst. Under Harris's tutelage, an introductory textbook on morality or philosophy would consist of tables of data and end-of-chapter quizzes on whether torture is justified in certain situations, which would, of course, have a dogmatically correct answer.

2) Sociology. Harris's (and Dawkins') geopolitics are astonishingly stupid, but make sense when you realize they come from the mind of a man who sees the world and humanity as a series of snapshots instead of a living, breathing entity. Would anyone who has studied the history of U.S. intervention in the middle east honestly come by the opinion that terrorism is caused by Islam? Of course not, but Harris will keep believing it because it fits his worldview. In truth if most of the world adopted Harris's views we'd probably end up just killing most Muslims (a solution not out of line with Harris's utilitarianism, and which he has hinted at more than once in his books). He can't come out and say it, of course, since his priors give him the default position that Muslims could be reformed if they would just stop being Muslims. In the context of the world he grows up in, nothing about the life of a radical Muslim is particularly more "irrational" than the life of an average U.S. conservative or liberal. Fortunately, Harris can just dismiss these; to him looking at people as anything other than more rational and less rational (i.e. corrupted or uncorrupted by fairy tales) would require engaging social sciences, and everyone knows social sciences are for faggots.

Science exists. Falsifiability is worthwhile. Popper was right (not perfect, but mostly right). Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens are wrong because they advocate an actively closed-minded approach to the world and hide behind a neon-lighted sign labeled SCIENCE, one that is not particularly more scientific than either orthodox Marxism or Freudianism.

Take away these asshole's right to claim a label of "science" they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.6106045]

>>6106028
Oh Christ. Are you or have you ever been a /pol/ster? If yes, I'd rather not waste my time.

[Anonymous No.6106049]

>>6106032
>typical beta response
>he tries to suffocate his will to power through an agitation to power for the betas
>still can't leave a conversation he thinks must be a troll go without a response
I think I might upgrade you to baka, beta.

[Anonymous No.6106050]

>>6106039
We are not talking here about christians.

[Anonymous No.6106053]

>>6106042
>Would anyone who has studied the history of U.S. intervention in the middle east honestly come by the opinion that terrorism is caused by Islam?

Yes they would, if they have a brain.

You can seriously be saying that Muslims killing their fellow Muslims is the U.S's fault, and if you did, you are ignoring a long history of Islamic theology being infused with European style fascism.

[Anonymous No.6106058]

Here's a very good article on why they're wrong:

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/

[Anonymous No.6106059]

>>6106050
>implying protestants are Christians
>implying protestants aren't the greatest cause of the rise of atheism

[Anonymous No.6106061]

>>6106045
I used frequent /pol/ a long time ago, but I don't any longer.

But I guess it's a typical /lit/ thing to dismiss someone's arguments simply because of what board they frequented in the past or present, or whatever kind of political allegiance they have.

[Anonymous No.6106065]

>>6106042
Consequentialism IS NOT utilitarianism, consequentialism is NOT a prescriptive way of looking at morals, but a descriptive way.
In this case, Humes' is-ought problem is actually absolutely irrelevant, it becomes nothing more of a philosophical wanking, a waste of time.
Are you aware that Harris has actually studied Philosophy?

>Would anyone who has studied the history of U.S. intervention in the middle east honestly come by the opinion that terrorism is caused by Islam?

You are the historically illiterate one if you think Islamic terrorism has it roots in modern conflict, Islamic terrorism began with the very inception of Islam, with Mohammed, the prime-model for Muslims.

Also again: You are equating religion with spirituality, or at least assuming Harris does, which is an absolute fallacy and indicates to me you haven't actually looked into him past one or two debates on YouTube which you didn't really listen to, because these things couldn't be any more wrong.

[Anonymous No.6106066]

>>6106058
>I dont need to read this to know it's not true!
Is the Coran true?

[Anonymous No.6106068]

>>6106061
>being this prejudiced against /lit/
Can you tell more people things like this so they don't come here to talk about anything unless they really like good books? Kthx Mr Cancer

[Anonymous No.6106083]

>>6106068
I'm not prejudiced against /lit/ at all, I think it's one of the best boards, I just don't like it when my inquiries and arguments are automatically lumped in with a board that is almost certainly 50% Nazis, just because you personally don't like the underlying connotations of what I said.

So, kindly, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.6106087]

I'm not dismissing your arguments. I'm saying your arguments will bore me to tears, and I'm not interested in crying today.

[Anonymous No.6106100]

>>6106083
You seem mad I would suggest this is a books board not /pol/lite but ok tell me how that works out for you in book form and I might be into it

[Anonymous No.6106103]

>>6106100
We've been discussing leftism and socialism for at least 1 hour now, and suddenly you whine that I'm not talking about books.

I guess you're just a boorish idiot who can't handle having a serious discussion.

You have a good day now.

[Anonymous No.6106111]

>>6105919
>muh superiority complex!
>muh everyone else is dumb and my godless existence is somehow more justifiable than one believing in a higher power

In short, you're a fucking heathen.

[Anonymous No.6106114]

>>6106103
>We've been discussing leftism and socialism for at least 1 hour now, and suddenly you whine that I'm not talking
lol am I meant to be sorry I'm late to your not about books thread? must have been a tough hour for you

[Anonymous No.6106122]

>>6106111
That's not written there, stupid. Religious people, always seeing things that dont exist.

[Anonymous No.6106130]

>>6106053
Hm, so why doesn't Harris blame the European-style fascism then?

>>6106065
I read The Moral Landscape, which was probably the worst "philosophical" text I've ever finished, or second-worst after Ayn Rand. I would call Harris more clearly a utilitarian than a consequential, but he is actually careful to distance himself from both of those, because he likes the moral high ground of "science" more than he actually likes the implications of either. Have you read the Koran, by the way?

[Anonymous No.6106141]

>>6106122
>cults
>hypocrites
>retards
>dangerous
>Americans
>on the internet
>brainwashing
>shitty community
>violent retards

>Not calling the opposition dumb.

A downvote for you!

[Anonymous No.6106158]

>>6106130
I'm an ex-Muslim, I have read the Quran in both Arabic and Swedish.
Also Harris doesn't distance himself from consequentialism at all, he is unabashedly a consequentialist, which means he believes the agency of moral actions is rooted in this notion, again you have to understand that consequentialism is a descriptive way of looking at things.

To me you sincerely sound like a Muslim who feels offended by his philosophies because they oppose Islam.

>Hm, so why doesn't Harris blame the European-style fascism then?
???
Harris has greatly condemned all of Europe's fascist history, usually under the premise that religion was the factor here, excluding both world wars and the Holocaust which he admits were not religiously motivated incidents.

[Anonymous No.6106166]

>>6106141
Okay but it literally is some americans on the internet for the most part and a handful of people who are offended on behalf of muslims for PR. Christianity as of today is so warped and adapted and pussy it's laughable. You're just scared.

[Anonymous No.6106174]

>>6106166
>so pussy
Aren't you supposed to be in class right now?

And what the fuck are you arguing? That the Christianity of the past, the one where convert or die was utilized and forgiveness could be purchased, is better than the "warped" religion which allows its members more liberties than ever before? Are you even attempting to prove the importance of atheism, or just criticize religion because it threatens you?

[Anonymous No.6106188]

>>6106174
>Waaaaaaahhhh I'm triggerd
Hahahaha. Whatever dude. Enjoy your dying nigger cult

[Anonymous No.6106201]

>>6106188
:^)

[Anonymous No.6106245]

>>6106201
M8 be an impotent idiot some more. You're still becoming irrelevant and openly mocked pretty much everywhere but this website. The best you've got nowadays is hedonists saying "bro the new pope is like mad chill"

[Anonymous No.6106248]

>>6106158
Ah, right, so religion is the cause of violence, except when it's not. In any case, assuredly the perpetrators of the violence suffer from Harrisian "moral confusion," the solution being to read Sam Harris and stop being so dang confused. (There is no room for different value systems in Harris; there is correct morality and confused morality. In this sense, he is as Manichaean as the Christians and Muslims he hates.)

It's understandable that Harris wants to find a one-to-one correspondence between certain beliefs and bad human behavior. He's a neuroscientist, and neuroscientists have been (unsuccessfully) trying to localize stuff like moral behavior in individual groups of neurons for a while now. (Same goes, incidentally, with Dawkins and genes.) Why not try the same with cultural behaviors like religion?

I'm sorry (??) that I sound like a Muslim to you. I'm not, but would it matter if I was? (My objection to New Atheism, by the way, is closer to Ned Resnikoff's: http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/whats-the-matter-with-new-atheism/))

[Anonymous No.6106266]

>>6106248
Cool but your beliefs are still objecticely wrong and silly

[Anonymous No.6106276]

>>6106266
Harris, please go.

[Anonymous No.6106322]

>>6106248
>Ah, right, so religion is the cause of violence, except when it's not.
???
All Islamic violence is directly rooted in Islamic doctrines, when a terrorist blows him up screaming ALLAHU AKBAR, how is this not directly related to religion?

When Egyptians and Iranians murder apostates, how is this not because of Islam?
Do you realize that all of these things are in absolute accordance with the way Mohammed acted?
Harris' issue with Christians and Muslims isn't how they choose their morals, to Harris it's clear every person on earth follows the same path when it comes to constructing their framework of beliefs, his problem is the actual manifestations of their beliefs.
You are massively confused, and keep acting like Islam isn't an inherently violent (and evil, even if moral judgments like these may piss you off) ideology.

[Anonymous No.6106364]

>>6106322
Sure. Also: Christianity caused the crusades, Hinduism caused all Brahmin violence, and atheism caused the Stalinist gulags.

Or maybe you should consider looking at fundamentalism as an outlet and excuse for violence, instead of the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6106371]

>>6105681
It's not "wrong" per se, it's just shallow and aimless, and to some extent it "beats a dead horse." When has organized religion been a potent force in the West in recent years? Other than the Islamists I don't see it really being one.

Basically, I think the New Atheist paradigm is valuable as a secondary line of attack in the war against Islamists. And even then I think it's a distant second to the ethical battle.

[Anonymous No.6106390]

>>6106322
>All Islamic violence is directly rooted in Islamic doctrines, when a terrorist blows him up screaming ALLAHU AKBAR, how is this not directly related to religion?
>"right, that whole destabilization thing that's been going on since the first world war has nothing to do with it, the real answer is this contemporary phenomenon which just popped into existence with no caused conditions"
>actually being idealist in the year 2015/1393/1436

[Anonymous No.6106395]

>>6106364
>Christianity caused the crusades
:^)

[Anonymous No.6106408]

>>6106395
Seeing as how a Catholic pope united feuding western European kingdoms for the explicitly religious cause of Catholic seizure of the land that was taken from the Byzantines, it's safe to say Christianity caused the crusades. No revisionist /pol/ memeposting, please.

[Anonymous No.6106416]

>>6106364
>>6106390

Have you ever fucking READ the Quran?
When the Quran dictates you to conquer the Earth under Mohammed's sword, when the Quran dictates you to murder apostates, when the Quran dictates you to keep sex-slaves, when THE center of Islam (Mohammed) also approved and acted out on these actions, you can make a case that these are connected.

Christianity did indeed cause the violence, because Christianity also preaches violence, which the Christian community has managed to overcome.

This is so massively stupid, EXTREMISM and FUNDAMENTALISM mean you are skewing the ideals that you believe in and/or exaggerating them to dangerous levels, Islamic terrorist do neither, they take Islamic doctrine as it is.
You seriously need to fucking read the Quran and the Hadith.

Jainist extremists would never kill a person, because Jainist doctrine is inherently pacifistic and non-violent, there is a fundamental problem with Islam, which of course also has geo-political roots but we cannot fucking deny the problems within Islam and Islamic communities.

AGAIN:
Islamic terrorism began WAYYYYY before the West got involved with the Middle-East, do you want to know when?
The fucking century when Islam came into existence.

[Anonymous No.6106443]

>>6106416
This has to be pasta.

[Anonymous No.6106448]

>>6106416
I've read the Koran. You can certainly reasonably use passages from it to justify violence, but that's true for almost every major religious work and many secular ones (including Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape).

Why do you think the Christian community has overcome violence, but the Muslim community has not? Can non-Muslims be terrorists? If the US, a largely Christian nation has overcome violence, why did we invade Iraq?

[Anonymous No.6106451]

>>6106065
>You are equating religion with spirituality, or at least assuming Harris does, which is an absolute fallacy

What exactly is the difference between Harris' 'spirituality without religion' and the new age catchphrase 'spiritual but not religious'?

[Anonymous No.6106473]

>>6106416
>When the Quran dictates you to conquer the Earth under Mohammed's sword

Where does it 'dictate you to conquer the Earth under Mohammed's sword'?

>when the Quran dictates you to murder apostates

Where does the Qur'an talk about killing apostates?

>when the Quran dictates you to keep sex-slaves

Where does the Qur'an 'dictate you to keep sex-slaves'?

And lastly, why are you and all ex-Muslims ever so immensely butthurt?

That'll be all, m'sayyid. *tips tarboush*

[Anonymous No.6106485]

>>6106448
>Why do you think the Christian community has overcome violence
But they haven't.

[Anonymous No.6106490]

>>6106448
>but that's true for almost every major religious work and many secular ones (including Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape).
And Sam Harris agrees with all of these, so where exactly is this gap in his logical framework?
Sam Harris has repeatedly said that the dogma of the Old Testament is by far the most vile and dangerous out of all, however Jews are so few in numbers and have mostly overcome their violence as their history spans over five-thousand years.

Sam Harris has said that the issue with Islam is, that not only is it inherently violent, but also immature and that we do not have the time Christianity or Judaism had to wait until Islam normalizes itself.

You are making up a shitton of lies around the things he has said.
You are literally arguing like some liberal Redditor at this point, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you're not a Muslim.

>Why do you think the Christian community has overcome violence
Because the suicide bombing, apostate murdering and faith-based terrorism community is nearly exclusively Islamic.
Because 80% of people who are being persecuted for religious reasons are Christians, despite Christians greatly outnumbering Muslims.

>Can non-Muslims be terrorists?
What an absolutely infantile question, excuse the ad hominem.

>If the US, a largely Christian nation has overcome violence, why did we invade Iraq?
The Iraq war was not motivated by religion in any sense, it was a humanitarian and geo-political cause.
Both World-Wars were triggered and mostly faught by nations which were predominantly Christian, making the case that these wars were caused by Christianity is so massively stupid, that if you don't revoke the previous statement which is very much alike to the one I just stated, I seriously see no point in taking you seriously on any level.

>>6106473
"And fight them until there is no more fitnah and
the religion is all for Allah"
Al Anfaal: 39
3:151 "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers"
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it"
Fighting jihad (and killing kuffar, 8:12, or 5:33, ...) for Allah is ordained for you
(Sura 9:5), Muhammad was told, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them"—unless they convert.
Sura 8:39, "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and [Allah's] religion [Islam] reigns supreme."

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."
Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

[fagve No.6106493]

>what if like we have the same thread daily for 6 months

[Anonymous No.6106494]

>>6106490
This can go on forever, no amount of context can justify this and the fact that radical Muslims take this very seriously.
It is absolutely baffling that /lit/ actually believes Islam is in any way a non-violent religion, or at least equal to Christianity and Judaism in how dangerous it is to contemporary society.

[Anonymous No.6106499]

>>6106473
Wow. Did someone just tell a minority how to feel on /lit/? I'm literally shaking with rage right now. How is this even allowed. More people need to know this is not okay.

[Anonymous No.6106521]

>>6106490
Reading answering-islam.com isn't the same thing as having read the Qur'an or any of the necessary secondary and tertiary literature. Selective and incomplete quoting is intellectually dishonest. You might even be aware of what you're doing and just don't care, I'm not sure, but the problems with contemporary geopolitics is more nuanced than easy targets. The fact that Islamist extremism is a very contemporary phenomenon and you probably never heard of Islam until the 9/11 attacks (assuming you were at least teenager and not underageb&) should clue you in taht you're just huffing ideology. Try reading Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill then come back.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.6106533]

>>6105681
Pseudophilosophy only made possible by capitalist culture and decay in academia.

While posturing as philosophy, it may only be considered as such if one refuses to study or take any interest in philosophy, as most if not all of their ideas have been refuted hundred of years ago.

[Anonymous No.6106540]

>>6106490
Christianity is part of culture, as is Islam. This is the whole point that Harris misses by ignoring sociology. Since--based on your assessment of the Old Testament--you clearly don't believe that the advantages of Christianity you perceive are in the Christian and Islamic texts themselves, what do you think makes the difference in how they are expressed? Is it possible that political culture plays a role? Possibly even a larger role than the religions themselves?

It's really telling that you refuse to believe that anyone could disagree with you unless they're Muslim. I was raised a mostly secular Roman Catholic but nowadays I'm pretty nonreligious. The most dogmatic people are often those who have exchanged one form of dogmatism for another...I am reminded of Thomas Sowell's swing from Marxism to extreme Libertarianism.

Who are some non-Muslim terrorists, by your estimation?

[Anonymous No.6106555]

>>6106521
>Reading answering-islam.com isn't the same thing as having read the Qur'an or any of the necessary secondary and tertiary literature.
I've said this multiple times, this absolutely does not matter because violent Muslims likely have not read this either, and if they did that merely strengthens my point.
>Selective and incomplete quoting is intellectually dishonest. You might even be aware of what you're doing and just don't care, I'm not sure,
Did you read what I said?
I don't think you are actually being honest here, I addressed your contextual argument, and again it is absolutely irrelevant, we are talking about Islam and its violent manifestations, Mohammed being a warlord does not justify in any sense that people in the 21st century adhere to a scripture that preaches violence and yes, rape.
Al-Baghdadi is a professor of Islam, he surely knows what the Quran is and what is in it.

You are making a -huge- mistake by assuming that when I say "Islam is inherently violent" I mean there is no salvation for Islam, but that the violent nature of Islam (I am amazed you can still deny this is true) is a problem we can no longer ignore at a day and age when a single person is capable of causing more and more harm with the progression of military technology.

> The fact that Islamist extremism is a very contemporary phenomenon
Again, you are not reading anything I said and I refuse to reply to you any further, every argument I make you just skip and look for some bits here and there you can respond to with empty quasi-answers such as "But the context is missing when Mohammed talks about his sex-slaves!".
Islamic terrorism began with the inception of Islam.
The spread of Islam did not occur the same way as it did with Christianity, it occurred by the sword, Mohammed was a literal warlord, this was literally what he -was-, which is another crucial reason why Islam has had such a violent history.
Islam is the religion that was threatening to conquer all of Europe by dictating one of the most violent regimes in human history, which by the way also prided itself with its extensive economy of sex-slavery and war.
Islam is the religion that burnt the library of Alexandria.
Islam is the religion that killed over 3000 people in a single terrorist attack in the 21st century, no other religion has come close to such a calamity in modern history, not to ignore current manifestations such as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, IS and Boko Haram, which are all clearly motivated by Islamic doctrines, there is not a single argument you can deliver against this statement, none.

What factor if not religion could drive a man into blowing himself up, fuck that, what factor can drive hundreds of men into doing this?

Your naive worldview is paving the path for any form of violent doctrine.
This is a moralistic indictment.

Also again: I'm an ex-muslim.

[Anonymous No.6106582]

>>6106540
>Christianity is part of culture, as is Islam. This is the whole point that Harris misses by ignoring sociology.
He absolutely does not, are you under the impression that Harris actually likes Christianity?
Also again, what doctrine of Christianity caused any violent action of the US in recent years?

>what do you think makes the difference in how they are expressed?
The fact that Christianity factually contains less violence than Islam, the fact that there is a great asymmetry between the centers of both religions, the pacifist hippie Jesus Christ, and the warlord, pedophile rapist Mohammed.

>Is it possible that political culture plays a role?
Yes.
>Possibly even a larger role than the religions themselves?
Only an absolutely stupid person would make such an assumption, what you're basically saying is that it's our fault for driving the Middle-East into becoming real Muslims such as Mohammed, that it is our fault that Islam is being respected, do you not see the moral entailments here?

Again: What confuses you about this? When the Quran says kill Apostates, when Mohammed has killed Apostates, when the Quran says "I would not have created humankind if I had not created Mohammed, he s the perfect example of a human being.", how are you failing to make the connection from Islam to violence, such as murdering Apostates?

>Who are some non-Muslim terrorists, by your estimation?
The IRA.
Christians who attack research facilities.
Buddhists who murder Muslims in Burma.
What is this question supposed to achieve?

[Anonymous No.6106622]

>>6106582
What does pedophilia have anything to do with this? Why is this an important tenet of Islam to you?

You are basically confused about the nature of cause and effect. Doctrines don't cause violence. People cause violence, sometimes in the name of doctrines. The US invaded Iraq on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction there. ISIS murders Shi'ites on the false premise that they follow Islam less correctly. The US and ISIS are not equally terrible regimes, but both justify their violence with internally consistent logic. Why is ISIS's violence terrorism while the US's violence is a humanitarian mission?

Do you agree or disagree with the aims of the IRA, the Christians who bomb research facilities, and the Buddhists who murder Muslims in Burma? Can you think of any terrorists who are ideologically on your side, or are you lucky enough to not have any bad eggs? If a rogue US fighter pilot dropped a bomb killing everyone in ISIS, would this be justified? Would he be a terrorist?

[Anonymous No.6106669]

>>6106622
>What does pedophilia have anything to do with this? Why is this an important tenet of Islam to you?
What does Islam approving of pedophilia have to do with Islam being a vile and violent (rape is considered a form of violent) religion?
Well it explains why IS members have kidnapped and raped Yazidi children, for one.

>You are basically confused about the nature of cause and effect. Doctrines don't cause violence. People cause violence, sometimes in the name of doctrines.
What kind of terribly constructed philosophical equation is this?
If you read my posts properly you'd realize that I already admitted that Islamic violence in the 21st century does not only exist because the Quran exists, but without the Quran this form of violence would be unthinkable, no other political doctrine (Islam is very much political by the way, it baffles me you separate these two) can so easily persuade a man into beheading others because they don't believe the things he does, can persuade a man into believing that strapping bombs on his body and walking into a mass of children (as it has happened in Iraq), can persuade a man to give up his comfortable life in Europe to go fight other Muslims, knowing he will die sooner or later on the battlefield.
Islam promises divine reward, it promises you the unending love and appreciation of the mightiest entity conceivable, if you die for God, you have achieved the greatest thing a human could possibly achieve.

This is what these people believe, this is WHY Islam is the major factor here.
There is an asymmetry with other religions, Christianity and Judaism don't teach you that killing yourself for Islam will grant you 72 virgins.

>Why is ISIS's violence terrorism while the US's violence is a humanitarian mission?
Read above, also ponder on this thought-experiment:
If the US had ultimate power, what would happen?
If the US was the only nation with nuclear weapons, do you think it would attempt to conquer the rest of the world?
What if IS had ultimate power, what if they were the only group to possess nuclear weaponry, would they impose a worldwide caliphate?
Turning every man and woman into a Muslim, murdering non-believers and implementing Shariah Law wherever they can?

>Can you think of any terrorists who are ideologically on your side, or are you lucky enough to not have any bad eggs?
AFAIK there are no Atheistic extremists.
>If a rogue US fighter pilot dropped a bomb killing everyone in ISIS, would this be justified?
Yes.
>Would he be a terrorist?
Is killing a terrorist an act of terrorism in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.6106676]

>>6106521
>The fact that Islamist extremism is a very contemporary phenomenon

mmyeah. it's really not, though

[Anonymous No.6106685]

Mudslimes BTFOd ITT

[Anonymous No.6106697]

>>6106490
>"And fight them until there is no more fitnah and the religion is all for Allah"
>Al Anfaal: 39

Surat ul-Anfaal is about the Battle of Badr, as the 42nd ayah makes clear. You also failed to quote the rest of the 39th:

...[but] if they cease, then God is aware of what they do.

Also, from the same surah:

(8:61) 'And if they incline toward peace, incline yourself toward it and trust in God. It is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.'

>3:151 "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers"

Irrelevant

>2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it"

(2:192) [But] if they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

(2:193) Fight them until their is no more strife and the religion is God's—[but] if they cease, then there is no hostility except against the oppressors.

(2:256) There is no compulsion in religion. Righteousness has been distinguished from folly, so whoever forsakes false deities and believes in God has grasped a solid hold: it shall not break. And God is the Hearing, the Knowing.

>(Sura 9:5)

(9:7) How can there be for the idolators a covenant under God, except those with whom you made a covenant at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the righteous indeed.

(9:13) Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and planned to expel the Messenger—who began [to attack] you the first time? Do you fear them? God has more right that you should fear him, if you are believers.

>Qur'an (23:5-6)

'You are allowed to have sex with slaves' != 'Thou shalt own sex-slaves'.

How about 'killing apostates'? Nothing?

[Anonymous No.6106712]

>>6106555
>>6106582
>Islam is the religion that was threatening to conquer all of Europe by dictating one of the most violent regimes in human history, which by the way also prided itself with its extensive economy of sex-slavery and war.
>Islam is the religion that burnt the library of Alexandria.
>Christianity factually contains less violence than Islam

ayy lmao this pure ideology and reification

[Anonymous No.6106719]

>>6106697
>...[but] if they cease, then God is aware of what they do.
>Also, from the same surah:
>(8:61) 'And if they incline toward peace, incline yourself toward it and trust in God. It is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.'

The Quran contradicts itself greatly, as does any Abrahamic scripture.
The Quran states that killing any human being is as if you have killed every human being, however then it also states things like these (regarding your Apostate demand):

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."
Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

The list goes on.

>Irrelevant
It is in the Quran, people read this and justify it (understandably if you're a Muslim) to murder, it is absolutely relevant.
When the Bible says stone your wife to death if she's not a virgin during marriage, and a Christian actually does this, this verse dose become relevant.

>'You are allowed to have sex with slaves' != 'Thou shalt own sex-slaves'.
This is your only good response so far and I apologize, I got a little emotional there.
Then again, this changes absolutely nothing about the case I was making.
Additionally: You have to accept that Mohammed is THE role-model for Muslims, and he kept sex-slaves, which is a great encouragement.

I dare you to name me the differences between IS and what Mohammed did.

[Anonymous No.6106723]

>>6106697
>'You are allowed to have sex with slaves' != 'Thou shalt own sex-slaves'.

it's not that different, though, is it?

are you generally ok with people owning slaves in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6106732]

>>6106582
>warlord,

pejorative

>pedophile

anachronism

>rapist

falsehood

Damn dude, why are you so fucking butthurt?

[Anonymous No.6106734]

>>6106712
>Religions that came into existence several centuries apart
>with different people claiming to be the true messenger of God
>one being a hippie pacifist
>the other being a warlord rapist
>are absolutely NOT! different in quality and in violent content

Not only is this stupid when you read the Bible and the Quran, but on a probability level this argument falls absolutely flat, you wouldn't even have to read any of the works to make this assumption, of course reading both is encouraged to verify your claim.

[Anonymous No.6106743]

>>6106732
>pejorative
It's not, he is literally a warlord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord
Why are you lying?

>anachronism
He had sex with a nine year-old, not even Muslims deny this.

>falsehood
Do you believe sex with sex-slaves, and sex with nine year-olds occurs on a bi-consensual basis?

>Damn dude, why are you so fucking butthurt?
I'm not, why are you lying and trying to distract from the truth?

[Anonymous No.6106768]

The same reason new liberalism is shit, it's a bunch of ignorant people in an echo chamber who think they're well informed.

Kind of like 4chan.

[Anonymous No.6106784]

>>6106734
religion is about more than what you think scriptures say :^)

[Anonymous No.6106791]

>>6106784
Not for Muslims :^)
Especially since this is not what I think scriptures say, but this is literally what scriptures say :^)

[Anonymous No.6106898]

>>6106719
>The Quran contradicts itself greatly, as does any Abrahamic scripture.

That isn't the issue so much as your complete failure to take context into account. I don't know whether to chalk that up to ignorance or to willful dishonesty on your part. Sometimes there is clarification in the passages literally right next to the ones you quote-mine, e.g.:

>Qur'an 4:89

(4:90) Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

>(9:11-12)

Did you even read my last post?

'The list goes on.'

>Bukhari

Bukhari's hadith compilation isn't the Qur'an. Ahadith are a separate issue. For now, let's leave the goalposts where they are.

>It is in the Quran, people read this and justify it (understandably if you're a Muslim) to murder, it is absolutely relevant.

No, you don't get it. It's irrelevant because the speaker in the passage you quoted is God; it has nothing to do with 'murder' or killing people.

>Additionally: You have to accept that Mohammed is THE role-model for Muslims, and he kept sex-slaves

Having sex with a slave doesn't make her a sex-slave. The implication is that the slave's main purpose is to satisfy carnal lust. Sally Hemings wasn't Thomas Jefferson's 'sex-slave.'

>I dare you to name me the differences between IS and what Mohammed did.

Everything? If you really think that Da'esh represents some sort of recreation of the early Muslim community, you're as delusional as they are. It isn't possible to recreate such a community in the way that you and Da'esh imagine to be possible. Conditions today are so far removed from what they must have been in the 7th century that there is no straightforward way of 'imitating' or 'recreating' a political formation that existed at that time.

Even if our view of things is less macroscopic, Da'esh's structure, actions, and policies don't represent any kind of direct application of Qur'anic injunctions or of Islamic law as Muslims have traditionally understood it. They are more obsessed with creating spectacles and shocking people than they are with earnestly adhering to the religion they profess.

[Anonymous No.6106972]

>>6106743
>It's not, he is literally a warlord.

'Warlord' suggests a military leader who has greater-than-usual authority due to some collapse of central power. You're not using the word out of some sense of fidelity to proper nomenclature; you're using it because it sounds like a bad thing and you don't like Muhammad.

>nine year-old

'Pedophilia' suggests deviance (the marriage was completely normal and accepted), a sexual motivation for his interest in her (marriages were often strategic choices and this one tightened his bond with Abu Bakr), and a special predilection for young girls (all of his other wives were older and many were widows.) It's a modern term, and if it had any sort of analogue in 7th century Arabia, this wasn't it. Again, your main intention is to defame and express butthurt, not to express 'the truth.'

>Do you believe sex with sex-slaves, and sex with nine year-olds occurs on a bi-consensual basis

No source gives any indication of 'rape' whatsoever. Yet again, butthurt is your motivation rather than any kind of concern for historical accuracy.

>I'm not

murtad pls

[Anonymous No.6107048]

>>6106723
>it's not that different, though, is it?

Sure it is.

>are you generally ok with people owning slaves in the first place?

Of course not. But had you or I been born just a couple of centuries earlier, I don't think we'd likely object to a practice that has been nearly universally accepted for most of human history.

Slavery is obsolete, and it wasn't integral to Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity, or any other religion that acknowledged and regulated it) in the first place.

If Da'esh or anyone else really thought that slavery and gold dinars were religiously necessary, they'd also trade their rifles for swords and their trucks for camel caravans.

[Anonymous No.6107111]

>>6106021
How is theology and philosophy important to the human experience?