/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6162743]

Jesus Christ, I've been triggered. I happened to listen to the german equivalent to NPR and "religious news" in particular. They broadcasted an interview with some professor for religious history and that asshole talked about how religion should be reintegrated into public life. One of his arguments was how Kant supposingly said we should "Have the courage to use your own soul" but he actually said "Have the courage to use your own understanding", or mind.

I don't know why this makes me so mad, but I could punch a kitten right now. Why are religious cunts like that allowed to have a platform. A fucking professor should know how to quote Kant correctly. Twisting Kant into champion of religion is amazingly absurd. Part of his fucking quote is even to not let priests think for you.

[Anonymous No.6162755]

>Why are religious cunts like that allowed to have a platform
Because religious cunts are people, and democracies function best when every kind of person has a voice.
Or do you want to reinstitute National Socialism in the Rhineland, OP? The Nazis didn't allow religious cunts to give anyone the time of day. In fact, they gassed them by the millions. Have you sent money to Israel today, OP?

[Anonymous No.6162777]

>>6162755
Of course they have the right speak their mind, but not uncriticised while misquoting the fuck out of the enlightenment movement. If you have religious extremists like that talk at least have the decency of offer a different perspective.

Eveb fucking ISIS should be allowed to speak their own mind, but does this mean some radical should get a public platform to hold religious monologues?

[Anonymous No.6162785]

>>6162777
Answer my question about Israel, it's very important

[Anonymous No.6162788]

>>6162785
Well, did you send money to native americans?

[Anonymous No.6162791]

>>6162788
Also there haven't any reperations for american slavery.

[Anonymous No.6162838]

>>6162788
No, but they aren't facing Palestinian ISIS death bombs every day. Don't you care about the suffering of the Jewish people? The Holocaust was practically yesterday!

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6162940]

>>6162755
The OP isn't advocating for censorship, he's 100% mad because NPR is publicly funded.

[Anonymous No.6162985]

daily reminder that jewish people could live in peace if they had choosen alaska as their new country

[Anonymous No.6162988]

>>6162985
Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. It was a land without people, and the Jews were a people without a land.

[Anonymous No.6162994]

What does Israel have to do with any of this? What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.6163000]

>>6162988
>it was a land without people
yeah, something like centuries ago

[Anonymous No.6163008]

>>6162940
OP here. I'm not advocating censorship but a critical attitude towards religion and the seperation of state and church.

[Anonymous No.6163012]

>>6163008
So now NPR is the state?
Do you have a problem with the concept of 'religious news?' It seems to me perfectly reasonable for a publicly funded radio station to let religious people pay for time on their show. I genuinely don't see what you could be advocating other than censorship here. You literally say
>Why are religious cunts like that allowed to have a platform
which implies you think they shouldn't be allowed to have a platform, ergo, you think they should be censored.

[Anonymous No.6163015]

>>6162988
Oh, boy, this cliché again.
>forcing millions to migrate
>practically enslave them, force them to either work for you and build your new settlements, or die from poverty
It's ok, because they're not really ''a people'' anyways!

[Anonymous No.6163019]

>>6163012
They shouldn't have a platform to misquote Kant. At least not without being called upon that. It's like when they act like humanism is an achievement of christianity.

[Anonymous No.6163020]

>>6162988
Its also the ancestral homeland of a couple of others ethnicities that actually were still living there.
You don't have to be surprised that people try to kill you when you steal their land, take their resources and kill their families.

[Anonymous No.6163033]

>>6163020
I don't get how the could take Israel with basically the same argument the Nazis used to reclaim "their" eastern provinces.

[Anonymous No.6163034]

>>6163019
>They shouldn't have a platform to misquote Kant.
Why not? Who should?
>At least not without being called upon that.
Believe it or not Kant wasn't an anti-theist or anti-religious, being opposed to hardcore dogmatism is different from being opposed to Christianity.
>It's like when they act like humanism is an achievement of christianity.
Humanism emerged outside of Christian Europe? Interesting. Oh, wait, no, because that's actually not true. Humanism is an outgrowth of Christianity. The way you're using the word probably isn't the way the word is generally understood by people who know what it means, because those people would never claim that it was anything but an 'achievement' (or maybe product) of Christianity.
You're just mad because you heard someone you disagree with on the radio.

[Anonymous No.6163036]

>>6163033
First as tragedy, then as farce, amirite?

[Anonymous No.6163040]

[Anonymous No.6163047]

>>6163033
Or how they're attempting a genocide shortly after surviving one themselves.

[Anonymous No.6163050]

>>6163036
>>6163033
>>6163047
How can you compare the state of Israel to the Nazis? After the Holocaust, the Jewish people could never willfully harm another people in the way they were treated. You must be anti-Semitic if you're daring to compare the two.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163054]

>>6163034
Humanism existed since ancient Greece, although it obviously wasn't the dominant ideology. I'd say humanism's rebirth was not an outgrowth of Christianity, but rather an outgrowth of classical revival.

[Anonymous No.6163058]

>>6163054
My understanding of what humanism is has always been that it was a literal doctrine of Christianity that put an emphasis on the importance of people, rather than emphasizing the singular importance of God.
Greek humanism would lack Christian humanist ethical and moral concepts and would thus not be identical to the humanism in question, although it could certainly be considered a moment in the development of the notion of humanism as we know it today.

[Anonymous No.6163063]

>>6163034
Bullshit! Humanism is as much an outgrowth of christian europe as much as atheism, nihilism, and so on. Not say that the enlightenment movement is more an outgrowth of the renaissance, which was rather a rivial of ancient greek knowledge than anything else.

To take a quote like "have the courage to use your own understanding" and giving it a religious twist through changing words is intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.6163069]

>three posts in and thread is successfully derailed into a Israel-Palestine shitshow.

[Anonymous No.6163071]

>>6163033
Lobbying. A lot of lobbying. Weizmann and Rothschild had the government in their pocket, allowing them to exert an ammount of pressure that turned out to be enough to create a Zionist homeland, withdraw migration legislation following the multitude of white papers, proclaim the issue as UN rather than GB business (after Zionist terrorism, including blowing up part of the King David Hotel, amongst other bombings) and lobbying in the UN after GB handed the issue over. (taken from Cleveland - A History of the Modern Middle East)

It's funny that when Jews resorted to terrorism, instead of getting America'd, they got their own state.
>>6163050
This is absolutely amazing. You've captured 60 years of discourse in one post. You have epitomized the global debate in a few sentences. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.6163073]

>>6163050
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

[Anonymous No.6163080]

>>6163063
>Humanism is as much an outgrowth of christian europe as much as atheism, nihilism, and so on.
Those are outgrowths of Christian Europe. So are science, the rule of law, and consitutionalism.
>To take a quote like "have the courage to use your own understanding" and giving it a religious twist through changing words is intellectually dishonest.
Is it? Maybe you misunderstand it. Maybe there's a meaning in the quote you missed before. Maybe this person just had a different understanding of it than you do.

[Anonymous No.6163082]

>>6163071
Israel should become a secular democracy.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163087]

>>6163058
>Greek humanism would lack Christian humanist ethical and moral concepts
Such as?

[Anonymous No.6163088]

>>6163080
outgrowth =/= accomplishment

[Anonymous No.6163089]

>>6163082
It already is, they're a good liberal state fighting against medieval religious psychotyranny and Islamic, State-funded terror.

[Anonymous No.6163090]

>>6163082
located in the gobi desert

[Anonymous No.6163094]

>>6163050
ps to >>6163071
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/times-of-israel-genocide-article-post-deleted_n_5641971.html

I've read the original article for uni, it seems they've deleted it, but he was saying there should be a genocide on the Palestinians, and a serious newspaper published it.

[Anonymous No.6163098]

>>6163087
Greek ethics and Christian ethics are basically different. You've been doing Hegel clubs and readings of the Greeks long enough to understand what the difference between pre-Christian and post-Christian morality is.
Christian morality focuses on otherworldly rewards, love of neighbor, caritas, and Christ's message.
I haven't read enough about the Greeks to know the ins and outs of their moral code, but these differences have been fleshed out by wiser men and better posters than I.
>>6163088
What's the difference, exactly, and how is modern humanism not both an outgrowth and an achievement of European Christianity?

[Anonymous No.6163102]

>>6162743
>Twisting Kant into champion of religion is amazingly absurd.

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163103]

>>6163098
The Greeks were morally diverse as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6163109]

>>6163103
So are Christians. Humanism is one form of Christianity. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.6163111]

>>6163102
What does he define as faith?

>If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me.

Show me a part where he says religion should be anything but a private matter

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163114]

>>6163109
That your argument is simplistic. The only "Christian" moral concept that really wasn't present in ancient Greece is the idea that we are born into sin. Other than that, just about every moral concept that's considered Christian was originally voiced by Greek thinkers.

[Anonymous No.6163115]

>>6163098
Is Israel an accomplishment of Nazi Germany? Should the jews thank germans for the creation of their state?

[Anonymous No.6163121]

>>6163114
>The only "Christian" moral concept that really wasn't present in ancient Greece is the idea that we are born into sin
Not really, there's also salvation, the Resurrection, and pretty much everything that distinguishes Christianity proper from Greek culture proper.
>Other than that, just about every moral concept that's considered Christian was originally voiced by Greek thinkers.
Are you purposely ignoring the philosophy that Jesus espoused? I honestly don't think you understand Christianity well enough to comment on it if you think the religion's entire content was present in Greek philosophy.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163125]

>>6163121
>Not really, there's also salvation,
This was extremely important in Greek culture, it was just more related to the mysteries than common public worship.

>the Resurrection
Dionysus's death and Resurrection was celebrated as well.

>Are you purposely ignoring the philosophy that Jesus espoused? I honestly don't think you understand Christianity well enough to comment on it if you think the religion's entire content was present in Greek philosophy.
I honestly don't think you understand Greek philosophy or culture well enough to comment.

[Anonymous No.6163126]

>>6163115
Honestly? Yes and yes.

[Anonymous No.6163129]

>>6163126
Does this mean christianty is an achievement of celtic/paganism and therfor humanism is as well?

[Anonymous No.6163131]

>>6163125
>This was extremely important in Greek culture
Without the fact of original sin it's kind of irrelevant.
>Dionysus's death and Resurrection was celebrated as well.
Yes, but that wasn't a literal event that the Greeks literally believed in.
>I honestly don't think you understand Greek philosophy or culture well enough to comment.
Then maybe neither of us should comment any further. If you want to deny that Christian humanist morals were different from Greek morals that's fine with me, I don't care if you've gotten nothing at all out of your pretentious book clubs.

[Anonymous No.6163133]

>>6163129
No because Christianity is actually an achievement of a Semitic desert religion, not Celtic paganism.

[Anonymous No.6163136]

>>6163133
Aren't semitic desert religions the result of paganism? Wasn't the european christendom an outgrowth of the religions that predated it?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163138]

>>6163131
>Without the fact of original sin it's kind of irrelevant.
As I said, apart from the idea of being born into sin. But there was still a belief that our physical existence is a "fall" from our pure existence as souls, and that we attain salvation through purification.

>Yes, but that wasn't a literal event that the Greeks literally believed in.
I'm sure many did, stop trying to homogenize the Greeks.

>. If you want to deny that Christian humanist morals were different from Greek morals that's fine with me,
I do, because humanism never even grew out of Christianity. It harmonized with it, but it did not grow out of it at all, humanist revival started with the Renaissance and Greco-Roman nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.6163141]

>>6163136
>Aren't semitic desert religions the result of paganism?
Yes
>Wasn't the european christendom an outgrowth of the religions that predated it?
To a degree, but Celtic paganism and Levantine paganism have next to nothing to do with each other. Irish Catholicism and the ancient Israelite religion have nothing in common.
(inb4 some Protestant comes in and says I'm wrong because Catholics sacrifice newborns to Ba'al or makes some other blatantly false claim like that)

[Anonymous No.6163144]

>>6163141
So, the celtic paganism that predated christianity geographically has nothing to do with the latter, because christianity originated in the middle east, but christianity is supposed to be the origin of humanistic values even though humanism originated in ancient greece?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163147]

>>6163133
Christianity has more in common with Platonism and mystery cultures than with Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6163150]

>>6163138
>But there was still a belief that our physical existence is a "fall" from our pure existence as souls, and that we attain salvation through purification.
And the way this purification is achieved is presumably different from the way Christians achieve it.
>I'm sure many did, stop trying to homogenize the Greeks.
Christians all have to literally believe the Passion happened, so there's one big difference between Dionysius' cult and Christianity.
>humanist revival started with the Renaissance and Greco-Roman nostalgia.
I never denied this. I agreed with you when you said the Greeks kicked it off. I acknowledged the difference between modern Christian humanism from Greek humanism as soon as you brought it up.
>I do, because humanism never even grew out of Christianity
Renaissance humanism was an outgrowth of that rediscovery of the Greeks, but it was also a product of Christianity, since it came about in Christian Europe at a time when the Church dominated political and intellectual life. Not being 'purely' Christian doesn't take away the fact that it was developed by Christians and reflects Christian concepts like human dignity and the right to life. Modern humanism may be something wholly different, but I don't even care at this point.
For someone leading a Hegel reading group, I've noticed you have an awful lot of difficulty with connecting the dots across the development of a concept over time.
>>6163147
But it literally started in Jerusalem. Jesus was an Israelite. The 'prophecies' referred to in the Gospel were Israel's prophets. The Greeks are literally the bad guys in the Bible multiple times.

[Anonymous No.6163156]

Israel should give all its land to the Catholic Church

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163160]

>>6163150
>But it literally started in Jerusalem. Jesus was an Israelite. The 'prophecies' referred to in the Gospel were Israel's prophets. The Greeks are literally the bad guys in the Bible multiple times.
Who cares? The entire doctrine of salvation through communion with the son of God (in the act of celebrating his death) started with the Dionysuain mysteries, not Judaism, and the idea of the physical world as something dirty which separates us from the divine is Platonist as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6163173]

>>6163150
Not the guy, but I still think it stupid to consider humanism an achievement of christianity, because the enlightenment movement and the rennaisance were about the emanzipation from religious doctrine, or the reality of it's impact on everyday life, rather than embracing the traditional values of christianity. And even if the enlightenment movement used commen themes and images unique to christianity, the point was to reimagine them in the light of critical thought and not the dogmatic teachings of the church.

Science for that matter is as much the emanzipation from greek religion, as the logical inconsistencies that were unique to it triggered a critical examination of the natural environment. But that's not an indicator for the greek religion being superior but a consequence of the opposite. Same holds true I think in terms of christianity and humanism.

[Anonymous No.6163174]

>>6163160
>Who cares?
Are you fucking serious? I kind of respected you before, but now I know you're just another retarded /lit/izen with a Greeks fetish.
>The entire doctrine of salvation through communion with the son of God (in the act of celebrating his death) started with the Dionysuain mysteries, not Judaism
[citation needed]
But whatever. Dionysus isn't the son of the singular Creator of the Universe. There isn't even a comparable deity within Greek religion (except maybe the unknown God the Greeks worshiped, for which St. Paul praises the Athenians in the Book of Acts). Much Christian symbolism is derived from other religions, but much Greek culture is derived from Egyptian culture. If I said 'It doesn't matter that Athens is named for Athena because the Egyptians came up with the Greek pantheon, so the Athenians may as well be Greek,' you'd laugh at me or report me or something. This is really not any different from that.
>and the idea of the physical world as something dirty which separates us from the divine is Platonist as fuck.
OK, but the idea that there is an all-powerful creator deity that stands above all other entities and has absolute power over them all is alien to Greece.
If you don't think it matters that the Passion takes place in Jerusalem, your opinion really isn't worth taking into account.

[Anonymous No.6163179]

>>6163173
>because the enlightenment movement and the rennaisance were about the emanzipation from religious doctrine
The Renaissance wasn't about getting away from the Church, it was a resurrection of classical culture. Your opinion is wrong.
>Science for that matter is as much the emanzipation from greek religion, as the logical inconsistencies that were unique to it triggered a critical examination of the natural environment.
What?

[Anonymous No.6163192]

>>6163179
>The Renaissance wasn't about getting away from the Church, it was a resurrection of classical culture.

A consequence of the resurrection of classical culture was the need to get away from the church though, which was one of the factors that resulted in the birth of the enlightenment movement.

>Science for that matter is as much the emanzipation from greek religion, as the logical inconsistencies that were unique to it triggered a critical examination of the natural environment.

If you read Metamorphoses for instance there are many discriptions of natural occurences and their origins. But then those colorful descriptions are easy to debunk through rational thought alone and therefor make it easy to question the whole complex itself. If greek mythology had made more sense, or was dogmatic like the christian religion, early science couldn't have originated like it did.

[Anonymous No.6163198]

You're focusing on the wrong stuff. Nobody in Christianity gives a fuck about obscure theological details.

If you're going to argue that Christianity is Greek, then you need to show that it is Greek in its every-day, practical morality.

[Anonymous No.6163204]

>>6163198
If you argue humanism is christian you have to show that it is christian in it's everyday, practical morality.

[Anonymous No.6163206]

>>6163198
This, holy shit, OYTIS, this is bad

[Anonymous No.6163211]

>>6163192
>A consequence of the resurrection of classical culture was the need to get away from the church though
Actually the Greeks are pretty compatible with Catholic doctrine as long as you accept the primacy of faith and revelation over reason and philosophy, which most Renaissance humanists did. The Renaissance was a couple centuries before the Reformation, which was actually about breaking the power of the Church. You have your timeline mixed up.

[Anonymous No.6163218]

>>6163204
>it's
Christian humanism is humanism with Christian values, just like Greek humanism is humanism with Greek values and atheist humanism is humanism with atheist values. It isn't hard to grasp.
Eastern Christianity is actually Greek but no one's even bothered to mention the Eastern Church, why?

[Anonymous No.6163220]

>>6162838
>Palestinian ISIS death bombs
Why can't I stop laughing

[Anonymous No.6163222]

>>6163204
>humanism = everyone is equal by birth
>christianity = gays go to hell
>humanism = free speech
>christianity = dogma
>humanism = the individual rules supreme of it's own body
>christianity = don't use condoms because god wants you to multiply [sperms aren't human life]
>humanism = female equality
>most of christianity = women can't become priests

etc.

[Anonymous No.6163223]

>>6163174
>may as well be Greek
Egyptian*

[Anonymous No.6163225]

Humanism isn't even a good ideology, this whole thread has been pointless.

[Anonymous No.6163226]

>>6163204
Well, that is trivial.

Anthropocentrism, "equality", "dignity", "respect", pretensions at altruism, Peter Unger? who is that? LALALALALAICANTHEARYOU.

It's literally Christianity with the supernatural elements torn out, and an anti-scientific fanciful view of the world put in their place.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163234]

>>6163174
>[citation needed]
After Dionysus: A Theory of the Tragic (pic related)
also the rending of the animal was to reenact the death of Dionysus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgia

>But whatever. Dionysus isn't the son of the singular Creator of the Universe
Not within state religion, but the Dionysian and Orphic cults had a different mythology.

>Egyptians came up with the Greek pantheon,
Egyptians didn't come up with the Greek pantheon, the Greek pantheon is Indo-European.

>There isn't even a comparable deity within Greek religion
Of course there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_%28deity%29

>>6163174
>OK, but the idea that there is an all-powerful creator deity that stands above all other entities and has absolute power over them all is alien to Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

[Anonymous No.6163235]

>>6163226
Equality, dignity, and respect aren't christian values. At least not until long after the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.6163236]

>>6163234
Wasn't the midas cult also about an resurrection?

[Anonymous No.6163240]

>>6163236
sorry meant *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163244]

>>6163236
Plenty of old cults were because of the cycle of crops. The Eleusinian Mysteries didn't involve Resurrection, but they were also about crops. The mysteries were the oldest of all the religions, they even employed a liturgical dialect of Greek that predated Homer.

[Anonymous No.6163247]

>>6163234
>also the rending of the animal was to reenact the death of Dionysus
The removal of animal meat from religious ceremony and its replacement with the body and blood of Christ is a point for Christianity.
>Not within state religion, but the Dionysian and Orphic cults had a different mythology.
So your claim is now that Christianity is literally just a Dionysian-Oprhic cult and has nothing to do with anything but Greek mythology?
>Egyptians didn't come up with the Greek pantheon, the Greek pantheon is Indo-European.
The Greeks got many of their gods from the Egyptians. Hermes and Thoth are the same person, and Hermeticism (the magical-philosophical tradition) started as a cult of that god. Herodotus claims that Zeus and Amun are the sam. Greek culture developed a lot of what was present in Egyptian culture. This is common knowledge.
>Aion (Greek: Αἰών) is a Hellenistic deity associated with time, the orb or circle encompassing the universe, and the zodiac
I'm not seeing the similarities here. The Greeks agreed he was the god above other gods, but they didn't agree that he was the only God that existed. He doesn't seem to be responsible for the creation of the universe.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
Because Plato was your average Greek theologian.

[Anonymous No.6163256]

IF christian values were the same as humanistic values, why was there an apparent need for reform when christianity was well established within european society?

[Anonymous No.6163258]

>>6163256
Because humanism actually isn't that great and no one has claimed that humanist & Christian values are the same.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163260]

>>6163247
>The removal of animal meat from religious ceremony and its replacement with the body and blood of Christ is a point for Christianity.
Except what you're thinking of is animal sacrifice for the sins of Jews that dates back to the OT. The bull that was sacrificed in Dionysian mysteries was meant to represent Dionysus, his death.

>So your claim is now that Christianity is literally just a Dionysian-Oprhic cult and has nothing to do with anything but Greek mythology?
Uh, no. My claim is that Christianity is heavily influenced by the Greeks, that doesn't mean it wasn't an independent tradition of religion. I'm correcting your idea that it was purely a Semitic invention.

>The Greeks got many of their gods from the Egyptians. Hermes and Thoth are the same person,
Stop. Just because the Greeks identified their Gods with the Egyptians, doesn't mean they got them from them.

>. Herodotus claims that Zeus and Amun are the sam
Herodotus identifies literally every single god from every single culture he writes about, with a Greek god.

>The Greeks agreed he was the god above other gods, but they didn't agree that he was the only God that existed.
As Porphyry points out, Christians believe in lessor gods, they just call them angels. The confusion here is that you're using God as a given name as well as a title.

>Because Plato was your average Greek theologian.
Platonism was pretty widespread in Greece.

[Anonymous No.6163268]

>>6163258
Humanism sure as shit is better than a christian/muslim/jewish/whatever theocracy.

[Anonymous No.6163275]

>>6163260
>Except what you're thinking of is animal sacrifice for the sins of Jews that dates back to the OT.
This is my point, yes.
> The bull that was sacrificed in Dionysian mysteries was meant to represent Dionysus, his death.
So we agree the Greek mystery religions involved animal sacrifices.
>I'm correcting your idea that it was purely a Semitic invention.
Christianity literally started in Israel, I don't see why you have a hard time separating the narrative of the religion's sacred history from the philosophy of the Church or the core tenets of Christianity.
>Just because the Greeks identified their Gods with the Egyptians, doesn't mean they got them from them.
But they did. I've encountered numerous sources backing me up on this. Hegel says it the Philosophy of History, Hermeticism is in fact a syncretic fusion of the cults of Toth and Hermes, and that comparison is in Herodotus. Why are you so opposed to this?
>As Porphyry points out, Christians believe in lessor gods, they just call them angels
Angels aren't gods. They're spiritual beings that lack free will. You misunderstand theology.
>Platonism was pretty widespread in Greece.
That doesn't mean that the concept of a singular creator-deity that loved humanity above all His other creations was widespread in ancient Greece prior to Christianity. I also don't completely believe that, considering that most Greeks probably never read Plato and many probably thought he was an atheist or a heretic. I'd also like to see a citation of this claim, maybe some numbers.

Again, you need to accept the fact-and yes, it is a fact-that Christianity started in the ancient Middle-East, even if its intellectual development was largely dependent upon Greek concepts & vocabulary. I genuinely don't understand how anyone could disagree with that.

[Anonymous No.6163277]

>>6163063
Humanism is in its moral code almost the exact coppy of Christianity. It's Christianity without religious faith.

[Anonymous No.6163278]

>>6163268
'Secular humanism' is just Christian ethics with God removed.

[Anonymous No.6163288]

>mfw people confuse 2nd century Neoplatonist 'Christianity' with the 1st century radical Judaism preached by Jesus and Paul

[Anonymous No.6163291]

>>6163278
It not christian ethics. There was no equality in medieval europe and the hierarchy actively faught every attempt to create it. From the anabatist revolts to the reformation itself. All throughout the christian hemisphere there was slavery, torture, and murder.

[Anonymous No.6163295]

>>6163291
There was also slavery, torture, and murder everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.6163298]

>>6163295
There is also now.

[Anonymous No.6163303]

>>6163295
>>6163298
>the degree of torture and murder is bigger in europe than it was during the middle ages

Negro please.

[Anonymous No.6163306]

>>6163303
>>6163295 here, that wasn't my point.

[Anonymous No.6163309]

>>6163303
We now don't have to kill and exploit our own people, we can exploit and kill eastern europeans and sandniggers. There wasn't a reduction, there was a shift.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6163312]

>>6163275
>So we agree the Greek mystery religions involved animal sacrifices.
Yes, sort of. I mean, it wasn't like a normal sacrifice because nothing was burned, and because the animal was supposed to represent a god, it wasn't being killed for its value as an animal, and when it was eaten, it was to commune with the god is represented. So closer to Christian communion than Judaic sacrifice.

>But they did. I've encountered numerous sources backing me up on this. Hegel says it the Philosophy of History,
And you aren't very well read in Hegel or else you'd have recalled that he also identifies Dionysian communion with Christian communion in Phenomenology of the Spirit.

Regardless, he's not a very good scholarly source because he's dated. That used to be the prevailing opinion, but archaeology and linguistic construction have changed that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyeus


>Why are you so opposed to this?
Because it's wrong

>Angels aren't gods. They're spiritual beings that lack free will. You misunderstand theology.
Lessor gods don't have free will either, derp

> I also don't completely believe that, considering that most Greeks probably never read Plato and many probably thought he was an atheist or a heretic.
That's pretty cute, but entirely baseless

> I'd also like to see a citation of this claim, maybe some numbers.
He founded the Platonic Academy, whgich had an enormous impact on Greek thought. Alexander the Great's mentor, Aristotle, studies there fffs

Numbers are a ridiculous thing to ask for, there isn't even a record of the population of Athens, let alone ideological polls

>Again, you need to accept the fact-and yes, it is a fact-that Christianity started in the ancient Middle-East, even if its intellectual development was largely dependent upon Greek concepts & vocabulary
I never disagreed with that.
>>6163160

[Anonymous No.6163317]

>>6163309
That's not the problem of humanism though but a result of the christian jedeo work ethic, or rather the premise of the homo eoconomicus and it's conclusion in american style capitalist society.

[Anonymous No.6163322]

>>6163317
Wars that we incite now are far more often orchestrated by the UK and the judeo Christian work ethic is not judeo Christian but rather of certain protestant denominations.

[Anonymous No.6163325]

>>6163322
Same difference.

[Anonymous No.6163328]

>>6163312
>I mean, it wasn't like a normal sacrifice because nothing was burned
It was a sacrifice. A living being was killed as part of a religious ceremony.
>And you aren't very well read in Hegel or else you'd have recalled that he also identifies Dionysian communion with Christian communion in Phenomenology of the Spirit.
Yes, and he's right to do so. Considering that the Catholic Church has used Aristotle to explain transubstantiation for more than a thousand years, in this instance, there is a connection, and the sacrament of Communion does involve a lot of Dionysian symbolism. But connections don't prove that. You're an idiot if you think they do.
>Lessor gods don't have free will either, derp
Christianity only acknowledges the existence of one God. Porphyry the pagan misunderstood the nature of angels, which makes sense, because they confused St. Thomas Aquinas quite a bit.
>That's pretty cute, but entirely baseless
Is it? Socrates was executed partially for inviting people to worship non-state-approved deities (check the Apology, it's in there). I'm sure plenty of Greeks mistrusted Plato's beliefs. Presenting the greatest Greek thinkers as examples of the typical Greek is intellectually dishonest.
>He founded the Platonic Academy, whgich had an enormous impact on Greek thought. Alexander the Great's mentor, Aristotle, studies there fffs
So because a few big names from the late classical Athenian aristocracy studied under him and his students, all the Greeks agree with him? I'm pretty sure Aristotle disagreed with Plato about pretty much everything, and Alexander was no theologian.
>Numbers are a ridiculous thing to ask for, there isn't even a record of the population of Athens, let alone ideological polls
And yet you claim that lots of Greeks were religious Platonists without presenting any evidence to prove that you aren't making shit up.
>I never disagreed with that.
You claim that Christianity is Greek and you go through a lot of trouble to deny any claims that it has its roots in ancient Israel. You're either trolling hard or disagreeing with that proposition.

[Anonymous No.6163330]

>>6163328
>But connections don't prove that
But connections don't prove that Christianity is Greek.

[Anonymous No.6163336]

>>6162743
>agenda

Seriously though Opie, I've seen the smartest people twist all sorts of facts to fit into their narratibe, and they do it very convincingly too

[Anonymous No.6163368]

>>6163336
Everyone has an ideology. Everyone twists everything to fit the metanarrative.

[Anonymous No.6163374]

>>6162743
>Kant supposingly said we should "Have the courage to use your own soul" but he actually said "Have the courage to use your own understanding", or mind.

That's pretty hard to know though OP, because Geist means both mind and soul in german doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.6163393]

>>6163328
>Socrates was executed partially for inviting people to worship non-state-approved deities
In theory. In reality, no instances of this were presented. It probably had more to do with him being anti-democratic at a time when anti-democratic factions had been working closely with Sparta (which Athens was at war with), and had manged to stage two coups earlier (both involving students of Socrates)

[Anonymous No.6163403]

>>6163328
>A living being was killed as part of a religious ceremony.
That's not all that a sacrifice is, especially since the Greeks often sacrificed things like barely and wine (libations) A living being was consumed here, not burned, and it was to commune with Dionysus, to eat him in order to be one with him, not to sacrifice to TO him.

[Anonymous No.6163406]

>>6163403
*barley

[Anonymous No.6163438]

>>6163008
Religion in its full form can be a social code and, if this is so, it must influence how a person ultimately thinks about its life and the politics of its country. To say that people should separate Religion and State is to undermine Religion, if it is the kind that influences not just the individual, but its society structure (this is the case if the Religion preaches not just about personal individualistic ethics, but about one's role in its society).

Christianity is different since the core of it is ressurrection of christ and his status as son of god, in other words, a miracle. And, starting by that, you can have many ways to derive ethics and politics. This is why it isn't suicidal to Christianity to divorce itself from the state, since all its teachings focus on the individual. There's Catholicism, but the Pope was never an Emperor, he opines about politics, but he doesn't have any direct political power over any nation.

So, in Christian societies, you can separate State and Church, but, at same time, you can't remove religion from the political opinions of religious people. If, for you, the separation covers even that than you might instead be directly against religion, since it is the same thing.

In the case of Islam, you can't divorce State and Religion in any kind of way, since the religion adresses directly social institutions. For a Muslim, if your government isn't islamic, there's something really wrong with it.

Some atheists say that they respect religion, but what they respect is instead they own take on religion: a quirky hobby about being spooked by ghost and wizards in the sky. Even if this is religion for most people, it is not the way it should be. Religion, if it is what is supposed to be, underlies the faithful in everything. It is way of life.

[Anonymous No.6163480]

>>6163008
I bet you don't know what separation of church and state even means. As a legal term it means that the state doesn't influence religious institutions, not the other way around. Source, Thomas Jefferson and Viskovic, Theory of Law and State.

[Anonymous No.6163527]

Can someone explain Kant's rebuttals of Hume's dismissal of religion. I didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.6163615]

>>6163393
You people love to blame religious authorities in the Middle Ages but apparently ancient priests were cool and the clergy never had power until the evil Church came along. He was executed for a number of reasons, including antidemocratic politics, corruption of the youth, and 'complete atheism[m],' to quote Meletus in the Republic.
>>6163403
Irrelevant to my point. Christian rites do not involve animal killing and this is a way in which Christianity is an improvement over Greek national culture.

[Anonymous No.6163616]

>>6163438
If someone can't back their opinion up it worthless imho. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to utter it, but if you're political views for instance depends on religion or god you're not having a good argument. If doesn't depend and god, then why bring him into the equation? Science doesn't need god or religion not because there aren't any scientists that believe, but because it doesn't help making new predictions. Religious believe doesn't matter in that regard.

>>6163480
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

>French secularity (French: laïcité, pronounced [laisite]) is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.

[Anonymous No.6163619]

>>6163616
>but if you're political views for instance depends on religion or god you're not having a good argument
Lel, people actually think this

[Anonymous No.6163653]

>>6163619
Monotheism ultimately depends on 'because god said so' to get it's point across. If you say "do good because otherwise you go to hell" is a bad argument because you're implying if it wasn't for the threat of condemnation you wouldn't act "good". But if you're just acting like you do because you fear punishment, or you're just interested in a reward, you're not really that good it seems. You're being an opportunist who sucks up to the boss. Now having said that, if you act according to christian principles even though you don't actually believe in god, or would continue to act like you do if you were to be punished, you're not just an opportunist and act from -your- heart. But if your actions do not depend on god, what's the use of having one?

Good in my opinion is conscructive behaviour in the sense of creating the best of possible worlds, when you sum up the collective behaviour of all individuals. Evil would some hellish state, where ultimate evil makes our existence impossible in the first place. Now what's the best of all possible words? I don't know that partially depends on your own views, but christian society wasn't it.

[Anonymous No.6163663]

>>6163653
*only atheists can be true christians

[Anonymous No.6163667]

>>6163653
Actually if you read up on the Middle Ages in Europe, it wasn't near as shitty as it's made out to be. They worked less than we do today, for example, and they partied more.

[Anonymous No.6163671]

Kant was actually pro-God

[Anonymous No.6163674]

>>6163667
Africans work less on average than the japanese, so their lives must be better. I'm sure they party more too. Like you would if you'd had aids.

[Anonymous No.6163685]

>>6163671
Was he pro priest?

[Anonymous No.6163703]

>>6163685
He was supposed to be a pastor, but became a philosopher instead.

[Anonymous No.6163705]

>>6163653
>Monotheism ultimately depends on 'because god said so' to get it's point across.
That makes more sense than most atheistic moral systems, really.
>If you say "do good because otherwise you go to hell" is a bad argument because you're implying if it wasn't for the threat of condemnation you wouldn't act "good".
Is there anything to being good beyond acting good?
>Now having said that, if you act according to christian principles even though you don't actually believe in god, or would continue to act like you do if you were to be punished, you're not just an opportunist and act from -your- heart. But if your actions do not depend on god, what's the use of having one?
You seem to think it's possible to have Christian values without believing in God. I don't think it is. Christian values come from Christ and consist of following Christ's commandments, one of which is to believe that He exists as God. That's all there is to it. If you claim to have Christian values but you don't believe in Jesus, you're not really someone with Christian values.

[Anonymous No.6163716]

>>6163705
What happens to christian values if god doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.6163719]

>>6162743
I'll allow that people who use misquotes to twist the meaning of other's for their own purposes doesn't belong in academic discussions, but to say that anyone isn't allowed a platform is a potential slippery-slope.

[Anonymous No.6163724]

>>6163719
>doesn't
don't*

[Anonymous No.6163730]

>>6163716
It's irellevant to them.

[Anonymous No.6163736]

>>6163719
Not saying he shouldn't be allowed but why do it in a format like that and then not even comment upon such manipulation? I think the church is offered too many privileges it simply not deserve.

[Anonymous No.6163739]

>>6163730
If the existence of god is irellevant why can't they just drop that part of christian doctrine and become secular?

[Anonymous No.6163742]

>>6162788
>sending money to native americans

I never really understood reparations in NA. I mean, deciding who gets what and how much seems indefinable. I'm part native but because it's only 1/16th I would have to pay? My ancestors or living kin would be the ones getting reparations, I guess. It's a little ridiculous. I just imagine white/X interracial relationships and the idea that the white spouse would be effectively giving their partner handouts for something somebody else did. It's pretty disgusting.


Now spending "reparations" directly on historical and cultural preservation is much more noble and sensible, in my opinion. If we simply make sure the funding for that is always in the system, then isn't that enough? And isn't that something we should just do anyway?

[Anonymous No.6163743]

>>6163739
Since this is a Kant thread we know that God cannot be proven or disproven so it is left to faith.

[Anonymous No.6163761]

>>6163743
Don't know about god (depends on your definition really), but hasn't christianity debunked? I mean haven't we essentially arrived at the god of the gaps argument?

>>6163742
Seems reasonable to invest into something everybody benefits from and helps to prevent further bloodshed. Like good education for everybody, equality, you name it.

[Anonymous No.6163764]

>>6163761
fuck me
*been debunked

[Anonymous No.6163776]

>>6163739
No, that's not what he meant. He means that wondering what would happen to Christian values if God didn't exist is irrelevant for Christians, because God exists to them. It's just not a possibility they seriously entertain. It's only ever a thought experiment to them.

[Anonymous No.6163790]

>>6163776
What if god doesn't actually exist. I don't mean if they believe he exists or not, I mean if he just doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6163796]

>>6163790
Well then obviously Christian values don't have any grounds, because they're derived from God.

It's like how Paul says, "If Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins." You can't separate Christian values from God, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection. That's where they come from, that's their whole reason for being.

[Anonymous No.6163824]

>>6163796
I think it's an argument for social constructivism, not in the sense that gender doesn't exist or something, but that values are basically a common agreement with no foundation besides our collective decision to validate them through our actions.

[Anonymous No.6164088]

>>6162743
>Twisting Kant into champion of religion is amazingly absurd
But he was one, especially in his private life. He was part of a hard-core sect of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6164710]

>>6163615
>but apparently ancient priests were cool
Ancient priests did not order the death of Socrates. In fact the Oracle of Delphi called him the wisest man in Greece.

>Christian rites do not involve animal killing and this is a way in which Christianity is an improvement over Greek national culture.
How is it an improvement? Are you seriously decrying killing and eating animals? or just doing that as part of religious worship?

[Anonymous No.6164754]

>>6162743
>I don't know why this makes me so mad, but I could punch a kitten right now
I wouldn't, anon, Sekhmet is the goddess of vengeance and she does not take kindly to that shit.

[Anonymous No.6164781]

>>6163147
>Christianity has more in common with Platonism and mystery cultures than with Judaism.

This comment doesn't make sense because all of the Abrahamic religions were heavily influenced by Platonism. Including Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6164811]

>>6162743
>tibs tebora

maybe if you were more open minded you would realise he is right.

[Anonymous No.6164813]

>>6162743
You do know that Kant came up with a proof of God, right?

He didn't wear a fedora

[Anonymous No.6164896]

>>6162755
The Nazis were catholic anon.

[Anonymous No.6165174]

>>6163012
Except the religious people don't pay for their time on German NPR; it's taken out of public money.

I know how OP feels. Every day there's "thoughts for the day" on the radio, and one day a nobel prize laureate was misquoted. By slicing and dicing his words it was made to appear as if he supported a creation by god.

Ever since I turn off the radio when religious stuff comes up. At least they got to the point where priests from various religions speak the thoughts for the day. But if "atheism is just another belief system", then why are there never atheist words for the day?

Some separation of church and state.

[Anonymous No.6165187]

>>6164896
If you knew anything(like reading Popper for example) you'd know that it was only the catholics that did some sort of internal resistance to the nazis. Protestants and atheist socialist were easily swayed by them.

[Anonymous No.6165320]

>>6165174
>>6165174
The classic teenager opinion that separation of church and state is systematic rooting out of Christianity from all spheres of public life.

[Anonymous No.6165937]

>>6164896
Hitler liked Islam more and wanted to have that be the state religion if the whole ancient Nordic folklore thing didnt work out. He saw their jihad and holy warrior traditions as advocating strength, something the Nazis loved

[Anonymous No.6165968]

>>6165320
Christians in charge of reading and thinking, everybody. Your cult is a dying mockery =^.^=

[Anonymous No.6166781]

>>6162743

>Twisting Kant into champion of religion is amazingly absurd.

Careful - Kant was a champion of what he viewed as a rationally founded religion, which for him includes belief in: an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly just divine creator; the freedom of the human will; the immortality of human souls. Kant's system establishes belief in these objects based on moral grounds (practical reason) rather than on any attempted natural theology (theoretical reason). To recognize that we are obligated to act based off of the dictates of the categorical imperative, and to so act, is to be moral; and to further recognize that this obligation leads us, indeed requires us (if we are to be rationally consistent), to believe in a god and an afterlife is to be religious.

What Kant did not champion was the (in his opinion) superstitious, tradition-bound, and uncritical practices of dogmatic religious institutions. Adherence to any particular religious creed was not crucial to legitimate religion, in his eyes - in fact, such adherence was too often detrimental. The only "creed" required for true religion are the dictates of the moral law. So you're very correct to point out that

>Part of his fucking quote is even to not let priests think for you.

(I don't recall if the original quote included the specific point about priests, but it was definitely in line with his system.)

>>6163034

> Believe it or not Kant wasn't an anti-theist or anti-religious, being opposed to hardcore dogmatism is different from being opposed to Christianity.

Well said.

>"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."

What sucks about this quote is that, divorced from a nuanced grasp of Kant's system, it can too easily be used in support of any unfounded bullshit belief.

[Anonymous No.6166870]

>>6163111

>What does he define as faith?

"Objects that must be conceived a priori in relation to the use of pure practical reason in accordance with duty (whether as consequences or as grounds) but which are excessive for its theoretical use are mere matters of faith." - Critique of the Power of Judgment, 5:469

In other words, things that the natural world could never give us insight into, but which morality nonetheless requires us to believe in - namely, freedom of the will, immortality of the soul, and the existence of god - are the things we have faith in.

>Show me a part where he says religion should be anything but a private matter

If by "private" you mean something that you do alone, or in your own home, or something like that, then Kant doesn't agree that religion should only be private (even though Kant as an individual was private in this way with his religion). After all, a few paragraphs after the section you quoted, Kant explains that priests, insofar as they are employed by their church to promote a particular set of beliefs, can't refuse to promote those beliefs to their congregations - unless those beliefs conflict with the moral law, in which case the priest ought to GTFO and denounce them (What Is Enlightenment, 8:38). So Kant, far from insisting that people must worship alone (or something like that), wasn't against organized religion per se - only against the all too popular tendency of religious leaders to act as mental chaperones, and the tendency of people to willingly submit to their superfluous and irresponsible creeds.

>>6163374

>That's pretty hard to know though OP, because Geist means both mind and soul in german doesn't it?

Not OP, but it's pretty clear from Kant's system that, in this context, what must be meant by "geist" (if that's even the word that Kant used in the original German) is not the human soul or, better yet, embodied-life-force in general (since this would included the unintelligent aspects of human nature like sensibility and instinct) but rather the higher cognitive faculties of understanding and reason. OP is right (if I grasp his complaint and the person it's leveled against) to say that Kant wasn't arguing for some non-rational act of faith, as if we could have some spiritual intuition of the supernatural - rather, Kant was arguing for the courage of all people to use their own rational faculties as the final arbiter of good and evil, true and untrue.

>>6163685

>Was he pro priest?

He wasn't anti-priest per se. In an ideal world, priests wouldn't be necessary - but he only had a problem with religious officials who acted as if morality and true religion required adherence to a set of particular beliefs and traditions extraneous to the moral law and the postulates of practical reason.

[Anonymous No.6166879]

>>6166781
>Careful -
No, fuck you. I'm a dangerous SOB and I don't have time for hoity-toity nerds or their autistic mewling. If my analysis shakes some trees and scares some geek into shitting the bed in fright, then so be it: I cannot stifle myself at the expense of my genius.

Your em dash is incomplete by the way -- I am not going to read the rest of your post, as it's quite long and probably not as informative as you think it is.

[Anonymous No.6166886]

>>6166781
>What Kant did not champion superstitious, tradition-bound, and uncritical practices
Top kek

[Anonymous No.6166908]

>>6163743

>Since this is a Kant thread we know that God cannot be proven or disproven so it is left to faith.

Kant believed that god could be proven through practical reason, but could be neither proven nor disproven through theoretical reason. In other words, and more specifically: we can establish that there is a god in a way that is sufficient for humans, given the kinds of subjects we are - but we cannot strictly know that a god exists, given the kind of object it would be.

>>6164088

>But he was one, especially in his private life. He was part of a hard-core sect of Christianity.

Well, he was raised in a Pietist home and went to a Pietist school, and he has plenty of praise for Christ as the moral exemplar for humanity - but his personal religious beliefs are probably better described as unorthodox. He almost never went to church, and if I can move into admittedly more speculative territory, it seems to me that he was more like an abstractly rationalistic monotheist with vestiges of culturally Christian beliefs.

>>6164813

>You do know that Kant came up with a proof of God, right?

That's right, a moral proof.

>He didn't wear a fedora

But he did wear that pic-related gentlemanly motherfucker of a headpiece.

[Anonymous No.6166934]

>>6166879

>my analysis

=

>containing no evidence of having grasped or even read anything besides "What Is Enlightenment?"

But you do make a compelling point about punctuation, so nicely done.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6168114]

Because there is no proof Kant even existed, so "his" words could mean anything.

[Anonymous No.6168486]

>>6168114

Dare to wake up, sheeple. The kantspiracy has gone on too long.

[Anonymous No.6169265]

>>6162755
>In fact, they gassed them by the millions
Not even Holocaust historians claim that millions were gassed

[Anonymous No.6169415]

Can't listen to the Deutschlandfunk anymore. There's so much propaganda it hurts. Only difference to other news is them running classical music in the background and having a higher standard in terms of language. And DRadio-Wissen mostly just plays music, despite it's misleading title.

[Anonymous No.6170434]

>>6162743

where should I start with Kant?

[Anonymous No.6170450]

>>6170434

Critique of pure reason.

Read the stanford article first if you find it difficult.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

[Anonymous No.6170875]

>>6170434

Leibniz and Hume.

A bit of Descartes and Berkeley would help too.

[Anonymous No.6171326]

>>6166886

Can you justify your mockery?

[Anonymous No.6171932]

>>6163008
>the seperation of state and church

And that includes the suppression of religious thought by state apparatus? Or are Germans currently being stoned for adultery, and I'm just not aware of it. Separation of church and state merely refers to the establishment of secular law, and if you're going to bitch about that then you should be talking to the muslims who are currently destroying your country and not the people who separated church and state in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6171947]

yikes

[Anonymous No.6172028]

>>6163222
>humanism = everyone is equal by birth
>christianity = gays go to hell

Even though you're post reads like something a buttmad libcuck on huffpost would write. you've hit on exactly what makes humanism christian.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

lamb of god etcetera etcetera

The interpretation of Christianity that's been prominent throughout the last 500 years has been as an all embracing anti-nationalistic wish wash, and it's all supported by the bible. And in the last 20 years it's since been demonized by urban atheists who have only ever experienced this ineffectual effete Christianity, and seize upon the few anti-progressive bible quotes and abandon the religion because they never really needed it in the first place. Or else they weren't ever Christian and their religious experience begins and ends with jokes on the Daily Show. Did you know that Christians in America are more likely to be liberal than conservative? Reformation Judaism is much the same in this regard.

To be clear, I'm not Christian, but anyone that asserts the current dominance of Western progressivism isn't a result of Christian ideas about humanism and universal tolerance is a fool and has never been to a modern congregation.

[Anonymous No.6172155]

>>6163179
>The Renaissance wasn't about getting away from the Church, it was a resurrection of classical culture. Your opinion is wrong.

This guy here is right. Renaissance Humanism is all about Western Christendom (for lack of a better term) engaging in a reexamination of classical culture which was made possible the West re-learning Greek. There is nothing more or less to humanism than this rediscovery of Greek and the related examination of antiquity.

It was not about escaping religion. Indeed, when Renaissance Humanism's technique was applied to religion it triggered a massive upsurge in the importance of religious doctrine known as the Reformation.

[Anonymous No.6172262]

>>6171932
The point is to do something before it gets bad again. Religion has no place in the public space.

[Anonymous No.6172268]

>>6162743
>>6162777
He was on a platform that makes it hard for him to be cross-examined or debated. Even if the radio host knew the Kant quote and disagreed with the professor, it still provides the illusion of an even split in opinion.

The great part about the Internet, that we take for granted, is the ability to disagree with anybody and have them know about it.

[Anonymous No.6172274]

>>6162988
>Ancestral homeland
Look, if we give them the obligatory apology and recognition that every other marginalised people get, will they be happy with that?

[Anonymous No.6172321]

>>6163222

>humanism = female equality
>most of christianity = women can't become priests

Actually this one is really off. No one ever considered that women could be equal until you had the concept of Christian equality of souls, it's the only way men and women can actually be equal. Humanists take egalitarian concepts that only make sense in a Christian context and just secularize them, turning them from something that had some sort of logical support into complete emotional dogma.

Humanism is basically just a misunderstanding of Christianity by stupid people.

[Anonymous No.6172326]

>>6172321

To clarify, modern Humanism. What was going on in the Renaissance was rather different than what is known as humanism today.

[Anonymous No.6172327]

>>6172321

what is a soul and how can it be equal to another soul?

[Anonymous No.6172342]

>>6172326
It was the beginning of a process that never was completely finished. The guys saying we should introduce christianity back into the center of society, because christianity spawned modern society, are missing the point.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6172349]

>>6172342
GETTINF TIRED BUR XANT BE FIRED CANR STOP WONT STOP GET IT GET IT LET IT BED SHIT, HEAD IT head it HEAD IT (see that modulation? You read it too, bet it dide(i meant dude(dude(oops(nude))))))))))))))))*)*)()*)(fuck) REDDIT LEAD IT, LET IT rest. Blessed.

[Anonymous No.6172358]

>>6172327
If anything else the proclamation of an eternal soul created further inequality, or just shifted the perspective in terms of what is deemed valuable and what is not, by making it easier to for the believer to accept real world evils in name of a transcendental good and the promise of a reward for compliance with real world authorities. If it wasn't for salvation cults it would be much harder to control the poor.

[Anonymous No.6172402]

>15, Roman Empire
>non-polytheists are heretics (except for the orthodox Jews)
>1015, Christendom
>non-Catholics are heretics
>2015, 4chan/reddit/etc...
>non-Atheists and non-Scientists are heretics

What's gonna happen in 3015, and where?

[Anonymous No.6172404]

>>6172402

>4chan/reddit is the global dominant discourse of 2015

you really need to get outside more

[Anonymous No.6172420]

>>6172404
That's the joke. Most of what is said on these websites is irrelevant yet it is said with such pomposity.

[Anonymous No.6172429]

>>6172402

Non-atheists are now being tortured to death for not denying god?

[Anonymous No.6172432]

>>6162743
B-but, Kant WAS religious. Very much so.

>Doesn't mean he was right.

[Anonymous No.6172444]

>>6172420
Should make you think what the world has come to, when you need to go to 4chan to have a discussion about secularity, but a glorified priest is allowed to preach his opinions through the state media in a one-way discussion.

[Anonymous No.6172460]

>>6172432
To be fair though, the text the quote was taking from (http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html)) was not religious and argued for a sceptical approach towards authority, as in thinking for yourself. Now thinking for yourself might lead to different conclusions but this doesn't change the premise of the text.

[Anonymous No.6172513]

>>6172429
You're right. Although "torture to death" isn't the only form of violence applied to heretics. But yes, they are tortured by autistic posts and they are *literally* bored to death.

>>6172444
>media is full of religious content and secularity is synonymous with atheism
I'm not so sure about that one, m8.

[Anonymous No.6172539]

>>6172513
Dude, I didn't say everybody should be atheist, but religion shouldn't dominate the media. Nor does it belong in schools. It's not my fault that the absence of religion is automatically considered atheism/nhilism by the religous. I'm not even a pure atheist, I'm just against organized religions and its priests. Or rather it's influence on public affairs. It's ok if they share their opinion, but you need to show the other side as well, so people can make up their mind. If you don't it's just propaganda.

[Anonymous No.6172543]

>>6172539
*there shouldn't be a bias towards religion.

[Anonymous No.6172563]

>>6170434
Treatise on Education and Battle of the Faculties. Both are easy and short reads. Anthropology is also good and will help you get accustomed to his heavier works.

[Anonymous No.6172568]

>>6172429
It's a way worse torture. Social torture has no beauty in it, unlike physical one.

[Anonymous No.6172577]

>>6172539
>but religion shouldn't dominate the media.
It doesn't. Some low-rating non-meant-for-profit show isn't domination of the media you fucking trash. Also if you ever read any philosphical works that has notes in it, you'd know that everyone of the german philosophers quote the theologians of their day, that are now forgotten. You think the chink government doesn't preach Confucianism to the masses? Education for everywhere was a means of control. Diversity of education(including religious-based one) is always welcome to counter the effect of uniformity.

[Anonymous No.6172593]

>>6172577
Just because mushrooms grow on shit doesn't mean I want to bath in it. And of course they dominate the media in comparison to every other religion.

[Anonymous No.6172601]

>>6172593
>And of course they dominate the media in comparison to every other religion.
Tell me how Indonesia has more christian media than other ones. Oh wait, you just realized that you are in a certain tradition that wasn't random or chaotic in it's genesis.

[Anonymous No.6172608]

>>6172601
Whatever guy.

[Anonymous No.6173188]

>>6172460

Yes, but in that text, Kant isn't unsupportive of organized religion either.

[Anonymous No.6173203]

>>6162755
>girl being a rude bitch
>why the fuck is she being so rude?
>oh so now we cant have freedom of speech, anon? Wow youre such a nazi
Dis u

[Anonymous No.6174415]

>>6163277
So a step in the right direction then.

[Anonymous No.6175358]

>>6164811

Right about what?

[Anonymous No.6175387]

>>6163089
They're an ethno-nationalist state, they style themselves a "Jewish" state which occupies millions of stateless people. That is not compatible with the notion of Western liberal democracy

[Anonymous No.6175735]

>>6172262
>Religion has no place in the public space.

lol you're delusional. Get cucked.

[Anonymous No.6176444]

>>6163527

Do you have a particular Humean argument in mind?