/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6194494]

Why do you believe in god?
What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?

[Anonymous No.6194511]

>>6194494
It feels right.

[Anonymous No.6194548]

i dont do no herr-awn no more

i say "try being hopelessly addicted to narcotics. then come make fun of me for my God"
just kidding.
i say A LITTLE PHILOSOPHY INCLINETH A MAN'S MIND TO ATHEISM
A LITTLE MORE AND HE BELIEVES IN GOD
idk how that quote goes

never met a reasonable atheist thus far tho

[Anonymous No.6194555]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?

It's a long story but mainly because life makes more sense.

>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?

*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6194556]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?

because it's self-evident that the universe was created by an all powerful, all-knowing, apathetic, amoral, unconscious entity.

[Anonymous No.6194562]

>>6194548
>A LITTLE PHILOSOPHY INCLINETH A MAN'S MIND TO ATHEISM
>A LITTLE MORE AND HE BELIEVES IN GOD
This pretty much, Aquinas's ontological argument is sound. Also my upbringing and a couple crazy experiences I had on drugs.
I gave up smoking weed for Lent, which I wouldn't do if I didn't believe in God, and I feel better in general for having done so. Belief has practical effects.

[Anonymous No.6194567]

i write on a piece of paper: I, (their name), hereby declare forfeiture, upon dying, of my eternal soul, to one (my name), for the sum total of five dollars.

X__________

and i offer them the pen and paper and five dollars, and watch them squirm their fucking way out of making five bucks

[Anomalous No.6194569]

Because I have to give a name to the totality of existence and God runs along the layman's understanding of it.

When people belittle God I generally agree with them since most of the time they are referring to the Judeo-Christian God who is a character of fictional comedy.

[Anonymous No.6194577]

>>6194562
>I gave up smoking weed for Lent, which I wouldn't do if I didn't believe in God, and I feel better in general for having done so. Belief has practical effects
So in other words you had to use a spook because you are too weak-willed for self improvement on your own.

[Anonymous No.6194580]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?
It makes me happy.
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
ATHEIST SHITLORDS STOP TRIGGERING ME

[Anonymous No.6194590]

>>6194494
>MUH HERITAGE

[Anonymous No.6194594]

>>6194562
Lol Aquinas argued against the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.6194600]

>>6194548
>>6194562
>>6194577
#rekt

[Anonymous No.6194602]

>>6194562
Aquinas doesn't make any ontological arguments and in fact argues against a version of Anselm's.

[Anonymous No.6194629]

>>6194494
Yes but I've never been belittled for it, except maybe on the internet. In the situation that I am, I would simply vocalize the difference in disposition between myself and the one doing the belittling; it's rare that I am not with a facetious attitude and so I would probably laugh in the man's face and point out his close-mindedness or the frustration that is likely to derive from either my laughter or his trying and failing to elicit a certain effect. I would allow the elucidation of our opposed mannerisms speak for the benefit of a sincere belief in God.

[Anonymous No.6194643]

>>6194567
This post is my favorite of any I've seen in threads of this topic. I will be sure to try this, whether you're serious or not.

[Anonymous No.6194644]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?
Because it's convenient for me and places of worship make for great networking opportunities
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
Everybody has his flights of fancy.

[Anonymous No.6194654]

>>6194567

I'd take it. I'm an agnostic, but even if God do real, I doubt he'd honor that contract.

[Anonymous No.6194662]

>>6194577
Aside from the fact that God isn't a spook, yes.
>>6194602
>>6194594
Cosmological, whatever.

[Anonymous No.6194665]

>>6194494
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?

The biggest retards of them all.

[Anonymous No.6194671]

>>6194567
I'm an atheist and even I wouldn't take it. It's just 2spooky4me, plus it's not even an argument.

[Anonymous No.6194681]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?
It provides for the existence of the universe where cosmological atheism doesn't.
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
People are generally too perplexed by panentheism to be able to belittle it.

[Anonymous No.6194682]

>>6194671
It brings to light an uncertainty in your otherwise seemingly confident subscription to atheism. It serves better than any argument might.

[Anonymous No.6194688]

>>6194662
>God isn't a spook
If the concept of a god influences your decisions or actions then it's a spook.

[Anonymous No.6194689]

>>6194662

>God isn't a spook

prove it

[Anonymous No.6194699]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?

So I don't have to wear a silly hat.

>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?

Nothing, I run home right away so I can start a thread on /lit/ about how enlightened I am.

[Anonymous No.6194703]

>>6194689
>God is a spook

prove it

[Anonymous No.6194707]

>>6194682
>implying religious people don't have uncertainties
Do you believe the Earth was at one point completely flooded and two of every animal were brought on a boat? Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

[Anonymous No.6194708]

>>6194662
Do you have empirical proof that there is a God? Aquinas relies on Aristotelian pseudoscience, it's nonsense.
>>6194682
So you're saying you believe in god because there's a miniscule amount of uncertainty to atheism? Man, you sound dumb.

[Anonymous No.6194711]

>>6194688
The concept of God is nearly all that keeps me from flying to some remote location and enticing adolescent boys into my hotel room. So some might argue that spooks have their place in our lives.

[Anonymous No.6194717]

>>6194555
>>6194703
Is there any r34 on her?

[Anonymous No.6194727]

>>6194703
>prove it
>>6194548
>>6194562

[Anonymous No.6194728]

>>6194711
>11
>>6194699
>99
>>6194688
>88
>>6194644
>44
>>6194600
>00
>>6194577
>77
>>6194555
>555
>>6194511
>11
Good thread, everyone

[Anonymous No.6194734]

>>6194494
i tell them bitch eat dick

[Anonymous No.6194737]

>>6194711
>The concept of God is nearly all that keeps me from flying to some remote location and enticing adolescent boys into my hotel room.

And this is why you must reject spooks.

[Anonymous No.6194739]

>>6194711
Is it not more virtuous to cultivate the desire to do what is best for adolescent boys (i.e. not lure them into sex) rather than erect an artificial barrier between you and your gnawing vices that may fall at the wavering of your faith?

In other words, isn't it better to desire to do good rather than to restrain oneself from desiring to do evil?

[Anonymous No.6194744]

>mfw one of my friends is a Jehova's Witness
>mfw they believe the Earth is 6000 years old and God created all the animals in the form they are today
>mfw they believe the world's going to end after 144,000 people from the Lost Tribes die, and believe the church can know who if someone is part of that number (asked them how, they said "They just know!", further shigs were had)
>mfw I mention how there's evidence in the Bible for the Trinity and they responded with "But there's also stuff that says it's not, though." (my god, pure theology)
>mfw there are people in the 21st century who still believe in a personal, benevolent God

[Anonymous No.6194745]

>>6194708
>So you're saying you believe in god because there's a miniscule amount of uncertainty to atheism?
Not at all. I'm saying that for you to feel qualms at signing the paper, despite your claiming to be Atheist, suggests that you have not fully adhered to the belief and therefore your argument is based off an ideal you have, not your conviction.

[Anonymous No.6194751]

>>6194744
good double, but would you mind linking your post to the original source of that quoted section?

[Anonymous No.6194753]

>>6194739
>isn't it better to desire to do good rather than to restrain oneself from desiring to do evil?
They have equal worth. Actually, the latter might even be better, since the former quite easily welcomes opportunistic evil and hubris.

[Anonymous No.6194754]

>>6194745
What if the person you were arguing with were agnostic and never claimed to have unwavering certainty?

[Anonymous No.6194757]

>>6194745
That's literally an ad hominem there m8, it's trying to disprove atheism by attacking a 'supposed' atheists (lack of) faith in their beliefs. Would it be a good argument if I went around asking Christians if they were afraid to die, and then said "Well, God must not be real, because if you were really Christian you wouldn't be!"

[Anonymous No.6194758]

>>6194703

What caused the First Cause?
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[13] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause's exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[14] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause.[15]

Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[16] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]

Identity of a First Cause
Even if one accepts the cosmological argument as a proof of a First Cause, an objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that it does not necessarily identify that First Cause with a god. According to Austin Cline, the argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic god, such as immanence or omnibenevolence. The cosmological argument is simply that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang singularity, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist.[17]

Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept "God" as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it,[18] and even pandeism, which proposes that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[19][20]

Existence of causal loops
A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.

The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."[21]

[Anonymous No.6194759]

>>6194744
Protestantism: Not Even Once.

[Anonymous No.6194763]

>>6194744
>I mention how there's evidence in the Bible for the Trinity

...when forced into a trinitarian interpretation

[Anonymous No.6194764]

>>6194739
>cultivate the desire
My desire has long been cultivated and it comes too naturally to simply to replace it with that heinous idea of doing what's best for adolescent boys.

[Anonymous No.6194765]

the only way that I can rationalize the existence of reality, is that it must be a self-created process. reality contains itself so it cannot have an external cause. this process i believe is comparable to consciousness, in that it is perceptual in nature and relies on information processing. this self-caused process inflicts constraints on itself informationally by perceiving and 'reflecting' on the information, which results in structure, and thus increasingly complex structures by recursion. This structure I think would be describable as a language, where the components (symbols) of it could be mapped to the 'material', i.e. represented as physical quanta to a perceiving mind, where the laws of physics are comparable to the syntax of the language. ultimately i think it is appropriate to qualify the 'mind' in which this language has been constructed (from which all systems in the universe, including our own minds, are patterned) as god

i've only been belittled about this by strong materialist atheists, who i think suffer from an inflated superiority. in a part of our culture atheism has been associated with intellect to an unseasonable extent. i've been there myself so I know what it's like, being pissed about how gullible humanity is and circle-jerking about how noah's ark would never work etc.

[Anonymous No.6194773]

>>6194758
None of what you posted proves anything but they are interesting thoughts regardless.

[Anonymous No.6194779]

>>6194758
Have you actually read the ENTIRE question in the Summa that deals with Aquinas' five proofs?

Aquinas BEGINS by saying that the proofs he's about to offer don't specifically prove the Christian God. They just prove that there is a Creator God that set the universe in motion.

Aquinas is well aware that he can't, through reason and investigation, prove that the specific God of Christianity is real. That requires believing in the Scriptures, in the Church, and in divine revelation. He's not some fucking deist, he's a real Christian, and for him, faith is a virtue.

[Anonymous No.6194782]

>>6194759
Aside from Americlap cultists, Protestantism is probably the best form of Christianity. Martin Luther and John Calvin are my niggas.
>>6194763
Shut up, hippie. Augustine, John the Apostle, and Thomas Aquinas would like to have a world with you.

[Anonymous No.6194783]

>>6194765

>it must be a self-created process

stopped reading
don't use axioms in your thinking

[Anonymous No.6194784]

>>6194783
>don't use axioms in your thinking
Is that an axiom?

[Anonymous No.6194786]

>>6194757
You would be exceeding the boundaries of reason to denounce God, but you would be just in shedding light in their paltry faith. In the same manner, the one who is met with apprehension at signing a piece of paper that would be insignificant to the Atheist cannot reasonably consider himself one. The paper test is not to attack Atheism, it is to clarify the person's hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.6194788]

>>6194763
insane mormon detected

[Anonymous No.6194793]

>>6194773

it proves the cosmological argument is complete bullshit

[Anonymous No.6194797]

>>6194754

Again, I'm agnostic but am at least firmly enough resolved that the contract is meaningless that I'd take $5 off you. Worst case scenario, there is a God, the contract holds, and the implications are so existentially absurd that suppositions about right and wrong action in such a universe were futile to begin with, in which case I could hardly have faulted myself for signing the damned contract.

[Anonymous No.6194798]

>>6194784

no, it's a command

[Anonymous No.6194799]

>>6194793
I don't think you understand what the word "proves" means.

[Anonymous No.6194803]

>>6194799

I don't think you understand what the term 'colloquial' means

[Anonymous No.6194805]

>>6194754
Well then the paper would not be brought out to begin with. Agnostics do not deny the existence of the soul altogether as the Atheists do.

[Anonymous No.6194807]

>>6194786
Who's to say every atheist believes that there's a 0% chance in the existence of god? I think it's ridiculous to believe in god, but I acknowledge that there's maybe like a 0.005% chance there could be one. I'm insuring myself against the off-chance there is and I spend an eternity in Hell or whatever.

[Anonymous No.6194809]

>>6194782
>Protestantism is probably the best form of Christianity

lel, no. Protestantism will always be snared by the limitations of Sola Scriptura, because even if they wanted to draw on Sacred Tradition, they can't, because they cut themselves off from the Old Churches. So they're stuck with Scripture, but the trouble is, Christianity predates the Bible, so you've got them stretching verses and sometimes flat-out making shit up.

The proper ranking of Churches puts Catholicism at the top, followed by Orthodoxy, then the Ethiopian Church, then the Coptic Church. And they might all be uniting in a decade or so anyway, so soon the subdivisions could be moot.

[Anonymous No.6194820]

>>6194809
Papist please, do you even pray to God or just Mary and Joseph?

[Anonymous No.6194822]

>>6194807
God hates the lukewarm so you'd be fucked either way

Besides people can't even own other souls in christian theology, your salvation or damnation is entirely dependent on accepting jesus and the piece of paper is literally worthless in any worldview

[Anonymous No.6194823]

>>6194807
If they believed of even the slightest possibility, I don't think they'd declare themselves as Atheists.

[Anonymous No.6194824]

>>6194809
>And they might all be uniting in a decade or so anyway, so soon the subdivisions could be moot.
uh

[Anonymous No.6194825]

>>6194805

I assume you're talking about gnostic atheists then? When I say I'm agnostic, I actually mean I'm agnostic atheist, though only the tippety top of the tippers care strongly about the semantics.

[Anonymous No.6194831]

>>6194783
what do you mean exactly? where is the misstep in that statement

[Anonymous No.6194833]

>>6194823

you are wrong

[Anonymous No.6194836]

>>6194788
Sane atheist who has read enough scholarship to see that trinitarianism is a 4th century ad-hoc rationalization which arose from the attempt to harmonize different NT views of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6194838]

>>6194822
>>6194823
There's probably a one in a billion chance of a plane crashing into my house right now, but do I believe it's going to happen? There is literally no good reason to believe in God and agnosticism is for faggots, but it's insurance for the impossible. $5 ain't worth shit.

[Anonymous No.6194842]

>>6194831

I don't see how anything 'must be' anything

for that kind of claim you have to demonstrate your reasoning

[Anonymous No.6194846]

>>6194809
>Catholicism at the top, followed by Orthodoxy, then the Ethiopian Church, then the Coptic Church
This is actually in order of least orthodox to most orthodox.

[Anonymous No.6194851]

>>6194846
>least orthodox to most orthodox.
according to which orthodoxy?

[Anonymous No.6194854]

>>6194836
>trinitarianism is a 4th century ad-hoc rationalization which arose from the attempt to harmonize different NT views of Jesus.
citation please

[Anonymous No.6194855]

>>6194825
>I'm agnostic atheist
Never had I heard the term because never had I come across one so indecisive that such a term was necessary to use. Unless you're an adolescent, in which case I suppose there is some justification, then I suggest you do some searching because indecisiveness is the conception of sloth and so you will remain unless you make a conscious effort to reach a conviction that is not the result of perfunctory meditation.

[Anonymous No.6194860]

>>6194855
nice dubs

[Anonymous No.6194862]

>>6194836
also
>ad-hoc rationalization
kek

[Anonymous No.6194867]

>>6194842

Well, here's an example. Any form of belief with the possible exception of solipsism necessarily comes with some degree of assumption.

[Anonymous No.6194869]

>>6194842
ah okay. I would then that "I think" vs. "must be"

[Anonymous No.6194872]

>>6194851
The Oriental Churches would agree (though they wouldn't put the Ethiopian as less-orthodox than the Coptic, nor would I) as would I, but that's because the Oriental church is the oldest and didn't get involved with the ecumenical councils' power games.

[Goddog No.6194874]

I think God doens't need to "exist to exist". God might be simply our consciousness trying to work in the material world like a unit. But this is not God?
As the world changes, God seems to bem always late. I think that.

[Anonymous No.6194877]

>>6194855

It just means agnostic in colloquial usage. If you think agnosticism is untenable, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6194880]

Are these /lit/ threads proof that the idea of God only comes from a book?

[Anonymous No.6194881]

>>6194867

why would you believe something you know to be an assumption?

[Anonymous No.6194887]

I believe in God. Only in like the sense that even if I don't personally believe in him, the fact that I'd be murdered by some people for saying that doesn't make me any less dead. I think we can kill him only by making people's lives better as we play lip service to whoever is making bank or isn't getting genocided this week. Yay.

[Anonymous No.6194888]

>>6194855
That's because you're one of those imbeciles who thinks Agnosticism is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive and perpetuate intellectual-dishonesty with such hilarious thinking.

[Anonymous No.6194889]

>>6194880
"/lit/ is dead" - God

[Anonymous No.6194893]

>>6194855
Get a load of all those $5 words for a 25 cent sentence.

[Anonymous No.6194894]

>>6194855
how do you do this? decide on something without constant doubt. i struggle with this. everything i see is grey.

[Anonymous No.6194898]

I don't know. Maybe for pragmatic reasons.

[Anonymous No.6194899]

>>6194877
>If you think agnosticism is untenable, fuck off.
It's untenable because there's no argument to be made. What are you to say, "I believe there MIGHT be something out there." How can that be argued for or against?

[Anonymous No.6194908]

>>6194881
do you assume that the people you interact with are conscious?

[Anonymous No.6194911]

>>6194908

yep, that doesn't mean I necessarily believe it's true

[Anonymous No.6194913]

>>6194824
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/08/plotting-nicea-iii-could-be-pope-francis-s-masterstroke.html

[Anonymous No.6194914]

>>6194899
>How can that be argued for or against?
By arguing there's no way to know the truth in our current existence.

[Anonymous No.6194920]

>>6194894
I have convictions and I maintain them until someone can eloquently reveal to me how I am mistaken. Many matters are gray, but there are some that appear clear.

[Anonymous No.6194924]

>>6194899
>How can that be argued for or against?
By arguing that there's no way to know the truth in our current existence.

[Anonymous No.6194935]

>>6194872
>The Oriental Churches would say they're the most orthodox
are you a scholar or something?

[Anonymous No.6194937]

>>6194914
Okay, that was related back in high school, I didn't think that it was still maintained as the foundation of a belief. Sure there's no way of knowing the truth, but that's the profound nature of faith; you don't know, but you believe because of what you feel emerge from your soul.

[Anonymous No.6194939]

>>6194913
>http://www.thedailybeast.com
no thanks

[Anonymous No.6194944]

>>6194937
Faith is nothing, it has no place in a rational argument.

[Anonymous No.6194945]

>>6194937

I'm sure you know that's not a rational argument.

[Anonymous No.6194948]

Because of the time/place I was born, "God" is the word I use for something I believe in, yes, and I consider myself a Christian. I do not think of God as being a oversized bearded Jew who lives behind pearly gates, though.

As for what to say to people who belittle me, it is not something I discuss unless I feel like the environment is right in the first place, like that it'd be a welcome conversation. So that tends not to be an issue? If someone were to belittle me for it, though, it'd be no problem, I'd understand. Not sure if I'd "say" anything.

[Anonymous No.6194950]

>>6194939
Try this one, then.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/nicea-iii-2025

[Anonymous No.6194962]

>>6194944
>>6194945
Do you mean to suggest that you will convince me, or that I will convince you with a rational argument through this anime site? To convince you was not my intention, it was to explain to you that paramount aspect of developing and maintaining a conviction that you seem to have forsaken when you decided to tread on a path purely rational.

[Anonymous No.6194964]

>>6194820
Veneration does not equal idolatry you pea brained retard

[Anonymous No.6194992]

>>6194962

I already know that metaphysical conviction is irrational. I just don't understand why people ascribe to them even knowing that. There's really nothing to be discussed.

[Anonymous No.6195142]

Related but off topic question.
Spirituality feels right to me, but specific religious texts always feel to outwardly biased by the views of men writing them. Reading biblical texts, they seemed too flawed to define a life. Some Eastern religions seem to make more sense, but they usually preach a way of being more than worship of a deity. For those who believe in an Abrahamic God, how do you feel about this sort of thing?

[Anonymous No.6195167]

>>6194577
But if there is no god, then he did do it on his own.

Czechm8 atheist.

[Anonymous No.6195172]

>>6194737
>you should rape boys, due to the fact that i don't agree with your beliefs
lek

>>6194739
>i'm not sexually attracted to nubile pre-adolescent men
do you even pederast, pleb? gtfo /lit/

[Anonymous No.6195176]

>>6195172
It's not rape if they consent :)

[Anonymous No.6195202]

>>6195142
>ugh bible is so lame, I hate going to church
>ooooh Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism/other asian or new age spiritual bullshit
>so exotic and oriental
>much mystery

[Anonymous No.6195213]

>>6194838
>agnosticism is for faggots
says the agnostic who admits he thinks there's a slim chance that god(s) exists

[Anonymous No.6195233]

>>6195202

Are you arguing that Eastern philosophy is wrong, that Eastern philosophy is the same, or that anon is blindly contrarian?

Because you sound like a fag.

[Anonymous No.6195237]

>>6195213

Hey man, we don't want him on our team.

[Anonymous No.6195251]

>>6194935
Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.6195303]

>>6195142
No one can live in the past. The lives and times of those that came before are worth studying and taking seriously, but mimicry is play-acting, false, incestuous. The best thing to do is to honor scholarship and follow the truth honestly and humbly.

[Anonymous No.6195317]

Agnostic here. Can someone explain to me the rationale behind atheism* — in a way which isn't simply based on saying why Zoroastrianism and its child religions (e.g., Christianity) are wrong? I got that the burden of proof is on the theist. And that actual, empirical study of nature doesn't point to a deity as the explanation for anything. That said, most notions I've heard of prime movers seem to be as something that doesn't properly exist within the time-space of our universe but instead "transcends" such provincial borders, and so it seems weird to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist outside the universe. Like I don't think that there are any pink unicorns outside of the universe, but maybe there are. I would feel silly & arrogant to go around describing myself as an anti-pink-unicornist, as though I have some exclusive line of knowledge about things whose presence wouldn't even be constrained by space-time.

--
* /Atheism/, or so-called "gnostic atheism" being defined here as 'the belief that there isn't a god' — not the facile, newly popular definition being spread nowadays ('the lack of a belief in god', which is to say, 'agnostic').

[Anonymous No.6195330]

>>6195251
everyone who isn't part of the oriental church would say yes

the oriental church (which what does this even mean) just seem like hillbilly catholics

[Anonymous No.6195349]

>>6195330
How is it that you feel the need to not only comment but criticize even though you admit you don't know what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.6195370]

>>6194494
Why the fuck would God be bald? Clearly this painter was bald and he wanted to be like ''yeh, well, u'kno who else is bald?.. GOD!''

>>6194548
>never met a reasonable atheist thus far tho
Funny, I've never met a reasonable religious person before. It's all just ''well I read dis book, and I'm too stupid to reason myself out of their arguments, so I just stick to what I've been told by mum and dad''

[Anonymous No.6195386]

>>6195349

Not the one you were responding to, but following this response chain, is orthodoxy defined by adherence to traditional practices & beliefs; or adherence to practices & beliefs that are prescribed by a literal interpretation of the scriptural texts? Either way, wouldn't orthodoxy-based grading be pretty easy to measure once the parameters are defined?

[Anonymous No.6195536]

>>6195317
>Like I don't think that there are any pink unicorns outside of the universe, but maybe there are. I would feel silly & arrogant to go around describing myself as an anti-pink-unicornist.

What would do if people mocked, bullied and alienated you for not seriously believing on these pink unicorns?

What would say to people who taught their children that failing to believe in the pink unicorn and sing songs about it would result in eternal torture?

[Anonymous No.6195557]

>>6195349
>How is it that you feel the need to not only comment but criticize even though you admit you don't know what you're talking about?
something is the most orthodox, according to that orthodoxy
you don't have to be terribly bright or well-informed to see some issues here. as to not knowing what i'm talking about, it's more an issue of vagueness on your part i.e. define which "oriental church" denominations you're talking about

[Anonymous No.6195652]

>>6194548
You probably meant this ?

[Anonymous No.6195662]

>>6195652
>you will never get to the bottom of the glass

[Anonymous No.6195673]

>>6195536

The first one doesn't exist in this day, and the second one doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.6195678]

>>6195652

The point being it's all well and good so long as you don't try to eat the glass.

[Anonymous No.6195680]

Oh? You believe in God because you think the universe had to be created? What about God? Oh? He's always existed? Why not just cut out the middle man and say the universe always existed?

[Anonymous No.6195695]

I don't know if I yet believe in God, but I'm on my way. I've read a number of philosophers and apologists that have swayed me a little.

My first step into the church was that I liked the discipline. I liked the environment and culture.

The second step was when I was younger I was probably close to a humanist and I had great faith in people, but as I got older I started to have less faith in humanity. I think the part of Christianity (before redemption) where humans are sinful, wretched people gels with me.

I'm probably headed to a place where the Christian God is a symbol.

[Anonymous No.6195713]

>>6195680
'The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal.' - Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles I.13

[Anonymous No.6195723]

>>6195713
Oh? You think because the world is eternal that God exists? If the world is eternal, what need is there for God in the equation, I ask?

[Anonymous No.6195727]

>>6195673
The does exist for many familes and is far more prominent in the US. Whilst you be lynched or "excommunicated" it can still cause huge strain on a persons family life.

Its one of the reasons why fedoras are more likely to be American.

>second one doesn't really matter.

Inciting fear into children is a fairly serious issue as is the impact that it has on thier view of how society should function.

[Anonymous No.6195776]

>>6195536
Nowadays I'm more regularly called a pussy or faggot for not outright denying the possibility that pink unicorns could, in principle, enjoy some sort of transcendent presence outside of the known universe, in ways that the finite mind might lack the ability to speculate about or understand.

[Anonymous No.6195781]

>>6195776
Is that just on 4chan though?

[Sagewise Gamgi No.6195914]

>>6194494
ITT: astroturfing shillionares
If i was under the impression that there is or was a god of any type or origin, it would probably be from the coincidences that saved my life many times.

But i don't believe in fairy tales.

This thread should have been made on Reddit so you can circle jerk validate your shit all day long because your original question doesn't facilitate the need for critical thinking.
>literally a baww thread

[Goddog No.6197078]

>>6195914
yes, but the simple questions of a simple man can be linked with more complex discussions. We can convert this situation with good arguments.

[Anonymous No.6197631]

>>6195386
>>6195557
Oriental Orthodoxy, with a capital 'O', aka the Oriental Churches, is a division of Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
These Churches broke from the Churches that adopted Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian Churches then broke off into the Western church (Roman Catholicism) and Eastern Orthodox, and then the Western Church broke off into Protestant and Catholic churches. The Oriental Churches maintains that they have kept the orthodox faith whereas the Chalcedonian churches are heterodox (not heretics or wholly unorthodox, but constituting some kind of error). I'm not really a Christian myself, so I have no dog in the race, but as far as Christianity as-a-whole is concerned, the Oriental churches are the oldest and resisted conformity to uphold their Christology. History at least seems to have vindicated them as we see the Western and Eastern churches keep splitting for dogmatic and political control, where the Oriental churches didn't.

[Anonymous No.6197691]

>>6194494
Because it's not rational to NOT believe in a God, and I tell those people that it's not rational

[Anonymous No.6197775]

>>6195680
>He's always existed?
To sum it up briefly
God is infinite and therefor cannot have a beginning.
The non-contingent ground of contingency through which all contingent things exist.
Which must be that which exists through itself whose very nature is to be. Fully realized and energized, in His own being.

Not highest being, but being itself.
Ipsum Esse
Actus Purus

See Exodus 3:14 "I am who I am."

[Anonymous No.6197794]

>>6194494
>do you believe in god
Yeah I do

>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
Nothing really. I haven't ever had anyone do that but I don't ever talk about it. If someone did I guess I would just drop the convo. I'm not going to stand around and be insulted by someone.

[Anonymous No.6197830]

>>6194494
>do you believe in god
Yep. I'm not a christian though, I'm a deist who has his own interpretations of certain things, such that maybe I shouldn't even call myself a deist, but use some other term. I don't mock any religion, I love Christianity for all that it has done (The Bible is THE most important piece of literature ever written, also Christianity inspired numerous painters to create beautiful paintings and numerous composers to compose god-tier music).

[Anonymous No.6197858]

>>6194567
Damn, I wish I met more idiots like you.

[Anonymous No.6197883]

>>6194567
B-but that violates contract law.
I can't formulate a contract that brings harm to myself.
Checkmate theists.

[Anonymous No.6197897]

>>6194567
i sold my soul for a spongebob squarepants bouncy ball. checkmate, motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.6197905]

>>6194708
>Do you have empirical proof that there is a God? Aquinas relies on Aristotelian pseudoscience, it's nonsense.
Oh, Christ.

Thinking is dead.

[Anonymous No.6198006]

>>6194629
tl;dr:
"lol umad"

[Anonymous No.6198065]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?
I know that He exist, as I have had countless supernatural experiences which confirm such belief.
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
There is not much you can say to such people if they are "belittling" you. They are not coming from a place that is accepting of sincere dialogue.

[Anonymous No.6198072]

>>6194494

>Why do you believe in god?
I know that He exist, as I have had countless supernatural experiences which confirm such belief.
>What do you say to people that will belittle you for it?
There is not much you can say to such people if they are "belittling" you. They are not coming from a place that is accepting of sincere dialogue.

[Anonymous No.6198084]

>>6197775

do you actually believe this ?
I laugh when people think god can be proved using logic and then say he's not constrained by logic (create rock too big for him to lift etc.)

[Anonymous No.6198087]

>>6194494
I believe in God because the alternative is being a careless, unfaithful person.

I've never been belittled but I doubt it would affect me enough to elicit a response.

[Anonymous No.6198088]

>>6198072
>I know that He exist
nobody does that's a lie

>I have had countless supernatural experiences which confirm such belief.
confirmation bias

[Anonymous No.6198092]

>>6198087
what is careless about being an atheist?

[Anonymous No.6198097]

>tfw living in glorious Europe
>tfw will never meet people like this in real life
feels good man

[Anonymous No.6198099]

>>6194494
>Why do you believe in god?
I don't. I wish I did. Or at least that I was an idiotic narrow-minded atheist who's too busy masturbating to The God Delusion to fully realize the implications of his position.

[Anonymous No.6198104]

>>6198099
you are an atheist retard

[Anonymous No.6198111]

>>6198104
Thanks for being a good example. Notice how I didn't claim otherwise? Oh right, you're so pathetically stupid that you manage to suck at reading.

[Anonymous No.6198118]

>>6198111
>Oh right, you're so pathetically stupid that you manage to suck at reading.
this is the sort of thing people with no friends say to feel better about themselves

[Anonymous No.6198125]

>>6198118
This is the sort of thing people with no friends say to feel better about themselves.

[Anonymous No.6198126]

>>6198125
kk anon whatever helps you sleep :)

[Anonymous No.6198131]

>>6198126
*tip*

[Anonymous No.6198138]

>>6198131
>I have to resort to using memes in conversation because they make me feel part of a special 4chan club which simulates a social life
lmao

[Anonymous No.6198141]

>>6198111
>Thanks for being a good example.
When did he claim to be an atheist?
Seems your reading comprehension is just as bad as his.

[Anonymous No.6198225]

>>6197905
Sheer arrogance.
We know the age of the universe.
We know therefore the speed at which it is expanding.
We understand the formulation of most of the elements in our solar system from supernovae.
We can actually PROVE things and test them using a very useful called the scientific method.
A way of thinking INSPIRED by Aristotle but actually very different to his epistemology.

Thinking isn't dead. It's changed.
Please just read some Nietzsche ffs and stop posturing on a 4chan

[Anonymous No.6198228]

Because he believes in us.

[Anonymous No.6198238]

>>6198092
no god, no morals. for all I care you can be a pantheist, a panentheist, etc. just have morals/spiritual awareness.

[Anonymous No.6198243]

>>6194577
The delusion that you're doing what you're doing by your own individualist determination is a complete spook.

[Anonymous No.6198251]

No intelligent person believes in a god or gods, as there is no evidence for anything supernatural.

[Anonymous No.6198256]

>>6198238
Objective morality is hooey. Go make your own morality and stop being a follower.

[Anonymous No.6198259]

>>6198243
Then how are you doing it?

[Anonymous No.6198261]

>>6198251
>Georges Lemaître

[Anonymous No.6198263]

>>6198238
>no god, no morals
no spooks

[Anonymous No.6198265]

>>6198256
>mfw I didn't use the word objective
>mfw I didn't even imply it

[Anonymous No.6198266]

>>6198251
dante was intelligent as motherfuck.

[Anonymous No.6198269]

>>6198261
He obviously wasn't intelligent if he believed in a universal dictator with no evidence. Belief in general is for idiots.

[Anonymous No.6198272]

>>6198265
Yes you did, any sort of religious morality is dogmatic and asserts itself as objective or universal.

[Anonymous No.6198276]

>>6194855
It's because "agnostic" is a meaningless term and Thomas Huxley did us a great disservice by coining it.

All "agnostics" are categorically atheists. By definition.
If you are "undecided" then you do not positively believe in God. You reject theism and theology. You just are not a theist.

There is literally no middle ground.
You can either have a black and white photo or a colour one.
You may have faded faith but as long as you still have faith then you are not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.6198283]

>>6198269
Obviously you have no idea who that is, or you wouldn't be making such outlandish statements.

[Anonymous No.6198287]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVEM2y-NhRo

[Anonymous No.6198288]

>>6198251
>Isaac Newton

[Anonymous No.6198293]

>>6198276
>You reject theism and theology
But I don't reject that it's possible. I don't accept the atheist belief that there is beyond a shadow of a doubt no creator. I do reject ascribing to any belief with certainty.

[Goddog No.6198296]

>>6198276
"undecided people" are maybe a expression of a institutional and standardized god, but there are simultaneos in their hearts the felling of God's existence.

[Anonymous No.6198298]

>>6198272
I didn't say I was religious either. I just said I believed in god.

stahp it anon you're embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.6198311]

>>6198276
>All "agnostics" are categorically atheists. By definition.
>If you are "undecided" then you do not positively believe in God. You reject theism and theology. You just are not a theist.
wat
agnosticism is the belief that it CAN'T be known if there's a god or not. it's rejecting both theism and atheism; saying "there is no god" violates its principle.

[Anonymous No.6198330]

>>6198311

>it's rejecting both theism and atheism

No, it's answering a completely different question.

"Agnostic" is an answer to the question "Do you think it's possible to know if there is a god?" and "atheist" is an answer to the question "Do you believe in a god?"

[Anonymous No.6198338]

>>6198311
>agnosticism is the belief that it CAN'T be known if there's a god or not
wrong

[Anonymous No.6198340]

>>6198330
>Do you think it's possible to know if there is a god?
and the agnostic's answer is "no", meaning that they believe that it can't be known if there's a god or not, and hence they're not atheists.

[Anonymous No.6198344]

>>6198338
>noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

>1.
>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[Anonymous No.6198348]

>>6198311
let me rephrase then

convo with an agnostic:
>do you think there is a god?
>i don't know if it's possible to know...
>yes, i gathered, but do you believe in a god
>i don't believe but i don't reject
>those two positions logically contradict each other though. Do you have real faith in a creator god or not?
>well I'm still kind of undecided... There's no way of really knowing.
>there's no way of really knowing many things but that doesn't mean we believe them, does it?
>i think you're being shallow and ignorant and arrogant! Stop oppressing me!
>I'm just saying, i don't know if molecular life was transported to earth by an asteroid, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to believe it until better evidence presents itself... In fact, the argument over god is really far more tenuous than that as it sets up parameters that specifically label evidence as being an impossibility for faith to be pure. Literally what is the point?
>stop hurting my feelings!!!!

[Anonymous No.6198357]

>>6198344
prescriptivist dictionaries only please the OED panders to plebs like you

[Anonymous No.6198358]

>>6198330
>"Do you believe in a god?"
an agnostic would not have an answer to this question

In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God does exist and an atheist does not believe that God exists

[Anonymous No.6198362]

>>6198348
>those two positions logically contradict each other though.
false.
>there's no way of really knowing many things but that doesn't mean we believe them, does it?
it does.

and the rest is just rhetorical bullshit that doesn't demonstrate any proof for your argument.

>>6198357
alright then, we'd better always use one of several colloquial definition tailored to your argument against them then.

[Anonymous No.6198363]

>>6198358
by not believing in god you automatically disbelieve in him hence all agnostics are atheists

[Anonymous No.6198369]

>>6198363
>by not believing in god you automatically disbelieve in him
no you don't.

[Anonymous No.6198370]

>>6198363
>by not believing in god
I don't reject the possibility

[Anonymous No.6198374]

God is dead

[Anonymous No.6198376]

>>6198370
atheists don't reject the possibility well done faggot

[Anonymous No.6198379]

>>6198362

Ok mate.
Schröedinger's God it is then....

(this is just getting dumb now)
-------------------------------635605869928893604
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="recaptcha_challenge_field"

03AHJ_VuvSyy_oa3djbKjtOZzYw0SUQuBTs-cDZsAQxyCaiktxkASrxZLfl3An3xVnN8eh6rubvhRqQp0M-P8jZ8YBE4eP9vWECchFFGISx8Fzdo7FDo5wmqUKtwPZRYngrpnkA_Ced6npjVEvbFV_Iq4SDOF1uyuIkiD2h5NyDNmOGdXtF30r_B36nYaxhSXPcFkR5gNJIk0gbE8A6T6GwoKDgnqs20lzeyr1BWWw6ZtPQkEK3p6Mczqka4YcVJqp3nlOLIiccTjcra2M4Nop2nKphSMcQHQnng

[Anonymous No.6198380]

>>6198376
atheism is the belief there is no god

[Anonymous No.6198382]

>>6198376
what?

[Anonymous No.6198385]

>>6198380
atheism is the rejection of a belief in god, not a positive claim to know god does not exist

[Anonymous No.6198391]

>>6198379
agnostics don't say "god both exists and does not exist at the same time"; they just say "it cannot be known whether or not god exists".

[Anonymous No.6198399]

>>6198391
>they just say "it cannot be known whether or not god exists".
some agnostics would concede that it is possible to prove or disprove god so this is incorrect

[Anonymous No.6198400]

Let's put it to the test

http://strawpoll.me/3740812

[Anonymous No.6198406]

>>6198400
>90% of Europeans vote no
>90% of americans vote yes

[Anonymous No.6198410]

>>6198380
the lack of belief in something's existence=the belief of something's nonexistence.

Granted, it's a sliding scale either way (theism <-> atheism) but there isn't a centerpoint. It's an asymptote. As x->0 f(x)->oo

[Anonymous No.6198412]

>>6198225
Kek, we don't *know* for certain any of those things. You're trying to turn scientific theories into pillars of some kind of religion.

[Anonymous No.6198413]

>>6195652
>implying a bottom
I see what he did there, cocky bastard.

[Anonymous No.6198414]

>>6198385
in rejecting belief of a god, you (passively or otherwise) state that you know that there is none.

tell me how you can disbelieve something and at the same time avoid claiming that it does not exist if someone were to ask you.

[Anonymous No.6198417]

>>6198414
'I think it is unlikely that god exists and am not religious, but admit that it it is impossible to hold such knowledge'

[Anonymous No.6198418]

>>6195652
>father of quantum physics
Top kek

[Anonymous No.6198419]

>>6198410
>the lack of belief in something's existence=the belief of something's nonexistence.
I don't have sufficient reason to believe god either does or does not exist, only that I can not know.

[Anonymous No.6198425]

>>6198417
then you're agnostic. glad we got this cleared up.

[Anonymous No.6198427]

>>6198425
no

[Anonymous No.6198433]

>all these people creating an atheist/agnostic dichotomy when they are not mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.6198434]

>>6198427
>but admit that it it is impossible to hold such knowledge'
literally the definition of agnostic.

[Anonymous No.6198435]

>>6198425
>I am mentally retarded

[Anonymous No.6198441]

>>6198435
Take that meme arrow away and ur post is accurate B)

[Anonymous No.6198444]

>>6198419
doesn't mean you believe.
Knowledge\=belief.

I don't know if I'll die tomorrow.
If a tarot card reader told me that i would without any real evidence then of course i wouldn't believe it.
If a doctor told me i would then i would be more inclined to.

[Anonymous No.6198459]

>>6198444
THIS

[Anonymous No.6198460]

>>6198444
>Knowledge\=belief
if you want to bring the knowledge versus true belief debate into this you're starting a whole other discussion

[Anonymous No.6198466]

>>6198460
there is no debate belief is not equivalent to knowledge
belief is holding something to be true regardless of knowledge

[Anonymous No.6198469]

>>6198466
>there is no debate belief is not equivalent to knowledge
So Plato was just killing time?

[Anonymous No.6198472]

>>6198469
>le appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.6198476]

>>6198472
>le meme

[Anonymous No.6198486]

>>6198476
>unable to respond after logical fallacy
typical Christian

[Anonymous No.6198488]

>>6198084
I agree.
I was not giving a logical explanation for the existence of the God I believe in because He is not a god of explanation. If I was looking for a god of explanation, I would be an atheist.

I was explaining really what's called the god of the philosophers, or prime mover, something that we can certainly logically prove, which is exactly why this god is to me, inadequate.

[Anonymous No.6198489]

>>6198486
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6198492]

>>6198486
>since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false
nice fallacy fallacy

[Anonymous No.6198495]

>>6198492
When a conclusion is contingent on a logical fallacy, it is false.

[Anonymous No.6198503]

>>6198495
you said
>there is no debate belief is not equivalent to knowledge
but it was the topic of philosophical debate, appealing to authority or not, this is true

[Anonymous No.6198504]

>>6198492
the entire argument was a fallacy by itself

[Anonymous No.6198507]

>Why do I believe in God?
I believe in God for a multitude of reasons. And while those who don't believe might find this to be a strange statement, it gives me freedom. This is difficult to explain, but others who are religious will know what I'm talking about. I wish I had the words to adequately explain it but I don't. Maybe I can find some text from a theologian or philosopher who can.

>What do I say to those who would belittle me?
Typically nothing. I won't think less of you for not believing, I hope you would do the same. I guess you could say I would turn the other cheek.

[Anonymous No.6198512]

>>6198507
>I won't think less of you for not believing, I hope you would do the same.
how beautiful the world would be if all of the religious and non-religious had this mindset

[Anonymous No.6198554]

Since some important stories and information in the Bible have been BTFO by science do most modern day believers ignorantly think things like the Earth is 6000 years old, or do they believe in something so compromised you can hardly call it Christian?

[Anonymous No.6198555]

>>6198512
Willfully ignorant people don't deserve the same amount of respect as a skeptic. Being condescending or violent towards atheists and theists is obviously stupid and pointless, but that doesn't mean anybody should pretend like they should be thought of as intellectually equal.

[Anonymous No.6198563]

>>6198507
Yes, it gives you Nuremberg Freedom. I'm an atheist, but I think I understand. It gives you a fatalistic/deterministic freedom.

Freedom is slavery, right?

[Anonymous No.6198570]

>>6198512
I wish this as well. There's such a difference between forcing others into religion, and genuine evangelism and discussion.. It reminds me of a quote from my favorite Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
>Christian love draws no distinction between one enemy and another, except that the more bitter our enemy’s hatred, the greater his need of love. Be his enmity political or religious, he has nothing to expect from a follower of Jesus but unqualified love. In such love there is no inner discord between private person and official capacity. In both we are disciples of Christ, or we are not Christians at all.

[Anonymous No.6198576]

>>6198563
>>6198507
And, to be clear, I wouldn't say I think less of any individual for being religious if it doesn't affect their actions in a negative way, I just don't think very highly of religion in general. I don't think very highly of "militant" atheism or pistachio ice cream either.

[Anonymous No.6198578]

>>6198507
Gay
Sounds like you are just a sponge for your culture. I can't take a relativist seriously. Spirituality is developed by critical analysis.

[Anonymous No.6198579]

>>6198570
as an atheist, bonhoeffer is my inspiration as a citizen of the world
>when the wheels of injustice are turning it is our duty to drive a spoke amongst them

[Anonymous No.6198584]

>>6198399
those people are by definition not agnostics.

[Anonymous No.6198587]

>>6198563
Not quite my friend. I can't remember who, but said it, but I believe the quote is, "The man who fears God needs no other master." Its a kind of release from the pressures of the worldly authorities and coercion. But there is also a sort of transcendental freedom. For example when I face what Camus deemed the absurd, I believe I can't derive meaning from it. However, I believe there is purpose, just perhaps a purpose I won't be aware of till I am told by God himself in the next life. There is a sort of freedom in that. However, I haven't dove into the various views on determinism and free will in Christianity yet, there's quite a bit of writings on that. Did that make sense?

[Anonymous No.6198601]

>>6198578
On the contrary, I don't believe you can "logic" your way into true spirituality. There's a point in any given religion when you reach a logical barrier. That is where faith comes into play. Now you make disagree with the notion of faith, but then again most who aren't religious won't see the point of faith. And good lord, if you think you aren't "a sponge for your culture." remind yourself of what website you're on.

[Anonymous No.6198604]

>>6198576
>or pistachio ice cream either.
Fucking dropped.

[Anonymous No.6198605]

>>6198604
this

[Anonymous No.6198606]

>>6198579
Regardless of religious opinion I think most would agree he was truly a great and courageous man.

[Anonymous No.6198841]

>>6198570
>Be his enmity political or religious, he has nothing to expect from a follower of Jesus but unqualified love
Unqualified love, that's what I think of when the Crusades come to mind.

[Anonymous No.6198856]

>>6198841
Were the Crusades justified?

[Sagewise Gamgi No.6198876]

>>6198587
>I'm religious because it helps me sleep at night.

[Anonymous No.6198913]

>>6198601
>>I dont believe you can "logic" your way into true spirituality
Things people who have never studied logic say.

You have to logic to get to the point where you can reject logic

I reject faith because it is useless, like "hope"-- it implies powerlessness, reticence, and groupthink

>>tfw you can't into mysticism

[Anonymous No.6199907]

>>6198283
The guy with the outdated theory of the big bang. Everyone knows who he is.

[Anonymous No.6199931]

Alice believes there are 300 billion or more stars in the Milky Way (call this belief 'starism' for short)

Bob believes there are less than 300 billion stars in the Milky Way; he is an 'a-starist.'

Claudia is agnostic on the number of stars in the Milky Way and thinks we are unable to know the number. Bob tells her to stop sitting on the fence, and that she is an a-starist because she lacks a belief in 300 billion or more stars in the Milky Way. He tells Claudia that her 6-month old daughter Daisy is also an a-starist because she lacks a belief in starism.

[Good+ Bad Feels Thread No.6200351]

I don't really believe in him but I don't deny the possibility for him existing.
I'm an agnostic.
If people are taking the piss out of me for not being athiest I usually pull out some shitty GCSE philosophy argument to shut them up; 'If got doesn't exist, then caused the big bang, what was the original cause of the big bang?" something like that usually shuts them up, surprisingly often too.
Gf is christian; she tries converting me but that hasn't worked yet.

[Anonymous No.6200369]

>>6199931
A christian attempts to speak

[Anonymous No.6200381]

>>6194494

We believe in Satan.

[Mark No.6200387]

>>6200381

It doesn't sound like true belief to me

[Anonymous No.6202030]

>>6194567
Offer the same contract to a theist, but with a million dollars.

[Anonymous No.6202758]

I was debating with someone on /pol/ about this topic earlier.

Here is my position.

I'm not an atheist. I'm like an agnostic leaning pantheist or something. I think there's some kind of divinity, I have no idea where it is, no idea what it is, and I think trying to describe such a being in human language is stupid.

But the reason I still call myself an atheist when dealing with Christians is this:

Their theology is insane!!!

The leaps of logic they go through to try to make Christian theology not seem ridiculous is even more insane. The guy I was debating with earlier, said some shit along the lines of "well Jesus was the soul of God in human body, and was the son of God, and we know all this is true because of the miracles reported in the Bible."

Alright, I guess that's par for the course for /pol/ but COME ON BROS. There's a pretty big fucking stretch to get from "you know the universe seems to follow certain laws, maybe there's a higher power behind all this" to "YUP, BROS, JESUS! LITERAL BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE SECOND COMING!"

Now here's the thing.

When I tried to call them out on all the ridiculousness inherent in this, they said "well God is God he's not bound by logic." But if that's your standard, you can say literally anything, you can argue for the tooth fairy with that kind of debased logic.

So while the New Atheists are flat and superficial and kind of completely ignore the higher non-personal concepts of the divine, come the fuck on. A lot of these Christian clowns really do seem to believe the story literally so this dose of skepticism is at least useful.

[Anonymous No.6202790]

>>6194494
>2015
>not knowing that gods are created by our belief in them
>not knowing that one day, the Christian god will be the deity equivalent of a washed-up movie star addicted to heroin and longing for the good old days

[Anonymous No.6202892]

I believe in God for a number of reasons. A large influence was the religion in which I was raised, (Christianity) which is theistic. If God exists, then it's pretty plausible that this is a legitimate way to know that he exists. Thus unless I beg the question against myself, I see no reason to think this is an intrinsically flawed way to know about God (though I think it's also not complete- God works through human institutions and with human reason to let us grow in faith and understanding).

I am very confident that God exists because of philosophical arguments for his existence as found in, e.g. Anselm and Aquinas. There are versions of the moral, cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments seem pretty sound to me, and all the divine attributes (including, I think, something like the Trinity) can be deduced from working out the implications of these arguments.

Lastly, I suspect that I may be personally predisposed to believe in God. It seems manifestly obvious- indeed, the very possibility of observation suggests to me- that the world is a cosmos, not a chaos, and that in turn suggests Logos that orders things toward their ends.

People that belittle me for my theism I see as unenlightened- even if I am wrong, the philosophical tradition behind my beliefs simply doesn't admit of an easy or flippant refutation, so is intellectually respectable by any measure. If I have the time, I try to outline the broad strokes of the philosophical case for the existence of God, so that at the very least they may see that the belief in God is not philosophically naive.

[Anonymous No.6202902]

i heard angels when i was a kid and thought i was a prophet. i guess god must've changed his mind because i don't get those sort of thoughts anymore, but i hope he'll give me another chance. i want to do well by him.

[Anonymous No.6204306]

>>6202758
>'m not a homosexual. I'm like a hetero leaning pansexual or something

>>>tumblr

[Anonymous No.6204355]

Jesus sends the UFOs

[Anonymous No.6204416]

Because the requirements for there to be existence are the same requirements for there to be God.

>"We live in a cosmic whirlpool that has to have started somewhere, but it's probably just meaningless, and I haven't searched for an answer yet"

[Anonymous No.6204438]

I guess I'd technically qualify as an Atheist, but I haven't really given it much thought.
That being said I find the actual mythos of most religions fascinating to study. Reading the different creation myths of the worlds more popular religions is interesting to learn about.
And no I don't use the term "Myth" to belittle the religion.

[Anonymous No.6204469]

>>6204355
Many accounts of alien abduction bear a striking similarity to pre-industrial and Medieval accounts of time spent in the fairy realms... or, sometimes, to demonic encounters.

[Anonymous No.6204594]

>>6204469
And BOTH of those bear a striking similarity to the NDE.

http://www.near-death.com/notable.html

[Anonymous No.6204883]

>>6195695
You act like Christianity is an original thing. If it's not an original thing then it means it was created somewhere by specific people. But who? And why? If it's not something that existed since the dawn of time then it can't be "the source", meaning it is an amalgamation of things before it. Christianity was originally a Jewish sect; a watered-down version of the Jewish religion to make it easier to swallow for the gentile masses.

Christianity interests me from a historical perspective, but no way would I delude myself into believing it. If it's discipline you want, then there are plenty of better things out there that deal in discipline, but without the blind faith.

[Anonymous No.6206408]

>>6194555
who is this qt3.14?