/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6314300]

Has the ever been a convincing argument that addresses the whole "out of all the Gods that have ever been claimed to exist, how can you only believe in one and none others?"

Has there been any philosophers or just artists in general that have made an intriguing response to this?

It is the one thing I cannot seem to refute, being tied to one specific religion, and claiming it is the one and only, when so many others have existed and are yet to exist.

[Anonymous No.6314302]

Has the ever been a convincing argument that addresses why there needs to be 5 threads about religion on the front pages of a literature board?

[Anonymous No.6314304]

>>6314302

>>Has there been any philosophers or just artists in general that have made an intriguing response to this?

[Anonymous No.6314351]

Monotheistic religions try to get away with it by claiming the others are worshipping the same god, just the wrong way. They dismiss ancient polytheistic ones as being, this is where you may kek, superstition. Polytheistic religions just syncretised &/or recognised the other pantheons without worshipping them.

>convincing
No

>intriguing
Maybe. Watching all you cultists squirm into parodies of logic is sometimes entertaining

[Anonymous No.6314383]

>>6314351
>Monotheistic religions try to get away with it by claiming the others are worshipping the same god, just the wrong way

That always makes me rage.

Also when they dismiss stories of other faiths as myths yet call their own 'metaphors'

[Anonymous No.6314441]

I have a good one: God doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6314449]

>>6314441
>>6314383
>>6314351
FUCKING FEDORASHITS FUCK THE HELL OFF

I HATE FEDORASHITS FO FUCKING MUCH. THEY RUIN EVERYTHING ON /LIT/

NOBODY WANTS YOU HERE. UFCK OFF BACK TO /SCI/

[Anonymous No.6314470]

>>6314449
EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A FEDORA

THAT'S RIGHT: PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE UGLY OR UNPLEASANT. THIS MEANS MY IDEAS ARE CORRECT

HDFGJJKSJGHFKBLGHBLHGHBLGHLBLBLHGH

[Anonymous No.6314471]

No other god spoke to 3 million people in Sinai

[Anonymous No.6314475]

>>6314471
>100% historically accurate

[Anonymous No.6314477]

>>6314475
Muh unbroken chain

[Anonymous No.6314488]

It's called "leap of faith".

[Anonymous No.6314491]

God created a miracle in front of 100,000 fucking people who all witnessed his power EMPIRICALLY . If you don't believe after this you are literally the irrational one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

[Anonymous No.6314493]

There is absolutely no logical reason to believe in any god, but if you don't, you're an IDODIT GAY

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6314494]

>>6314488
And "faith" is called, "not wanting to know".

[Anonymous No.6314495]

>>6314494
*tips fedora

[Anonymous No.6314497]

Muslim argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27jaz

[Anonymous No.6314498]

>>6314449
>>6314470
this is the same person

[Anonymous No.6314503]

>>6314498
No.

[Anonymous No.6314505]

>>6314491

[Anonymous No.6314515]

>>6314494
faith is a particular kind of trust and hope, the highest passion human beings are capable of

from your perspective, what the people of faith know, you don't know. you lack their passion and beliefs, and your lack isn't replaced with any content. more appropriately, it's you who "doesn't know"

[Anonymous No.6314521]

Lots of religions have their own 'miracles' and fulfilled 'prophecies' as well as other unexplained phenomena. These religions are also mutually exclusive, in that they can't all be right. Adherents to one religion will tout these unexplained phenomena as proof of theirs being the one true faith yet dismiss the others as fabrications or "hurr devildidit". All you can really glean from this is that people are shaky as fuck and you should go with faith rather than try to rationalise why your religion is the only true one

[Anonymous No.6314522]

>>6314497
Totally convincing.

[Anonymous No.6314530]

>>6314351
>>6314383
But that's definitely true. All humans are naturally inclined towards God.

The greek philosophers found Him only using their reason.

[Anonymous No.6314531]

>>6314530
But how do you know it's your god

[Anonymous No.6314535]

>>6314531
SHUT UP ATHEIST SHITLORD
STOP OPPRESSING ME

[Anonymous No.6314544]

>>6314521
>>6314493
>>6314505
>>6314475
>>6314470
>>6314441
>>6314383
>>6314351
Please, stop talking about God or religion as if you understand what you're talking about.

Modern lay people, mainly american/english people don't have any idea what is religion because of 500 years of systematic destruction.

God is not a bearded man in the sky, and few people actually believed it in middle ages and in the beginning of the modern era.


God exists, it's a self-evident truth and it's as true as the fact that reality exists.

[Anonymous No.6314546]

>>6314544
>44
nice dubs

[Anonymous No.6314550]

>>6314544
You're missing the point of the thread

>How do you know it's your god and not someone else's

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6314554]

>>6314515
Are you for real?
Alright, I'll assume.
I was a Christian and know damn well what you know. True "faith" is putting trust in something you do not know, like a scientists theory which has yet to be proven or a friend who says he'll pick you up at a specified time.

I don't lack faith in the general sense of the word, but I don't put it in the stupid things that you do. You and Aquinas from that other thread haven't the perspective that I do. You look outside your faith for emptiness, get scared and shut the door before your eyes focus. I know all about it. I've been there.

[Anonymous No.6314559]

>>6314491
The fucking critical evaluation of the event is longer than anything else on the page. Do you even read, nigger?

[Anonymous No.6314560]

>>6314550
If he's omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent then he's God.
No problem here.

There can't be ''other gods'' because the existence of one God annuls the other.


What you are asking us is why we believe in the judeo-christian revelation of God. Well, don't you? I think it's a historical fact, you need to be very ignorant to deny it.

[Anonymous No.6314565]

>>6314560
>What you are asking us is why we believe in the judeo-christian revelation of God. Well, don't you? I think it's a historical fact, you need to be very ignorant to deny it.

3/10, requires more subtlety

[Anonymous No.6314566]

>>6314559
reading anything but the Holy Bible is for homos

[Anonymous No.6314571]

>>6314565
Whoever believes in God feels him and knows him, it doesn't need any proof.

The point is that the christian way is a good way and it works.

[Anonymous No.6314572]

>>6314351

The monotheists who are rational enough to even address the question are the ones rational enough to not be literalistic in regard to their holy texts in the first place. So nothing's gained by asking the question.

What you fucking sperglords need to realize is that there's no rationalizing with religion, and you're just wasting everyone's time by discussing it. Some pedantic pair of glasses isn't going to change anyone's perceptions of religion.

[Anonymous No.6314581]

>>6314572
>there's no rationalizing with religion
Fuck, I'm done.
Only rational beings can have religion, you fucktard.

[Anonymous No.6314583]

>>6314571
ever heard of self-deception?
how do you explain the mystical experiences of different religions? are they also correct?

[Anonymous No.6314585]

>>6314583
They are all deluded by demons except me.

[Anonymous No.6314601]

>>6314583
Yes, anon, you are the apex of humanity, the only rational being to walk on Earth.
All those billions of people who died, societies and instituitions build and empires raised by the name of Christ were all self-decepted people, but YOU, anon, you are the enlightened one, destroying the whole human history in front of your computer using only one argument.

[Anonymous No.6314606]

>>6314601
>if everyone believes it, then it's true
damn...

[Anonymous No.6314607]

>>6314583
Yes, anon, you are the apex of humanity, the only rational being to walk on Earth.
All those people who died, societies and institutions built and empires raised by the name of God were all self-decepted people, but YOU anon, you are the enlightened one, destroying the whole human history in front of your computer using only one argument.

[Anonymous No.6314609]

>>6314607
And here we have a flat-earthist, gentlefolk

[Anonymous No.6314631]

>>6314606
That's not the point, it seems atheists think no one has ever think like them before.

Your ''questions'' are so stupid that ancient people didn't even bother to answer them, but some did, you are just illiterate who can't study before emit opinions.


>>6314609
Flat-earth was a myth, maybe some peasants think it was true.

[Anonymous No.6314700]

>>6314607
>All those people who died, societies and institutions built and empires raised by the name of God
That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The persons and consequences involved with the issue at hand have absolutely nothing, not a single thing to do with the truth value of a proposition.

I was just asking a question, no need to get so defensive.

[Anonymous No.6314703]

>>6314631
>ancient people didn't even bother to answer them, but some did, you are just illiterate who can't study before emit opinions.
damn...

[Anonymous No.6314733]

>>6314300
>"out of all the Gods that have ever been claimed to exist, how can you only believe in one and none others?"

One argument is to look at which religion is the largest and most influential as evidence that its God is the correct one. Christianity wins again.

[Anonymous No.6314736]

>>6314733
>33
Therefore, God exists.

[Anonymous No.6314737]

>>6314736

[Anonymous No.6314748]

>>6314571
>good way and it works

Which is utterly irrelevant if its untrue and there is no evidence to support the existence of its god. Which there isn't. You are glorifying ignorance and irrationality.

[Anonymous No.6314759]

>>6314631
Yes, asking why one particular set of superstitious beliefs with no basis in fact should be considered more valid than all the other baseless superstitions is 'stupid'.

[Anonymous No.6314764]

>>6314759
Confirmed of being barely literate. Read a book on the subject once in a while, nigger.

[Anonymous No.6314779]

>>6314607
>Being this euphoric.
You actually know how to induce the cringe ... unless this is bait ...

[Anonymous No.6314789]

>le gode face

[Anonymous No.6314793]

>>6314779
>implying he isn't making a good point

Yes anon, all those spiritual people throughout history were self-deluded morons who just didn't have science to dispel their petty superstitions or otherwise they would have become enlightened rational atheists and we'd be living on Mars by now!

[Anonymous No.6314794]

>>6314793
>he
kek

[Anonymous No.6314797]

>>6314793
>Yes anon, all those spiritual people throughout history were self-deluded morons who just didn't have science to dispel their petty superstitions or otherwise they would have become enlightened rational atheists
Your bait is actually perfectly reasonable up to there

ambiguous/10

[Anonymous No.6314805]

>>6314794
>>6314797
What do you use to fish for men?

[Anonymous No.6314807]

>>6314805
muh benis u fuggig homo :DDDD

[Anonymous No.6314817]

>>6314764
>read a book

Point me to the book that has 'facts' supporting the existence of a deity.

[Anonymous No.6314828]

>>6314807
ebin

[Anonymous No.6314855]

>>6314300
Well, for the big three western religions, there's proof most or some of the men within the religion exists. We know with certainty Jesus existed, same for Muhammad. Moses there's discrepancies, but at best, you can make your case for his existence, historically. At worst you can go
>lol evidence was just distorted or destroyed but he totally existed.
Outside of that, it depends on what you mean by a 'good argument'

[Anonymous No.6314860]

>>6314855
>55
wow how epic kid

[Anonymous No.6314873]

>>6314855
Proving the people existed does not prove the supernatural stuff is true though.

We know for a fact L.Ron Hubbard existed but that does not mean his cult is talking anything but nonsense or that he was anything other than a fiction writer turned conman. Other religions just get a pass for being older and more popular.

[Anonymous No.6314888]

>>6314855
islam and judiasm aren't western.

[Anonymous No.6314890]

>>6314581
Only rational beings can have literature too, but that doesn't mean that staring at squiggly lines and imagining things that don't exist is a rational act.

[Anonymous No.6314894]

>>6314888
They're western relative to many Indian and Asian religions, and have influenced an immense deal of western culture.

[Anonymous No.6314902]

>>6314888
Neither is that Jew Jesus. Most of the western ones are polytheist.

[Anonymous No.6314932]

First, you sweep away all of the pagan God's by making a theological distinction between the omnipotent, self-moving, self-sufficient Creator who made the world out of nothing, and mere entities of power that were created by Him or merely "emanated" from a pantheistic "All" or "Void". A lot of the pagan gods were simply men of power and influence who came to be worshipped and specified after their deaths.

Then, once you have this theological distinction down, you are left with either the Pantheistic God of the Hindus, Brahmins, Gnostics, Neoplatonists, and so on, from which all things "emanate" by a natural process (God has no say in the matter, he can't help but emanate lesser beings) and the Creator God who created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) and everything in it ex nihilo, as a free act of benevolence (he had a say in the matter, he didn't need to create other beings).

The pantheists distribute divinity across many beings, for they truly believe that many beings are actually of the same substance as the All, God, Brahman. This is why Hinduism has (literally) millions of named God's, billions of you take into account that they think of humans and animals as being gods. Indeed in this kind of Pantheism, there is no ESSENTIAL difference between you and a bit of fabric or a brick wall, because it all emanated from the same source. The Gnostics have a peculiar version of this where everything emanates from the divine source EXCEPT matter, which was made by some idiot of a divinity called the Demiurge. But they still regard Margery human being as emanating from the All (every human spirit that is, the body they consider evil and a prison for the spirit) and as such as belonging to the divine essence.
In the Creator God, NOTHING is divine except God Himself. None of his creation shares in his divinity, as it shares a separate substance that he created. So the point of worshipping the Creator God is to enter into communion with Him where your spirit is satisfied in every way through love of Him, but you and He retain your own unique identities, you are two separate beings loving one and other. Whereas the point of devoting oneself to the Pantheist God is to be subsumed into it, becoming one with its essence, so that you are indistinguishable from it. In other words, the Creator God cleanses, heals, sanctified, and loves you, clothing your individual personality in grace, whereas the Pantheist God absorbs and dissolves you.

Modern society is pantheistic, btw. It's belief in progress and evolution are pantheistic. I remember having that awful realisation one day that the world had been taken over by pantheists. It doesn't bother me though.The world has always been pantheistic, because men unable to wash away their sin and overcome the evil in the world choose instead to abolish themselves entirely by disappearing into a vague oneness with everything which allows them to forget themselves.

[Anonymous No.6314938]

>>6314932
ok

[Anonymous No.6314941]

>>6314932
a lot of misspellings and such in this post
damn autocorrect on this device

[Anonymous No.6314957]

>>6314932
Also, a lot of the pagan gods not only were just men that came to be worshipped, but also stars/planets too. Paganism is philosophical really, it's degenerate religion, a vague mix of animism, idolatry, myth/fable, ancestor worship, and so on.
Doubtless not all pagans were the same. For example, the Hymn of Cleanthes speak of Zeus in a similar way that the Old Testament speaks of the Lord.

[Anonymous No.6314958]

>>6314957
>Paganism is philosophical
unphilosophical*

[Anonymous No.6314977]

>>6314958
What you are doing is called "polishing a turd". Your autocorrect is doing its best to fix your faulty reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6314999]

>>6314932
>It's belief in progress and evolution are pantheistic

Not deities by any sensible definition. I am sick of people like you trying to pull the 'lol atheists are still religious!' argument.

[Anonymous No.6315002]

>>6314932
Then if you want to work out which of the three Abrahamic religions, if any, are true, it's easy:

Christianity is the oldest of the three and Islam is the newest. Christianity is preceded by a long line of prophets from Moses onwards prophesizing a Messiah. The inception of Christianity began with a lot of reported miracles and religious zeal.
The problem with Islam is that there were no prophets that spoke of Muhammad. Islam entirely undoes the point of Christ by relegating him to a mere prophet as opposed to the Incarnate Word.
Judaism is the easiest to dismiss. First of all, it's newer and not older than Christianity. Judaism begins in around the 2nd century AD with the fall of the Second Temple and the end of the Aaronic priesthood that went back to the time of Moses. Judaism is not a religion of a priesthood with temple and sacrifice instituted by and dedicated to God as the religion of Moses and the Israelites was and as the Catholic religion is, but a "religion" based around the interpretation of and instruction in texts by Rabbis (teachers). Neither the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) nor The Tanakh (the Old Testament as a whole) are the most important texts in this tradition. The most important texts are the Talmud/Mishnah which is where the typical Jewish blasphemous attitude comes from, where they make obscene jokes about God. Indeed, the Talmud mocks the prophets of the Old Testament for having the gall to call out the Jews on their impiety, and exalts the Jews above God (e.g. it says that if the Rabbis decide to say something or do something that God ruled on, that the Rabbis are in the right). Also, the Cabalistic texts like the Zohar which come a few centuries later inform Jewish mysticism more than the Torah does. That God has rejected the Jews is stunningly obvious. They even tried to build a Third Temple after the destruction of the Second only for fire from the earth to wreck their project as a sign that God had no intention of allowing them to return. They then spent centuries wandering around aimlessly getting kicked out of Catholic nations countless times for subverting the religion.

[Anonymous No.6315003]

>>6314999
>999
I'll worship these trips

[Anonymous No.6315019]

>>6314999
The belief in progress and evolution is understood in one way by the secular humanists, but it is understood in another by the likes of Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin who spiritualize it. No, neither Darwinism or Marxism are spiritual - they are both materialist evolutionist doctrines. But the "spirit" behind these doctrines is one of pantheism.

Darwin didn't invent evolution. The Hindus/Brahmins did. The Hindu/Brahmin doctrine became popular in European intellectual societies in the 17th and 18th centuries and was eventually revealed to the public by Darwin.

[Anonymous No.6315041]

>>6314999
>I am sick of people like you trying to pull the 'lol atheists are still religious!' argument.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/04/godless-church-services-for-atheists-go-global.html

[Anonymous No.6315148]

>>6314932
>a creator god is more valid than a pantheistic one because i want it to be

[Anonymous No.6315168]

>>6315148

More like:

>religious claims are true because I say so

Or as it's known to laymen: theology

[Anonymous No.6315286]

>>6314890
>but that doesn't mean that staring at squiggly lines and imagining things that don't exist is a rational act.
Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.6315291]

>>6314300
>Has there been any philosophers or just artists in general that have made an intriguing response to this?
Yes. You want babby's first theology lesson? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6315321]

>>6314873
Not saying it is.
He asked why some people choose these Gods out of thousands, so I gave a reason.
Historically, we have factual evidence Hubbard was a conman. He openly admitted he was shaming people on several occasions. Historically, we have factual evidence Jesus existed and said somethings that pissed off some Romans and got him crucified.

[Anonymous No.6315414]

>>6314300
Tradition. If you will worship God, why do so in the tradition of someone else's ancestors? What benefit is there to apostasy if there's no objective way to attribute truth value to other religions compared our own? We know one God exists. So it makes sense to address ourselves towards him as our ancestors have done according to tradition.

[Anonymous No.6315586]

>>6315414
>We know one God exists.

We know no such thing.

[Anonymous No.6316011]

>>6314544
Where we're going we don't need proof.

[Anonymous No.6316062]

The underlying assumption of this question is that all religions are equally likely to be true, which is wrong.
Out of all philosophies that have appeared, how do you choose one? Same principle, but it's obvious not every single theory of philosophy carries the same probability.