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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 845 KB, 850x675, lit christposter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6409693 No.6409693[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfO0raZlMCQ

This is how I imagine every single /lit/ Christposter in real life

This guy is the splitting image of them, he even gives the same fucking arguments for the faith and tips his fedora as hard as they do

This is proof that Christposters are forever the hardest tippers

>> No.6409697

literature

>> No.6409708

>>6409697
meta topics about the board are completely within the rules, bruh

>> No.6409716
File: 33 KB, 600x347, John-C-Wright-600x347[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6409716

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/28/politics/why-christianity-is-more-logical-than-atheism/

>There are many brands of atheism, but they all have some points in common. First, one common point is that none have a rational explanation of the objectivity of moral rules.

>Not all cultures agree on what priority to place on various moral rules, but one thing that is so obvious about moral rules is that they are objective. When guilt pricks us, it does not say we betray a matter of taste or opinion; the feeling of guilt is the feeling of having offended a law. When injustice rankles, we do not accuse those who trespass against us of having breached a matter of taste or opinion; we refer to a standard we expect the other to know and acknowledge. We cannot help it.

>In all human experience, everything is open to doubt but this. No man with a working conscience can escape the knowledge. It is the one thing we cannot not know. And yet atheists are at a loss to explain it.

>I do not call atheists immoral, but I note they cannot give a rational reason to account for morality.

>In any atheist worldview, moral laws are an invention of man and serve his contingent purposes, or an imposition of Darwinian survival mechanisms that serve the contingent purposes of the Selfish Gene. Such purposes as the preservation of life or the pursuit of happiness are subjective, hence not laws at all. Whether selected by nature or by man, if moral maxims are selected merely as a means to an arbitrary end, they are merely expedient conveniences.

>If I avoid murder and theft only because this decreases my odds in the lottery of reproduction, then when circumstances arise where murder and theft increase rather than decrease my odds, what reason can any man give me to avoid murder and theft? If I eschew lying only because it causes me self satisfaction to live with a sense of integrity, what reason can any man give me to eschew lying on the day when I discover lying satisfies me more?

>A second common point is that no atheist of whatever school can account for the rationality of the universe: that is, none can account for the fact that the abstractions of math and the concrete things of physics so perfectly happen to match.

>Atheists either must take rationality as a given, or assume that the processes of the universe evolved man to think in a procedure called logic. But if an unthinking Darwinian process formed our thinking process, we have no reason to assume the thinking process is truly rational, as opposed to a merely useful self-deception.

>Again, atheism admits of no supernatural causes or effects or dimension to life, making philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the nature of logic all suspect. These things cannot be a product of a divine decision for the atheist; but neither can any natural process account for reality, truth, logic.

>> No.6409725
File: 199 KB, 625x833, violence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6409725

>>6409716
I don't have a fedora image euphoric enough to capture this sort of christfagging, this is fucking awesome

>> No.6409752
File: 350 KB, 374x366, 1428988592887.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6409752

>>6409716
>>Again, atheism admits of no supernatural causes or effects or dimension to life, making philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the nature of logic all suspect. These things cannot be a product of a divine decision for the atheist; but neither can any natural process account for reality, truth, logic.

>> No.6410159

>christians

lamo

>> No.6410169

>>6409693
>splitting image
son.

>> No.6410173

>>6410169
>being mad about the truth

i thought christians liked that truth shit

>> No.6410180

>>6410173
b8

>> No.6410186

>>6410180
b8

>> No.6410189
File: 8 KB, 204x204, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6410189

>>6409716
>this is what christians actually believe

>> No.6410207

>>6409716
The first point is actually entirely correct, and is a major problem with non-theistic systems of morality.

It completely destroys Sam Harris' wankery, for example.

>> No.6410213

>>6409693
>You can't philosophically deduce yourself to God.

That doesn't make sense. He's just using words he read one time.

>> No.6410215

>>6410207
It's 95% that he claims to be a philosopher but doesn't use rational in regards to the philosophical school of rationalism, which shows that he's not a philosopher at all but a plebeian, posturing retard.

Most atheists are moral relativists

>> No.6410219

>>6410207
>and is a major problem with non-theistic systems of morality.

Why? Morality is subjective. I'm not even worried about explaining the nonexistent "objective" morality.

>> No.6410222

And you what's worse? Now that I can connect the "new christian" idea to him, I'll probably start drifting away from it. Not consciously, it will be totally intuitive.

I'm such an anti-intellectual piece of shit, I only care about image. If it seems that cool people are doing X I'll do it, if it seems that people like this dude are doing it, I'll stop doing it.

>> No.6410223

>>6410213
But he was reading the Summa, that means he's a Qualified™ Philosopher® whose views are indisputably valid and rational and logical and sound.

>> No.6410227

>>6410207
>The first point is actually entirely correct, and is a major problem with non-theistic systems of morality.

You should let the majority of moral philosophers who are atheists and moral realists know.

>> No.6410236

>>6410222
Good, I'll make sure to double emphasize how fedora Christians are to force the board away from that then.

I truly love how polemics, sentiment and peer pressure are the only argumentative forms that work

>> No.6410256

>>6410227
They're not real philosophers, they didn't read the Summa

>> No.6410279

PLEASE make audio webms of the best bits of that video so I can post them 5 times/day for the next two years

>> No.6410321
File: 60 KB, 300x250, reclinedbird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6410321

>>6409693
>J.K. Chesterton
>I hope you've heard of, he's a famous writer

Holy fucking shit, comedy gold

>> No.6410341

>>6410321
I was going to post this.
What an egregious error.

>I was sent to the hospital
>my heart attack was cured by prayer

I wonder if the hospital staff that tended to him knows about this.

>> No.6410345

>>6410207
You're an idiot. Moral realism and atheism are perfectly compatible.

>> No.6410356

>>6410207
To borrow one of Harris's arguments, there is no objective measure for good health. You can't say what an ideal weight is, the perfect heart rate, or blood pressure, etc. And yet, knowing that there isn't an independently verifiable perfect standard for health doesn't mean we can't say that some things are unhealthy and other things are healthy.

Likewise, it may not be the case that there is an objective, perfect morality that defines exactly what action is right in any given circumstance. However, that doesn't mean that we can't say certain things are immoral or moral.

>> No.6410439
File: 15 KB, 426x319, 1427906713371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6410439

Not an atheist but if you can't laugh at your own kind every so often then you're being too soft about it.

Some goes for atheists too.

>> No.6410463

>>6410341
Kek Christians are so ungrateful

>> No.6410468

>>6410356
>To borrow one of Harris's arguments, there is no objective measure for good health. You can't say what an ideal weight is, the perfect heart rate, or blood pressure, etc. And yet, knowing that there isn't an independently verifiable perfect standard for health doesn't mean we can't say that some things are unhealthy and other things are healthy.
What a retarded analogy

>> No.6410483

>>6410468
go on

>> No.6410492

>>6410356
Moral principles have no meaning if they can't be stated lol

>> No.6410495

>>6410215

>Most atheists are moral relativists
Many of the leading neo-Atheist political leaders tend to be incredibly morally absolutist.

>> No.6410517

>>6410495
All political leaders are, because political leaders need to actually answer questions that pertain to real things.

>> No.6410584

>>6410356
>there is no objective measure for good health. You can't say what an ideal weight is, the perfect heart rate, or blood pressure, etc.
Sure there is, it's just relative.

He's just too much of a pussy to admit to being a moral relativist.

>> No.6410597

>>6410584
>not being a moral nihilist

Ayyyy

>> No.6410647

>>6410597
Sorry brah, I'm too much of a christfag for that.

Unless God commanded me to do something amoral obvs.

>> No.6410686

>implying god didn't give you the heart attack because you were being a pretentious neckbeard

>> No.6411208

>>6410647
What action could be amoral? I mean besides making toast.
I think you meant immoral.

>> No.6411212

>>6410686
Ayyyyyy lol funny post mayte

>> No.6411240

>>6410686
HNNNN

>> No.6411243

>>6409693
This guy is pretty dumb, really.

>> No.6411278

>>6411243
Exactly like christposters then

>> No.6411284
File: 80 KB, 500x479, fedorafags.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6411284

>>6411278

>> No.6411291

>>6411284
Dank fucking hat meme you have going on there dude you got any more? Wojak or Pepe in a funny hat?

>> No.6411294
File: 121 KB, 1548x1468, 1427320981639.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6411294

>>6411291
I'm glad you asked. This is the dankest one.

>> No.6411299

>>6411294
Yeah lol now that's what I call a dank meme, thanks for sharing, dank on bro

>> No.6411306
File: 324 KB, 467x590, 1391649953744.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6411306

>>6411299
I have many more.

>> No.6411404

>>6409693
>"wore the atheist uniform, did everything atheist's were supposed to do."

Nobody told him that atheism isn't designed to compete with a 2000 year old moral system.

>> No.6411424

>>6409693
couldn't make it further than 1 minute. fuck.

>> No.6411427

>>6411404
This. I find it absolutely bizarre the Christian and even many atheists perpetuate this idea that there is some culture specifically tied to and perpetuated by atheism in the same way that there is by Christianity. You really are alone out in the cold with only a few philosophers and your own creativity for meaning to guide you. It isn't for everyone.

>> No.6411437

>>6409716
typical, boring, nothing new to see here. I always find it interesting when atheists turn to religion, but the result always disappoints me.

Most likely, this sci-fi writer realized he could have a better career in the christian book world.

>> No.6411465

>You should worship god for worldly benefits.

Total Mammonism.

>> No.6411494

>A second common point is that no atheist of whatever school can account for the rationality of the universe: that is, none can account for the fact that the abstractions of math and the concrete things of physics so perfectly happen to match.
oh my fucking god

this is some grade-a scientism

>> No.6411498

>>6410189
Isn't that the dude from Spacebeard? Why do you have that.

>> No.6411553

>>6411494
>so perfectly happen to match
>perfectly
Since when?

>> No.6411568

>>6411427
There's always Stirner, anon-kun

>> No.6411575

/mu/ is better than you /pol/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5SnOKf7zwc

>> No.6411589

>>6409693
>I had a vision
>not at liberty to discuss

Lol what? It's his vision, why can't he discuss it?

>> No.6411596

The only he still needs to do for his fedora to tip a black hole into the fabric of space and time is namedrop Aquinas and call the Gospels 'eyewitness accounts'

>> No.6411621

>>6411596
You forgot using quantum physics to justify free will

>> No.6411623

>>6411494
He's ecstatic

>> No.6411629

>>6409693
>claims to have read summa
>tempts god

Ayy

>> No.6411749

>>6411629
why is that bad

>> No.6411894

>>6411749
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3097.htm#article2

>> No.6411982

>>6410213
deduce can mean "arrived at" as in arrived at a logical conclusion. his sentence makes sense in all its fedora tipping.

>> No.6411992
File: 718 KB, 536x956, 1423701504355.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6411992

>"hey whats my teleological position?"
>"what kind of hat do you wear?"
>"i-i don't see what that has to d--"
>"WHAT KIND OF HAT FAGGOT!? IS IT A FEDORA?"
>"i-it's more o-of a trilby"
>"FEATHER OR NO?"
>"n-no feather"
>"FUCKING ATHEIST SCUM"

>> No.6411996

>>6411629
He never said tempting god was good, rather it was part of his experimentation with prayer. And in that respect I'd say its a reasonable step; you could easily see your average farm peasant doing such a thing.

>> No.6412024

>>6409693
Why is he "not at liberty to discuss" his visions?

>> No.6412051

>>6409716

So he has a poor understanding of both moral realism and scientific realism.
Wow, surely a great intellectual.

>> No.6412057

>>6409693

>chesterton
>lewis
>good

He really is the average christposter.

>> No.6412109

>>6409693
This guy was a materialist: probably the dumbest, most head-in-the-sand philosophy available, next to Christianity. Actually, next to materialism, Christianity is a step up for him.

Plus, Christians have better potlucks.

>> No.6412129

>>6411982
lol but he's arguing for God, so the sentence can't be sensible

>> No.6412143

>>6412129
Deductive logic is something like 'has to be true' logic. E.g. All cats have tails. This is a cat so it must have a tail.

Inductive logic is 'can be true' logic. E.g. Some cats have fur. This is a cat so it has fur.

He's just saying you can't use deductive logic to arrive at proof of god's existence. There is the one argument that I know of which states that god is perfect and existence is a requisite of perfect so god must exist... But that's not exactly flawless reasoning in favor of christianity.

>> No.6412150

>>6412143
logic can't be used to prove God, because God is illogical himself.

>> No.6412157

>>6412150
I mean.. that's basically what I just said.

>> No.6412160

>>6412157
too many words

>> No.6412170

where do fuck all these guys come from?
Because it's like they dress and shave like that on purpose.

>> No.6412219

>>6412160
Stop shitposting then.

>> No.6412222

>>6412219
you first

>> No.6412455

>>6411494
I guess if he actually knew about these things, he'd do science, not write it.

>> No.6412483
File: 778 KB, 678x960, 1428915832294.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6412483

>>6411992
hat memes are real dank bro

>> No.6412536

>>6412170
>Because it's like they dress and shave like that on purpose.
In Wright's case it is on purpose, as far as I can tell it's a conscious choice of his to combine Catholicism with a fedoric edgy toxicity.

>> No.6412601

>>6412536

So he's being retarded on purpose.
wow, truly a lit christposter

>> No.6412786

>>6412536
those two go together though anon