/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9245342]

What literature will convince me to convert from Christianity to Atheism?

[Anonymous No.9245354]

>Wanting to be an atheist

Bad taste

[Anonymous No.9245357]

>>9245342
none
only your own retardation could achieve such an incredible feat

[Anonymous No.9245365]

the bible

[Anonymous No.9245371]

heh... you won't believe anymore after these doubles
CHECK EM

[Anonymous No.9245376]

Lee Strobel tells me atheists are just atheists because they want to be bad people. Is this accurate?

[Anonymous No.9245382]

>>9245376
More or less. They like to try and dress it up as a choice made by logic and rationality but in reality atheists just want to live their life answering to nobody. Means they can get away with being as selfish and degenerate as they want.

[Anonymous No.9245402]

>>9245382
>>9245376

thank you for putting to words what I felt.

[Anonymous No.9245408]

>>9245382
I can't tell if you're shitposting, but I kinda agree. I haven't met a single self-proclaimed atheist who wasn't a dickbag in some way.

[Anonymous No.9245409]

>>9245402
fuck god and fuck you

[Anonymous No.9245415]

>>9245357
Basically this

[Anonymous No.9245429]

>>9245342

Read Dawkins xD

[Anonymous No.9245442]

So much shitposting ITT. Why does /lit/ hate atheists so much?

[Anonymous No.9245451]

>>9245442
Because they're self righteous dicks who have a tendency to denigrate the intelligence of people with different belief systems.

[Anonymous No.9245455]

>>9245442
They are the vegans of philosophy

[Anonymous No.9245472]

Ludwig Feuerbach - The Essence of Christianity

Martin Hägglund - Radical Atheism

[Anonymous No.9245622]

>>9245376
>>9245382
Maybe youre baiting, but all youre doing here is circle-jerking yourselves with a self-assuring explanation for why others believe something different than you do. As long as you demonize everyone you disagree with, you will always be crippled in your faculties of reason. And about this in particular - I can tell you with certainty that is not why all atheists believe what they do. Maybe some, but not all, and likely not most.

[Anonymous No.9245646]

>>9245472
>>9245342
A Catholic bishop wrote that if one wanted to get into "true atheism", that is none of that cheap Dawkins or Hitchens crap, then Feuerbach along with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and Sartre are the philosophers one should read.

[Anonymous No.9245927]

Most Christian Apology.

[Anonymous No.9245953]

>>9245342
It all depends on the basis of your christianity. If you base it on philosophical arguments then pic related will do so.

If you base it on Christianity being wholly unique then studying compartive religion will do so.

If you base it on historicity of Bible studying ancient histography will do so.

If you base it on a form of utilitarianism studying Marx and the materialists will do so

If you base it on cultural inertia nothing will do so

If you base it on personal experiance nothing will do so

[Anonymous No.9245959]

>>9245442
Because ragging on Christians is no longer counter cultural.

[LibertyOrDeath !!L9JqUeNpR3I No.9245968]

>>9245442
its so ugly

there's no aesthetics in it

[Anonymous No.9245973]

>>9245451
You say that like you haven't seen a 4chan Christian thread.

[Anonymous No.9245988]

>>9245342
The Bible (NIV translation).

[Anonymous No.9245990]

>>9245342
No particular book. It will happen if God wills it.

[Anonymous No.9246002]

Critique of Pure Reason

[Anonymous No.9246027]

>>9245953
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.9246046]

>>9246002
Except Kant was a devout pious christian. Only God has no place in metaphysics qua the epistemological limits of reason (hence his critique of ontological 'proofs' of God in the part on the transcendental dialectic). BUT the question of God is not out of the question, only it is reserved for practical reason. Hence why God is central in Kant's moral philosophy.

Surely if you ignore everything else Kant has written and only read the first Critique, then yeah, you can see him as an atheist. But its narrowminded and anachronistic to do so.

[Anonymous No.9246071]

>>9246046
>Except Kant was a devout pious christian

More just Christian than devout and pious

[Anonymous No.9246083]

Whoever that fezzy fez guy is that people have posted about on here.

[Anonymous No.9246087]

>>9245342
N

[Anonymous No.9246299]

>>9245342
It's called logic

[Anonymous No.9246353]

>>9245342
agnosticism is the way to go

[Anonymous No.9246414]

>>9245451

Wait. Atheists, or /lit/?

Because you're describing this thread.

Anyway, fuck you. I'm an atheist, and I'm an atheist because there's literally *thousands* of different faiths and its totally retarded to think your sky pixie is the correct one out of all of those. (How's Odin doing these days guys?)

"Oh, all those millions of people were wrong and went to hell before Jesus was even born. But IM different because MY faith is the right one."

Fucking children. Walking through the asylum shows faith proves nothing, bitch.

I actually have some general respect for people who at least convert to a religion though, even if its from atheism. At least they can argue that they didn't just get into their religion because it happened to be what they were taught growing up and obviously 'independently decided' was the one correct faith in the world. At least they tend to have actually thought about the morals of tenets of the religion a little bit.

And - weirdly - I have a huge amount of respect for the real fundamentalists out there. You know, the ones who actually take their religion seriously, follow every single rule no matter how insane and generally act like its still the dark ages.

Sure, they're lunatics. But if you're going to follow a faith, actually follow the faith. If you have a book from the desk of God, you don't just pay lip service to 99% of it because its too inconvenient and the modern age has moved on from it's morals. Its from fucking God.

You don't eat shellfish. You shave your pubic hair. You stone the fucking gays. Because that's what your god told you to do.

Sure, other people like me will call you crazy and evil. But you're keeping to your actual religion instead of a bastardized modern version of it.

Fundamentalists are crazy, but at least I can respect their faith.

[Anonymous No.9246417]

>>9245371
Took me a few years but I finally finished reading these tomes. Now let's see the true ... power of anime.

[Anonymous No.9246419]

A history book.

[Anonymous No.9246459]

>>9246414
>I'm an atheist and I'm not a prick who denigrates other people because of their beliefs!
>*Goes on to write a large autistic rant about the standard atheist strawmen*
I've got fedora bingo here.
"Sky fairy/wizard" check.
"How do you know your religion is the right one!?" check
"You're crazy and/or belong in an asylum!" check

Thanks for going ahead and proving why you're cancer.

[Anonymous No.9246471]

>>9246459

I used to find the fedora thing annoying. Now i realise its basically just a tantrum of 'WAAAH I HAVE NO ARGUMENTS! WAAAH"

And yeah, fundamentalists who want to kill people for being gays are crazy and belong in prison or an asylum. What a strange and alien viewpoint that is weirdly also held by most civilized justice systems.

[Anonymous No.9246486]

>>9246471
All I said was that atheists tend to be disliked because they're self righteous, arrogant and intolerant of belief systems other than their own. Which you demonstrated beautifully by rushing in here and having an autistic fit over how superior you are to other people who believe different things to you.

The fedora thing is just convenient because nobody made atheists posts their disgusting neckbeards overlaid with cringy quotes. They did it themselves with no coercion whatsoever. It's just an expedient way of exposing that these people who assert their intellectual superiority because they read pop sci and aren't religion, are actually nobodies who cling to that idea because they base their entire self worth on it.

Again, what were you hoping to prove by trying to argue against >>9245451 by writing a huge wall of text about how euphoric you are? Don't you realize you just proved the point?

[Anonymous No.9246530]

>>9245342
>What literature will convince me to convert from Christianity to Atheism?

op-eds from buzzfeed and huffingtonpost

[Anonymous No.9246572]

>>9246486
>Don't you realize you just proved the point?
I don't believe he (or any atheist) has any amount of self-consciousness, no.

[Anonymous No.9246579]

>>9246486
>All I said was that atheists tend to be disliked because they're self righteous, arrogant and intolerant of belief systems other than their own.
The hilarious thing is this is exactly what theists on 4chan are like, including you, and it's exemplified by the fedora meme.

[Anonymous No.9246580]

[Anonymous No.9246585]

>>9246572
Lol irony at its finest

[Anonymous No.9246588]

>>9245959

Pretty much this. The fedoracore atheist meme has crested. How many of the anti-atheist shitposters are actual Christians, or otherwise religious, who knows?

[Anonymous No.9246593]

>>9245342
A.A. Lewis

[Anonymous No.9246600]

>>9245342
Any book where someone is willing to subject their ideas to an adult level of scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.9246618]

A god could exist, just not the ones we worship.

[Anonymous No.9246636]

>>9245354
This, desu.
Why the hell would you ever want to lose your pure belief in a afterlife and your solid foundations for ethics, morality and aesthetics?
Do you even realize how much any atheist thinker struggle to reach even the most obvious conclusion?

Keep your christianity and become an erudite.

>>9245442
Because you're talking about atheists on 4chan/reddit/twitter/fb/tumblr, plagued by scientism and corrupted by pseudointellectuals such as Dawkins, NDT and Harris. They're the equivalent of christian soccer moms.

Atheism is a complex problem which bears vaste implications (that should put some modesty into your brain), yet most atheists can't raise above the overused ''wow are you believing in space daddy? lol jesus was a zombie'' trope.

[Anonymous No.9246650]

>>9246636
>yet most atheists can't raise above the overused ''wow are you believing in space daddy? lol jesus was a zombie'' trope.

Why do you think most posters here on on either side of that bigoted coin? Christians here fall into the same trap of believing atheism has no rational legitimacy and is instead just a mental problem or condition to be treated - ie the exact reasoning used by fedoras.

[Anonymous No.9246658]

>>9246650
It wasn't an apology for Christianity, I was just explaining to that guy why atheists are a meme on 4chan.
That said, I agree with you, most people's (probably us included) opinions are completely unexamined.

[Anonymous No.9246659]

Believe or don't. Who gives a shit? It's the prisoner's dilemma.

[Anonymous No.9246660]

>>9246636

To be fair, most religious people can't raise an argument beyond "it's easier and it's how I grew up", either.

[Anonymous No.9246663]

>>9246660
To be fair, we mock those people too.

[Anonymous No.9246665]

>>9246663
We don't do it often enough, and whenever we do it's invariably met with *tips fedora* memes.

[Anonymous No.9246680]

>>9246663

Sure, but mockery is the overly simple way to begin with, and right now we're discussing the current climate on 4chan, where theism has somehow become the "obvious, rational choice".

[Anonymous No.9246686]

>>9245342
I never have understood religion. I've always had people trying to convince me how they preach peace and pacifism, but easily enough I contest that religion has objectified, demonized and harassed more than it has helped. Sure you may go to the homeless shelter and feed the poor, but at the end of the day you'll go back to your house and sleep in a bed whereas they can't. Or perhaps you'll continue the never-ending trips to Africa to try and sway people from their culture under the pretenses of housing projects and support which obviously comes with the ideologies of whoever-the-fuck goes there. Religion I feel has strayed from being a template for how someone should set their morals and act in a society and has evolved into determining how someones entire life and devotion will be and gives someone and ultimatum versus a choice. It's interesting how many people praise the morals but use religion's grey-area as a blanket to spread influence the same way a country expands territory, with it's logic I feel it can be coherent but the amount of those who are unwilling to listen to a different perspective (of course this doesn't just apply to religion as it is a personable trait itself, however prominent in religion). I'm in a bad place anons, I just wish I could die while I'm asleep one of these days. Thanks for letting me vent, have a good day.

[Anonymous No.9246689]

>>9246414
>Sure, they're lunatics. But if you're going to follow a faith, actually follow the faith. If you have a book from the desk of God, you don't just pay lip service to 99% of it because its too inconvenient and the modern age has moved on from it's morals. Its from fucking God.

>You don't eat shellfish. You shave your pubic hair. You stone the fucking gays. Because that's what your god told you to do.

>Sure, other people like me will call you crazy and evil. But you're keeping to your actual religion instead of a bastardized modern version of it.

Do you have any idea what theology, exegesis, and hermeneutics are? Or do you believe extremely literal readings of religious texts are the only correct way to understand them? Because it sounds like that's what you're arguing, which makes sense if you're an atheist who has no interest in religion other than briefly scanning the Bible and forming snap judgments about its main tenets are.

I'm not even religious, but ignoring the metaphorical and allegorical aspect of religious texts and instead treating them as "legal code + origin stories" is dumb.

[Anonymous No.9246703]

>>9245376

It seems that way. Every atheist that I know of is a sexual deviant of some sort.

[Anonymous No.9246708]

>>9246636
>your solid foundations for ethics, morality and aesthetics?
This is a dumb reason to be religious. Atheists assume that religion is a manmade creation, and that therefore, all of the moral and ethical rules that come with religion are arbitrary choices made by people. There is no reason an atheist couldn't decide to just follow the same arbitrary set of rules. The justification that "God created these rules" simply isn't needed.

[Anonymous No.9246776]

>>9246703

>implying sexual deviancy has an inherent moral or ethic value

[Anonymous No.9246788]

>>9246776
That's what the vast majority of functioning societies and working systems of morality and ethics imply

[Anonymous No.9246793]

>>9245455
>Atheists especially new atheists actively want to fuck with another group
>Vegans just want animals to be left alone if we're in situations where we don't have to eat them for food.

I know this is bait but at least be original.

[Anonymous No.9246796]

>>9246788

Only because it pleases peoples' comfort zones. It has the same origin as etiquette and general savior faire; to make things neat and simple.

The difference is that we're expected to have our sex in private, and something that only affects its willing participants can't be attributed with any clear morals or ethics.

[Anonymous No.9246798]

>>9245382
What would you say to me then? Because I think theres a lot of value in Christian doctrine and I would say that I follow it, I just don't believe in God because there is not enough evidence to support his existence. By that definition I'm an atheist. The moral argument is out of the equation for me.

[Anonymous No.9246814]

>>9246793
>if I put the word "just" in here, it will make my statement seem not as bad

[Anonymous No.9246816]

>>9246798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[Anonymous No.9246826]

>>9246796

>and something that only affects its willing participants can't be attributed with any clear morals or ethics

There was a case in Germany where a man consented to allowing another man cut off his penis and eat it. Do you think this is morally acceptable behavior?

[Anonymous No.9246829]

>>9246826

If he wanted to have his penis severed and eaten and was legally able to consent (not affected by psychosis or drugs, etc), then yes. He made his own decision and had it fulfilled, morals and ethics don't enter into it.

[Anonymous No.9246830]

>>9246708
>There is no reason an atheist couldn't decide to just follow the same arbitrary set of rules.

Being a christian implies the belief in a vast array of metaphysical statement. The most direct implication that stems from being an atheist is the complete scepticism towards those narratives.

Now, some atheists may just ignore this conundrum and chose to believe in ethics and morals, but in my opinion this behaviour directly goes against the reasons with which they justify their atheism.

>The justification that "God created these rules" simply isn't needed.
Of course, but suddenly you don't have any justification at all for those systems. You can chose to follow them, but that would be as arbitrary as believing in God.
This does not discredit the atheist choice (I'm an atheist myself), but should still be a source of confusion for any thinker that deems himself as rational.

What I'm saying is that saying ''dude just believe in ethics'' does not cut it when my initial position is one of complete rejection (or seemingly so) of almost any metaphysical statement.
A good atheist, imho, should overcome this absolute empiricism. Moral and ethical realism is a thing, and does not require any sort of religious sentiment, yet the education needed to grasp these concepts is anything but trivial.
To this day I'm still deeply concerned about the nature of the choice I make.

[Anonymous No.9246841]

>>9246829

And some atheists wonder why normal people feel uncomfortable around them. I don't want to associate with anyone who thinks its okay to cut off another mans penis for sexual pleasure. Your moral compass is broken and you're capable of justifying all sorts of horrible things.

[Anonymous No.9246848]

>>9246829

>read this
>tfw this guy >>9246830 is actually right

You're a failure, my friend. This is why atheism is slowly but surely becoming a meme even on atheist safe spaces such as 4chan.

[Anonymous No.9246854]

>>9246841

I'm not even an atheist, and those "horrible things" would only be horrible to an outsider. If some group of mad yokels want to gather into a cabal and dance naked under the moonlight as they carve their own bodies up and chant blessings to Kim-Jong Un, while leaving the entire rest of society alone, then let the poor waterheads do that. Right and wrong, good and evil, stem from what you impose upon others.

>>9246848
Again, I'm not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.9246861]

>>9246854
>Again, I'm not an atheist.

What religion do you believe in?

[Anonymous No.9246866]

>>9246686
Not a bad post, anon
7/10

I partially disagree tho

[Anonymous No.9246869]

>>9246861

Doesn't matter, and I'm not going to have a sub-discussion started over it, but suffice it to say that it's not one that ENDORSES cutting people's cocks off. However, I have my own perception of right and wrong, and it's based on free will and the effect you have on others.

[Anonymous No.9246870]

>>9246861

He worships man. He's a hedonist first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.9246873]

>>9246870

You know nothing about me. Argue my standpoint, not my person.

[Anonymous No.9246874]

>>9246814
I'll even take out the just then

Vegans want the precise opposite of what atheists want, and as I specified, particularly new atheists. Atheists want to harass, vegans want a group left alone.

[Anonymous No.9246877]

>>9246869
>However, I have my own perception of right and wrong
This is not allowed in any monotheistic religion.
Just tell us if you're following a monotheistic religion.

>and it's based on free will and the effect you have on others.
Uh, I guess you're following a Eastern one.

[Anonymous No.9246889]

>>9246873

There is no arguing with somebody that thinks it's okay to cut somebodies penis off for sexual pleasure.

[Anonymous No.9246892]

>>9246829
>what if they constent tho

[Anonymous No.9246893]

>>9246877

There is no organized religion whose moral compass is wholly compatible with modern society. Across my experiences in life, I eventually came to the conclusion that a perfect moral system is impossible beyond "don't make victims of people". Pre-marital sex, certain foods, alcohol, gambling... There are many things that are forbidden within major religions, yet few people would argue that you can't be Christian if you sleep with your girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.9246896]

>>9246841
>>9246848
>>9246870
>>9246889
>dude, you're wrong because, like, you're messed up in head, man

This is the extent of a religious person's ability to argue, everyone.

[Anonymous No.9246897]

>>9246889

That's you giving up. Tell me why it's WRONG to cut off a willing person's penis, beyond "it makes me feel bad".

[Anonymous No.9246908]

>>9246874
Wanting a group to be left alone implies picking and harassing an antagonist group that *doesn't* leave said group alone. In the case of vegans, this antagonist group is pretty much everyone who eats meat (aka normal people).

[Anonymous No.9246912]

>>9246893
>few people would argue that you can't be Christian if you sleep with your girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.9246918]

>>9246908
not inherently. You can want someone to be left alone simply by actively disengaging with the antagonist group as much as possible you don't have to harass them at all.

[Anonymous No.9246919]

>>9246896
>say fucked up shit
>people complain without iron-clad, fully logical arguments

>SEE? YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS GUYS? LET ME BE FINE WITH PEOPLE CUTTING THEIR DICKS FOR SEXUAL PLEASURE

[Anonymous No.9246925]

>>9246908
>(aka normal people)
Is there any other way faster to discredit yourself than frame your argument with 'NORMAL' as the basis. The entire basis of philosophy is questioning what is normal, acceptable.

[Anonymous No.9246930]

>>9246919

I never brought up the extreme case of penis-cutting, someone else did. I merely stated that from my point of view, it isn't inherently right and wrong. Same with suicide, because every person owns their life and has a right to their own death.

[Anonymous No.9246932]

>>9245342
As an atheist: don't. Remain in your peaceful illusion of a meaningful existence and life after death. Avoid the gripping terror a while longer.

[Anonymous No.9246935]

>>9246908
I don't see why you guys are putting a continuum between veganism and atheism.
Atheism finds his necessity, most of the time, in gnoseological arguments, while veganism finds its foundations in ethical ones.

It makes sense to be a militant vegan in a nation in which eating meat is normal, it makes less sense being a militant atheist in a secular nation.

[Anonymous No.9246936]

>>9246930
Dude that's just, like, fucked up. lol. I don't even have an argument, man. You're wrong because I say so.

[Anonymous No.9246942]

>>9246936

Guess we're done, then.

[Anonymous No.9246954]

>>9246942
Not that guy, here's my argument:
chances are that if you want to cut your dick you're suffering from some sort of mental illness, which could be cured.
Since your agency could be hindered doing nothing about that guy is no more a morally neutral stance.
A moral person would try to help that guy either by denouncing him to the police (which is something you can do) or pay for the (hypothetical) drugs that could save his penis and (Eventually) even his life.

What about this?

[Anonymous No.9246964]

>>9245342

You lose your faith and don't substitute it with another faith, that's it. The rest is just internet arguments to entertain oneself.

[Anonymous No.9246969]

>>9246002
Fuck off Kant, or rather, Cant.

[Anonymous No.9246971]

>>9246954

Of course. I presented the hypothetical scenario that he was of sound mind and unaffected by drugs or other psychotropics. If we assume that he was suffering from a mental illness (and I won't accept that his choice MUST mean that he did), then it becomes an entirely different scenario. Then he becomes a man in need of help, not a man whose fondest dream happens to be having his cock eaten.

[Anonymous No.9246976]

>>9246964
Can you truly rid yourself of all faith?

[Anonymous No.9246985]

>>9246976
No, but there are plenty of things even you don't have faith in

[Anonymous No.9247004]

I'm a virgin and i'm not a believer, imagine what I would be if also would believe. I'd be a straight up wizard.

[Anonymous No.9247009]

>>9246976

I mean faith in the sense of religious faith. That you can lose. I did.

[Anonymous No.9247333]

>>9246925
Dis

[Anonymous No.9247347]

>>9245342
Once you've realized Jesus is the way and/or contacted Higher Intelligence , you can't go to atheism.

The best you could do is pull a Socrates and claim to be more ignorant then fall into confused agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.9247356]

>>9247347
But this usually only happens with seekers who come into the faith. I have no idea how faith through dogma can be satisfying, unless it provides an easy script to a decent life.

[Anonymous No.9247381]

>>9247347
history has proven you wrong

[Anonymous No.9247394]

Reason #1
Christianity is slave morality
Reason #2
The religious world view contradicts what we know about the world

[Anonymous No.9247409]

If you're reading Aquinas, I doubt you could be convinced by atheism

[Anonymous No.9247428]

Just read the bible. It's worth doing anyway because it's an important book, very influential and culturally relevant, and any intellectually honest person will not be a Christian after reading it all the way through

[Anonymous No.9247464]

>>9246830

What are the benefits of moral/ethical realism? They seem all rhetorical to me. It's nice to be able to say simply "that is wrong" when you're trying to get somebody to stop an objectionable behavior.

Rationally speaking though, there are no benefits. Moral realism is simply incorrect, you can't derive an ought from an is. Humans have expectations of each other, and they have averse emotional responses to the breaking of these expectations.

It would be better for society to just bite the bullet and come to terms with the fact that morality is emotional.

[Anonymous No.9247491]

You don't "convert" to atheism, it just happens, usually slowly. You stop believing in magic and stop trusting religious sources.

There's no reason to want to be atheist in our society. In the real world, if you're religious, atheist professors, teachers, and business associates you meet will give your beliefs a wide berth and respect however you worship if you express belief.

Expressing atheism on the other hand will get you, at best, a "me too" from your fellow atheists at university, but more likely, it will hurt your religious with religious business associates and other religious people in your social circles.

Religious people are very insecure about believing in fairy tales so they need constant reinforcement from all sides that this appropriate behavior for them.

It's best to just pretend you are religious for their sake. They will be happier, you will be happier. And as a side benefit, humoring religion will give you a better familiarity with an important part of western literature

[Anonymous No.9247495]

>>9247491

>hurt your religious

Supposed to be hurt your relationships

[Anonymous No.9247518]

>>9245342
Any book on Biblical textual criticism.

[Anonymous No.9247588]

>>9247347
>>9247356
I hope you've read Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.9247590]

>>9247381
You have to elaborate...

[Anonymous No.9247598]

>>9246636
>Do you even realize how much any atheist thinker struggle to reach even the most obvious conclusion?
That's what happens when you're doing real philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9247607]

>>9247491

Being right is more important than being liked, though. I know that this will be dismissed as an autistic sentiment, but it's true. Still, I understand what you're getting at.

The only reason I don't go edgier in private life is because I have a good relationship with my mother and I don't want to alienate her. I don't care about the feelings of anybody else.

[Anonymous No.9247609]

>>9245953
Good post.

[Anonymous No.9247610]

Read Nietzsche.

If you have above average IQ your christianity should be washed away like a shit stain from your soul

[Anonymous No.9247643]

>>9245953
AYY, that's pretty good

[Anonymous No.9247650]

>>9247607
>He's confident that he's right
XD

[Anonymous No.9247652]

>>9245342
Just read this thread.

[Anonymous No.9247670]

>>9247491
>Expressing atheism on the other hand will get you, at best, a "me too" from your fellow atheists at university, but more likely, it will hurt your religious with religious business associates and other religious people in your social circles.
I don't think people care that much, and this is as someone living in the southern US. The only person I've known who it really mattered to was over the age of 80 and educated people are in general more tolerant than average about this kind of thing. I'll concede that there are times and places where the disadvantages of being atheist (or anything outside the mainstream) are severe enough to follow your policy, but I don't think the current free world is one of them.

[Anonymous No.9247675]

>>9247650
>he seriously thinks there's a decent chance a skydad might exist
ayylmao

[Anonymous No.9247691]

>>9245342

I am not an atheist, I believe in a God, but I do not believe in the Abrahamic versions.

[Anonymous No.9247692]

>>9247610
And then read Milton to return dutifully to your christianity.

[Anonymous No.9247699]

>>9247691
>le eastern religion is deep xd
Kys immediately

[Anonymous No.9247717]

>>9247699

>Literally inserting words into what I never said.

kys, I'm at white supremacist, not a weebo.

[Anonymous No.9247729]

>>9245371
>>9246417

You are both failures. Neck yourselves, please.

[Anonymous No.9247738]

>>9246798
i"d call you a cuck faggot

[Anonymous No.9247748]

>>9245342
Read the Bible. The stupidity is palpable once you realize people actually believe that shit

[Anonymous No.9247790]

What the hell do you mean with "I want to be an atheist"?

>>9245953
Seconding this.

>>9245968
What are you talking about? Atheism is not about aesthetics, just about not believing in gods. Different atheists can have completely different aesthetics.

>>9246414
You are one of those retards that give us atheists a bad name. Can't you see that all this surgence of neo-Christianity is a consequence of your vulgar, retarded and cheap neo-atheism? Fuck you all for the monster you have created.
Also, I like how neo-atheists talk about their stance being based on "reason" and "logic", and then they say things like:
>There are a lot of religions, therefore none can be true!
>Miracles can't happen because they are against the laws of nature!
>There is no wizard in the sky!
However, when they come across actual teology and not just popular religion, they just dumb it down and claim victory.

[Anonymous No.9247814]

>>9246680
Wtf are you talking about? Practically nobody except some /pol/ shitters are unironically Christian.

[Anonymous No.9247884]

>tfw people on /pol/ and /int/ assume I'm Muslim because of my flair
>challenge me to a debate
>give up as soon as I say I'm an atheist and start spamming fedora memes

[Anonymous No.9247963]

It's useless to be an atheist if you're not gonna follow it up with the materialist conception of history and a critique of the capitalist mode of production. Socialists were serious about their religious criticism and are worth reading unlike contemporary neoliberal shitheads.

[Anonymous No.9247980]

>>9247814

"/pol/shitters" are the majority on basically every single board at this point

[Anonymous No.9248005]

>>9247814
There are a number of sincere Christians right here on /lit/, or there used to be.

[Anonymous No.9248028]

>>9245342
>>9246932
As a guy who's been christian, atheist and now formed my own modernized view of religion by exploring world religions and philosophies, I'd say that atheism is a right way you should be going, but it shouldn't be the end of your religious journey. Use atheism to remove the impurity of christianity from your mind, but don't stop there. Explore and study. But keep in mind, that every religious text is written by human. For best spiritual growth, you have to forge your own religious views.

[Anonymous No.9248045]

>>9247980
>tfw the most "liked" comments on the youtube Tannhauser Overture are "when will my brothers finally awake?" and "will you die for Europa?"

It's not just 4chan. The memes are taking over, Baudrillard, Debord, and Canetti were right

[Anonymous No.9248051]

>>9247884
>/pol/
>/int/
>people

[Anonymous No.9248068]

>>9247963
What was Marx's critique of religion, other than slogans like, "opiate of the masses" and the standard German Idealist doctrine that God exists only in the mind of man?

Didn't he say this, "The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint are not deserving of serious examination."?

[Anonymous No.9248085]

>>9248068
Read Marx and you'll find out.

Fair warning, he was a serious autist who couldn't handle constructive criticism

[Anonymous No.9248107]

>>924806
Start here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

[Anonymous No.9248172]

>>9248068
That quote is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.9248228]

>>9247491
Not sure if serious. If you express publicly you're religious, you're going to get ostracised by society. Especially if you're Christian (for some reason the Western World has more tolerance for stuff like buddhism, probably because they consider it more a "phase" ie "im le spiritual" than an actual religion). The difference is atheists will never claim it to your face (other than full fedore tier atheists), because they believe themselves to be empathetic enlightened edgelords, but they'll put you into a different mental compartment.

[Anonymous No.9248358]

>>9247980
/Pol/ cancer has become mainstream

[Anonymous No.9248439]

>>9247394
>taking biblical realism seriously
>being this obviously an amerifag (once) proddie
>failing to apprechiate the beauty of the sacred texts and thinking all text has to be "TRUE"
>muh neecheee meemee
>>>rebbllit dot com

seriously tho anon I worry for your eternal soul

[Anonymous No.9248495]

>>9248068
What Marx actually meant is that religion keeps people stupid just like drugs keep people stupid.
This quote is often misinterpreted by people who actually read Marx as being about the generational suffering of the working class and how religion is often one of the few narrative structures with the ability to alleviate that profound suffering and how any attempt to take it away would be as cruel as taking morphine away from a dying man.
It's nice to see someone besides myself with the intellect and wisdom to comprehend the depths of German Idealism.

[Anonymous No.9248595]

>>9246866
Thank you, anon. I was pretty tired when I wrote that so I'm not surprised it may not be completely coherent. I'm glad your opinion differs from mine, I'd rather someone have their own thoughts and opinions about all this

[Anonymous No.9248771]

>>9245953
>If you base it on Christianity being wholly unique then studying compartive religion will do so.
That is where you wrong friend.

[Anonymous No.9248788]

>>9246796
>Only because it pleases peoples' comfort zones
>only
You used that word only because it tickles your comfort zone.

[Anonymous No.9248794]

>>9245953
Can you base theism on utilitarianism? Sounds like satanism to me. Demiurge and all that.
>If you base it on philosophical arguments then pic related will do so.
Is that book capable of undermining all of theistic philosophy?

What if I base it on the fact that I am, therefore God?

[Anonymous No.9248798]

>>9246414
>I'm an atheist because there's literally *thousands* of different faiths
There are thousands of different paintings and laws, too. Some are accurate, some are correct, some are timeless.

[Anonymous No.9248960]

>>9248771
t. someone who probably didn't study comparative religion or, if did so, did it through extremely distorted and judgmental lenses.

[Anonymous No.9249258]

>>9247729
>71
>17
when combined..... DOUBLE DUBS

[Anonymous No.9249262]

>>9246798
>I just don't believe in God because there is not enough evidence to support his existence
HAHAHAHahahAHAhshHA

[Anonymous No.9249358]

>>9248794
>Can you base theism on utilitarianism? Sounds like satanism to me. Demiurge and all that.

Its a very common argument for all kinds of beliefs - A society which produces art this good and societies this good must surley have the true belief or ideology-

>Is that book capable of undermining all of theistic philosophy?

Not sure if it could do it based on all understandings but it certainly covers all the major ones that you encounter in Western Philosophy and is the best collection of arguments you will find that is schollarly and accessible.

>What if I base it on the fact that I am, therefore God?

Are you refering to the argument by design?

[Anonymous No.9249382]

>>9248798
The issue is that accepting one tends to be very arbitrary and subjective matter.

Eg my divine mysteries are your religions contradictions

or your cultures moral values are just a revolt against my objecitve universal one

+ If you claim there is one universal and understood human nature and millions of people exist with very different ones it tends to refute your claim.

[Anonymous No.9250192]

>>9245342
If you won't be triggered by the debauchery, and since no one else has mentioned him, the Marquis de Sade offers a few interesting points against theism throughout his works.

"Oh, Juliette! forget it, scorn it, the concept of this vain and ludicrous God. His existence is a shadow instantly to be dissipated by the least mental effort, and you shall never know any peace so long as this odious chimera preserves any of its prize upon your soul... The very conceiving of this so infinitely disgusting phantom is, I confess it, the one wrong I am unable to forgive man"

[Anonymous No.9250209]

>>9245342
If you want to be "converted," you're not looking to be meaningfully atheistic, you're looking for a secular religion where some other notion like "Man," "Society," or "Freedom" takes the place of "God."

In which case, just read some trash like Dawkins or to a lesser degree Hitchens (I mean less trash, not less religiously atheistic)

[Anonymous No.9250287]

>>9246471
>yeah, fundamentalists who want to kill people for being gays are crazy and belong in prison or an asylum.

I'm an atheist an I think that homosexuality should be a capital offence. There are entirely secular reasons to be "homophobic".

[Anonymous No.9250296]

>>9250287
>I'm an atheist an I think that homosexuality should be a capital offence.
If you were any edgier, you'd be a ball of shit-covered razor blades.

[Anonymous No.9250305]

>>9250296
How is that edgy? Homosexuality is still punishable by death in a lot of countries and used to be a capital crime in the West for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.9250306]

>>9245342
What is a god ?

[Anonymous No.9250324]

>>9250305
It's edgy because you're not content to silently judge them and condemn them to hell like a Christian, you actively want to kill them.

I look forward to your justification as to why "homosexuals" ought to be put to death.

[Anonymous No.9250329]

>>9250287
>There are entirely secular reasons to be "homophobic".
Like?

[Anonymous No.9250471]

>>9247748
This. I grew up in a Christian household, with a large section of my extended family being evangelical Christians. I really enjoyed the sense of togetherness that came with being a part of the church, but their backwards views on reality turned me away from actually believing anything they do. I don't have anything against people choosing to be religious, but I just can't be.

[Anonymous No.9250498]

>>9250305
>I think people should be put to death if they want to stick their penis in things most men don't want to stick their penis in

There is no way for this viewpoint to not be edgy as all fuck.

[Anonymous No.9250572]

>>9250329
Not my belief but you can just dislike gay people becasue you find them annoying or whatever.

[Anonymous No.9250577]

>>9250572

But then it's far more likely that what you dislike isn't "gay people" but "obnoxious people".

[Anonymous No.9251805]

>>9245342
>Thinks reading a book can definitively convert anyone
You need to seek a broader range of experience to come to any conclusions about spirituality.

[Anonymous No.9251823]

>>9251805
Yee. Especially psychedelics!

[Anonymous No.9251826]

>>9250572
>I'm annoyed that these people are attracted to people of the same sex.
Ebin simply ebin.

[Anonymous No.9251853]

>>9250329
Like fags being hedonists.

[Anonymous No.9251858]

>>9247963
Marx knew that if people could strive for the transcendental, or took subjectivity seriously his dialectal materialism falls flat.

The best he could muster was
>LMAO look at these dumb dumbs, feeling good about themselves in spite of my telling them that they should be full of resentment
>Better set up a strawman equating religion to useful painkillers, that'll show 'em

[Anonymous No.9251863]

>>9251853
And straight people aren't?

[Anonymous No.9251865]

>>9247814
Prove it

[Anonymous No.9251870]

>>9251863
Not to the same degree, no. At the moment lots of straight people are trying really hard to match them, that's for sure, but they still don't come close.

[Anonymous No.9251880]

>>9247963
>it's useless to be an atheist if you don't believe in bad economics
No, anon.

[Anonymous No.9251881]

>>9251863

Not every straight person is a hedonist. Every single gay person is.

[Anonymous No.9251892]

>>9251870
>but they still don't come close.
Are you sure?

>b-but gay pride parades!
Yeah, straight people parade around being wanton degenerates as well. It's called Saturday night.

[Anonymous No.9251896]

>>9251881
>Every single gay person is.
I'm not.

[Anonymous No.9251907]

>>9251892
>Are you sure?
Yes. Partner count, recreational drug use rates, prevalence of extreme fetishes, prevalence of mental and physical diseases, none of these are even remotely the same in the two groups, gay men completely overshadow straight men in each of those.

[Anonymous No.9251921]

>>9251907
>straight men
Wew, I was mainly talking about women.

[Anonymous No.9251938]

>>9251921
Same thing for straight women.

[Anonymous No.9251952]

>>9251896

If you engage in gay sex you are. You've taken the natural rationally known purpose or telos of sex which is procreative and replaced it with pleasure. Pleasure becomes the end goal of sex and that is inherently hedonistic.

[Anonymous No.9251956]

>>9251938
It really isn't. Straight women are by far and away the most ruthless hedonists in the western world.

[Anonymous No.9251964]

>>9251952
Is doing anything that results in pleasure hedonistic?

>natural rationally known purpose or telos of sex
I think you'll find that sex is also naturally pleasurable.
Not to mention what's "natural" means dick anyway.

[Anonymous No.9251970]

>>9251956
Says the gay man.

[Anonymous No.9251975]

>>9251964

Of course not. It is a natural and very important part of sex, but it is not the telos, which is procreation. It is hedonistic to make pleasure the telos.

[Anonymous No.9252001]

>>9251975
>but it is not the telos
But how do you tell which is the true "telos", both are equally natural outcomes of sex? Why is one getting priority over the other?

>It is hedonistic to make pleasure the telos.
Is it?
It would be hedonistic to make receiving the most net pleasure the goal of your life. Which may include having lots of sex for pleasure.

However it cannot be said that anything that is done for pleasure is unconditionally hedonistic. As ultimately everyone pursues pleasure in some way or another and this would make the word "hedonist" so broad as to be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.9252012]

>>9251952
Are you the same guy that was saying that homosexuality was not"natural" in other threads? What makes you think that the telos of sex is reproduction? What does "purpose" here means anyway?

[Anonymous No.9252014]

I'm an atheist. Should I start going to the Korean Christian church on Sunday?

[Anonymous No.9252017]

>>9252001
>But how do you tell which is the true "telos", both are equally natural outcomes of sex? Why is one getting priority over the other?
Not him, but it's pretty easy, you can do it in several ways.
For example, I prefer teleonomy over teleology given I'm an atheist, so I can look at what was primarily selected from previous copies of the organism in question. Was sex primarily selected because it's pleasurable or because it leads to reproduction?
Another, even simpler way, is looking at which of the two is more fundamental for the population. Clearly it's reproduction since it's how the population maintains itself through time.

[Anonymous No.9252019]

>>9245442
4chan Christianity is a contrarian response to reddit atheism, and also an ironic retreat from modernity by incels, longing for a time in which female sexuality was more tightly regulated and everyone had a tradwife.

[Anonymous No.9252021]

>>9252001

Your opinion is ultimately what makes the telos what it is. If you believe that the telos of sex is pleasure then that is a hedonistic belief. If you believe the telos is procreation then you're a follower of natural law. The problem here is that you embrace a hedonistic view of sex but object to being called hedonistic.

[Anonymous No.9252032]

>>9252017
Teleonomy is more reasonable, but it is just a stretching of the word "telos", which at this point doesn't have the same conotation of "purpose" or "duty".

>>9252021
>natural law
There's no such a thing, if by it you understand something more than the blind laws of physics, chemistry etc.

[Anonymous No.9252038]

>>9252012

I'm probably not that guy because I try to avoid using the term natural when discussing sexual morality because people tend to confuse natural law with "dur it happens in nature therefore good" when that is not what's being said. I'm using purpose and telos interchangeably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_(philosophy)

[Anonymous No.9252047]

>>9252032
>There's no such a thing, if by it you understand something more than the blind laws of physics, chemistry etc.

Natural law is a school of philosophy, of course it exists. It's not "dur it happens in nature therefore good." I wish I could change the name because so many people read it and start assuming dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.9252052]

>>9252017
>Was sex primarily selected because it's pleasurable or because it leads to reproduction?
But here's the thing. The fact that it leads to reproduction isn't what actually animates any mammals into having sex. The reason they do it is because of a conscious desire for that satisfaction of which, from their perspective, the continuation of their species merely happens to be a side-effect.

This is the problem with "teleo-" anything, it invariably analyses things as if there was an overarching plot to the universe rather than that these things, in the case of recent evolution, came about as a result of the conscious choices of our ancestors. Pleasure was selected (in a manner of speaking) by these beasts themselves on its own merits.

[Anonymous No.9252055]

>>9252021
Or, perhaps, "telos" is an absolutely retarded term and this is exemplified in how it can be reduced to hot opinions.

>If you believe that the telos of sex is pleasure then that is a hedonistic belief.
I've already explained to you why this is not the case.

>natural law
lmao

[Anonymous No.9252064]

>>9252055

If you don't like the term telos I can start using "purpose" or "end goal." In the context of this conversation they mean the exact same thing. For a hedonist, the "end goal" of sex is pleasure. How can you argue against this?

[Anonymous No.9252067]

>>9245622
Don't take them seriously, this has been a meme board for a while.

[Anonymous No.9252069]

>>9252032
>which at this point doesn't have the same conotation of "purpose" or "duty"
Oh, I disagree, it makes perfect sense as purpose or duty under a virtue ethical understanding of morals.
>>9252052
>The fact that it leads to reproduction isn't what actually animates any mammals into having sex.
Their perspective is irrelevant, also they didn't select it themselves, and they certainly didn't select it for pleasures, since it's only the male who almost inevitably orgasms.

[Anonymous No.9252080]

>>9252064
Again, they're retarded terms on the count that natural phenomena don't have purposes or end goals beyond that which humans assign them. Which you implicitly acknowledge in that you agree it's a totally subjective matter as to what those purposes might be.

>How can you argue against this?
The exact same way I did earlier that you promptly ignored.

>It would be hedonistic to make receiving the most net pleasure the goal of your life. Which may include having lots of sex for pleasure.
>However it cannot be said that anything that is done for pleasure is unconditionally hedonistic. As ultimately everyone pursues pleasure in some way or another and this would make the word "hedonist" so broad as to be meaningless.
Or in brief.
Hedonists choose what they do on the basis of that which nets the most pleasure.
Activities that serve to pleasure people aren't exclusively partaken in by hedonists, everyone partakes in them to some extent.

[Anonymous No.9252093]

>>9252069
>Their perspective is irrelevant
Their perspective is the only perspective there is. It's not like evolution had a plan beyond what all life on Earth individually decided to do that day.
>also they didn't select it themselves, and they certainly didn't select it for pleasures, since it's only the male who almost inevitably orgasms.
Are you going to engage with the reasoning in my post or are you going to post more hot claims?

[Anonymous No.9252102]

Maybe some Nietzsche, but you would be atheist for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.9252131]

>>9252093
>Their perspective is the only perspective there is
I'm saying it's irrelevant what mammals feel it's the case, what's relevant is what is actually the case. Sex isn't there because it's pleasurable, take away 50% of the pleasure and a population still sustains itself, take away 50% of the fertility and you're going to have a lot of problems.
>Are you going to engage with the reasoning
What are you referring to?

Look, my claim is pretty simple.
You can determine what the features of something are by looking at what was selected from previous copies of that something.
You can establish a hierarchy of features based on the strength of the selection.
Features are also understood as purposes, for example the feature of the heart is pumping blood = the purpose of the heart is pumping blood.
Features have excellences (i.e. virtues).
The main purpose/feature of sex is reproduction, because of reasons already explained. By making sex primarily about something else, you're going against its purposes/features.

[Anonymous No.9252194]

>>9252131
>I'm saying it's irrelevant what mammals feel it's the case, what's relevant is what is actually the case
I'm saying you cannot divide these two things. What is the case is only so because our ancestors made the choices that they did, in this case they choose to have sex in the pursuit of pleasure.

>take away 50% of the pleasure and a population still sustains itself
And take away 100% of the pleasure and many species would be extinct within the next two years. Again, both pleasure and reproduction are inherent products of sex and there's no reason to prioritize one over the other when discussing the "purpose" of sex.

>take away 50% of the fertility and you're going to have a lot of problems.
This is the thing about animals. They don't really care on the count that they're not advanced enough to understand concepts like long-term planning, if they all suddenly became sterile they continue having sex anyway. As witnessed with mules which are entirely sterile as a species yet still have functioning sex drives.

>What are you referring to?
The post you replied to.
This is the thing more people on 4chan need to understand. There's counter-arguments and then there's claiming to the contrary.

>The main purpose/feature of sex is reproduction, because of reasons already explained
This is where I think you're wrong for the reasons I've outlined. There's no real logic in prioritizing one product of something as more important than another (when speaking of nature).

[Anonymous No.9252230]

>>9252194
>I'm saying you cannot divide these two things
Of course you can, I just did.
>And take away 100% of the pleasure and many species would be extinct within the next two years
You don't need pleasure, you just need the impulse to have sex. To understand the difference, the impulse to drink and the feeling of..what's it called in english? when you go "aaaaaah" after drinking. Anyway, those are two very separate things, even if you didn't feel "aaaah" after drinking, you would still have the impulse to drink.
The same goes for pleasure and sex, however you can't do the same with fertility since regardless of how anyone feels about it, an infertile population is not going to sustain itself. Dude, it seems like you want to refute me more than you actually want to come to an understanding of this, I can see disputing later points but which between sexual pleasure and fertility is more fundamental in terms of fitness for a population? Come on.
>mules
I'm not talking about mules since they aren't moral beings, I'm talking about humans.

[Anonymous No.9252250]

>>9248960
>hurr durr most religions have a lot in common
>this means theyre all wrong!!!

you know what else had a lot in common? Newton's and Leibniz's calculus.

[Anonymous No.9252267]

>>9245622
this

[Anonymous No.9252275]

>>9252230
>Of course you can, I just did.
Ebin.
>you would still have the impulse to drink.
I'm not sure what country you come from but here I think we call that alcoholism.
>an infertile population is not going to sustain itself.
Of course it won't. But this won't actually make any difference to anyone (except humans who are advanced enough for long-term planning) that this is the case. As pointed out Mules cannot reproduce yet have sex anyway because they're animated in the pursuit of personal pleasure rather than the common good of the Mule race.
> but which between sexual pleasure and fertility is more fundamental in terms of fitness for a population?
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from because if you did you'd realize I already think approaching the question in such a manner is retarded. No animals thinks "I'm going to have sex because reproduction is advantageous to my species", they do it purely because it feels good.
>I'm not talking about mules since they aren't moral beings, I'm talking about humans.
We're talking about teleological purpose, specifically the teleological purpose of sex. You originally approached this on a naturalistic basis and so that's what we've been discussing.
If you'd like to switch tactics and approach it on a societal basis then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

[Anonymous No.9252281]

>>9252250
That's not what he said, he said Christianity isn't unique.

Likewise Newton's calculus isn't unique either.

[Anonymous No.9252338]

>>9252275
I mean drink water you genius. You don't need to feel pleasure from drinking water even if you can feel pleasure from it in order to have the impulse to do so.
>But this won't actually make any difference to anyone
I'm not trying to establish what the individual humans think about it, I'm talking about the whole situation objectively, how do you not get this?
>You originally approached this on a naturalistic basis and so that's what we've been
you'd like to switch tactics and approach it on a societal basis
wat. I'm still talking from a naturalistic perspective, but I'm not talking about every single mammal, I'm talking about humans and sex among humans, explaining the view of a virtue ethical framework within moral naturalism.

[Anonymous No.9252360]

>>9252275
>they do it purely because it feels good.
Also, this is nonsense. In order to know that sex feels good, they need to have had sex in the first place, which means that the first impulse to have sex isn't related to pleasure, it's just an impulse.
But again, this is besides the point, I'm not talking about their perpsective.

[Anonymous No.9252376]

>>9252338
>You don't need to feel pleasure from drinking water even if you can feel pleasure from it in order to have the impulse to do so.
That's called thirst which is a kind of suffering. Being animated to escape that is just a negative version of being animated in pursuit of pleasure.
> I'm talking about the whole situation objectively
This is what I'm telling you, there is no objective purpose. There's only the purpose that is assigned to it from perspective.
>but I'm not talking about every single mammal
It's not really approaching it in a naturalistic manner when the only instance of this phenomenon you're allowed to discuss is humans despite there being more instances of it available.
>but humans are the only moral creature
I beg to disagree, humans are naturally immoral creations as they love to demonstrate whenever possible.

[Anonymous No.9252387]

Is this thread the death throes of 4chan's counter-culture atheism?

[Anonymous No.9252416]

>>9252376
*naturally amoral

[Anonymous No.9252422]

>>9252376
>It's not really approaching it in a naturalistic manner when the only instance of this phenomenon you're allowed to discuss is humans
Humans are the only people capable of moral understanding, it's not strange that I'm just talking about humans when it comes to the morality of sex, for fuck's sake.
>I beg to disagree, humans are naturally immoral creations
Come on dude, setting aside how fedora this sounded, moral creatures means creatures capable of moral understanding.
>there is no objective purpose
Yes there is, I've literally explained this to you several times and the only "objections" you've made is misunderstanding everything.

[Anonymous No.9252428]

Why is anti-atheism still en vogue on here? I thought the main thrust was a reaction to smug r/atheism posters and the hype around semi-intellectual's like Dawkins or arrogant YouTube personalises like Thunderfoot, but this was all 5 years ago. Or is it the /pol/lack "hurr the west needs Christianity to combat Islam" Deus-Vult shut?

[Anonymous No.9252447]

>>9252422
>Humans are the only people capable of moral understanding
Of course they are, they made it up to begin with.
> it's not strange that I'm just talking about humans when it comes to the morality of sex
That's shifting the goal post because the original argument was the purpose of sex. Granted anon was drawing morals from that, but fundamentally if sex has a teleological purpose this could not be unique to humans by definition.
>Yes there is, I've literally explained this to you several times and the only "objections" you've made is misunderstanding everything.
If this is what the argument has reduced to I'm out. I've put forward my arguments and explained the problems I see in your reasoning, if we're going to get to this level I've had enough.

[Anonymous No.9252455]

>>9252387
way past that. you mean counter-culture theism?

[Anonymous No.9252481]

>>9252447
>Of course they are, they made it up to begin with
Dude you can't say OF COURSE when literally in the previous post you were saying the opposite ffs.
>That's shifting the goal post because the original argument was the purpose of sex
...within the context of morals, which means human sex.
Look, if it's sex in general, your argument is even worse than it already is as sexual reproduction didn't entail pleasures for like a bajillion years.

You're clearly more interested in not being proven wrong than anything else.

[Anonymous No.9252485]

>>9252428
Christcuckery is slavish
Athiesm is plebish

[Anonymous No.9252508]

>>9252481
>Dude you can't say OF COURSE when literally in the previous post you were saying the opposite ffs.
I can't believe you accused me of misunderstanding you then coming out with this.
>within the context of morals
No, within the context of teleology.
>You're clearly more interested in not being proven wrong than anything else.
Meanwhile you've absolutely given up on any reasoning or argumentation. And at this point are essentially just insisting "I'm right, you're wrong".

[Anonymous No.9252518]

>>9252508
>Meanwhile you've absolutely given up on any reasoning or argumentation
Weren't you "out"?
I've already explained everything, you just go "but mules", "but from the persepctive of" which are completely irrelevant to the points I'm making.

[Anonymous No.9252551]

>>9252518
>Weren't you "out"?
>I've already explained everything, you just go "but mules", "but from the persepctive of" which are completely irrelevant to the points I'm making.
If you're this mad and are resorting to strawmanning this hard I have a feeling you've struggled with my arguments more than you're letting on.

[Anonymous No.9252671]

>>9252551
I'm not mad at all and I'm not strawmanning you one bit, you literally started talking about mules as if it was relevant to my point,you literally keep talking about perspectives as if it's relevant to what I'm saying. Your arguments present no struggle for literally anyone with the most superficial understanding of basic genetics.

Maybe you don't get how silly the position you're trying to argue for is but it's just astounding.
You're literally saying that the reproduction bit of sex is less important that the pleasure bit of sex when it comes to fitness, despite the fac that fitness is about the percentage of beings in the next generation that reach maturity and have that trait. There's literally nothing more fundamental than reproduction when it comes to fitness, by definition.
You're literally saying that reproduction is a lesser feature of sex when compared to pleasure despite the fact that sexual reproduction is older than pleasure.
You're saying that the perspective of the beings we're talking about is more relevant than the fitness of the traits selected for in those beings.

Look, it's so bad I don't even know how you could possibly have agreed with the other points I have proposed earlier. Like, if you don't understand these things, how the hell did you agree with the bits about features, virtues and so on?

[Anonymous No.9252699]

>>9252671
lol

[Anonymous No.9252715]

>>9252699
Exactly, lol, I tried not to laugh at him but it boggles the mind how anyone could seriously argue those points.

[Anonymous No.9253491]

>>9252038
>>9252047
I know what is telos. As for natural law, the school exists obviously, but what it says makes no sense to me.

>>9252069
>Oh, I disagree, it makes perfect sense as purpose or duty under a virtue ethical understanding of morals.
It makes sense as an observation about what is successful relatively to reproduciton. But what makes "reproduction" a duty? You may say that if a population doesn't reproduce it will eventually perish, but that is moving the problem: now you are assuming that our duty is the conservation of the population of which we are part. But why should I care about the conservation of said population? And about which whole of which I'm a part should I care? My family? My neighbourhood? My city? My state? My country? Humanity? Life itself? — I'm assuming you are an utilitarianist or moral realist, if it is so, how do you deal with the is-ought problem?

>>9252250
Where did I make such non-sequitur? I even criticised it in a post. Studying different religions will show us that each has its own uniqueness, so that "uniqueness" can't be a criterion. Anyway, if you are the one I mentioned, you just proved my point.