/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13318158]

>what do you mean there are philosophic arguments for g*d??!? NOOOOOOOOO
>what do you mean greeks were theists too!! the sky fairy man was invented by dirt-eating dark age peasants because they were afraid of dying
>what do you mean I have to understand intricate ontological and metaphysical systems, concepts, and terms in order to even begin to engage in criticism of theism? NOOOOOOO I'M SUPPOSE TO JUST BE ABLE TO SAY YOU HATE SCIENCCCCCCEEE
>what do you mean Dawkins didn't refute Aquinas or Pascal and had no clue what he was talking about?? Ghahghahg Dawkins save meeee
>save me, o wise and ancient hindus--us evil white westerners only ever ripped you off in the first place
>WHAT??! advaita vedanta is a religion too???
>YOU MEAN MY BELIEF IS IN THE MINORITY AND THAT FOR THE WHOLE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN ELABORATE SYSTEMS OF THEISM PROPOUNDED BY THE MOST INTELLIGENT MINDS OF THE HUMAN RACE? NONONONOOONOONOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.13318161]

Best thread on /LIT/ right now

[Anonymous No.13318163]

Yeah we know bro

[Anonymous No.13318168]

>>13318158
Imagine being this angry over atheism.

[Anonymous No.13318169]

Can an atheist explain to me who Dawkins somehow disproves god?
Don’t all religions on some level discuss the concept of spiritual evolution

[Anonymous No.13318171]

>>13318158
feser is a brainlet for the catholic equivalent of midwits. when will you grow up and move on to big boy catholic philosophers?

[Anonymous No.13318173]

Which atheists do you know who are looking to Hinduism to disprove God, what are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.13318176]

>>13318158

God doesn't exist. /thread based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.13318177]

>>13318171
oh, I like the big boys too. but you gotta ease people into them some way

[Anonymous No.13318178]

>tfw too intelligent to be religious
genuinely feels bad desu

[Anonymous No.13318179]

>be deist
>ask atheshit what does he think the purpose of life is
>d-dude l-like that question isnt relevant, reproduction (ad infinitum) i guess
Why are they like this?

[Anonymous No.13318181]

>>13318178
tip harder brah

[Anonymous No.13318182]

>>13318178
>tfw spiritual
>tfw that word will eternally devastate midwits who can only connect to god through other people tell them what to do

[Anonymous No.13318183]

>>13318181
>predictable reddit-tier response
yeah that's about what I expected from a brainlet

[Anonymous No.13318184]

>>13318169
He’s Emily Watson’s father. Those that say evolution disproves a god probably mean that any belief system that say depends on a literal interpretation of genesis or any other fable like explanation is disproven by simply being incompatible with millions of years worth of time it takes for evolution to occur.

[Anonymous No.13318188]

>>13318179
Because if objective divine purpose doesn’t exist, the only thing left is subjective personal meanings or just literal reproduction.

[Anonymous No.13318189]

>>13318179
>Ask a theishit what's the meaning of life
>d-dude like going to heaven because i fear death lol

[Anonymous No.13318190]

>>13318184
>this Bible passage couldn’t be true
>God disproven!!!
Is this still the best arguments atheists have?

[Anonymous No.13318199]

>>13318190
>Its'n supposed to be literal
>use my hermeneutics aaarghh

[Anonymous No.13318201]

>>13318179
They'd be right in the sense that it's not technically relevant in establishing whether or not the claim is true or false. I like religious philosophy but groan at the aggressive apologetics of internet laymen, who seem to assume that religion must depend on emotional insecurity.

[Anonymous No.13318205]

>>13318190
imagine basing your life around something you have zero evidence for and not even believing anything in the bible is legitimate. I wish I could meme myself into believing it as it would be very comforting but as I've said, I'm too intelligent. Not one of you will even attempt to present an argument for god in this thread as you know there is none.

[Anonymous No.13318207]

>>13318199
It’s a book written by some schizos been
Describing a book does not disprove a concept

[Anonymous No.13318208]

>>13318190
That’s not what I said. I said if your version of god relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is incompatible with current understanding, then that idea of god can be considered false. Don’t mean a deistic or other kind of ideas of god is disproven.

[Anonymous No.13318211]

>>13318207
*Disproving

>>13318208
And that’s what I said

[Anonymous No.13318215]

>>13318205
Disprove the mystic and religous experience and the experiences gotten from them

[Anonymous No.13318217]

>>13318189
Theists dont fear death because of exactly those beliefs
>>13318188
No endgoal, no purpose; reproduction is not an argument, its literally sweeping the reason humanity is here under the rug

Have god

[Anonymous No.13318225]

>>13318199
If you knew who wrote the history of the Bible, its history and context, you wouldn't have such a hard time accepting that some parts are indeed not meant to be taken as factual

[Anonymous No.13318226]

>>13318201
>They'd be right in the sense that it's not technically relevant in establishing whether or not the claim is true or false.
its like im listening to him, yes it is relevant to fully explain this universe, yes it is relevant to justify human existence and purpose; "i am here therefore i am" is literally defeatist nihilism

[Anonymous No.13318230]

>>13318217
>Theists dont fear death because of exactly those beliefs
Oh they do, a lot

[Anonymous No.13318232]

>>13318211
So if your idea of god is the literal interpretation of the Bible, as in everything happened literally as written, and those stories have been shown to be inconsistent or false, doesn’t that invalidate that particular framing of god?

>>13318217
It isn’t an argument, it is just what is. You asked an atheist what the meaning of life would be without a god. All we have is our literal existence which is reproduction and any subjective meaning we create for ourselves.

[Anonymous No.13318237]

>>13318230
Studies show that ur wrong, atheshits and lay religious people fear death far more than people who believe firmly that there is a god and afterlife

[Anonymous No.13318246]

>>13318232
Yes it invalidates that exact farming of god, what’s your point? I feel like we’re going in circles here

[Anonymous No.13318250]

>>13318232
If we are here just because "we are" do you not think its then irrational to reproduce ad infinitum, wouldnt it be rational to end humanity all toghether if there is no clear goal to its existence?

[Anonymous No.13318253]

>>13318226
You should care more about Truth. I dislike the assumption that because a non-theistic universe is meaningless (and that this because awareness of this meaningless may produce negative emotional or social effects) we should automatically grant theism the benefit of the doubt. Does atheism really need a handicap in this debate, or can theism establish itself on the principle of Veritas alone?

[Anonymous No.13318258]

>>13318246
>>13318190
It seemed like you were poopooing the statement.

>>13318250
Because fucking feels good. Why are you having such an issue with this?

[Anonymous No.13318261]

>>13318258
>Because fucking feels good
Is your purpose in lyfe to have good feelings then. Not saying this negatively, just trying to set up a framework

[Anonymous No.13318265]

>>13318253
Atheshits need to prove the universe is meaningless for your premise to stand, and I believe a good theist argument against meaningless is the obvious absurdity of "creatio ex nihilo" which cannot ever be proven, therefore it invalidates the atheist position of a self-enabling universe, "ex deo" is completely neccessary in justifying and explaining material existence

[Anonymous No.13318266]

>>13318261
Purpose in life is to be content, raising a family is a way to contentment for some. If you can't be content then just kill ur self.

[Anonymous No.13318270]

>>13318266
>ur
you'll have to leave now

[Anonymous No.13318272]

>>13318258
>Because fucking feels good. Why are you having such an issue with this?
Like i said, ad infinitum ergo ad absurdum et ad nauseam

[Anonymous No.13318274]

>>13318272
>"ooo big latin words i got you now there, bud"

[Anonymous No.13318275]

>>13318261
No that isn’t MY purpose, as in, it isn’t the guiding principle by how I choose to live my life. Fucking is just how we continue and it doesn’t help that it provides positive reinforcement. No matter how “irrational” you think life is, 9 out of ten times someone gives you pussy you take it.

Why does something need an end goal?

>>13318272
And?

[Anonymous No.13318276]

>>13318225
So what was Jesus trying to redeem uh?

[Anonymous No.13318277]

>>13318270
>doesn't know his Sumerian city-states
you'll have to leave now

[Anonymous No.13318278]

>>13318215
They can’t.
Deep introspection and meditation is the final resting ground for all atheist thought.
It’s all fun and speculation until you fade into reality and becomes one with all. At that moment the concept of that question is simply impossible to conceive it doesn’t have a place it can even exist. It simply is and it is good.

[Anonymous No.13318284]

>>13318237
Studies uh? Wow
>What is a placebo

[Anonymous No.13318285]

>>13318274
Not an argument
>>13318275
>And?
My purpose is killing you and your family, that is also a lot of other people's purpose, these feelings are a natural phenomenon of the stronger than you humanoids, therefore you must agree to it, enjoy dying

[Anonymous No.13318292]

>>13318284
Facts are facts, you calling it a placrbo doesnt change the facts atheshits will face an existential crisis before they die, there are no atheists on a falling plane

[Anonymous No.13318296]

>>13318265
But you're the person who brought up meaning in the first place. You implied that meaningless is implicit in a non-theistic worldview, so merely establishing whether or not God exists is enough to establish whether the universe has meaning. But your aim in adding meaning to the mixture is to cripple the other sides rhetorical strength by making their view of the world seem unappealing -- who would voluntarily choose to inhabit a meaningless universe? But the point of the argument is not comfort, but truth.

Is it possible that the base stratum of existence is a self-causing prime mover but which doesn't really satisfy our human definition of godhood? You are a deist rather than a theist, so do you believe that God is a "person" like Christians do or not?

[Anonymous No.13318304]

>>13318215
You mean like the inconsistency of near death experiences?

>>13318285
Ow the edge. I wonder if the need to protect the herd for security, survival and reproduction will save me from your murderous intent.

[Anonymous No.13318305]

>>13318296
Atman = Brahma

[Anonymous No.13318306]

>>13318296
>Is it possible that the base stratum of existence is a self-causing prime mover but which doesn't really satisfy our human definition of godhood?
No

/thread

[Anonymous No.13318307]

>>13318292
>Facts are facts
so they are facts now, I suppose theres no need for faith then.
Existencial crisis or not there is no difference because there is no afterlife

[Anonymous No.13318309]

>>13318304
>edgy
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13318311]

>>13318304
No. NDEs tend to be pointless and I throw them out.
Mystical experiences always share things in common, mainly the interconnectedness of all being and the eternalness of existence

[Anonymous No.13318316]

>>13318307
>He says this as a fact
Have god, atheshit

[Anonymous No.13318318]

>>13318309
You didn’t provide an argument, you just expressed your desire for my death.

[Anonymous No.13318328]

>>13318316
>He says is not a fact
Have faith theishit

[Anonymous No.13318329]

>>13318176

[Anonymous No.13318330]

>>13318311
All things are connected. By the physical forces that govern the universe. Looking at our smallest components, the universe would appear as a flowing collection of points moving like liquid. It isn’t mystical.

[Anonymous No.13318344]

>>13318330
Except it’s very mystical.
It’s the most mystical thing in existence and completely grasping this is the most powerful and mystical experience a being can have.
Just because science proves something does not take away its power

[Anonymous No.13318353]

>>13318344
What does mystical mean?

[Anonymous No.13318367]

>>13318353
Powerful, religous, awe inspiring, woe inducing, blissful peace.
There’s really no way of describing it to someone who’s never experienced it.
You might be able to force it with a high enough dose of psychedelics but the drug experience is generally nothing compared to the true experience

[Anonymous No.13318388]

most people on this board/site who claim to be religious just have latched onto Christianity to give themselves something to identify with and to make themselves feel superior to others.
Look at their interpretations of history - all focused on linearly expounding 'western'-ness which they of course believe their religion is the principal cause and defender (they also fashion themselves as such in their fascination with monarchy, crusades, and romanticizings of the above). Their proclivity towards the arts: realism, hyper-realism, church-art, anything attached with any notion of being 'foundational' official,, of having an easily identifiable modicum of skill to which they can then identify themselves. They will rabidly detest any development prior to or after this point and in doing so completely miss the entire point of the artistic endeavor; just look up any archived thread on Picasso on /his/ concerning his experimentation into cubism and african art (which no art critic however conservative would deride, but of course the average poster is a far greater artistic authority).
Anything not 'western' in their eyes, anything deviating from their established identity as a powerful and beloved crusader, is conveniently heresy or otherwise painstakingly derided. They hate modernity because ultimately they are alienated by modernity, which caused their whole lapse in the first place (ex: although they have known no other church and have sworn loyalty to the pope, they hate Vatican II and hate the pope for not aligning with their fantasies). They hate the past because it does not align with their secret history.
So you are left with sad men, atheistically religious, with a canon made of half-tracts of what men have said to the exclusion of their other words. This thread is a symptom, unprovoked and yet in constant imaginary struggle to defend their world, because only in struggle can a crusade be called, and they have known no real struggle on this earth.

[Anonymous No.13318406]

>>13318367
Sounds like you’re tying to make things sound more like your animes. Quit smoking.

[Anonymous No.13318424]

>>13318388
based
The same phenomena is exhibited in young Muslim extremists -- educated, middle class, atomised, with a false piety based on negatives (ban this, destroy that, condemn this) rather than affirmations, evinced in their lack of positive acts such as attending church regularly... although it's worse noting that they often fail to abstain from sex, drinking, etc. Allegiance is more important to them than correct behaviour. Homosexuality is singled out for hatred because it signifies a certain position in the culture war, while masturbation is treated lightly.

[Anonymous No.13318459]

>>13318406
Terrible argument I don’t do drugs you moron

[Anonymous No.13318474]

>>13318253

For an atheist to claim the universe is meaningless, he is already putting himself in an absurd position. How is us being in a meaningless universe any different than the people in Borge's library of Babel?

With no one purpose, there can't be meaning. With the universe not being created for us, we can't have any value over innate matter. Without acknowledging that we can't answer all the questions through science and reason, we can't agree on there being an ultimate Truth, as you call it.

[Anonymous No.13318484]

>>13318388
>>13318424

>commenting based on your own post

[Anonymous No.13318490]

>>13318484
>two separate people can't possibly disagree with the hivemind

[Anonymous No.13318492]

>>13318388
this. christianity is based but only if you're integrated into its community structure at the local level instead of larping on the internet because christianity is the whitest religion. it's worse than fucking moldbug

[Anonymous No.13318499]

>>13318388
Wow I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single post destroy /lit/ so hard.
go home everyone you lost

[Anonymous No.13318511]

>>13318474
I didn't say ultimate truth, I just said truth. "Correct knowledge" has a lot of utility, even animals with no conception of what 'truth' means value having correct information about their environment. When it comes to questions of God, figuring out the truth about whether or not he exists is important to us because the answer fundamentally changes how we live our lives. Why does human beings not having innate value over non-conscious matter frustrate our ability to access truth? Although I don't believe it's possible for "reason and science" to ever hold "ultimate truth" in its hands, we can obviously accrue more information and make the picture less smudgy. Seeing through a glass darkly, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.13318529]

>>13318388
Thank God for this post.

[Anonymous No.13318539]

>>13318158
I don't even understand who this is supposed to be. He's a Dawkins follower but also thinks that white people are evil?

[Anonymous No.13318540]

God isn't real, a real man must accept this.

[Anonymous No.13318543]

>>13318540
But the soul is

[Anonymous No.13318547]

>>13318169
Dawkins doesn't disprove God, and he never claims to, he simply says that the statistical power for the null hypothesis "God exists" tends towards 0 because there isn't evidence for it, and therefore he's so agnostic towards the concept that he acts as if it doesn't exist, hence calling himself atheist. I would use his dumbass teapot orbiting mars analogy to explain, but I'm not gay.

t. Agnostic

[Anonymous No.13318551]

>>13318459
You know what you’re doing. You can explain the lifecycle of a flower like a faggot, talking about beauty and wonder, or you can explain it like a biology teacher. Just cause you use flowery language doesn’t make something “mystical” and “just so libre of you”. You pretentious prick.

[Anonymous No.13318553]

>>13318158
>philisophical arguments
What use are those when trying to discern fact from fiction. We need evidence.
It's really telling that when asked to provide evidence, a theist will employ argument.
Why can't you just let the evidence do that talking, why do you need to fluff your case and prime your audience.

[Anonymous No.13318556]

>>13318547
I actually meant to say Darwin but I’m like very drunk and after I wrote the post I slinked away and hoped no one would respond seriously

[Anonymous No.13318557]

>>13318547
The teapot analogy was first derived by Russel, hence its fagish, self-satisfied smugness.

[Anonymous No.13318567]

>>13318551
It has absolutely nothing to do with language you are fundamentally lost in this argument.
When you have an experience that we call mystical there are literally NO words describe it. Get this through you head it CANNOT be described. The experience falls outside the range of experience the human being is able to comprehend and rationalize. The dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao.

It has absolutely nothing to do with something being mystical or pretentious, when you are in these experiences your percerption of having these questions kr these thoughts immediately vanish.
There is no fear, no anxiety, no philosophical questioning, no guessing.
ALL is understood and ALL your misconceptions are corrected.
When you return to yourself you literally cannot rationalize the information you were given, you can no longer understand it and you realize it is impossible you ever will again.
You just need to understand it is there and it exists.

[Anonymous No.13318571]

>>13318553
Have you considered the historical evidence for Jesus resurrection?

[Anonymous No.13318580]

>>13318556
Based because I'm equally drunk and it has nothing to do with statistical power, I was thinking of the wrong error type and just spat out rubbish there

[Anonymous No.13318588]

>>13318571
Yes. It fails to meet any reasonable standard of evidence for such an event.
The majority of the "evidence" fails to even meet a basic standard for historical evidence without considering the extraordinary nature of the claim. It's flat out not evidence.
That being said what little "evidence" manages to not be laughable meets the same standard of other extreme claims made from other religions throughout history.
So in order to accept any evidence that Jesus resurrected, you have to both drop your standards of evidence through the floor AND ignore other evidence that meets that same dropped standard.
That's two too many brain oopsies for me to accept.

[Anonymous No.13318593]

>>13318318
Kys, strawmaning atheshit

[Anonymous No.13318594]

>>13318511
How does one know from true or false? Beyond, simple truths on the environment, which we can find through our senses, how is one correct on matters of morality or philosophy?

To say that murdering innocents is wrong is objectively true, right? Yet how can we discern this?

For us to acknowledge true from false, there must be an all encompassing truth we adhere to.

> I don't believe it's possible for "reason and science" to ever hold "ultimate truth" in its hands, we can obviously accrue more information and make the picture less smudgy. Seeing through a glass darkly, so to speak.

Most atheist concede that there is an ultimate truth, and state that we can only gradually grasp straws to discern it through the progress of science. However, how can an atheist ever say something is wrong? or thus something is true/false, if we still haven't seen that smudgy picture?

Atheist claim that there is no God and hold this as truth while simultaneously claiming that truth can only be reached through science and logic. However how has science or logic disproven God? So where do atheists get this "useful truth" that a God does not exist?

[Anonymous No.13318601]

ITT

[Anonymous No.13318604]

>>13318588
What are reasonable standards of evidence for an event that happened 2000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.13318614]

>>13318604
He’s god bro I’m sure he can think of something

And the shroud of Turin is fake as fuck btw

[Anonymous No.13318615]

>>13318594
>To say that murdering innocents is wrong is objectively true, right? Yet how can we discern this?
Although I am prejudiced against murdering innocents, I don't believe it's "objectively true" to say it's wrong. To me, that's about as good as it gets. I agree that moralism is inconsistent with atheism, which is why I don't care about what "most atheists" think. I also don't think science has disproved God. I don't think anything has disproved God. Likewise, I don't think God's existence has been proved.

[Anonymous No.13318618]

>>13318614
>And the shroud of Turin is fake as fuck btw
Yeah they let a bunch of atheists with dubious intents to research it and then conclude that it's not from 2000 years ago,
BIG YIKES

[Anonymous No.13318622]

>>13318618
You realise Christians were on the research committee too?

[Anonymous No.13318624]

>>13318618
Ok buddy

[Anonymous No.13318627]

>>13318615

[Anonymous No.13318636]

>>13318614
How about testimony from Roman non-christian historians?
Four different written testimonies?
Except for Judas, the martyrdom of all of his apostles.

[Anonymous No.13318639]

>>13318627

>being a dogmatic zealot is somehow good

[Anonymous No.13318640]

>>13318388
almost too based and almost too redpilled
4chan catholics irrevocably btfo

[Anonymous No.13318642]

>>13318615
>Likewise, I don't think God's existence has been proved.
Look
>material word exists
>science proves its expanding
>material cannot come from immaterial with no cause
>cause is the prime mover
>prime mover cannot be the universe itself because it is material and once there was only immaterial, ergo the material could not have self ignited from existence due to a lack of starting point
>following all this, the prime mover is neccessary and if its not the material it must be something not bound by either nothingess nor existence, this is god

[Anonymous No.13318646]

>>13318639
It makes life objectively easier, yes

[Anonymous No.13318647]

>>13318604
Depends on the event.
For say, a specific persons existence? Two or three motivationally disconnected first hand sources cross referenced and scrutinized for possibility of falsification.
Jesus just barely meets this standard which is why I don't go around saying he didn't exist.
For say, a paranormal phenomenon? Direct evidence, sources don't cut it. We don't accept as fact when someone tells us they see ghosts today, why would we believe someone from 2000 years ago who tells us he saw something even more incredible than some ghost story.
That's why I firmly say it's ridiculous to believe the resurrection as fact. Believe it as what it is, a myth or a legend. A way to bolster your faith. Just don't call it fact.

>>13318636
I'll just throw this >> here. What I wrote above serves as a response to your post. But just to elaborate. We don't accept testimony today as sufficient evidence for mundane paranormal claims. Testimony from over a thousand years ago, for an extremely extraordinary paranormal claim is not enough.

[Anonymous No.13318649]

>>13318615
I agree that atheism and moralism are incompatible.

>I don't think anything has disproved God. Likewise, I don't think God's existence has been proved.

This is why its called Faith. As Kierkegaard says, taking that leap of faith is the core essence of being religious.

[Anonymous No.13318650]

>>13318646
Can confirm.
The truth is harder.
It’s easier to stop at page 1

[Anonymous No.13318651]

>>13318642
Based Kalam Cosmilogical argument poster

[Anonymous No.13318660]

>>13318647
not sufficient perhaps, but it does meet > any reasonable standard of evidence

[Anonymous No.13318668]

imagine unironically being a Catholic
they're just 4chan shitposters at this point

[Anonymous No.13318669]

>>13318668
Comeon man don’t say that it’s literally all they have

[Anonymous No.13318704]

>>13318651
Dont know who Kalam is, I just came to the conclusion myself, a feat which every non-fedora tipping mouthbreather could achieve

[Anonymous No.13318712]

>>13318704
Which is telling, considering that was a trash "proof"

[Anonymous No.13318713]

>>13318660
If you change what is considered reasonable, then sure it does. However that would put you in the position of arguing for lower standards, and that's just not a place you want to be.
The shroud of Turin in general is just a really bad hill to die on.

[Anonymous No.13318733]

>>13318567
>how do you explain mystical experiences
>the experience falls outside the range of experience of the human being

what the fuck

[Anonymous No.13318857]

>>13318567
>kr

[Anonymous No.13319052]

>>13318594
>To say that murdering innocents is wrong is objectively true, right?
Are all carnivores on Earth wrong, then?
What does "wrong" even mean at that point?
Moral considerations cannot be "objectively true" because morality is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.13319194]

>>13319052
Dude its natural law you fedora retard

[Anonymous No.13319224]

>>13318158
>imagine believing c*tholic heretic lies

[Anonymous No.13319241]

>>13318173
Atheists are easily upset and often appropriate vulnerable religions in their personal quest against Christendom

[Anonymous No.13319246]

>>13319194
So it's not wrong, and using "objectively" like a retard was retarded.

[Anonymous No.13319284]

>>13318492
>christianity is based but only if you're integrated into its community structure at the local level
That's actually the point at which it is the worst, which you'd know if you'd ever been involved in it. It's only "based" when considered abstractly from the outside.

[Anonymous No.13319295]

My atheism stems purely from seeing no reason to hold truck with the existence of magic. Like... why should there be goblins and fairys? I'm just supposed to accept it?

I can believe in my table here.. I can believe I'm probably gonna not get a good sleep tonight. But I don't see why I HAVE to believe in magical angels.

[Anonymous No.13319308]

>>13319295
>why
Because we have no other way to explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life. That isn't a reason to become a Christian but it is a darn good reason to be sceptic towards the naturalistic world-view

[Anonymous No.13319309]

>>13318158
I will never read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.13319314]

>>13319309
Then enjoy burning in hell forever

[Anonymous No.13319323]

>>13318183
you see, you are not "to intelligent to be religious", you are too arrogant, and even if God smacked you in the head you would be embarassed to admit you believe in God with all your mind, sntrength and heart. You are clearly extremely prejudiced against religion.
It doesn't matter if someone shows you actual proof that God exists, if you have your heart and mind that closed to accept new ideas and to change your mind you will never really understand.

[Anonymous No.13319354]

If God doesn't exist then there's no reason to prioritize truth. Therefore it doesn't matter if my beliefs are true or whether I can justify them.

[Anonymous No.13319359]

>>13318158
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>Accept or lean toward: atheism 678/931 (72.8%)

[Anonymous No.13319387]

>>13319354
If God does exist then there's no reason to prioritize escrutiny. Therefore it doesn't matter if my beliefs are logically reliable, God can justify them.

[Anonymous No.13319391]

>>13319359
>ad populum

[Anonymous No.13319398]

>>13319387
So either way I can just believer what the fuck I want.

[Anonymous No.13319404]

>>13319391
that's what OP was doing. also it's more like appeal to expertise

[Anonymous No.13319414]

>>13318353
Mystical doesn't mean mysterious if that's what you're thinking.

[Anonymous No.13319418]

>>13318551
There's no beauty in science itself

[Anonymous No.13319425]

>>13318733
He means outside sense experience and dialectics.

[Anonymous No.13319435]

>>13319404
>appeal to expertise
Appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy

[Anonymous No.13319468]

>>13318388
>>13318484
>>13318492
>>13318499
>>13318529
>>13318640
Why are atheist generally retarded and can't offer an ounce of actual substantial criticism relating to religion and instead projects his insecurity based on the morality of the religion that he himself hates in the first place. Are they dare I say it, retarded to the soul?

[Anonymous No.13319472]

>>13319468
>hehe you stoopid xD

[Anonymous No.13319478]

>>13319052
>Are all carnivores on Earth wrong, then?
This is retarded to the core though as animals have no sentience in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13319485]

>>13319472
>>13319468
same retarded shit actually. Notice that he projects instead of offering actual criticism.

[Anonymous No.13319486]

>>13319435
informal "fallacy". induction is good

[Anonymous No.13319494]

>>13319478
>literally not reading three lines before replying
My entire argument is that "wrong" is not an objective descriptor, that rhethorical question is there to show what happens if you try to make "wrong" a property of things rather than an interpretation of things.

[Anonymous No.13319505]

I tried to engage honestly with Pascal, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, the bible, and still did not become religious because none of those people "proved" god, only made a case for faith, and for me it's superfluous.

[Anonymous No.13319511]

>>13319505
enjoy eternal suffering then. gaythiest.

[Anonymous No.13319513]

>>13319505
What do you mean by proof ? I'm fairly confident Thomas Aquinas at least didn't think believing in God was mostly a matter of faith with little rational basis.

[Anonymous No.13319514]

>>13319505
Based.

[Anonymous No.13319539]

>>13319513
Aquinas proved deism. It's impossible to prove the Christian god over any other god. I think it's quite short-sighted to say that the god you happen to have been born into is the true god. For myself, I try to absorb the wisdom from all religions, while reserving judgement on their actual veracity.

[Anonymous No.13319561]

>>13319435
Nigga you follow the pope

[Anonymous No.13319565]

>>13319539
It does seem interesting that the idea of gods is pretty universal in ancient cultures.

[Anonymous No.13319585]

>>13319511
enjoy the feelings of safety and superiority that god provides you
>>13319513
The statement "Actualization of potential has occurred therefore it must have occurred as a choice made by the first mover." Just begs the question of how do you know it was a choice made consciously?

[Anonymous No.13319597]

>>13318388
>projecting this hard
Perhaps that is true for some /pol/ tier Christians, but certainly not the faith in of itself. No one becomes a Christian to be superior to others. That is just clearly wrong and if someone does do that, then they don't follow doctrine and are not a Christian.
I could just as easily throw the same projection back at you and say most people on this board who claim to be atheist are just doing to make up for a damaged ego and give them a sense of superiority. They want the edgy-Stirner egoism to make them feel better about their lack of self control and obligations. This sort of projection does nothing and makes vast generalizations with no actual argument against the doctrine in of itself.

[Anonymous No.13319602]

>>13318588
Actually, the gospels are first hand accounts years after Jesus' accention. The first accounts of caesar's rule (manuscripts) were 1'000 years apart from when caesars supposedly ruled. Theres plenty of physical evidense too if you look into it. Not that OP's post isn't pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.13319623]

>>13319602
Also, Jesus' resurrection is elusive by design. Read the bible, it justifies itself more than you expect.

[Anonymous No.13319634]

>>13319597
While you're right in saying that the other guy hasn't actually made an argument against Christianity with this i think he's correct when saying that the reactionary kiddies on this website tend to delve into these questions with a damaging bias in favor of Christianity because it's part of their renewed white identity, perceived as quintessentialy white and an extension of Western culture.

[Anonymous No.13319703]

>>13319561
lol based

[Anonymous No.13319711]

i can predict everything the people i hate are going to say when i think of them as mouthpieces for the biblical satan. this is what convinced me the bible is truth.

[Anonymous No.13319721]

>tfw brain not smooth enough for religion

how do you fix this?

[Anonymous No.13319758]

>>13319711
Why does it seem like the majority of schizophrenics are Christan?

[Anonymous No.13319782]

>>13319721
>I’m more intelligent than countless scientists, philosophers, writers and artists throughout human history and even still today
yikes

[Anonymous No.13319849]

>>13319782
>philosophers, writers and artists
opium sells
>countless scientists
it's a different story today, very few scientists born after 1950 are religious. One of the possible reasons is that scientific discovery and lack of evidence of the supernatural is moving us away from theism, or there is a world wide conspiracy of brainwashing in academia, which fits nicely into a schizophrenic world view. You don't necessarily need a smooth brain for religion, but it certainly helps.

[Anonymous No.13319869]

>>13319782
All of those are majority cultural marxists now, dude.

[Anonymous No.13319963]

>>13318178
If you were smarter you'd see through atheism just as quickly. Average people have fallen to the atheist propaganda, retards believe in religion, but the high IQ know that Jesus is the way.

[Anonymous No.13319974]

>>13319308
Several thousand years ago we had no way to explain any natural phenomena. And then we did, one by one. We're not done yet, maybe we will never be "done" but theists have to occupy a smaller and smaller space when science explains yet another "inexplicable" phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.13319976]

>>13319539
>I think it's quite short-sighted to say that the god you happen to have been born into is the true god
This argument doesn't make sense, somebody has to be born with the right faith. That's the equivalent of saying "you will never be born because there are so many sperm", yet here you are.

[Anonymous No.13319989]

>>13319565
of course it is universal, it's a coping mechanism to live with the unknown world around you (and also to enforce power structures through divine favor and mystical rituals).

[Anonymous No.13319998]

>>13319849
>very few scientists born after 1950 are religious
They are as religious as ever. It's progressiveness (based in protestant egalitarianism and jewish subversion) that is their religion.
>brainwashing in academia
"people can't have coordinated plans. you must be crazy" Academia is one of the most obvious examples of agenda driven propaganda. cringe

[Anonymous No.13320018]

So what are some proofs that god is real. The only one I can really think of is how well history has seem to gone for us considering how many little things could have completely fucked us over but didn't.

[Anonymous No.13320030]

>>13319998
Nice job moving the goalposts

[Anonymous No.13320050]

Serbs invented religion.

[Anonymous No.13320051]

>>13318173
I think he's talking about the people who use Hinduism because its gods are an eastern thing they don't understand and can just project onto.

[Anonymous No.13320071]

>>13319998
>jewish subversion
Judaism is a religion by the way

[Anonymous No.13320132]

>>13320030
I'm not moving shit, I'm not the person you were replying to originally


>>13320071
it's also a phenotype with distinct genetic differences and in group preferences. Kike

[Anonymous No.13320134]

>>13318158
Go ahead and laugh but I unironically think that JBP's psychological significance of the biblical stories series of lectures will prove to be the most fatal assault against nu-atheism for many years.

[Anonymous No.13320136]

>>13318158
based, I appreciate that Advaita reference, us theists brothers gotta unite against the nihilist scum!

[Anonymous No.13320154]

>>13318158
Based OP. Your shitposts are saving /lit/

[Anonymous No.13320163]

>>13320132
apparently hick boys with no higher education are more resilient to Jewish lies than the scientific community is, damn, I will try again later

[Anonymous No.13320193]

>>13320163
every time

[Anonymous No.13320205]

>>13319989
based

[Anonymous No.13320206]

>>13319602
What part of not even first hand accounts are sufficient did you not get.

[Anonymous No.13320215]

>>13319782
see >>13319359

[Anonymous No.13320228]

>>13319565
The idea of gods is so varied across cultures that it is extremely difficult to pin it down to anything other than "there's some thing that we can't perceive empirically but which is relevant to us".

[Anonymous No.13320285]

>>13318158

>Apply the same arguments christian philosophers use to any other religion, proving that their gods are also real.

>Ask a christian philosopher why he doesn't believe in Mohammed and Allah being the true prophet and god. Wait for him to give you an answer. Give him the same answer as to why you don't accept the christian god and Jesus.

I sincerely believe religion will eventually be proven to be a branch of schizophrenia in the most devout people (the ones who "hear voices" and "see manifestations of god"), and the rest of the followers, the largest part, is just people who would do whatever others would tell them to do.

[Anonymous No.13320314]

>>13320193
You're using a guy who was influenced by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and who dispatched millions of people of different faiths, in aid of your argument that Jews are responsible for irreligion?

[Anonymous No.13320321]

>>13319052
>murdering innocents = eating meat
> tips fedora

No. By murdering innocents I mean going to a school and shooting kids, not eating meat. Furthermore, humans have an infinitely higher value than all other species, so killing animals to feed humans to increase their well being is morally justified. Morality is not on the eye of the beholder because there are objective goods and evils.

[Anonymous No.13320335]

What books made you come to this conclusions OP? Sure you read plenty

[Anonymous No.13320338]

>>13319849
>o-opium s-sells
Nice handwave cope that these people are vastly more intelligent than you ever will be

[Anonymous No.13320342]

>>13320285
>except le epic science, we should do whatever they tell us to do guys

[Anonymous No.13320343]

>>13320314
no, im using it to aid in the demonstration of your argument tactics

[Anonymous No.13320344]

what should i read to become religious?

[Anonymous No.13320356]

>>13320342

Again, the larger mass will do whatever anyone tells them to do.

"Enlightened", "Spiritual" religious people seem to be those who experience god directly, with symptoms very close to those of schizophrenia.

Enlightened scientists are just people who study evidence and do experiments. There have been plenty of scientists who died defending positions contrary to the status quo only to be proven right later because their evidence was sound.

Why are religious people so afraid of self-questioning?

[Anonymous No.13320359]

>>13320285
> He doesn't know the Christian and Muslim God are literally the same God, the God of Abraham.
> He doesn't know Allah means God in Arabic


As for your claim that religious people are mentally ill, on the contrary. I invite you to research the Vatican's protocol for dealing with people that claim to have seen the supernatural.

[Anonymous No.13320364]

>>13320356
>generalisations and complete lack is historical knowledge
why are you here if you’ve never read a book

[Anonymous No.13320377]

>>13320364

Damn, I have read at least 1 book. But your argument was almost sound! Would you happen to have another, better one?

Also if it wouldn't be too much could you perhaps address and refute anything I said, or is this one of those threads where theists just circle jerk because no one actually steps up to call them on their bullshit?

[Anonymous No.13320383]

>>13320356
Atheist seem pretty desperate to embrace spirituality and reject religion, as orwellian as that sounds.

Furthermore, most scientists I've met don't give a shit what your religion is because they know that its irrelevant to their field.

[Anonymous No.13320411]

>>13320359
How little does it take for you to throw your entire Bible away and accept the Quran as a just as valid account of the world history. Wow. It's almost as if the entire thing is meaningless?
There are repeated instances both in both texts as well as in history that christians and muslims don't agree to your statement, which is an entirely ad-hoc goalpost move.

>He doesn't know nearly every language in the world has a word that means "god" and that this is doesn't mean it has to refer to the same entity in all languages/cultures.

Also

>A revelation would be dismissed if there was evidence that the person who had witnessed it was mentally unsound, whether the vision was the product of "collective hysteria" or if there was a suspicion that the whole thing was a fraud concocted for profit.

Wow that's awesome the vatican is actually making panel of scienti-
>Theologists and Psychologists.

Wew lad.

[Anonymous No.13320417]

>>13318158
Can I get a pdf for that book anywhere

[Anonymous No.13320460]

>>13320411

You clearly know absolutely anything about either Islam or Christianity. Please go read any book.

>There are repeated instances both in both texts as well as in history that christians and muslims don't agree to your statement

There aren't.

In the case of Islam and Christianity, they are referring to the same entity. So you were saying why don't you believe in God and not Dios?

> claims to be against science
> doesn't believe in psychologists or methodological procedures.

the absolute state of the /lit/ atheist

[Anonymous No.13320475]

>>13320343
maybe not the best context to use him in

[Anonymous No.13320476]

>>13320383
Scientists spend their entire life trying to explain things fully knowing that even a shred of new evidence could force them to throw away their entire previous model and accept an entirely new one.
I'm not sure what you mean about embracing spirituality.
All religious scientists I know are in the "god of the gaps positions". As in, "science explains a lot, and whatever science doesn't explain is god".
I'm not sure what you mean by being desperate to embracing spiritually.

[Anonymous No.13320487]

>>13320475
I disagree. its an elegant explanation of talmudic rhetoric

[Anonymous No.13320498]

>>13320338
It's the truth, pessimism is not received well by the general public, and if you want to talk about intelligence you should first figure out why there is an inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity today.

[Anonymous No.13320534]

>>13320460

The word Dios, in spanish, can be used to refer to any god of any religion. Same as in English. Muslim god, christian god, jewish god. I'm sure that to win an argument you'd be readily willing to say these three are the same, or aren't, depending on what is being argued.
But lets continue. Hindu vedic god, Shinto god, Volcano god, Pokemon god. See how I'm using the word "god" for all these divine entities in various contexts? Why are you playing dumb? When someone says "please god" in their culture and language they are refering to their specific gods, not some universal figure called "god" that was invented by Christians.
The word "allah" existed in arabic before islam existed. Stop being a fallacious brainlet.
>the absolute state of the /lit/ atheist
I wonder what the vatican would say of having scientists in that panel. Even a psychiatrist would be a good start. Maybe a neurologist too.

[Anonymous No.13320565]

keep this shit on /his/ fuck

[Anonymous No.13320570]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/6798179