/lit/ - Literature

>>17656901
>You can’t ignore science just because some studies can’t be replicated.

>>17212533
Where did I give off the impression that I had a victim complex, worm? I never said "pagans, atheists, and Jews" were worthy or great opponents, just opponents all in league with each other.

>it's the largest religion in the world
And how many people truly practice it, or know what it teaches? What do you mean by "beholden to it?" No, Christianity has basic strictures that keep us in line, but the spirit of the age more or less interprets the Bible as it wishes; before, Christianity would have been nationalistic, anti-gay, and anti-"women's rights." Now, it has transformed into the diametric opposite with the help of "cultural revivals" AKA degenerations.

And yes, everyone but me is a dupe. I am a man against the world, it's a very effective truth.

>>17212515
Yes, but was he an atheist? To be critical of dogmas and the church is one thing, and to be an atheist is another.

>>16934314
>anti-natalists want to prevent all pain, caring little for the pleasure this may cause
>natalists want to create maximum pleasure, caring little for the pain this may cause
I would say only that pain that is needed to create such a state of "maximum pleasure" is excused; "infinite pain" cannot exist nor would it be needed.

>>16934348
>environmentalism
>people gradually not having kids because it's too time-consuming, expensive, and they want to do other things and would rather raise pets
It's quiet, but it's still there. This anti-natalism is more of a pessimistic, nihilistic one.

>>16934356
Why does this matter? Especially if you can be great relative to those around you, or it you can reject the idea that "you are not great at anything anymore" (which can be overcome by being great, which is not suddenly impossible for us to do just because of the time we're in).

>>16934441
Few idiots can desire nonexistence; you cannot even experience nonexistence and the "relief from pain" you think it brings, so it is utterly meaningless. Rather than solving problems, you just throw the baby out with the bathwater- an easy thing to do if your philosophy only asks you to "stop reproducing." And yet these anti-natalists never care about preventing the pain in their life or the pain they cause to others.

>life without suffering is impossible.
This doesn't need a material solution; I choose God

>>16934528
Then remove your ability to feel pain.

>>16934635
Oversimplification, the rest is a nonargument

>>16934658
Whorish sex is; responsible reproduction is not

>>16934719
From our limited point of view

>>16826504
>plus it does not completely exclude all suffering, it's simply not as thorough or permanent.
Yes, but it can actually be felt. Nonexistence cannot be experienced by any agents, therefore it is not a preferable state of existence. Furthermore, it DOES exclude all suffering using the same "science magic" you and Kurzgesagt believe in. You can map out a way to do something, but let's talk when scientists are actually reverse engineering a "vacuum decay" machine. Most of this fails when actually put into action, as does most narrow-minded scientism; the reality is always more complicated.

>Delusion
Meaning is in the mind. Meaning is made by man, even though not all meanings are equal. Neither science nor I are in delusion, you are, who sets science at odds with me.

>Read above
Not at all delusion, and far more applicable than your "transhuman anti-utopia." Alternatively, you could just lobotomize yourself; that would help you escape from suffering. Seeing the state you're in right now, it wouldn't be that far of a leap.

>Hedonism is just another distraction, desu
Hedonism isn't a mindless bacchanal, it's the pursuit of what makes you happy. "It's just another distraction." A distraction from what? The meaninglessness of life? Talking about the meaninglessness of life is a distraction from the meaninglessness of life; if it truly was meaningless, you wouldn't care about it, or preventing suffering, or anything. Your meaning is your purpose.

It can never be a distraction if you acknowledge that you will die, and accept the fact.

>Science is a religion now...
It's always failed. Science thrives off of contradiction, or else theories would never progress. We'd still be stuck believing that the sun revolves around us. And yes, science often does fail, and moreso gives off the impression that it is infallible, rather than being as such.

Yes, science is the new religion. There are some labcoat priests performing experiments I can't verify and telling me what to believe. Forget the fact that others replicate their experiments and derive different results, I need to trust these scientists. If I do not, I am a science-denier (heretic) and must ostracized. If science never fails, why are we having this discussion? We should be in a precise, empirical utopia right now, no? After all, science has it all figured out? It knows us, down to our most intimate processes, so why can't it put us back together?

>>16826540
> it's harder to create this supposed...
It's better because life will be created through abiogenesis, anyway. We're just setting progress back by ending existence. In addition, it is easier to destroy, but most prefer to create, so the destroyers will, in turn, be destroyed because they do not accord with the majority of society's wishes.

> it would be neutral...
Maximum bliss is anything but neutral. Nonexistence is not even neutral, because there is no entity for which it can be neutral.

>>16819754
More Nietzschean nonsense. No, religion does not say merely to "wait for salvation." Religion advocates action, as well. It just doesn't dangle a worldly paradise in front of our eyes.

>videos like Kurzgesagt
HAHAHAH "Kurzgesagt." I could refute their namby pamby shit with my brain shut off. No wonder.

>"Utopia" is about as likely as a space unicorn because all the transhumanist's and scientist's plans are short-sighted garbage

>We know practically everything about the Universe, we know it is Cosmic Inflation and either an infinite cycle or it will end at Heat Death, eitherway, it will end life, no meaning, and it has no origin, leaving no origin for deists and theists' shitty arguments like "Uncaused Cause", "Contingency" or such absurdity.
Science doesn't know anything, it only has theories that can be changed at any time when new evidence arises. Besides, this is no problem for theism as God could easily have created such a universe, or fabricated the evidence leading us to these conclusions.

>any value beyond increasing pleasure
I agree, we do what we do to increase pleasure.

>pain is incomprehensibly awful all across the world, the greatest atrocity ever that must end at all cost
I would rather be deluded than weak. I don't want to end any pain, I don't regret anything, I love and accept all of the outwardly meaningless suffering and death!


Sad to say that I only realized you were being ironic halfway through your post.

Either way, science is just a tool built on top of an arbitrary universe it has no justification for. "These laws govern our universe." Why? Why these laws? Why not other laws? "In this formula governing the exchange of heat, there is a constant that equals 4.99 x 10^22." Why exactly that number? Now "how," but "why?" Why do we have something, instead of nothing? "Something" need not be eternal, and eternity is unproveable anyway.

>>16819788
The excrement of God's excrement has more merit in it than anything you've ever produced

>>16819802
Who's Chris?
>religion is a cope
Everything, yes, even transhumanism, is a cope. I'm glad you're catching on.

>>16786843
>that picture
>she blinded me with science
In truth, you're just egoistic

>>16769191
Kind of forfeits the atheist's perceived "moral superiority" when approaching the problem of evil if "you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette." Of course, we don't actually need to go to SPAAAAACE yet and perform all sorts of unrealistic experiments, we need more practical work done. Let's also not forget science's far larger closet full of skeletons, one that'd be the envy of all religions. Thanks for the crossbows, machine guns, and poison gas, science! Almost makes you think that religions and science aren't these big monoliths that you can classify as "all-bad" or "all-good" because of what they've done in the past

>>16757011
>if a God existed, He wouldn't make religiosity evolutionarily favorable, He would make religiosity something that fundamentally goes against our nature and something that is like asking a square peg to fit into a round hole

>Because of evolution, we have a disposition toward teleological thinking and mentalizing
We're not that good at it. I guess we need an AI to calculate all of the consequences of our actions so we can truly be HUMANE and ETHICAL. I guess those theists with their domineering God were right after all! In truth, we're not deontological or teleological creatures, we use either as the situation demands.

>Evolution caused us to think in terms of purposes, so if we have psychological disposition to think in purposes it makes sense that we believe in a creator
Wow, I guess we don't need to believe in a purpose because it's just evolutionary anyways! What's the point, again? What's the purpose of making this post?

> Since we have a disposition to do this, we tend to think of God in anthropomorphic terms
I'm sure that doesn't encroach on his transcendental nature, it's just our way of understanding or conceptualizing him.

>Studies also show that people with these dispositions in lesser degrees, such as autistic people, are less likely to believe in God
No wonder so many philosophers are atheists. Make autism Christian again

>>16745073
It is not necessary for this to be proof of a non-omniscient or benevolent God; perhaps that is the consummate way to create a perfect man. Why doesn't God just "test us" in an instant, why do we have to wait? Who's to say that we wait? If God is not bound by time, time is an illusion; He's already living in the best possible world which awaits us, the deluded.

>>16745078
So he's just an unconventional moralist? What is the aim of morality?

>>16745083
Imagine being so weak you don't pray for adversity, and conquer nonetheless. The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Here is just the primary difference between the two of us, a difference of natures- one hates his creator for challenging him, the other bears those challenges as best as he can and affirms life, affirms his maker. If you do not have self-interest, continue with this defeatism. Is God unjust for making this world? What makes you man can judge God so absolutely? You scorn Him, you scorn yourself- dai in mine, dai in tine.

>>16745098
Stupid, bovine mischaracterization. You think these depictions give you power over others, but you don't know anything about people's personal relationships with their God. And you shoot yourself in the foot by implying you have daddy issues

>>16745101
Yes, but by His own volition.

>>16734516
There was nothing to BTFO because you did the exact same as me- mere name calling. It was just banter you nitwit