/lit/ - Literature

cringe and bluepilled

>>11885196
nice shitty meme

Great, now read pic related and similar literature and go back to not believing in him

>>11885236
And then read Kierkegaard and go to God again
Rinse repeat

>>11885191
Same

>>11885191
Damn, can't wait to read it. I've been a soft atheist (inb4 fat) and if someone can relay God's word from a more human position then I might convert.

>>11885191
how? it's just a guy whinning about how weak he is and how great god is...

>>11885242
This is a good last step. Specifically read Fear and Trembling to make that leap.

>>11885242
Sorry but Kierkegaard does not cancel out neuroscience nor does he offer any sort of rebuttal to the proven science that consciousness is a mere physical process and personal "soul" is basically just a very very old meme

>>11885191
I read the Bible and I came to believe in God.

>>11885273
Confessions might not be the best for that. Augustine was a bit of a weirdo and some parts of Confessions comes off as neurotic ramblings. Read "Wonderful Fool" by Shusako Endo if you want a book that relays the will of God in a human manner.
>>11885196
>>11885236
>>11885275
>>11885300
Pick up and read...

>>11885300
Based 110 IQ 17 year old redditor

>>11885300
soul is just a metaphor, it can't be "proven wrong"

>>11885236
But functionalism doesn't negate the existence of God, it remains neutral.

>>11885300
It's about believing in the idea of God and living a good life through the teachings of the bible through metaphors, not about an actual creator God figure. Religions are not meant to be an explanation of the physical world.

>>11885405
So, god becomes just an "idea" so you can feel better before you pass back into extinction

Wait, isn't there another word for that? Wouldn't that be called a delusion? kek

>>11885300
Your life on STEM

>>11885405
Yeah dude just ignore the actual beliefs of a religion that's how you discover what it's about

>>11885300
science has actually not proven this, and if you think it has, you actually have no idea what you are talking about

>>11885405
it definitely is interesting how the west seems obsessed with defining the structure of reality, while all other *wisdom* schools are actually more concerned with the practical wisdom necessary to lead a good life and be happy

>>11885317
>Pick up and read...
Not any of them.
It's a beautiful book and made me realise how human's have always had the same questions about their existence and the existence of a higher power but I'm still an atheist.

>>11885196
based and redpilled xD

>>11885191
me too deus
based

>>11885725
>deus
Freudian slip?

>>11885191
Why?

>>11885300
You are exactly the sort of "objective thinker" Kierkegaard so thoroughly BTFOd.

>>11885314
I want to read the bible but with what should i begin? There's like 20 books and on amazon its always parts of the bible like the levitique, pentateuque, ect

What do?

>>11885300
Cringed and shillpilled

belief in god is fine
organized religion is a con

>>11885647
>it definitely is interesting how the west seems obsessed with defining the structure of reality, while all other *wisdom* schools are actually more concerned with the practical wisdom necessary to lead a good life and be happy
t. uneducated
if you read any eastern text you would know the concerns are almost the same

>>11885840
f-fug

>>11886158
Sorry, what science did Kierkegaard do? Oh that's right, he didn't do real science, he just made up some bullshit opinions like every other philosopher.
>when science is too hard, so you do philosophy instead

>>11886217

>>11886226
No this guy isn't trolling, he really is this retarded.

He made another thread a few days ago

>>11886169
The Oxford Classics KJV is good. It has the Apocrypha too which are included in the Bibles of some non-Catholic denominations

>>11886217
Everyone knows philosophers are failed poets not failed scientists

>>11886226
>hurr durr let's call it's bait because I disagree
Show me one thing Kierkegaard achieved A single patent, a single discovery that has advanced our knowledge. You can't because he didn't make any. He just repeated the same superstitious opinions like every other philosopher

What is the closest to a genderbent Confessions?

>>11886169
KJV. Start with the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You can skip Matthew at first and jump right into Mark.
At least read Mark, Luke, and John befrore moving onto Acts and the Epistles (letters of Christ's followers".
Once you get these out of the way I'd move onto the Wisdom literature (Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs) and the Psalms.

I'd do this before reading the Historical books, the Law books, and the Prophecy books.

>>11886512
>show me a single patent by Kierkegaard

Is this the next level of STEMposting? How would you quantify Kierkegaard's thought getting you through difficult times? Or you this much of a utilitarian bug or are you just baiting?

>>11885300
>the proven science that consciousness is a mere physical process
source?

>>11886565
>KJV

>>11885273
Kierkegaard sounds like the man for you. His method of indirect communication is essentially writing books from the perspective of non-believers or at least very confused believers, and thus showing that the journey to faith is not like flipping a switch--it's challenging and painful, but it's oh so worth it.

>>11886585
You make him sound like a glorified therapist which doesn't help

>>11886655
KJV is the inerrant word of God. The other English translations are corrupt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gO_QQy69s

>>11886512
>A single patent
Metaphysics doesn't work like that--almost by definition. If you are unable to move beyond the physical, knowable realm and into the inferable realm, there's little hope for enjoyment of metaphysics for you.
>Superstitious opinions
tips fedora
>Like every other philosopher
what about the philosophers who consciously attack superstition? Also, this idea that superstition is limited to theistic metaphysics is naive. Many "scientifically-minded men" will defend the scientific method as the ultimate truth in epistemology simply out of fear or a, dare I say it, superstitious belief that everything is knowable. Things are simply more complex than that. Or at least we need to be open to the idea that they might be.

>>11885191
>>11885405
This is the part that puzzles me. Why the Christian religion specifically? Why not Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, or Hinduism? Even if there was proof of God there isn't any evidence to what the right path is, if there is one.

I'm open to answers.

>>11886776
>This is the part that puzzles me. Why the Christian religion specifically? Why not Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, or Hinduism? Even if there was proof of God there isn't any evidence to what the right path is, if there is one.


In the face of an unknown horror, you should only worship a god worthy of your worship. A Christian god is loving and just, so even though it could be any of those it doesn't matter.

>>11886585
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

>>11886784
>A Christian god is loving and just, so even though it could be any of those it doesn't matter.

So is Allah, Vishnu, and the old gods of your forefathers like Zeus and Odin. Catholic imagery resembles ancient Roman imagery to an extent desu. And that's not a bad thing, I see religion as useful. But maybe Christianity isn't the best fit for western civilization as it didn't even originate here to begin with.

The best path is to not believe in religion literally but to see it as a helpful way to assign symbols to difficult concepts. In addition it has aesthetic value and helps with social cohesion.

>>11886705
Lol, present your case peasant.

filmkväll?

>>11886811
>So is Allah, Vishnu, and the old gods of your forefathers like Zeus and Odin.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Zeus and Odin were both evil dicks (rapists and murders). Allah permits massacres of other peoples. Vishnu is ok, but not all good.

>>11886803
dam

>>11885317
But Augustine appeals to me because I too am a neurotic rambler

>>11886811
>polytheistic religions
God is One.
>Islam
As if 72 virgins is a realistic reward in the afterlife. Any religion with materialistic benefits in the afterlife is also wrong. Also, Muhammad had no witnesses for his revelations and performed no miracles. There is no religion that better prepares us for heaven than Christianity

>>11886803
C

O

P

E

>>11887025
I mean I'm a stem major and he's not totally wrong. People fail to understand that while science tells us a lot, it doesn't tell us everything. It's sorta like basing you entire thinking on a map fragment and calming it's the whole thing.

>>11887038
Based

>>11885317
>Augustine was a bit of a weirdo and some parts of Confessions comes off as neurotic ramblings
It's relatable

>>11885191
>believing in God because that is what some lame-brain former gnostic cum former polytheist finally settled on
teladi says you must read the new testament instead. augusssstine was a brainletss.

>>11886776
I come from a Muslim background and if I log into any forum in Arabic discussing something similar the assumed God would be the islamic one, other Gods do not even cross their minds

>>11886776
Jesus' teachings are universally applicable, and the word of God best describes the beauty of the universe.

>>11886776
Read Pascal
>>11887021

>>11887021
Jesus Christ was a good prophet but the Koran is the word of God

>>11887168
Because Muhammad said so and killed a bunch of people? The Koran is not in chronological order. How retarded is that? Even atheists will admit that the Bible is aesthetic, and that they say with only a superficial understanding of its content.

>>11886776
The Jewish G-d isn't a magic bearded man in the clouds but rather the universe itself. All that is required of you as a goy is to follow the Seven Laws of Noah: Do not to worship idols, do not curse G-d, establish courts of justice, do not murder, do not commit adultery or sexual immorality, do not to steal, and do not eat flesh torn from a living animal.

Basically don't be a dick and you're fine. Seems a lot more reasonable than other religions, no?

>>11885236
>functionalism
>computationalism
sure is 1980s in here

>>11887168
Jesus was not just a "good prophet", He was the son of God. The last direct physical extension of God's will on earth.

Muhammad simply persuaded his way to power and authority. You follow a manipulated depiction of the world, but all is not lost. You can still submit yourself to Christ, and be saved.

>>11887021
>God is One.
How do you know this?
>>11887195
>but rather the universe itself.

How do we know God or multiple gods aren't present in everything?

>>11887290
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

>>11887366
>How do we know God or multiple gods aren't present in everything?

There's only one universe

>>11885191
What is the best translation? The one by Sheed?

>>11885405
stop posting, mr peterson

>>11887996
memerson

>>11885191
same here brother.

>>11885191
north-africans don't look like that.

>>11886776

And why not christianity?

Why not?

It just baffles me how atheists are so read to accept their own beliefs as the one and only truth (not talking about you, specifically), but when it comes to religion, it's always the same thing. "There are a thousand other beliefs how do you know which is true", while they themselves could never really explain their own beliefs in an objective manner, in which everyone could agree on, that isn't based solely in their own personal, subjective views.

There might not be a conclusive answer as to "why not x religion", but there certain isn't any more of an answer to "why not atheism".

>>11886720
>beyond the physical, knowable realm
So yeah, superstition and sky pixies. Thanks for playing

>>11888631
>superstition and sky pixies

God I hate materialists, they're the true brainlets. Totally and completely unwilling to face up to what evidence actually does exist for the mystical and the miraculous.

>>11888319
I'm not an atheist, I have no idea if God or any other deity exists or not. I do however see it as more preferable to secularism which leads to more bureaucracy.

I'm asking these questions because I want to see if religion can rationally defend itself. We're living in a world where people are leaving religion because of lack of evidence. It's commonplace in the west to be seen as mere superstition. However, the alternative of statist liberalism is turning out not to be the answer.

>And why not christianity?

I'm assuming you live in a western country. Christianity has no roots in the west, it's a foreign religion that borrowed a lot from Roman tradition. I can't see why any evidence of god can't be applicable to polytheistic religions. Then there's the question of evidence any of the fables actually happened.

>>11888714
>evidence actually does exist for the mystical and the miraculous.
like what exactly

Atheism/theism is a false dichotomy.

>>11885236
>t. has a summary understanding of cognitive science
Cognitive Science establishes a material basis for the utility and existence of religion in the first place. Once you dive into it more and more, you see how religion is a stop gap measure to activate the higher faculties of the mind. Even if metaphysics are false, religion can serve a use to suppress the more primal regions of the brain.

t. Atheist materialist that would brainwash himself into being fervently religious if he could

>>11888742

>I'm asking these questions because I want to see if religion can rationally defend itself

Have you read Chesterton? Apart from the obvious philosophers like Aquinas, his is the most sound mind I've ever had the pleasure to read on the subject of religion. Almost all his major works tackles religious themes, but his "Everlasting Man" is the most popular as a straightforward defense of Christianity. Even if you disagree with virtually everything he has to say, there's few authors who would make you fell so much delight as you shake your head and roll your eyes.

>It's commonplace in the west to be seen as mere superstition

How? The majority of the west is still religious. People are leaving religion but are joining them just as much. All statistics point out that religion will still be alive and well by the year 2050. The idea that the world is becoming "non religious" is not true at all, only propagated by secularist media. Europe and the USA is not the whole world.

>Christianity has no roots in the west, it's a foreign religion that borrowed a lot from Roman tradition.

I did not meant that as a defense of christianity specifically, but of any religion, really. When you do delve into the implications of atheism, you realize just how absurd to embrace atheism is, just as any other religion, but it is never viewed as such.

The answer to "why x religion" is a hard one because it's always a incredibly personal one. You can read all the most rational arguments for religion as you want, but if you don't have it in you to take them in it will do no good.

>>11888714
Not meming genuinely curious what evidence are you referring to?

>>11888742
Not him, but as for the last point, it doesn't matter where Christianity came from because it's not a special club for people of a certain geographical area. The Truth is the same for all of mankind, whether European or not. I feel that polytheism runs into problems, because the gods couldn't all simultaneously be the greatest or most perfect. They would limit each other in some way, and thus would be imperfect (which is something that I would not attribute to a God). The actual existence of Jesus Christ, his miracles, as well as the event of his resurrection lead me to believe that this particular type of monotheism is the correct one, as opposed to Islam (Mohammed existed, but just said lots of things which are quite flawed and never worked a miracle) or Judaism (Jesus came to save all of humanity, not just the Jews). You can reason all you want, but you will eventually hit a wall, you have to have faith that Jesus was the son of God and that the evidence for this is true.

>>11888917
>The idea that the world is becoming "non religious" is not true at all, only propagated by secularist media. Europe and the USA is not the whole world.
China is unironically most of the world and non-religious.

>>11888973
But Christianity is making substantial strides there. I remember someone saying it is not a question of if China will become Christian, but when

>>11888973

>China is unironically most of the world

Poor India always getting forgotten.

Anyway, China is only oficially atheist. Did you forget those crazy buddhist monks who were fighting over the next dalai lama are from China?

>>11887189
No because the Koran predicted a lot of world events, had a lot of wisdom in a time when it would have been technologically impossible to find out, and fundamentally altered how the people in that region thought of God(s).

It’s just God trying to spread his word. That’s all. The other Christian saying ‘God is one’ over and over again is basically a Muslim

>>11887025
Stem is the cope

>>11889148
can you elaborate on this? What world events are you referring to?

>>11889308
allof them

>>11889313
Wtf I'm a Muslim now!?

>>11889313
BASED Mohammed

>>11887038
>People fail to understand that while science tells us a lot, it doesn't tell us everything.
I'd just add that this still isn't the best wording because it pretty implies the sort of vice-grip on objectivity that the degenerated husk of Catholicism began to exercise in the late Enlightenment era; i.e. "religion fills in the gaps of what we don't know." becomes "everything that isn't science fills in the gaps of science until science itself does it."
A better way of formulating it would be to just say that Science is one of many dimensions in our experience with existence. Art is another. History another. Labor another. Love another. etc. The main issue with modernity is that it teaches mono-dimensional thought for whatever field a person decides to decay into. Politically minded people only think politically. Mathematicians only think mathematically. """writers""" only think """creatively""". Lawyers only think legally (speaking from experience here. My brother is lawyer and a good guy overall but man oh man is it worrisome how reductionist he is on some issues, completely blind to other interpretations of a given instance other the legalistic one, a reflex that law school ensured to teach him).
The point being most people pick one thing and make a god out of it, forcing everything to submit to its commandments and to offer praise to it or else be treated just like any other hostile and aggressive religion treats the infidels it encounters.
We need to get back to cultivating more polymaths or at least the sort of person who, while ignorant of a field of study, still possesses enough awareness to appreciate that it is engaging existence from a different point of view and that it takes of these points combined to begin to see a more clear and perfect image of what Is. A painter who can only paint an object from a single angle, using a single colour and so on would be a very poor painter indeed. So too the scientist who only gives credence to science. The artist who only gives it to art. The engineer who only gives it to technology. Reductionism is the enemy here.

>>11889308
The plain Warner

>>11889372
I agree, but that's what I meant by the map thing.

You need all the pieces to solve the puzzles called life.

>>11887189
Btw the Bible isn't in chronological order either, you nog

>>11885317
>Augustine was a bit of a weirdo and some parts of Confessions comes off as neurotic ramblings
*adds confessions to to-read list then bursts into tears*

>>11885191
I feel like there are a lot of people on this board who will read a new book and just base their worldview on that, get so obsessed that it becomes all they think about until a new book comes along.

Like how everyone was riding nick lands dick, peterson before him, and honestly you can trace it back a ways.

I feel the Bible contains an incredible amount of wisdom and beauty, but things like prayer and singing hymns feel inauthentic to me. I believe God is real, but the idea that he's personable or even conscious feels like too far of a stretch. Any advice or recommendations?

>>11886169
DRA KJV, NKJV, RSVC2E are all fine. I'd start with NT, that way you will be blown away by all the prophecies Christ fulfilled.

>>11886467
I definitely see most philosophers as wannabe scientists who want to navel gaze and string together obtuse conclusions that are semantically meaningless and incapable of being proven right or wrong. Kant is one of the worst of the bunch.

>>11886653
I think his point is that we can observe it (EEGs), play around with it (epilepsy medication, brain surgery), and otherwise understand it with the same tools we use to observe the rest of physical "reality" (whatever that means). We don't need a higher power to explain consciousness any more than we need it to explain a vibrator.

>>11888714
>Totally and completely unwilling to face up to what evidence actually does exist for the mystical and the miraculous.
Such as?

>>11886776
The part that gets me is that all modern religions borrow heavily from earlier religions. Christianity is just nu-judaism, judaism is just nu-zoroastrianism, and so on and so forth. Why are they always so confident that they've got it straight this time around?

>>11889372
Disagree entirely. Obsessive autistic weirdos who only care about one "field" make the best crap, be it art, science, or engineering. The only contemporary exception I can think of is Nabokov, but no one cares about butterfly taxonomy anyway. Doesn't make for the most fun people to be around, but their works benefit more people than they ever met in person anyway.

Question.
I already have a lot of education under my belt and it seems half of seminary is character building and pleb tier philosophy meant for young people who planned on this life early on (possibly deluded by ambition or false encouragement which explains the terrible decay of the church).
I have a medical degree.

I'd consider the priesthood if I could get the ball rolling sooner. It took Augustine less than two years to be ordained. Is there any way to test out of most of seminary?

>>11891457
>and otherwise understand it with the same tools we use to observe the rest of physical "reality"
My sides
Get out, you primitive underage

>>11889592
Judaism.

>>11891457
>incapable of being proven right or wrong
That goes for all human knowledge. Between induction and hard solipsism, it's impossible to completely prove anything.

>>11886863
>In addition it has aesthetic value and helps with social cohesion.
The abrahamic religions all end up being used as justification for intense persecution, which epitomizes social division. If we're going to judge religions based on their social value, we should elevate jainism or buddhism.

>>11887021
>Any religion with materialistic benefits in the afterlife is also wrong.
An afterlife itself is a materialistic benefit.
>muh soul
is not a convincing counterargument.

>>11891479
Do you have a counterargument or do you just want to feel smug without putting in any of the work?

>>11887195
>do not commit [...] sexual immorality
Dropped. Plus, jainism is cooler.

>>11887518
Debatable and unprovable.

>>11888319
>And why not christianity?
Literally begging the question. I have no reason to believe in organized religion. Religion, by definition, depends on faith. Asking "Why NOT have faith in this arbitrary dogma written by someone else?" is retarded.

>>11888742
>However, the alternative of statist liberalism is turning out not to be the answer.
The lack of a state sponsored religion does not necessitate statist liberalism. That is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're suggesting.

>>11888811
>Once you dive into it more and more, you see how religion is a stop gap measure to activate the higher faculties of the mind.
Such as? Are you sure this isn't anything other than religiosity compartmentalizing certain modes of thinking into a conception of religious faith? Religiosity has an inverse correlation with intelligence, after all.

>>11888951
Couldn't you make the same arguments for polytheists as christians do for the whole god/jesus/ghost trifecta?

>>11888973
>China is unironically most of the world and non-religious.
They aren't most. They are the plurality, not the majority.

>>11891504
While that is true, people still use induction to engineer things, like the computer you're using to read this. The mental masturbation kind of philosopher dithers in the unprovable regions of logic, writing long reams of bullshit that have zero human utility even if they could be proven true or false. Navel gazing in this way if fine, but writing it down so other people can read it is frivolous sadism disguised as intellectual endeavor. Organized religion is willful sadism disguised as empathy.

>>11891909
>people still use induction to engineer things
So what? Do you have a proper argument? Everything you complain about with religion can equally be applied to science, which has been used to justify the most appallingly brutal acts in human history, from slavery to the holocaust. I guess you can play 'no true scotsman' here, so have fun with that.

>>11891909
>An afterlife itself is a materialistic benefit.
Having sex is clearly more materialistic than receiving love from God and what not. Those types of carnal desires have no place in Heaven. So in comparing Christianity and Islam, I believe Christianity is easily superior. Christianity is popular, which is expected of a correct religion, but God has made Islam such an embarrassing religion that its popularity means nothing.

>>11891909
>unprovable
There's that word again. You can't prove the bullshit you're spewing either. You trust your neurochemicals in the brain. You trust fluctuation of ions somehow transforming into a thing we see, hear, feel etc in a specific region of your brain; the neurons of those regions somehow knowing that they should transform that fluctuation into a, for example, visual signal.
>that have zero human utility
It doesn't matter. We'll all die anyways, and nothing is provable, you might as well be a thing I made up. You're embarrassing yourself with your humanism. Not to mention that it's ironic how optimistic in the human nature you are, and generally idealistic when it comes to humans acomplishing things, yet you're an obvious materialist who cares only about matter (moreso ironic that the image you see in your brain doesn't exist in the material sense of that word, the material components are the neural pathways and the matter that is in front of your eyes).
>The mental masturbation kind of philosopher dithers in the unprovable regions of logic, writing long reams of bullshit that have zero human utility
Even if we take your cringy argument as valid, it's still wrong, as philosophies can change the way someone lives, which could have an impact in practice, for example someone could start studying and becoming a doctor, then discovering some important cure etc.
I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, or baiting, whichever of the two it is you're doing.

My own pain and suffering made me unironically believe in God. I really only had two option:
1. Be bitter, do something extremely stupid or kill myself.
2. Believe in God, thus accepting my own suffering and get salvation from God

>>11892074
You’ll really like pic related. It converted me

>>11887195
Fuck off kike. I don't believe in the Christian god but Christ hated you talmudic shitheads for good reason.

>>11891924
>So what? Do you have a proper argument? Everything you complain about with religion can equally be applied to science
Science is the application of reason to the physical world, much as math is the application of reason to the abstraction of quantity. Faith is antithetical to reason.
>science, which has been used to justify the most appallingly brutal acts in human history
Science discusses why things happen and how things work. It does not discuss moral values or try to provide answers to stuff like "What should we do with all the infidels?". That people take scientific conclusions (often erroneously) and then combine them with their moral values to justify actions (whether they be inoculations to disease or atrocities) is not an indictment of the scientific method.

You are hilariously booty blasted and totally confused. I'm not trying to say "Who needs religion when you have science?". All religions have a world creation myth, and all of them posit answers to the questions of where we came from and where we're going. The purpose of religion is to give the human experience context and meaning. This is not the purpose of science; it does not replace religion, nor does religion need to be replaced if you're happy finding your own meaning and contextual perspective on life. Take some time to reflect on why you're reacting so defensively.

>>11891931
>Having sex is clearly more materialistic than receiving love from God and what not.
I'm not making a distinction of degrees. Like I said, an afterlife is itself a materialistic benefit. You cannot rationally dismiss other faiths on the basis of material benefit while retaining your own belief in the same stuff. Religious people are never able to rationalize their faith consistently; it always boils down to faith (obviously), and thus always entertains logical inconsistencies.

>>11892158
Science is faith you dumbass, which is the argument you've deliberately avoided addressing. Science is not this impartial thing which 'discusses why things happen and how things work. It does not discuss moral values or try to provide answers'. That's a lie (let's call it a meta-narrative shall we?) you are telling yourself to justify your faith in your ideology. Pretending that your path alone is the neutral road of wisdom, and all else is superstition and fairy tales, is a delusion shared by most faiths. When you've grown out of this naive positivism let me knew and we'll have a grown up discussion

>>11892145
>"durr hurr Jesus wasn't a Jew himself"

Not all Jews are "Talmudists" by the way. There are plenty of Jewish movements that either don't adhere to or outright reject the Talmud like the Karaites, Samaritans, etc.

>>11892158
>like "What should we do with all the infidels?". That people take scientific conclusions (often erroneously) and then combine them with their moral values to justify actions (whether they be inoculations to disease or atrocities) is not an indictment of the scientific method.
>t...that wasn't real science
Exactly as predicted

>>11892214
>Karaites, Samaritans
Those people are an extremely small minority and I don't even think Samaritans count as Jews.

>Jesus wasn't a Jew himself
In an ethnic and cultural sense maybe but in a theological sense? Not so sure. He's kind of known for being the founder of this other religion called Christianity. You may have heard of it.

>>11891946
>You trust your neurochemicals in the brain. You trust fluctuation of ions somehow transforming into a thing we see, hear, feel etc in a specific region of your brain; the neurons of those regions somehow knowing that they should transform that fluctuation into a, for example, visual signal.
Actually, no, I don't trust my neurons or anything like that. I EXPECT to keep seeing so long as my eyes are open because it's been happening all my life; no faith necessary. I'm not dependent upon faith in something I have no tangible evidence for, I'm making a conclusion (not really, since I don't actually spend time hoping I won't instantly go blind) based on the evidence from my memories and perceptions. I don't KNOW that it will keep happening, but I don't need faith in anything mystical to keep me from worrying about it. I don't know how religion solves this issue anyhow, since god could suddenly decide you don't deserve to keep shitposting and strike you blind this instant. Seems like a god in the picture should only reduce your expectations of a predictable reality.
>It doesn't matter. We'll all die anyways, and nothing is provable, you might as well be a thing I made up.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Just because I'm not religious does not mean I'm a nihilist. You do not need religion to have ethical and philosophical values, nor am I trying to argue that any of my values are grounded in science.
>Not to mention that it's ironic how optimistic in the human nature you are, and generally idealistic when it comes to humans acomplishing things
I have no idea what you're on about. I think you're assuming my position on a broad range of topics and missing the mark by miles. Once again, I have never said, nor do I believe "Who needs religion when you have science?".
>yet you're an obvious materialist who cares only about matter
I don't know what you're trying to say and I don't think you do either
>(moreso ironic that the image you see in your brain doesn't exist in the material sense of that word, the material components are the neural pathways and the matter that is in front of your eyes)
Did I say anything to suggest I think otherwise? Not that I see how it would help your non-argument if I did.
>it's still wrong, as philosophies can change the way someone lives
I never questioned that, nor did I say philosophy as a field is bunk. I made a judgment about certain philosophers based on the non-utility of their work and the fact that it can't be applied to anything. My favorite philosophers are Socrates, Diogenes, and Democritus.
>I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself
Irony.

>>11892275
>I don't even think Samaritans count as Jews.
Jews consider Samaritans to be Jews and both groups refer to themselves as "Israel". Samaritans even have their own dialect of Hebrew.

>In an ethnic and cultural sense maybe but in a theological sense? Not so sure. He's kind of known for being the founder of this other religion called Christianity
Christianity is a derivative of Judaism that was warped outside it's original scope by goyim. Up until the Romans destroyed Israel and exiled the Jews there were plenty of Jewish Christians in Israel who weren't considered goyim but rather just heretics. To divorce Christianity from Jews and Judaism is just willful delusion. Western Civilization is a blend of native European and foreign Jewish influences whether you like it or not, we built this civilization together and now we're awkward relatives.

>>11892327
>I EXPECT to keep seeing so long as my eyes are open because it's been happening all my life; no faith necessary

>>11891909

>Asking "Why NOT have faith in this arbitrary dogma written by someone else?" is retarded.

And yet I highly doubt you came to the conclusion of " I have no reason to believe in organized religion" by yourself.

>>11891909
>The lack of a state sponsored religion does not necessitate statist liberalism. That is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're suggesting.

Wasn't suggesting that at all and am no proponent of state religion. I was saying that people who are atheists tend to vote more left and for more government and bureaucracy while religious people are generally for freedom and less government.

>>11892457
>*describes Bible nonsense* NOW JUST BELIEVE IN IT MMMKAY?
>nah that sounds retarded
>SOMEONE TOLD YOU TO SAY THAT DIDN'T THEY??

>>11892327
>it’s not faith, I EXPECT...

>>11892343

>>11892502

Well it's not really surprising to find an atheist whom never read the bible and yet dismiss it as bullshit.

>>11892540
Reading the Bible is usually what leads people to atheism.

>>11892343
>To divorce Christianity from Jews and Judaism is just willful delusion.
Never said that. Just that Jesus obviously differed a lot from what the founders of modern rabbinic judaism thought.

>Western Civilization is a blend of native European and foreign Jewish influences
Western Civilization began in ancient Greece. The Jewish influence only came later and in my opinion was a massive speed bump on the wests progress. Notice how little scientific or philosophical progress there was until the renaissance when people finally revived classical thought and the reformation helped break up the stranglehold Christianity had on the continent. Hell even Christianity itself is infused with neo-platonic and aristotelian philosophy.

>we built this civilization together
No, fuck off. I'm perfectly willing to say that Jews made some important contributions but you'll never be anything more than a foreign member in the body.

>goyim
And there's that word again. You fuckers wonder why there's so many anti-semites in the world when you're too dumb to see the answer why is right in front of you. You're an anti-social people. You bitch day and night about how all your history you've been the eternal Other when the truth is that you always wanted to be the Other. Your whole ethnic basis is that you need to separate yourselves from non-jews, that you are God's chosen people and everyone else is just the goyim. And you faggots chose to stay in Europe for 2000 years (where you were the only religious minority allowed) instead of going back to the middle east which you could've done at any time. So I have absolutely no sympathy for the millennia of Jewish suffering that forms so much of your history. You brought it on yourselves.

But, Israel's a country now. Hopefully you'll all fuck off there finally.

>>11885300
are you serious? do you actually think neuroscience has (or even can) show that consciousness is a "mere physical process"?

wew

>>11885300
>Reality is materialism!
>Everything can be reduced to a mechanical process!
>The knowledge acquired by observation of those mechanical processes explain them
>I am retarded

I'd go into more detail, but im writing a book on it ;)
You are an idiot.

>>11892576
>just belieeeeeeeve!! do it noooow!! stop rejecting my beliefs that are based on feelings and circular logic you meanie doo doo head!!!

>>11892556
>Becoming an atheist because you can't understand symbolism and take The Bible completely literally
Literally autism

>>11892611
Considering the basis of both theological belief and Christianity in particular necessarily rely on supernatural bullshit, are you sure you want to go down the "it's all a metaphor" road? :^)

>>11892566
>goyim
"Goy" just literally means "foreigner". The Chinese and Japanese do the same thing with "wairen" and "gaijin" but people don't get triggered by that as hard.

>you are God's chosen people and everyone else is just the goyim
"chosen" in the context of Judaism just means we made an eternal covenant with G-d in exchange for their blessing. Non-Jews are not lesser beings despite what you project and there are plenty of examples of biblical figures who mixed with goyim without stigma (Moses himself had two Ethiopian wives) if you don't believe me. We can even be reincarnated as each other in the next life.

>And you faggots chose to stay in Europe for 2000 years instead of going back to the middle east which you could've done at any time
It was the Romans that destroyed Israel and exiled us from our homeland. So you can blame them for that since it wasn't exactly an arrangement we desired. The time in Europe wasn't exactly an enjoyable experience.

And how exactly are a bunch of scattered impoverished Jews with no base of power or support supposed to retake Israel when a combined European expedition (the crusades) couldn't manage to?

>>11892583
I'm not religious dummy. There is no object without subject - phenomenology shit head.

>>11892583
All beliefs are based on feelings and circular logic. Bertrand Russell spent half his life trying, and failing, to independently prove that 1+1=2

>>11892661
>Bertrand Russell spent half his life trying, and failing, to independently prove that 1+1=2
kek imagine actually doing something like this

is there anything more pathetic than philosofags?

>>11892669
>taking the bait

>>11892181
>Science is faith you dumbass, which is the argument you've deliberately avoided
I'm not deliberately avoiding anything considering you just made that claim. I can't reply to your stupidity before you spout it, you moron. Using a process to collect evidence for outcomes you can consistently replicate is not the same as religious faith. One draws conclusion from evidence, the other posits truths based on nothing. Every piece of religious dogma requires you to just accept them as true (or have you been to heaven yourself?). You are trying to rationally defend religious faith (by either equating it with or dismissing science, for some reason), which is inherently impossible. What does "faith" even mean? It means believing in something you have no evidence for. You can be as faithful as you want, but it is silly to get so assblasted when I point out that it is fundamentally irrational. Instead, just have faith the way a pastor does. Why do you think you're getting so defensive? Part of you can't accept that your strongest convictions are built on a choice to believe things which are completely unfounded. If you can't turn that little nagging voice off, you should stop being religious. No skin off my back either way, I don't even fucking know you.
>Science is not this impartial thing [...] That's a lie (let's call it a meta-narrative shall we?) you are telling yourself to justify your faith in your ideology.
Okay, then what is it? You'll have to do better than "It's faith, cuz i sez so". I suggest you at least brush up on the methodology of science, testing hypothesis, and the difference between principle and constructive theories. Science is a method, not a collection of beliefs that have "been used to justify the most appallingly brutal acts in human history". You seem to be confusing science itself, which is a method, with politics that try to justify ideology based on shoddy interpretations of data. That's a stunning display of your complete ignorance of basic distinctions, which appears to be endemic to your childish worldview. Here's a tip: if it wasn't an experiment that tests a hypothesis and it didn't collect data, it wasn't science.
>Pretending that your path alone is the neutral road of wisdom, and all else is superstition and fairy tales,
Religion is exactly a collection of superstitions and fairy tales you believe to be true, though I haven't gone into my own values at all, so I've no idea why you want to believe I'm making claims to the "lone path to neural wisdom". You seem to be trying really hard to convince me that I think "Who needs religion when you've got science?". Is this how your feeble brain copes with the irrationality of religious faith?
>naive positivism
What are you on about? Stop assuming you know anything about my beliefs beyond religion.
>When you've grown out of this naive positivism let me knew and we'll have a grown up discussion
I am certain you've never had a grown up discussion in your entire life.

>>11892691
>mfw science is a method
Oh my how mad are you to type all this shit? Has pointing out your naive faith in 'science' and 'rationality' touched a nerve? Poor little positivist babby has been confronted with the limitations of his faith for the first time and he's throwing his toys out of the pram.
>One draws conclusion from evidence, the other posits truths based on nothing. Every piece of religious dogma requires you to just accept them as true
Science is exactly the same, unless you can prove causality or math, or that the future will resemble the past. Which you can't, you take them on faith. Because science is a faith. And you have faith in science.

>>11892727
God, what an embarrassing post.

>>11892727
based enraged schizo poster

>>11892652
Don't pull some pilpul bullshit with me Moshe. You know full well what goyim means in 99.9% of cases it's posted on 4chan. You could have easily said gentile or non-jew instead but you didn't.

>It was the Romans that destroyed Israel and exiled us from our homeland
Jews were only banished from Jerusalem itself after the Bar Kokhba revolt. There were still Jewish communities throughout Palestine afterwards. And there were also plenty of opportunities to back between then and now. The Ottomans were very willing to take in Jewish refugees for example.

>>11892776
>99.9% of cases it's posted on 4chan
You mean when it's used by white nationalist freaks to try and shame their peers into behaving the way they want?
>good goyim
>good goy!
etc

>>11892776
>You could have easily said gentile or non-jew instead but you didn't.
These words all mean the same thing so I just went with the one that is most natural to me. I didn't realize I was on tumblr and had to use PC language to avoid offending people, but I genuinely wasn't looking to insult anyone.

>There were still Jewish communities throughout Palestine afterwards. And there were also plenty of opportunities to back between then and now.
Jewish communities that dwindled because Arabs gonna Arab?

>The Ottomans were very willing to take in Jewish refugees for example.
Life in the Ottoman Empire was not much different than life in Europe in terms of repression. The Turks and Arabs were never going to let us have self-determination or freedom.

>>11892251
science
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

Science is a method of collecting data and experimenting. Being a brainlet, you are hung up on a "Science vs Religion" paradigm. Science does not try to answer the questions that religion tries to answer. You can make a hypothesis that exterminating infidels will reduce crime, kill all said infidels in your neighborhood and collect rigorous data on the experiment, and you would be totally justified in calling it science. That does not mean science justified your murders. It does not prescribe moral values or imperatives, nor does it define what types of experiments or methods of data collection are ethical. Science didn't kill those people, you did, you retard.

>>11892365
>>11892511
faith (feJθ)
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith.
3. (Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)

>you're wrong because we're purposefully misunderstanding the very explicit distinction you made by referencing the wrong meaning of the word "faith"
And what a surprise that you don't actually argue your points since they collapse beneath the most cursory scrutiny. Replace the first instance of "faith" in my post with "belief in that for which there is no evidence", okay? I look forward to your intelligent counterarguments now that that's been cleared up. Retards.

>>11885191
I read Vedic literature and take LSD and I'm a believer. I read Stirner and Nietzsche and I'm quite certain I am God. Being a Westerner is a shit

>>11892801
>Jewish communities that dwindled because Arabs gonna Arab?
Prior to the 6th century, the province of Palaestina Secunda largely included Jews, as well as a mixed Greek and Aramaic-speaking population, who were mostly practicing Christianity. The Jews had made Galilee and the Gaulanitis their center since the defeat of the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century;[1] and flourished through the 4th and 5th centuries, as Byzantine control of the area dimmed, providing a great deal of autonomy for local populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaestina_Secunda

>>11892801
>>11892792
Whatever way you meant to use it, the general feeling is that goy is used as an insult and gentile as a descriptive term. And while goy might not be inherently derogatory it certainly can be in certain contexts.

>>11892457
>And yet I highly doubt you came to the conclusion of " I have no reason to believe in organized religion" by yourself.
Why in the world would you doubt that?

>>11892497
Fair enough, just wasn't sure if you were >implying.

>>11892540
>the earth was created in seven days by some passive aggressive cunt
>he got mad and flooded the earth, but not before telling one dude to build a big boat and put two of each animal on it so life and the faithful could survive his tantrum
>jesus was a mortal man who died and then was resurrected by god, but he also IS god
>there are angels—some with wings and others that are gigantic thousand-eyed monsters—in heaven, the paradise good christians go to after death
>no seriously, we really believe all this shit
You make it sound like most people don't know enough about christianity to dismiss it as fairy tale nonsense.

>>11892952
>Palaestina Secunda
What is this supposed to imply? This province was soon conquered by the Arabs and thoroughly Arabized/Islamized. Jews were a very small minority in the area until the Zionist movement came into being.

>>11892959

>Why in the world would you doubt that?

Because then you would have absolutely nothing of interest to say in the matter of religion, since you are bound by your personal views only instead of knowledge.

>>11892556

Yet another fallacy atheists like to repeat to feel better about not studying the bible.

>>11892959

>You make it sound like most people don't know enough about christianity to dismiss it as fairy tale nonsense.

And yet you are living proof of that, since you apparently doesn't even seem -- or doesn't want -- to understand the basics of the basics of the religion. I take what I said above back. Maybe you really do have nothing of interest to say in the matter.

>>11893078
Did an ancient Hebrew man walk on water and come back from the dead or not?

>>11893085

If this is gonna turn into another of those pointless questionings most layman turns religious discussions into, you can count me out of it.

>>11885191
Good.
Now read this one, OP.
Then Work of Love. Definitely Works of Love. Such an underrated book.

>>11893122
>durr if you understood the bible you would believe in it!
>can't answer a simple question about its most important plot point

>>11892959
>the Bible is 100% literal
This is why kids become atheists

>>11893197
>the bible is not literal truth
Enjoy hell, heretic.

>>11893170

>durr if you understood the bible you would believe in it!

If that's what you got from everything I said, you are more hopeless than I thought.

>can't answer a simple question about its most important plot point

Exactly. Why would I waste my time answering the most basic aspects of something, specially when it comes in the disguise of mockery?

It's just like when a creationist starts arguing with a scientist, and the creationist, instead of presenting their arguments, starts bombarding the scientist with basic physics questions. This is not how a dicussion works. Are are on the internet, if you have questions and not arguments, go ask Google.

>>11893233

>You are on the internet

Fix'd.

>>11893025
Just that the Romans didn't expel the Jews from their homeland as your previous post said.

>>11893233
>the Bible isn't literal, you just don't get it you dumb atheist LOL!
>Okay, so did X happen literally or not?
>S-stop mocking me, I don't have to put up with this! ;_;

>>11893252

Well, that was weak. It's not working, just so you know lol

>>11893264
>It's not working
Nonsense. The only purpose of that post was pointing out your intellectual cowardice, so it worked quite well.

>>11893227
>truth must be literal
You people ruin the religion. Try arguing against evolution or that the earth is older than 6,000 years old

>>11893292

Oh, you were being serious? So it just demonstrated your unconceivably poor reasoning and interpretation skills.

Go on, this is fun. Now that you willingly stooped to a lower level I can find some delight in this.

>>11893314
>literally does nothing but dodge straightforward questions and say u dum LOL
If you had a justification for having faith in your religion you would have presented it.
You got nothin', kid.

>>11891457
>Christianity is just nu-judaism

>>11893349

If you have questions, you should ask google, not me. If you do have arguments, I'd be glad to hear them.

But instead you just keeps rambling incoherently. Go on.

>>11893388
>short and to the point posts
>rambling incoherently
If you're that easily confused, don't blame me. The fault lies in your education or genetics.

>>11888748
>>11888935
Not that guy, but what about the tulpa of Juan Diego, with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on it?

What about Eucharistic miracles that have been photographed and videotaped?

What about documented instances of miraculous healings?

>>11893442

>short and to the point
>le meme arrows full of childish irony

Oh, christ. You're embarassing even as a bad joke.

>>11893477
So were my "meme" posts childishly ironic or rambling and incoherent? You do know what those words mean, don't you?
By the way I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to say Christ in that context.

>>11893472
Vaginal imagery

>>11893508

LMAO, I can tell you are trying really hard, but please stop. I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

>>11892566
>Western Civilization began in ancient Greece.
This is so naive.
>The Jewish influence only came later and in my opinion was a massive speed bump on the wests progress.
Things were progressing at a nice clip until christian loonies sowing discord precipitated the collapse of the roman empire, which was followed by centuries of feudalism and filthy catholic hegemony. (I'm neither christian nor jewish.)

>>11892576
>I'd go into more detail
I doubt it. When someone doesn't go into any detail, it usually just means they're voicing their convictions and don't actually have any evidence or arguments.

>>11892653
>oh it's one of those "nothing can be proven, including the claim that nothing can be proven" episodes of philosophers getting stuck in their own circular logic

>>11892776
Doesn't "goyim" just mean "gentile"? There was nothing about his usage that suggested a negative connotation.

>>11893252
Post an actual example

>>11893539
>There was nothing about his usage that suggested a negative connotation.
Ever been to /pol/ or a white nationalist website? It's all part of a strawmen of Jews, that they view non-Jews (especially whites) as cattle while they rub their hands and put together their nefarious plans to destroy countries.

>>11893533
>>11893533
>LMAO
>I can tell you are trying really hard
Can't tell if that irony was intentional or not. This is 4chan, so you might just be a troll trying to make Christians look like imbeciles with nothing in their arsenals but playground retorts, but the act is indistinguishable from the real thing. Anyway, enjoy having the last word, friendo.

>>11893585

Lad, you can drop the feigned serious talk. I stopped taking you seriously as soon as you ignored everything I said to try and mock me. You're not fooling anyone.

>>11892727
>>mfw science is a method
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Science is any act that applies the scientific method. See >>11892803.
>Poor little positivist babby
I don't even know what that means. If you have an argument, state it.
>Science is exactly the same, unless you can prove causality or math
You cannot prove any of those, which should be obvious. Math theorems can only be proven with math, but you cannot "prove" math as a whole is "true"; it necessarily depends on mathematical axioms: logical abstractions of the concept of math. The notion of proving math, causality, or time is retarded if you actually think about it. What would a proof of math, causality, or time look like, hmm? You are just a lazy retard who wants smarter people to make you feel happy and secure in the world (which is why you're religious), but if you'd given it any thought you'd realize that any system of proof requires axioms based on logical abstraction, and the tangible world does not fit neatly into logical abstraction. The scientific method is based on simple axioms like "the mechanics of reality do not change over time", which, while unprovable, have never been contradicted. I find the scientific method convincing for determining causal links because I accept the axioms, the method is sound according to my own logic, I can't think of any way to improve it, it's produced some awesome technology I enjoy, I've never been able to contradict any of the fundamental results, and I've replicated some of those fundamental results in my own life. On the other hand, I accept scientific conclusions based on the evidence that exists for them, and there is plenty of science I consider horseshit because the methodology, results, or conclusions are shit. Anyway, the real issue is that you are confusing proof and evidence. Just because something cannot be logically proven (which is everything outside hypothetical logical abstractions) does not mean you should dismiss it despite overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, believing (or having "faith") in something for which there is zero evidence for but much evidence against is the mark of a retard, you retard.

faith (feJθ)
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
...
4. (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Hmmm, doesn't sound like science is faith at all...

>>11893297
>>truth must be literal
What are you trying to say, retard?

>>11893692
He's using the Jordan Peterson Method of Christian apologetics.

>>11893692
Biblical truths aren’t necessarily derived from what the text literally says, but the meanings behind what is being said. How boring would it be if all the metaphors were explained to us?

>>11893078
>Because then you would have absolutely nothing of interest to say in the matter of religion, since you are bound by your personal views only instead of knowledge.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that no one is allowed to synthesize their own opinions? Because that is like the epitome of anti-intellectual retardation.
>Yet another fallacy atheists like to repeat to feel better about not studying the bible.
That is not a fallacy. It might not be true, but it is not a fallacy, you pseud.
>And yet you are living proof of that, since you apparently doesn't even seem -- or doesn't want -- to understand the basics of the basics of the religion. I take what I said above back. Maybe you really do have nothing of interest to say in the matter.
What am I missing, exactly? Whenever someone just hints at a non-argument, it's usually because they want to pretend they have a real one behind their facade of logical invulnerability, when the reality is that they just have feelings they can't stand being questioned but can't support. Prove me wrong, retard.

>>11893713
>How boring would it be if all the metaphors were explained to us
Exactly. It's much more exciting and interesting when people kill each over their different interpretations of the text. I'm glad God left it vague like that instead of actually explaining it.

>>11893740
Too much clarity results in darkness. Design a better religion and God, if you think you can.

>this fucking thread
STEMposting truly is the ultimate meme.

>>11893233
See >>11893252. Do you believe in jesus, his death and his resurrection, or don't you? The existence of a heaven? Those are yes or no answers. Answer "yes" or "no", you hand-waiving piece of shit.

>>11893748
>Too much clarity results in darkness.
I bet that sounded deep and meaningful in your head.

>>11893355
>if I don't know anything about history I can feel smart
You've never done anything but shitpost, have you?

>>11893250
Jews were reduced to a minority in their own land and there were more Jews outside of Israel than inside it. The Romans expelled or slaughtered most of the population.

>>11893780
Jesus could appear in front of you and you’d still be hesitant to believe.

>>11893388
He asked you, pretty explicitly, do you believe any of the retarded shit in the dogma such as those points summarized in >>11892959? He isn't asking if it is true, he's asking do YOU believe in it? The fact that you're dodging this question like a hambeast dodging a diet is pretty telling. Regardless, answer the question, shit-for-brains.

>>11893732

>I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that no one is allowed to synthesize their own opinions? Because that is like the epitome of anti-intellectual retardation.

Would you pay any heed to someone who "synthesize their own opinions" without first reading about the subject matter from people who know more than they do?

That's called ignorance. Whoever reachs conclusions without first reading about it is an idiot.

>That is not a fallacy. It might not be true, but it is not a fallacy, you pseud.

Ok.

>Prove me wrong, retard.

There's nothing to be proved wrong. Until now all you've given me was a layman's impression of christianity. If you want to be "proven wrong", then give me something concrete to be disproven. I am not here to act as your catechism teacher, buddy.

>>11893769

And what does these questions lead to? What does me answering "yes" or "no" add to the discussion? Is this a discussion or are we here just to show our dicks to each other? This is just as irrelevant to the point as me asking for your views on the matter.

Stop acting like a dumb kid. If you want someone to mindlessly answer your questions, consult a fucking search engine.

>>11893808

>do you believe any of the retarded shit in the dogma

And you people don't know why won't I waste my time answering questions?

>The fact that you're dodging this question like a hambeast dodging a diet is pretty telling.

Yes, it is pretty telling that I said in >>11893233 was in fact on point. Atheists always turn every discussion about religion into a ludicrous questioning, and act like this proves their points. It's a pretty sad sight.

>>11893761
What's worse, Catholic larpers or STEMfags?

>>11893472
>What about documented instances of miraculous healings?
Such as?
>What about Eucharistic miracles that have been photographed and videotaped?
Haven't found any photographs or video tapes after searching. Are you sure you don't mean "shit people just made up"? You're claiming evidence, but presenting none. Reflect on that.

>>11893562
Yeah, that's my basic implication. Not that I like jews or anything, but I think any broad group is just as immoral as the next. Also, to be fair, jews have some aspects of their dogma that are inherently exploitative and xenophobic, but most jews are too poor and unconnected to take advantage of this.

>>11893618
What is this stupidity? I'm not the person you were replying to, but it is obvious you're the one ignoring all criticism and refusing to reply to anything you don't have a prepared response for. Go back and look at >>11893252. Given that,
>DO YOU BELIEVE NOAH BUILT AN ARK, THERE IS A HEAVEN FULL OF WINGED ANGELS, AND JESUS DIED, WAS RESURRECTED, AND IS HIMSELF SOMEHOW AN ASPECT OF GOD?
These are yes or no answers, so answer them individually if you want, but answer them, you pathetic fucking coward.
>Lad, you can drop the feigned serious talk.
You're the one dodging every question that comes your way. Don't submit your stupid convictions if you're not willing to debate them.

>>11893931
>you're the one ignoring all criticism

...what criticism? Until now the only thing here was "HURRR THE BIBLE IS DUUUUMB ANSWER ME IF YOU BELIEVE ALL THIS DUMB SHIT DURRRR". If that's what criticism sound to you, then I'm sorry.

>and refusing to reply to anything you don't have a prepared response for.

No, I am refusing to answer because there's literally NO POINT in answering. You people are just proving my point over and over again: that atheists are idiotic people who can't have a discussion without bombarding the opposite side with questions.

So go on, at the moment I am just flabbergastted that you can't really see the irony in this.

>you pathetic fucking coward.

All those unnecessary insults just shows how sad of a person you people are.

>You're the one dodging every question that comes your way

Because I'm not here to answer your fucking questions. Make a point, argument, case, or stop being an asshole and gtfo.

>>11893931
Everything in the Old Testament is metaphorical, the New Testament is literal

>>11893862
Everybody on /lit/ who is STEM is a faggot, but not everyone who is Catholic LARPs. There are a few sincere Catholics which warms my heart, the larpers are edgy but they do Gods work so I can't complain (as long as they don't go full desu vult trad catholic which is cringy). It's more the stubbornness and self-righteousness of STEMposters that gets me I think. A sense of being 100% right in their safe worldview where they avoid engaging with actual arguments or anything they can't see or observe. It's kind of depressing and makes me realise how deep the Devils influence goes in the world.

>>11894030
for now...

FOJ (fuck off jews)

>>11893713
>Biblical truths aren’t necessarily derived from what the text literally says, but the meanings behind what is being said. How boring would it be if all the metaphors were explained to us?
Okay...did jesus die for our sins and then get resurrected or not? This is not a metaphor: state your explicit belief. If not, why the fuck should I be a christian instead of considering the parable and forming my own ethics? You religious nuts vacillate so hard it's nauseating; some of you are too smart to be true believers, too dumb to be heretics . Also, name one biblical truth that isn't derived from what the text literally says. (There are none, dumbass.)

>>11894156
Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected. Most of the Old Testament is metaphorical. For Biblical truths not literal, just read Swedenborg. Every verse is analyzed for you.

>>11893857
>Would you pay any heed to someone who "synthesize their own opinions" without first reading about the subject matter from people who think they know more than they do?
Are the claims made in >>11892959 false, or aren't they? Answer that first, moron. Second, what is the logical conclusion of your statement beyond "only groups can present new ideas", which is spectacularly retarded.
>There's nothing to be proved wrong.
Exactly. You haven't said anything beyond "NO YU", so please shut up. You keep spouting stupidity like:
>since you apparently doesn't even seem -- or doesn't want -- to understand the basics of the basics of the religion
but you refuse to defend any of these stances or explain what the "basics of the basics of religion" are to anyone since you're just spouting nonsense. If you're not going to provide evidence or argument, just admit you're a retard and fuck off.
>Until now all you've given me was a layman's impression of christianity.
So provide a single piece of evidence that you hold a more nuanced view and aren't just a blithering retard.
>Stop acting like a dumb kid. If you want someone to mindlessly answer your questions, consult a fucking search engine.
If you're taking a logical stance, you have to provide arguments and evidence. You haven't answered a single question to support your view, so I have no idea why you're acting like an exhausted retard. Maybe just being asked to think logically drains your energy, but you're still an imbecile who can't defend his ideology.
>And you people don't know why won't I waste my time answering question?
No, so start answering some questions instead of trying desperately to deflect them, you retard.
>Yes, it is pretty telling that I said in >>11893233 was in fact on point. Atheists always turn every discussion about religion into a ludicrous questioning, and act like this proves their points. It's a pretty sad sight.
>People who disagree with me expect me to explain my position
No shit, retard. I never claimed it proved my point, I'm asking you to clarify your point instead of acting like a smug little shit while providing absolutely nothing to support your stance. You've literally said absolutely nothing to defend your ideology, you're just acting like we should all accept that you're right. If a retard like you is on that side of the argument, I have to assume by default that you're wrong. Offer some evidence to the contrary or kill yourself.

>>11893857
>That's called ignorance.
Was jesus resurrected from the dead or wasn't he?

>>11894298
Yes

>>11893996
>...what criticism?
Did jesus die and get resurrected?
Did noah build an ark?
Did it have two animals of all the millions of species on the earth, and did that save them from the flood?
These aren't criticisms, these are asking about your specific religious beliefs.
>No, I am refusing to answer because there's literally NO POINT in answering. You people are just proving my point over and over again: that atheists are idiotic people who can't have a discussion without bombarding the opposite side with questions.
>I expect you to never question my beliefs and take them for fact
Are you retarded?
>Because I'm not here to answer your fucking questions. Make a point, argument, case, or stop being an asshole and gtfo.
The point is that both the old testament and new testament are full of superstitious fairy tale bullshit. Do you believe ANY of it is true? (Such as whether jesus died, was resurrected, and is himself an aspect of god?) If so, explain how you justify these beliefs. The implicit questions are pretty fucking obvious, but you keep trying to dodge them. If you're in an argument, the absolute LEAST you should expect is to answer where you stand on a subject.
>durrr, I'm not answering because I know I can't justify my beliefs
No kidding, retard.

>>11894044
Read the thread, shit-for-brains. The only one running away from arguments are the christfags.

>>11891457
>consciousness

That is not the same thing as a soul. You don't lose you soul in a coma lmao.

>>11894261
>Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected.
Okay, so you believe in fairy tales you read in a book. Thanks for being clear on that point.

>>11885236
>Computational theory of the mind

>>11894292

>If you're not going to provide evidence or argument, just admit you're a retard and fuck off.
>hasn't provided one single argument the only thread apart from "HURRR RELIGION IS DUMB ANSWER ME ALREADY PLS" but still expect people to provide arguments to defend themselves

hahahaha, I fucking love this board.

>I'm asking you to clarify your point instead of acting like a smug little shit while providing absolutely nothing to support your stance

which of course isn't exactly what you people have been doing all this time, with the addition of childish insults, all the while accusing me of doing the same. typical.

but well, you're definitely mad. I successed in something at least.


>>11894298

Yes. Now the argument is over. Bless you, brotha.

>>11894329

>These aren't criticisms, these are asking about your specific religious beliefs.

That's what I said?

>If so, explain how you justify these beliefs.

Ok, so answer me this. Why would I do so? To get this >>11894354 kind of dumb answer?

I've seen all this already. I'm not dodging any questions because I am afraid of admitting I do believe in the bible. I am doing so because there's no point in explaining my faith to people who are keen on mocking it from the start.

>>11892909
It's faith because that same shit can be said about anything. You can't prove it, you're mistaking correlation and causation.

>>11893635
Why lie
faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
a system of religious belief.
plural noun: faiths
"the Christian faith"
a strongly held belief or theory.
"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"

>>11894352
No one claimed you lose your consciousness in a coma, retard.
>muh strawman

>>11894399
https://www.webmd.com/brain/coma-types-causes-treatments-prognosis#1

"A coma is a prolonged state of unconsciousness."

Aren't you supposed to be a stem guy?

>>11894395
Which part was a lie, exactly?
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
Also:
>strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
What stupidity are you trying to insinuate? The different meanings of a word do not discount the semantics of my argument, dumbass.
>>11894368
You were given very pointed and clear arguments in >>11892691 and >>11893635, which you've ignored completely, though you act like you've made a defensible argument anyway. If you're just here to gloat about how stupid you are, fuck off. You've made claims that your detractors don't understand the "basics of the basics of religion", but anytime you're asked to explain those basics or your general stance, you offer some variation of bullshit that the other side isn't answering YOUR questions. Early in this chain you were asked a very simple and straightforward question:
>Did an ancient Hebrew man walk on water and come back from the dead or not?
To which you answered:
>If this is gonna turn into another of those pointless questionings most layman turns religious discussions into, you can count me out of it.
Count yourself out of the argument from the start if you're too much of a lazy shit to even explain your position.
>Yes. Now the argument is over.
No, not even close. Have you seen someone get resurrected? Have you met anyone who was resurrected? You have faith in jesus' resurrection because the bible and your priest or pastor tell you so, yet you have no personal evidence to support this belief, but you believe it anyway. Why? Because you are a stupid coward who is lazy about creating his own context and meaning in life (see >>11892691 and >>11893635)
>Ok, so answer me this. Why would I do so?
To be anything other than a gigantic faggot? If you're too lazy to support your position with evidence or argument, you shouldn't be voicing it, you braindead moron.
>To get this >>11894354 (You) kind of dumb answer?
That answer wasn't dumb, it was asking an important question. How do you know jesus was resurrected? Obviously, you didn't see it for yourself considering it happened millennia before you were born. So have you seen anyone else get resurrected? Of course not, yet you still believe in jesus' resurrection. You know what we call that? Mental retardation. Disagree? Reply with an ARGUMENT, not "why should I bother? My downsyndrome-addled brain is too good for this".
>>11894377
>It's faith because that same shit can be said about anything.
What are you trying to say? Make a clear, explicit claim, you retard. See >>11893635 in the meantime.
>>11894571
Sleep is also what we describe in vernacular as "unconsciousness" which is conceptually different than "losing your consciousness"; that comes with death and nothing else. Why do all christfag arguments come down to wordplay? Is it because you have no solid ground to stand on?

>>11891909
>Religiosity has an inverse correlation with intelligence
>correlations can only be linear

>>11894602
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness
"Loss of consciousness should not be confused with the notion of the psychoanalytic unconscious or cognitive processes (e.g., implicit cognition) that take place outside awareness, and with altered states of consciousness, such as delirium (when the person is confused and only partially responsive to the environment), normal sleep, hypnosis, and other altered states in which the person responds to stimuli."

Can you actually look stuff up before you talk.

>>11894602
Logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was verificationism, a theory of knowledge which asserted that only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful. The movement flourished in the 1920s and 1930s in several European centers.

>>11894602
hmmmm

>>11894602
Stop posting dude it's getting kinda sad desu

>>11894606
What is your point? The correlation is inverse. I never said it was linear.

>>11894618
That quote perfectly supports my side of the argument, retard.

>>11894602
Where does your argument go from me saying Jesus Christ existed, he performed miracles, and died for our sins? What discussion does your pointless asking of basic questions promote?

>>11894602

>You were given very pointed and clear arguments in >>11892691 and >>11893635, which you've ignored completely, though you act like you've made a defensible argument anyway

None of those replies were directed to me, you unbelievable dullard.

>Count yourself out of the argument from the start if you're too much of a lazy shit to even explain your position.

And you completely ignored my reason for not answering these questions, which is founded on my experience with these discussions, which were again confirmed through and through the course of the thread. Typical.

>Why? Because you are a stupid coward who is lazy about creating his own context and meaning in life

And again with the petty insults. Do you get off to randomly cussing online or something? Because now this just sounds like I'm talking to a teenager with daddy issues.

>That answer wasn't dumb

Yes it was, it was literally "oh you bothered enough to actually give me an author which might clarify on bible literality, but I'll just ignore it and say you believe in fairy tales".

>You know what we call that? Mental retardation. Disagree? Reply with an ARGUMENT

And now you say I should reply ad hominems with arguments, when I was not given any through all the course of this thread but "HEY Y'KNOW IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY RETARDED".

Jesus, you people are sad.

>>11894708

>What discussion does your pointless asking of basic questions promote?

FINALLY SOMEONE FUCKING GET WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THROUGH THIS WHOLE FUCKING THREAD. THANK YOU.

>>11894687
A coma is full loss of consciousness, please learn to read.

>>11894623
That's cool. See >>11893635 to confirm I'm not a positivist.
>>11894639
What is your point? You are showing the percent of all graduates, which means what, exactly? That christianity is popular? I have a better graph in pick related.
>>11894659
You first, faggot.
>>11894708
The next step is "how many miracles have you seen?", and after that "despite having seen none, why do you believe jesus performed miracles despite nothing but hearsay to support it?". That should be obvious, but I guess you're a retard.
>>11894721
>And you completely ignored my reason for not answering these questions, which is founded on my experience with these discussions
>I don't have to justify my beliefs! I've done it before when you weren't here!
Nice argument, retard.
>>That answer wasn't dumb
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>And now you say I should reply ad hominems with arguments
>inviting someone to reply with a real argument is an ad hominem
You were given various arguments and you've chosen to do nothing but pretend you're above all of them. Yes, you really are mentally retarded.
>>11894731
Why, because you're a retard? Many coma patients have described in detail the conversations that their loved one's had while they were "unconscious". It isn't a loss of consciousness because you want it to be, moron.
>>11894708
Obviously, the next step is "Why do you believe any of this shit? You've never seen any miracles or resurrections, so you could just as easily believe in Zeus impregnating Danaë, father of Hercules", etc. You are taking this hearsay as fact, but I claim I was jesus' father who fucked his mother in the ass for years after using my time machine to visit her when she was still a hot young slut. Do you have any more evidence to disprove my claim than you have to believe jebus rose from the dead? Let me answer that for you: no.

>>11894792
>Using a graph with a R^2 value of .6.

You make me ashamed to be a stemfag

>>11894792

>Nice argument, retard.

Your interpretations skills are enviable. Congrats.

>I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

You bring it up in one reply and forget about it in the other?

Genius.

>You were given various arguments and you've chosen to do nothing but pretend you're above all of them.

Point one that isn't "HEY DUDE YOU GOTTA ANSWER ME QUESTIONS JUSTIFY YOUR BELIEFS ARRR". I'll be waiting.

>Obviously, the next step is "Why do you believe any of this shit?

And you still don't know why I haven't wasted my time answering them.

Again, genius. I tip my fedora to you.

>>11894792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma
Coma is a state of unconsciousness in which a person cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal wake-sleep cycle; and does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] A person in a state of coma is described as being comatose. A distinction is made in the medical community between a real coma and a medically induced coma, the former is a result of circumstances beyond the control of the medical community, while the latter is a means by which medical professionals may allow a patient's injuries to heal in a controlled environment.

A comatose person exhibits a complete absence of wakefulness and is unable to consciously feel, speak, hear, or move.[2] Clinically, a coma can be defined as the inability to consistently follow a one-step command. It can also be defined as a score of ≤ 8 on the Glasgow Coma Scale lasting ≥ 6 hours. For a patient to maintain consciousness, two important neurological components must function. The first is the cerebral cortex—the gray matter that forms the outer layer of the brain. The other is a structure located in the brainstem, called reticular activating system (RAS).[3][4]
If you don't know shit about medicine, don't pretend to know about medicine.

>>11894845
If they can remember conversations in the room, they haven't lost their consciousness. Losing your consciousness is not something you can reverse, regardless of whether there is a vaguely related but completely separate concept of being "unconscious". You are the only one claiming equivalence between losing one's consciousness and being unconscious, imbecile.

>>11886908
Are you honestly retarded or did you skip all the Old Testament

>>11894866
Those are medically induced coma you imbecile, not full comas.

Jesus Christ, find a source on a non medically induced coma where the person could remember conversations.

>>11894906
Christians believe in the teachings of the new testament, if they followed the old they'd be jews.

>>11887038
No one says that, and if they do, they're as retarded as you, you fucking nog. If science doesn't explain us something, it doesn't mean it can't be explain in the future, (and it's even possible that it would never ever be discovered). As I said, anyone in their right minds wouldn't think science as static knowledge, but you theist brainlets for some reason think most scientists do think like this because you feel offended when people tell you that an perfectly explained phenomenon such as 2+2=4 has no other way around and start autistically screeching "SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN EVERYHTING WAAHH". Scientific knowledge is provisional, and if any of you had actually went to a STEM, and actually paid attention to their classes, you would notice this. Science is literally our logical and material explanation of our universe, meaning that it can INDEED explain everything, unless you faggot have a reasonable counter-argument against this.

>>11894953
Can science give your life meaning?

>>11894923
I never claim Christians follow the old testament.
The new testament God is still the same God as the old testament, or did you forget that Jesus is the son of the jewish God?
Anyway, God is an asshole throughtout the whole bible, much like all gods, so why try to compete which god is less "douchebag"?

>>11894974
The Jewish god says " you shall worship no other gods by me" while the Christan god is all like " there are no other gods but me"

The Old Testament god is one of many, the new is singular

>>11894965
Why does science needs to give my life meaning? why can't I form my own meaning? Brainlets like you who need some greater being to give them meaning is terribly pathetic. As far as science is concern the meaning of life is irrelevant compared to why does life persists on reproducing and perpetuating itself through the DNA? Why does a cell has to have a meaning? Wouldn't a better question be "Why the cell, a "soulless" and "unintelligent" being tries to perpetuate itself? What makes you think that life is not meaningless and that life is just a rarely occurrence in our universe in a certain environment?

>>11894953
Is math part of science?

>>11894996
Can you prove that your own meaning is real meaning, rather then just some delusional fantasy?

Also, religious people have more kids aren't they fullfing natures purpose better then you are?

>unironically believe in God
god how I wish that were me

>>11885430
this.

>>11894993
Wrong, throughout the old testament He continuously and his followers keep saying that He is the only God. And they do that a LOT. Jesus, why the christian apologists refuse to read carefully the Bible? I'm halfway the Bible (currently in Ezekiel) and I swear to God the majority of you fags haven't read the bible carefully or at all.

>>11895012
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me

Why not do five seconds of research before you make a false claim? You seem to do that a lot.

>tfw going to the divine liturgy for the first time in 17 years in a few hours

What should I expect lads?

>>11895003
>Can you prove that your own meaning is real meaning
Did you read what I said? I NEVER claimed to have the meaning of life, because, as I said, objectively there's none, so my meaning of life isn't "delusional fantasy" but from my experience and thoughts to be my OWN fitting way of living life. Anyone can live their lives as they please, does that mean they're living in a delusion? Wouldn't be that more fitting for someone believing in something with zero proofs and less on someone believing in something provable? Even if that knowledge is later changed thanks to some new discovery, aren't they less "delusional" than those who keep believing in pure faith? My point is, with your retarded statement, is that anything can be considered delusional, but I prefer living my life with my own meaning that makes me happy.
>Also, religious people have more kids aren't they fullfing natures purpose better then you are?
Who says than religious people have more children than people like me do? Maybe I have more children than you, so what's your point? How is that related to what I said?

>>11895019
>One verse disproves the other tons of times where he definitely mentions he's the only God
You sure got me there, retard

>>11895030
Why should you believe in your own meaning? Why should you vaule happiness?

>>11895012
And I want to add, where does he say that there are actually other gods beside him? Do you want me to recall you how Elijah basically prove how God was the only one?

>>11895033
Read the page you dunce

>>11895039
>>11895038

>>11895030

>Who says than religious people have more children than people like me do?

Statistics. Just google "religious people have more children" and you'll find a phletora of studies to choose from.

>>11895038
Actually I'm mistaken, my bad.

>>11895047
Still failed to tell me how is that related to what I said? Besides, if that's the case, what I tried to tell you is that your point is irrelevant if an atheist has more children than you do, what makes that of the atheist and of you? And what makes you think that their system of customs aren't what makes them have more children, after all they're against anticontraceptives or sex other than to reproduce. Answer the rest of my comment

>>11885300

>>11894830
>R^2 of .6 between an abstract and difficult to quantify metric like intelligence and another very abstract concept like religiosity is bad rather than spectacular
Okaaaaaay, brainlet.

>>11894916
I have never heard of a coma, medically induced or otherwise, where the person didn't remember any dreams or perceptions. There's a reason why they have a medical scale for this shit, which should be proof enough that being in a coma is not evidence that consciousness has been "lost".

>>11895056
Yeah, it's fine, I used to think like that dude, but it actually surprised me while reading the old testament, it makes you wonder how many misconceptions are popular in society about some aspects of the Bible.

>>11895059
Are you actually retarded?

For a guy who claims to be a scientist, you don't understand averages very well.

Also if their system of customs makes them have more kids, and having kids is what matters, then it's a better system

>>11895061
Show a source you fucking tard, like the multiple ones I used saying that coms dreams are fucking myths.

Fucking stem faker

>>11895059

Not the same guy you were talking to, I was just a random passerby.

>>11895061
Have you ever taken a science class in your life
https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/rsquared.htm

>>11895067
Check this out. 4chan is retarded and won't let me post links.

>>11886191
>belief in god is fine
>organized religion is a con
The most intelligent post in the thread, which of course everyone else ignores.

>>11885300
The hard problem of consciousness would have to be solved in order for your post to be anywhere near correct.

>>11895067
>you don't understand averages very well.
How so? You still didn't answer the question on how does it matter? If an atheist has more children than you, does that makes a better living being?
>Also if their system of customs makes them have more kids, and having kids is what matters, then it's a better system
Lmao, this is why I wanted you to answer the question you refused to answer and now you look like a complete retard, does that mean that the average protestant family is worse than your average mexican catholic family because mexicans have 4 times the children american have? Why does the amount of children matter? How does having more children makes you more successful in life? Are humans worse than insects because they can't spawn a thousand descendants? This is why I insisted you, you dumbfuck. Life just wants to perpetuate itself, but failing to do so, doesn't make you "worse", it just kills your DNA, that's all.

>>11895087
Dalrymple in his latest at Taki's

>The kindfulness movement (there is, God help us, a movement to teach men to be more complacent about themselves) represents one more triumph of self-esteem over self-respect. The former gives rise to claims, the latter to obligations, and who, when it comes down to it, does not prefer rights to duties? One is effortless, the other effortful. That is why some people claim to be spiritual without being religious. They can have a nice, warm fuzzy feeling about the oneness of existence, or some such, without actually having to do anything as a consequence, such as get up on a certain day, however inconvenient it might be to them, and go to public worship.

>>11895082
>The mutant says
Stop reading there, clearly has no idea what is a mutation.

>>11895090
The Christians meaning doesn't come from number of kids, it comes from God.

You were the one who brought up evolution.

>>11895090
Also, answer these please. Why should you believe in your own meaning? Why should you value happiness?

>>11895112
Yeah, and you missed the whole point, retard. There's no meaning in life, and I said that TWICE, but your cognitive dissonance thought that I typed "More children better life".
Let me repeat it for you, subhuman nog.
>As far as science is concern the meaning of life is irrelevant
>I NEVER claimed to have the meaning of life, because, as I said, objectively there's none
Evolution has nothing to do with meaning, read again, what I asked is why does life keep perpetuating itself, meaning for a wholesome or better life has nothing to do with it. Next time answer what people ask you to answer, you'll look less retarded that way and improve you logical thought process

>>11895127
Oh I knew that, I was trying to force
you to answer >>11895113

>>11895127
>no meaning in life
>heh my life sux ;(

Nice.

>>11895127
give me a single logical reason why people should not kill themselves. If emotions are nothing but chemical reactions and there is no afterlife then there really is no reason why someone should not kill themselves over small matters like losing an iPod.

>>11895113
>Also, answer these please
Ironic for the faggot who refuses to answer questions.
>Why should you believe in your own meaning? Why shouldn't I? Why should I value what someone said 3,000 years ago where human knowledge was very poor compared to nowadays. What makes, let's say king David, more valuable than my own conclusions of what I know about the world, if something makes me think of a better perspective, what stops me from integrating that aspect in my own meaning of life? Why shouldn't I trust the more reliable person I know, aka, me?
> Why should you value happiness?
Why should you value God? or any other aspects? Truly retarded questions. Anyone can value their own thing, even their own misery, what makes you better than him for believing in a God? Are you asking me these questions to me or to yourself?

>>11895135
Who said my life sucks? Nice projection, even if it sucked, why does it matter to you? Why can't it suck? We're all going down the grave, even you know that, "'We have come from dust and to dust we shall return." Can't humanity enjoy their own misery? Even Dostoyevski talk about it.

>>11895148
Nah Im gonna enjoy an eternity of living with my Pal JC. Sucks for you tho? I geuss? Sorry#notsorry

>>11895142
So you're asking why I should vaule an all knowing all loving being?


Are you really the most reliable person you know? Is a schizophrenic person right to trust their delusions?


Also final thing, why shouldn't I believe in god?

>>11895140
>give me a single logical reason why people should not kill themselves.
>what I asked is why does life keep perpetuating itself
That's what I've been saying, retard. No one knows. Why does the cell go through all the trouble to keep being alive? As I can easily perceive, I guess you're pretty ignorant on biology, but if you learn the amount of trouble the cell goes throughout their lives, it makes you wonder why a soulless cell does all that instead of "killing itself" through apoptosis. Why does it matter if it die? Or do you consider every bacteria and cell to have his own soul? Does cells go to an afterlife? Cells have no "emotions" yet refuse to die, why? I tell you, no one knows. No one knows why viruses that are not even living beings try to reproduce too, but they do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an explanation, it only means our knowledge can expand further.

>>11895164
A cell doesn't know better, you do.


Kill yourself.

>>11895099
Organized religion of whatever stripe is mostly just one long tale of tyranny, mass murder, kid-raping and assorted scams designed to extract as much of your hard earned as possible. Yes, even Buddhism. Humans being the social critters we are, however, organized religion is also inevitable.

>>11895164
Damn who knew my life is but like a microbe, thats good anon...very well thought out

>>11895158
>So you're asking why I should vaule an all knowing all loving being?
No, I'm asking you why should you value a being who has the possibility of not existing and you have no proof whatsoever of him.
I'm asking you why should you value a being who clearly is not all loving based on simple logic and knowledge of how shitty this world is.
I'm asking you why should you value a being who you don't have a idea of how he really is, as is commonly known in Christianity that God is beyond human comprehension.
And even if it was all knowing and all knowing as you claim He is, why should I adore him? Why should you adore your dad if it happens to be a junkie who beats your family? Just because he created you? No reason to love an all knowing being.
>Are you really the most reliable person you know?
I can be on blame here, but I didn't express myself as I wished, what I meant is that I trust myself as in knowing I'm the only who I know who can 100% honest with myself, as I said, I could be wrong in many things, but if a perspective opens up a new way of living, I would jump on it if it makes my live "better" on my own perspective. I could be a schizophrenic person, but does that make myself less reliable, are not schizophrenic people who believe in God, should they stop believing God for being schizophrenic? How can I fix being schizophrenic? If I'm having such a terrible condition, shouldn't I try to live as the best I can without harming others?
>why shouldn't I believe in god?
I never said you shouldn't, just live as you please, but what disturbs me is when people start shitting other ways of living or a person who doesn't believe, I'm reading the bible, around Ezekiel right now, just for curiosity and to understand my friends who believe in God.

>>11895189
>No, I'm asking you why should you value a being who has the possibility of not existing and you have no proof whatsoever of him.
Not true, do you know what a Testimony of Faith is? Go watch a video on youtube giving testimony.


>I'm asking you why should you value a being who you don't have a idea of how he really is, as is commonly known in Christianity that God is beyond human comprehension
God is a mystery yes, but what is revealed is Truth.


Read the New Testament first anon, it's always recommended to start with the Gospel. Remember, Christianity Glorifies son as he is revealed to be.

>>11886466
>>11886565
>>11891428
>KJV
Fuck off, proddies.

>>11895167
>>11895169
Answer these, pair of retards.
Is a cell a living being?
Are humans living beings?
I'll answer you this for I can't trust subhuman retards, yes. You're asking me why humans won't kill themselves for frivolities, which as a physician I've seen people killing others and themselves for less things than losing an Ipod, just because humans are more complex than a cell, but you retards fail to see that the basics of all living beings reside in the cell. All what a cell can do, humans can do as well. Why humans have similar reactions to that of other animals as the dog, example classical conditioning, if we're so different? Simple, all our lives are based on the basic model of all living beings, the cell. This is why trying to talk why exclusively humans shouldn't just kill themselves for stupid matters is rather ridiculous and very narrow. Why babies won't kill themselves when they suffer? Why can't you die by voluntarily stop breathing? Our organisms are designed to refuse death because cells refuse to die, this is why I talked about cells, you brainlet smug nignogs. Now If you don't have anything substantial to say, just stfu.

>>11895203
>Not true, do you know what a Testimony of Faith is? Go watch a video on youtube giving testimony.
And couldn't you just apply that to other beliefs? This is where it crumbles, and this is why "science" is more reliable than "faith", science has barely any "exceptions", gravity works the same way in all the universe, the same with all laws. Religion puts way too many exceptions and sacrifices many logical conclusions for you to accept that faith. What makes your God more reliable than their God? And this is not something "science prophesies", as I mentioned earlier, even the Jewish God feels the necessity to do so Elijah. It's pretty unreliable and hard to believe on something that goes beyond logic.
>God is a mystery yes, but what is revealed is Truth.
Yeah, but what truth? and why do I need that truth in the first place? Is it impossible to live happily without the Christian God? You know that means the majority of humans in history have been pretty much unhappy, right?
>Read the New Testament first anon, it's always recommended to start with the Gospel. Remember, Christianity Glorifies son as he is revealed to be.
I'll read it soon anon, I'm like 90 chapters to reach the new testament. BTW, I recommend you reading Dostoevsky, he is a hardcore religious orthodox, and talks a lot about what we're talking about.

>>11895215
You provide a logical argument against suicide. The brain is all chemical reactions. If someone is depressed, what reason is there to not just end those chemical reactions?

>>11895215
Anon, that is really bad Rhetoric. The Bible talks about the fall of Man, in our depraved state we are nothing more than animels, slave to sin.
We grow, live, and learn to overcome the chains that bind us to the primal bestial life.

The Will to Live doesn't debase God, it reinforces it. It shows that life is not something simple to throw away, it's a divine right you have. With our free will we can throw that right away. Suffering is in our nature (sin), God takes us away from that suffering - denial of flesh and setting forth from worldy affairs does this.

I don't know why you're using such harsh words, can you be a bit more mature if you wish me to take you serious.

>>11895239
Yes, you can justify others beliefs by testimony of Faith anon, this is the way people do law, you know.
Also, The Jewish God, YHWH is Jesus.


>Yeah, but what truth? and why do I need that truth in the first place?
That God redeems, and that'll he'll remove you from sin.
>Is it impossible to live happily without the Christian God?
Perhaps, I do not know the turmoil inside the minds of men. But living isn't about being 'happy' it's about overcoming struggles, and Christianity provides a surefire way for that.

I'll read Dostoevsky, But I'm reading Neitzches and Kierkegaard's attack on Christiandom right now.
The New Testament really is the most important part anon.

>>11895257
Let me repeat the answer, kiddo.
>Why can't you die by voluntarily stop breathing?
Simply because your organism made of cells refuse to die, and why does the cell refuse to die, there's the question.
>If someone is depressed, what reason is there to not just end those chemical reactions?
Depression is a clinical pathology, thus making it an anomaly in homeostasis, thus meaning is not a something your normal human being, or animal to extend the subject would do, if that's what you were trying to say. And it also can be due to sociological reasons, as sacrificing for someone else. No living being would kill themselves in normal conditions (physiologically speaking) and with nothing to die for. There, happy? This is why I talked about the cell.
>>11895260
>Kill yourself.
He wasn't being nice either, anon.
"We grow, live, and learn to overcome the chains that bind us to the primal bestial life. "
Yes and no, we live and grow to live "better lives", or to achieve our life meaning or life goal. Trying to go against our primal beast life is detrimental or our organism For your second paragraph just read the reply to>>11895257
And I apologize if I offended you, I misunderstood your tone.

>>11895205
you believe that only an exclusive group should be able to read the bible, right? at least that was the catholic doctrine before luther

>>11895282
Firstly, I never called you names nor was making inflammatory remarks.
>Yes and no, we live and grow to live "better lives", or to achieve our life meaning or life goal. Trying to go against our primal beast life is detrimental or our organism
YES! God frees those chains! He makes it so we may thrive outside the world of material, literally. Anon, this is very important you understand the Christian view on this topic.
We know it's not possible, but through the Grace of God, he changes the inner bonds, the patterns we live by. He gives us freedom to break that cycle of our nature.

>>11895286
Given how shit has turned out, at least in America, one can understand that idea. But things have changed, literacy rates and lublic education are dramatically different from what they were in the 16th century.

>>11895274
Law is not always reliable, either. This is why it has changed a lot in many ways through history.
>Also, The Jewish God, YHWH is Jesus.
Yeah, I know, but just to clarify as some people are still confuse and think that the OT God was one of many.
>That God redeems, and that'll he'll remove you from sin.
Yeah, but why should I be stripped from sins, isn't that what makes me, well, me? A sinless me isn't me in any sense of the word, and I like the way I am, I know I ain't perfect, but that's what makes life interesting for me.
>' it's about overcoming struggles, and Christianity provides a surefire way for that.
I'm pretty sure many religions do that, just as Buddhism.
Don't worry anon, I'm reading ten chapters a day, I'll reach there around the 20th or so.

>>11895294
>Yeah, but why should I be stripped from sins, isn't that what makes me, well, me?
This is a rhetoric, but have you seen how secular people try overcome their masturbation habit but can't? They see it's detrimental value, but can't remove it from their life. I doubt those men would say that defines them.

> A sinless me isn't me in any sense of the word, and I like the way I am, I know I ain't perfect, but that's what makes life interesting for me.
Are you the same as you were when you were 12? Are you more mature now, wiser, and less likely to waste time? Why do you care what are you in this sense when you're always changing?
Realize, even the soul falls to entropy if you do not provide it growth.


>I'm pretty sure many religions do that, just as Buddhism.
They do sure, but it's not a promise as it is in Christianity.

Would you like my email?

>>11895287
Yeah, and I apologize, totally my fault, I took you to be an asshole like this guy >>11895167
Scuzza me!
>God frees those chains! He makes it so we may thrive outside the world of material, literally.
Yes and no, again, yes in the sense that God, or rather a superior being, can help a person reach those goals, related or unrelated to said superior being, but but no because what I'm arguing is that not everyone does follow a god and yet go through that kind of "path", and this doesn't limit to just atheists but to no theist religions like Shinto. This is why I'm saying narrowing into a single God all what a human being can do is illogical, or rather, belittling what humanity can do by itself.

>>11895308
It's not a yes or no. That is Christian Faith and the word I live by. That is the make of my Dichotomy.

>what I'm arguing is that
>
Yes and no, again, yes in the sense that God, or rather a superior being, can help a person reach those goals, related or unrelated to said superior being,
This is also what you are arguing for. I believe.

Yes everyone tries to make conquest over their shortcommings, I agree, because I believe this to be the divine part of man yearning for that Godly perfection that may only happen if one humbly accepts their position in these battles. ( self awareness, repentance, patience)

Every thing comes from a singular source, that is the basis that God is 1.

>>11895301
They feel that is detrimental mainly because society says so and the psychological implications it brings, more than the actual biological harms that it can bring.

>Why do you care what are you in this sense when you're always changing? Realize, even the soul falls to entropy if you do not provide it growth.
You're right that we're constantly changing, but that change can depend mostly on us, that liberty I've been given be it by God or by evolution to do with my future what I like is what also makes me me. Ancient stoics could be complete destroyed but would feel happy because that's what their beliefs are, to maintain peace against all adversity. Changing the way I like is in a way, less definite I must admit, part of me.
>Would you like my email?
Well I would say I would like to, but I barely use email and probably won't be of use for us. I guess I could communicate through some of my alt gmails, but I barely use them.

>>11895326
> the psychological implications it brings,
Yes. This is the most important part anon, this is what I've been pointing.
Surely, you see the argument against nihilisn by impact it has upon the psyche, leading to self destruction. (Neitzches for perfect example)

>but that change can depend mostly on us
Yes, and you can also take the next step of making these changes anon.
>Changing the way I like is in a way, less definite I must admit, part of me
Then keep them anon, lol anon, becoming Christian isn't a a shape you must become simply by following God, everything you do as a Christian is up to your own Free will, no slavery to things you don't wish upon you will, you become unbound to past tendecies if you wish.

Anon, I say the easiest way to test Christianity is to just pray. Ask God, to show you. You don't even need to think of the Christian God, just think of the creator with a personal will.

My email is stephan_stephan_96@hotmail.com

>>11895325
When I mentioned yes and no, I meant how much I agreed with your statement and how I disagree with it, I'm well aware of your dichotomy and your christian faith, don't worry about it.
> I believe this to be the divine part of man yearning for that Godly perfection that may only happen if one humbly accepts their position in these battles.
And this is where we disagree, I can't simply bring myself to believe that, from what I know about the living beings, it feels more like a highly complex of mechanisms that evolution brought forward to achieve what the cell does nowadays, and what I'm trying to say with this? That evolution in the cell to overcome such challenges is the reason all living beings try to overcome obstacles, it may feel like something really crazy and stupid, how can a cell behavior determines how we think as humans, but it makes sense when you put it together.
>Every thing comes from a singular source, that is the basis that God is 1.
And in a bizarre way we agree that everything comes from a singular source, but in my case is the cell.
What I fail to understand, and all humanity, mainly from our limited knowledge is why cell try to overcome their hardships?

>>11895340
Anon, your cell theory can't bring talk about the idea of love. Yes yes, I know can allude back to your animal theory, but the point stands against you still, I believe.
>how can a cell behavior determines how we think as humans, but it makes sense when you put it together
It really, truthfully doesn't. Why would man yearn for art, anon the soul of an artist is much different from the soul of lumberjack. Which are you?

>What I fail to understand, and all humanity, mainly from our limited knowledge is why cell try to overcome their hardships?
You'll never get the answer here anon, you are going to open the door to metaphysics to get there, and the cell theory just cannot support it.

>>11895337
>Surely, you see the argument against nihilisn by impact it has upon the psyche, leading to self destruction.
Yes, and I believe is mostly due to humanity "over consciousness" and our social upbringing, something Nietzsche talked about.
>becoming Christian isn't a a shape you must become simply by following God, everything you do as a Christian is up to your own Free will.
I know everyone can follow their own way that feels their path to God, but it simply doesn't "click" with me to follow someone arbitrary morality, this is a question asked in the Ancient Greece, I don't recall who exactly, but it asks if what is considered "good" is good because God says so or because they're universally "good", this is where I break with the convention of God, I don't know the answer of this, and if you say, "But God is the creator of everything, shouldn't he be knowledgeable of what is objectively good?" I would answer "How can you and I be so sure of it?" There's simply not a reasonable and palpable way to know, and thus listening to the christian God starts feeling suffocating.
>Ask God, to show you.
But I can't simply fool myself to do so, I'm pretty honest to myself and can't force me to believe what I don't really believe.

>>11895355
>Anon, your cell theory can't bring talk about the idea of love.
I can't claim anything here about love as I don't want to lie for the sake of my arguments because I'm ignorant in that, but if I were to say something, I would attribute it to our species being a pretty sentimental specie as an evolutionary trait that most primates share, which usually goes for monogamy, or rather a family environment, as our species are more stable as a family than a solitary individual, meaning our "love" makes stay closer to our partner and children, once again, this is just a personal hypothesis.
>It really, truthfully doesn't. Why would man yearn for art, anon the soul of an artist is much different from the soul of lumberjack. Which are you?
Except it does, an artist can't create something out of this world, all what a artist can do is create something based of the material world and in a distort it with his senses. What makes you think than an artist hasn't some part of his Brodmann areas more developed that helps his art traits than those of the lumberjack? Why does it have to be a soul?
>You'll never get the answer here anon, you are going to open the door to metaphysics to get there, and the cell theory just cannot support it.
At least for now, but who knows in ten years.

>>11895364
>and our social upbringing, something Nietzsche talked about.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Neitzches was trying to overcone the placement religion played in the minds and hearts of Man, and he knew he couldn't but he tried anyways. Thats why he glorified the Ubermensch, but honestly he didn't understand the dichotomy of that being, only the theoretical possibility that would eventaulize through the decay of his modern man. Post- his life.


>There's simply not a reasonable and palpable way to know, and thus listening to the christian God starts feeling suffocating.
Okay, so In Christianity God is the judge, and he's perfectly just, so by this we can understand how our Judgement will be dealt, and based upon, by his moral law.
Why would it not be Gods moral law to be judged by?
>But I can't simply fool myself to do so, I'm pretty honest to myself and can't force me to believe what I don't really believe.
It's not even believing, it's about trying to believe the right thing. It's how you will to try.

>>11895375
>to our species
Anon, this is because we are in God's image, we have divine will in his nature.
Love allows humans to connect, but it also turns their will to fight for something. Fighting in the war room of love is the only war that in my view is right.
Monkeys go to war, but they do not war for love.

I see you didn't understant my artist example, I'm sorry I worded it poorly.
All I meant is that the two people drive their beings differently for the exemplification of their personal narrative on how to navigate reality.
An artist understands it's logical to chop to support his family, but his needs are past that mundanity of life, he lives in the sublime.
And the differences between these two kinds of dichotomies cannot be explained by you.

>>11895380
>I disagree wholeheartedly.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree on this one, personally I believe it's mostly our social upbringing, mainly because not all cultures through history share the same social morality, some consider death glorifying, some other not. This morality Nietzsche was trying to overcome was one the western morality which is based heavily in Christianity, but isn't it true that Christianity in a sense over the Amerindian culture as the mexica or mayan culture and their moralities? This is why I claim is mainly in a sociological level rather than a spiritual one.
>Why would it not be Gods moral law to be judged by?
1. How do I know if he is even real? Faith is not enough for everybody
2. Why should it be? Why should he be completely right about it? Were the Wright brothers completely right on their airplane model and couldn't be modified? I can see jets nowadays, what makes me think God was right on his morality, or that he is perfect?
>It's not even believing, it's about trying to believe the right thing. It's how you will to try.
But I do believe to try the right thing, what I perceive as the right one, this is the conflict, anon.

>>11895409
>1. How do I know if he is even real? Faith is not enough for everybody
Well first off, Faith is a logic system.
You understand through faith, that 1+1 will always equal 2.

>2. Why should it be? Why should he be completely right about it?
Because he told us his laws, and told us to live by them, and he him self lived by his own law. He is the ruler and we are the subjects, the king decrees law.

>Were the Wright brothers completely right on their airplane model and couldn't be modified?
Comparing apples and oranges here, and to say otherwise is to make mockery over our entire discussion.

>God was right on his morality, or that he is perfect?
Because he is a Good, Loving and a Just God. He is a personal God.


>But I do believe to try the right thing, what I perceive as the right one, this is the conflict, anon
If you do, then why have not tried to test my words, do you wish to argue blind?

>>11895404
>Monkeys go to war, but they do not war for love.
They don't think as highly as we do, mainly because our brains are more developed, how do you know that the difference isn't based mainly on that intelligence difference? If the monkeys were smarter, what makes you think they can't love as us?
>All I meant is that the two people drive their beings differently for the exemplification of their personal narrative on how to navigate reality.
I did understand what you meant, but my point stills stand, maybe an overdeveloped Brodmann area could make a Da vinci? Why does it need to be the soul?
>but his needs are past that mundanity of life, he lives in the sublime.
This goes beyond the soul and goes directly into the IQ, it's no surprise that low IQ individuals wouldn't even be interested on what we're discussing here, they would just go to church and go back to their homes forgetting all they heard, is that their souls or underdeveloped brain not stimulating them enough to achieve greater needs as living sublime?

>>11895431
Tell me how intelligence gives rise to Love then anon.
That's my only statement. I think our conversation is ending. Many smart people cannot see past materialistic ideas, at least you are trying.

>>11895428
>Faith is a logic system
No, it isn't at all. Saying 1+1 equals 2 is not based on faith, I can put two fingers up and say 1+1 equals 2, I can't say I will understand based on faith of someone who I have evidence it exists. And as you said, in a certain way, is comparing apples and oranges.
>Because he told us his laws, and told us to live by them, and he him self lived by his own law. He is the ruler and we are the subjects, the king decrees law.
My parents do so as well, they gave me rules that some of them were irrational, but because they "gave me" life (I know you're thinking that God gave me life, not them, but let's pretend for the sake of my argument) I should abide to their rules? Why so? Because they gave me life? Does that make their rules rational? Shouldn't rules be rational by themselves rather by who impose them? Once again, you keep saying God's rules are right because he imposed them, not because of their rationality.
>Comparing apples and oranges here
I agree is a rather off-putting argument I used there, but I was trying to show you in a way what my reasoning was, I know the Wright brothers aren't an all knowing and all seeing beings, but what I was trying to achieve was that just because you're the creator of something doesn't necessarily mean he is right about everything of it.
>If you do, then why have not tried to test my words, do you wish to argue blind?
Because as you see my arguments as blind, I see yours blind as well. That's why we're discussing (at least I do) to comprehend better the other side of the coin.

>>11895456
I'm a born again Christian. So I've been exactly in your shoes, send me an email.
I am willing to always have this discussion.
Just realize Christian Faith is a logic system that ties us to our belief In God.
Again, I'll say, pray.
I promise he answers.

>>11895447
As I previously said, I'm not well versed in the mechanisms of love, so I can't really confirm anything, all are just personal hypothesis, but as I said, if love is a mechanism to work as an community specie, shouldn't it be enhanced like most of our intelligence traits that we share with primates? Such as our use of tools, like some primates do. Or use of rationality as some orangutans do? Like Ken Allen. Again I could be wrong on this one, so I'll give you that, just from my own ignorance.
>I think our conversation is ending.
I do so too, it's getting pretty late where I live. My eyes are getting tired lol

>>11895466
I may as well do so, it's scarce to find Christians who are educated on what they're defending and who are dispose to talk in a civilized way, most Catholics I talk with don't even know what Sodom is.

>>11895468
I love you from my seat anon, I don't know you, and you cannot explain that.
I hope you figure this out for your self, because its very very important on our psyche, I will also ask you to just give it a shot and try praying once, I put my email in a post above, you are welcome to email me as well.

>>11895476
I'm Protestant, Presbyterian.

>>11895480
Yeah, I will try to email you, if I remember lol. I can't promise much, I have a lot of shit in my mind all the time. But I will try because I like you. See ya anon, and have a good night.

i wouldnt say this book made me believe in god but it definitely tipped the scales a little and i think im agnostic now

>>11895023
how was it?

>>11895215
A cell does phagocytosis, do you also split in two and surround bacteria?

You also didn't provide any good arguments, just saying that " you're both life" is a totally meaningless statement.

>>11895215
Oh I see, a brick house in a tiny piece of clay because it's made of tiny pices of clay. Also, why should I obey nature?

You keep bullshiting about cells and other animals (which again don't know any better) because you realize you're not being rational. You have to provide a good arguments why humans shouldn't do it, not cells.

>>11895215
Also what retarded logic in the first place.


A duck is a living being.

You're a living being.

Therefore you should try to fly around, after all ducks can fly. Therefore as a living being you should fly also.

>>11895003
>Can you prove that your own meaning is real meaning, rather then just some delusional fantasy?
Can YOU? If not, you have no basis for criticism nor elevating your own unfounded nonsense. What part of that perspective can justify seeing delusional fantasies in other ideologies? Be specific. If you need an argument for why lack of proof should not be equated for lack of evidence, see: >>11893635. You are arguing from a position of zero proof AND zero evidence.
>>11895037
It's far more sensible than believing in someone else's meaning whose experiences you don't share.
>muh jesus
>everything is unprovable, therefor my conjecture based on zero evidence is totally defensible

>>11894844
>I can support my stance by deflecting all inquiry, assuming I'm right, and providing zero support
Why do you keep replying with non-arguments? Are you that insecure about the weakness of your position? You've already stated that you're above giving evidence and arguments to support your superstitious world view, so what are you trying to prove other than being the biggest retard on the site?

>>11895076
What part of that article contradicted my claim? Quote specifically.

>>11895069
The source is that they sometimes wake up. If they regain full awareness, consciousness never left. Otherwise, it would be "resurrection", not "waking up".

>>11895003
>Also, religious people have more kids aren't they fullfing natures purpose better then you are?
There is no "natural purpose" to the individual. Everyone has to find their own meaning, you just happen to be a lazy coward who tries to align his meaning with other people. What argument are you trying to make? "I should believe this shit because other people who believe this shit have more kids than those who don't"? If that's your reasoning, you could just commit to having as many children as possible. There are also religions that forbid sex, though they're not very popular.

>>11896801
What do you think consciousness is?
If consciousness is lost, it can come back.

>>11896801
>>11895003 (You) #

>Can YOU? If not, you have no basis for criticism nor elevating your own unfounded nonsense. What part of that perspective can justify seeing delusional fantasies in other ideologies? Be specific. If you need an argument for why lack of proof should not be equated for lack of evidence, see: >>11893635 #. You are arguing from a position of zero proof AND zero evidence.


No in this thread claimed to base their beliefs on anything more then faith, im asking for you to subject your in beliefs to the same burden of proof you use on other.

Why is it far more sensible, I'm asking you to prove that

>>11895067
>and having kids is what matters
Who said that matters? You are trying to argue your individual beliefs based on what you consider good for the species, yet I doubt you've devoted your life to eradicating disease.

>>11895113
>Why should you value happiness?
Should? That a non-question. Why DO I value happiness? Because it makes me happier, and I like being happy.
>Why should you believe in your own meaning?
Why shouldn't I? Your own meaning is religious. You have personal reasons for believing in something for which you have no evidence. I have personal reasons (i.e. not being retarded) for not believing something for which there is no evidence. I have my own beliefs, and they can just as easily be held by other people as fairy tales and superstitions. You're just lazy, and you want to surrender all questions of meaning and personal conviction to a higher power. You have no evidence for a higher power, but the fact that there is dogma that you can believe with other people makes it feel less personal, more convincing and supported. That is all your "faith" comes down to: lazy cowardice.

>>11896881
>Should? That a non-question. Why DO I value happiness? Because it makes me happier, and I like being happy.
Circular logic, you failed to rationally explain why being happy matters.

>Why shouldn't I? Your own meaning is religious. You have personal reasons for believing in something for which you have no evidence. I have personal reasons (i.e. not being retarded) for not believing something for which there is no evidence. I have my own beliefs, and they can just as easily be held by other people as fairy tales and superstitions. You're just lazy, and you want to surrender all questions of meaning and personal conviction to a higher power. You have no evidence for a higher power, but the fact that there is dogma that you can believe with other people makes it feel less personal, more convincing and supported. That is all your "faith" comes down to: lazy cowardice.

Saying why shouldn't I isn't a rational answer, the same could be said about god. Why are your delusions of meanings more rational because they come from the self??

>>11896831
Prove that personal meaning exists.

>>11896875
>No in this thread claimed to base their beliefs on anything more then faith, im asking for you to subject your in beliefs to the same burden of proof you use on other.
I haven't dismissed any beliefs because they cannot be proven. Actually read >>11893635 this time for the distinction between believing something based on evidence and proof.
>Why is it far more sensible, I'm asking you to prove that
I DON'T believe in religion because there is no evidence to support its dogma being anything more than superstitions and fairy tales. Do you realize that you are the only one demanding proof? What is your question beyond "Why don't you believe in superstitions and fairy tales? Prove it's more reasonable than believing them."?

>>11896836
Consciousness is our concept of being able to think and react. It is an abstraction of brain activity. The truly brain dead never regain consciousness. If you wake up, it's because your brain never stopped being active, it was just less active for a while.

>>11896903
>Circular logic, you failed to rationally explain why being happy matters.
It doesn't matter in some abstract, provable sense. It is a value, and like all value judgments, it cannot be proven. You can have consistent values, but you cannot have provable values. Belief in superstitions and fairy tales is inconsistent with valuing evidence for your beliefs. You believe in the sun, right? You believe in the monitor you're looking at, right? Why? Because you have evidence that they exist. Religious faith is inconsistent with this value. Preferring to have one's personal beliefs be consistent is itself a value. It cannot be "proven", obviously, but that doesn't make it unreasonable. Being indifferent to inconsistencies in your belief system, especially eminent, core beliefs such as the one's that guide your moral template and the one's that justify your belief in the sun and the earth, is irrational. It is the mark of a frivolous or stupid person.

Now apply the same scrutiny to your own beliefs? WHY do you believe? Because you like it, you value it, it gives you something that you want and you are willing to put aside your value of "believing things for which you have evidence" for it. That's all it comes down to. I don't have to justify why I don't believe in bullshit. You are the one who has to justify your belief in the supernatural, and it is the lack of convincing justification for believing those superstitions and fairy tales that has you constantly on the attack. That's why all you're blithering is in the same vein of:
>Having more children fulfills our natural purpose, and religious people have more kids, therefor I'm justified somehow.
>Why is believing in things you reasoned yourself more sensible than believing the writings of ancient sheep fuckers? Prove it.
>Well you can't PROVE your beliefs, therefor my belief in angels and the holy jebus is just as rational as your not believing in them
All you're doing is sniveling the same "Well you can't PROVE not believing in superstition and fairy tales is more reasonable" in slightly different ways. No, I can't. It's inherently impossible, but it is still far more rational than the contrary. Stop trying to have an intellectual discussion above your weight class.