/lit/ - Literature

>>11989818
Sweetie, being a Christian larper is the new ratheism.

>>11989820
>t.ratheist projecting

great. now read this guy and go back to being an atheist (i. e. non-moron)

>>11989818
By being with God gaven grace

>>11989833
>t.reddit

>>11989823
It's true though. Just take a look at the self-assured, smug Christians in this board. They are virtually indistinguishable from ratheists in their attitude.

>>11989820
this

>>11989872
That I agree with

>>11989818
Well done anon, we're all proud of you.

>>11989820
unironically this

>>11990405
>>11989882
Samefag

>>11989818
Because he's the closest thing to the European Joseph Smith

>>11989818
Where do I start with him? Do I have to read works of other philosophers first?

>>11989820
But Kierkegaard doesn't advocate for Christianity. He instills a healthy doubt in all nonbelievers which I believe, intentionally, ends up making one behave in a more altruistic manner by their own volition. Infinite Resignation bitches.

>>11991468
Either/or. Outlines aesthetic vs ethical living, two philosophies of living that stand below religious living. Great first real debate about how to live. Selfish hedonist vs upstanding citizen. Only after he outlines the short comings of both is it beneficial to hear his points on Christianity.

>>11991558
true

>>11991496
well he did, just not in his famous works.

>>11992873
Right, but the type of Christianity he wanted was very personally challenging yet ambiguous, not the cookie-cutter capitalist/imperialist-friendly version instilled in the Danish Church. What most of these self-proclaimed Peterson-tier Christians have embraced as religious living seems to me little more than a talking point used to remain contrarian thinkers that can argue against the 'leddit bill nye athiest libtards' who are mostly inclined to be dismissive of religion. A Knight of Faith would never be on 4chan - only a charlatan would profess their new found faith here.

>>11989818
You're not... LARPing are you OP?

>>11991558
where to afterwards, may I ask? I own copies of both Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death.

>>11992929
I am the OP, I'm not larping.

>>11992929
i am the knight of faith actually

>>11992953
I have to admit that and E/O is as much as I've read so far. So, Love his work though.

>>11992954
It is true that there is no discerning evidence to confirm whether on not you're deluded or God added you to his favorites. I only hope your faith manifests itself in good acts on Earth. <3
>>11993014
Bless you Anon

bump

How do you even spend more than a year in your atheism phase?
There's literally no way the world would exist if there hadn't been some trigger to it. Why be an autist and refuse to just broaden your high school definition of god to include that trigger? Fucking black and white thinkers can't fathom of anything other than either a made up dude in heaven or no god at all, swear to god.

>>11989872
>pic very much related

>>11995436
>How do you even spend more than a year in your atheism phase?
This is an interesting topic because-
>There's literally no way the world would exist if there hadn't been some trigger to it.
Oh, nevermind then, carry on.

>>11995461
I can't even guess at what you thought you were going for, but the fact you made this post despite abandoning the attempt to put it into words less than halfway through has me curious. Go on anon, tell us your ideas.

>>11995436
God as the First Cause is hardly the traditional Christian God. To pretend otherwise is to be incredibly intellectually dishonest. From God as the First Cause you cannot derive its infinite wisdom/goodness/what have you. In fact, God as a First Cause is little more than the most abstract first principle that gives rises to nature. It's the most atheistic God there could be.

>>11995492
Moreover, the fact that this kind of God as the stopper of the infinite regression of reason is first found in PAGAN THINKERS like Aristotle should give a very CLEAR clue as to what kind of God you can rationally establish in this way. There IS a reason a lot of Christians were against "rational theology": and they weren't wrong.

>>11995473
I want to preface by saying I'm being honest here and without sarcasm. Any mistake is sincere and perhaps misled. I know there's people that is better educated out there, and I'm not even going to attack the usual suspects (i.e. creationists and literalists)

I'm a fedora, and most serious belief discussions I've had with Christians follow a similar pattern:
>Agree that the old testament is either wrong or not to be taken literally
>The goalpost slowly moves from the God of Abraham to the God of the gaps, to Spinoza's God, by which point I see no need to keep calling it God, or to even assume agency from it.

Alternatively, if the person has notions of Philosophy, their bastion is always how by definition you cannot prove or disprove the deity by natural means, since God is out of time. When your default stance is to be skeptical unless proven otherwise, and a lack of belief changes nothing when it comes to our empirical experience of life, what's the point then?

I don't believe simply because I haven't seen evidence of it, and I'm not limiting myself to physical evidence, I try to read relevant texts but they feel to me like belief in god is an axiom rather than a conclusion, i.e. most of Aquinas' arguments. If you try the gentiles, it all seems like damage control to transition from being from another religion or trying to bridge the gap, or he goes through a logical progression until the very blatant "therefore God" leap happens.

>>11989820
They are growing out of a phase in denial. There is no new r. atheism - wont be for a while.

>>11995559
God is proven by prayer and belief having effects on the physical world. God is as real as particles. You atheists think that truth is limited, but it only expands.
Nothing is untrue.

>>11995588
Belief in God can have real effects. That doesn't mean God is real though. A paranoid has all sorts of beliefs that REALLY affect his life, but that doesn't mean the CIA is stalking him and listening to his thoughts.

>>11995588
>God is proven by prayer and belief having effects on the physical world.
I'd like evidence for this. Furthermore, isn't changing the fate of the universe via prayer against the divine plan?

>God is as real as particles.
Lazy, not to mention that if you mean elementary particles you're pretty much contradicting yourself by the very nature of quantum properties. Virtual emergence is a thing but that doesn't make those particles any more real.

>You atheists think that truth is limited, but it only expands
What does this mean? I can make an infinite set of true statements, about true correlations of things.

>Nothing is untrue
Even disregarding the obvious consequences of taking this at face value, why would I invest in learning or researching about literally everything since "nothing is untrue" instead of discriminating towards that which is more likely to be true? Especially with a limited lifespan.

>>11995597
More generally: you're assuming that false beliefs can have no behavioral effects, which is obviously false. If I think it's raining, I might grab my umbrella (real effect in the world) and then realize that it wasn't raining after all once I step outside my house. That is a very simple example of how a false belief can have a real effect in my publicly observable behavior.

“The subjective thinker is not a man of science, but an artist. Existing is an art. The subjective thinker is aesthetic enough to give his life aesthetic content, ethical enough to regulate it, and dialectical enough to penetrate it with thought.”
>>11992953
Just read the concluding unscientific postscript.
It's K at his least pseudonymous and indirect. Here he pretty blatantly puts forth his version of Christianity and how to become a Christian.
Which unsurprisingly contains most of his entire philosophical project.
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/kierkegaardphil1reading.pdf

“Christianity is spirit, spirit is inwardness, inwardness is subjectivity, subjectivity is essentially passion, and in its maximum an infinite personal, passionate interest in one’s eternal happiness.”

>>11993027
You're saying things like "Only after he outlines the short comings of both is it beneficial to hear his points on Christianity." after having only read 2 of his books.

>>11995638
If you have to read books in order to become a Christian you're probably never gonna make it and just be a larper though.

>>11995652
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine.

>>11995559
>I don't believe simply because I haven't seen evidence of it
Either God exists, or He doesn’t. Reason can’t decide one or the other. You can either choose belief or non-belief. Considering the benefits of belief—hope, joy, gratefulness, humility, eternal salvation— why would you choose not to seek belief?

>>11995664
One can feel hope, joy, gratefulness and humility without religion. There's been hundreds of books about the subject (only mentioning this since we happen to be in /lit/), people living plentiful and fulfilling lives without religion. Eternal salvation is something that doesn't even exist if God (or the supernatural in general) doesn't.

Regardless, if your motivation to "seek belief" is to get any of these, I'm not sure Yahweh would like that. You also haven't provided a rebuttal to my post, as in explaining how to arrive to God without a blatant leap in your reasoning. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I just want to know if I'm missing something.

>>11995492
>God as the First Cause is hardly the traditional Christian God.
Stopped reading there, by which I clearly did you more service than you me. Which part about broadening your definition of god is too hard for you?

>>11995559
>by which point I see no need to keep calling it God, or to even assume agency from it
Then don't. That's the kind of god you want to define. There is a point between an utterly trivial, undescriable first cause (compare Aristoteles), and the Christian god, two extremes let's say, at which you stop considering this "god" reasonable. Contemplate that point.

>>11995664
>Either God exists, or He doesn’t.
A statement with a nonabsolutely defined object cannot be binary.

>>11995664
>Considering the benefits of belief
If you ever stopped to consider "benefits of belief", you don't believe at all. Belief is a manifestation of an ultimate love to God, and love is completely unconcerned by any benefits, lest it's not love but selfish seeking of pleasure. Kierkegaard often points it out. Same applies to "evidence", if you seek evidence you don't believe.

>>11995678
>One can feel hope, joy, gratefulness and humility without religion
As if they can compare.
>Eternal salvation is something that doesn't even exist if God (or the supernatural in general) doesn't.
Yeah, so? You either gain all or nothing by believing, as opposed to losing all or nothing by not believing.
>Regardless, if your motivation to "seek belief" is to get any of these, I'm not sure Yahweh would like that
It doesn’t matter, because if you attain true belief, your faith will be sustained for other reasons. Of course, your initial motivation may be selfish, but later on, you’ll hope to worship God for His sake. And if you’ve attained this state, God would certainly forgive you for your previous motivation, along with all other sins.
>You also haven't provided a rebuttal to my post, as in explaining how to arrive to God without a blatant leap in your reasoning
It’s not an instantaneous flip of a switch in the mind. It’s praying, reading the Bible and other Christian works, repenting, being aware of your sin, humbling yourself, lessening the passions, going to church, doing good to others, truly seeking God. I was an atheist, but I am now a Christian. I didn’t prove God’s existence to myself or the resurrection of Christ, but I believe it. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything else.

>>11995686
>Contemplate that point.
I agree with you. However, at what point is it irrelevant to ascribe this meaning to it? When you say the word God, an overwhelming majority of people will understand the Judeo-Christian God, and a lot of non-trivial baggage, such as cosmic agency, the afterlife or sin. If God can be an ambiguous in-between that represents nature and permeates the universe and might not even intervene, how is this not Daosim, for example? How is it then not more productive to be completely secular?

>>11995718
>As if they can compare.
A subjective claim.

>Of course, your initial motivation may be selfish, but later on, you’ll hope to worship God for His sake.
There's many believers who would scorn you for this behavior. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I just want to point out you're definitely not representing the belief of most Christians.

>It’s praying, reading the Bible, etc.
Why would I do the things that people who already believe before believing? this sounds like reading a novel in French before learning French.

>I didn’t prove God’s existence to myself or the resurrection of Christ, but I believe it. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything else.
If this helps you be a better person then keep up the good work, but don't assume we all have this sort of low standard.

Went from an atheist to a heretic.

>>11995736
>Why would I do the things that people who already believe before believing?
Because it’s worked before...
The first and maybe hardest step is to humble yourself, to realize that we are ignorant and lost.

>>11995752
>The first and maybe hardest step is to humble yourself, to realize that we are ignorant and lost.
Assuming your depiction of God is the correct one, and your path to him is the correct one, sounds far from humble to me. "Because it's worked before" is one of the most intellectually lazy things you can do.

I don't believe we'll come to a compromise, I rather drop the subject before either of us starts insulting each other. Don't think I want to escape your reply, I will certainly read it regardless. Thanks.

>>11995762
>sounds far from humble to me.
Because?
>Because it's worked before" is one of the most intellectually lazy things you can do.
If you actually wanted to believe, you wouldn’t say,”Why would I do that?” when someone offers advice to seek belief. Why wouldn’t you pray and read the Bible? What did you expect?

>>11995721
I want to say that this impression of god ≒ Yahweh is just a result of the surroundings you grew up in. Every religion has a godsquad whose members they refer to as just gods, some of them consisting of only one and called god.
You're totally right, your idea of god might hold no further than Daoism. But there's no one out there who can stop you from using the word god for it anyway.

>How is it then not more productive to be completely secular?
See my first sentence of this post. I've rarely run into this problem of god discussions devolving into a "Ok but now you're not talking about the kind of god _I_ want to talk about anymore"
And well, the term "god" just has a long history and implications associated with it that using a different term just wouldn't get the meaning across, even less so if everybody came up with a new one for their personal point of rational acceptance on the god scale.

>>11995762
Just read Pascal already

>>11995768
Maybe I should elaborate on what those implications associated with "god" are that I personally care about: As far as I'm concerned, when somebody talks about god I take is as them talking about what they consider the ur-cause behind their existence and the universe. With that as the common denominator, they then sprinkle on the attributes they assign to that god.
No point in trying to force a different term for that, in my experience.

Are the Penguin translations sufficient? Seems like there is a very limited selection of his work available online, especially Either/Or

>>11995773
Not that anon but interested which Pascal book you would recommend for someone who has never read him?

>>11995787
Started me on the way

>>11995768
So you're basically conceding that what is usually understood as the "Judeo-Christian" is not the same thing understood as "the First Cause God". Why then do you want me to believe that the arguments for establishing the existence of the latter ipso facto establish the existence of the former with all its traditionally ascribed attributes? You sir are being intellectually dishonest.

>>11995801
>Why then do you want me to believe that the arguments for establishing the existence of the latter ipso facto establish the existence of the former with all its traditionally ascribed attributes?
My very first sentence in this thread clarifies that this isn't what I'm doing, as I've already indicated. Read the following, then reread my posts: I make no claim regarding the Judeo-Christian god's existence.

>>11989833
lol. quine is assblasted AF!

>>11995807
My bad, I forgot about the part where I made fun of atheists (which, by the way, is my point: That atheism is for brainlets), I meant this line
>Why be an autist and refuse to just broaden your high school definition of god to include that trigger?

>>11995807
Your talk about a "trigger of existence" sounds awfully similar to the First Cause God, boy. If it makes you happy to call "God" whatever gave rise to the universe, be my guest. But don't pretend that this is what people usually understand by the word "God", because it's not. If you dilute enough the notion of "God", you might end up agreeing with atheists.

>>11995768
>>11995781
I'm the anon you replied to. What if there is no cause? or the cause is random. For clarification, I believe in the virtual particle theory. I say believe because we haven't figured if this is physically true (or if it's even possible to define it as such). Then the word God in my brain has no physical property, no supernatural property, no agency, and not even an existence in the present since this creation event ceased to "Start" the moment the quantum fields unfolded themselves on the physical universe.

>>11995773
I will, thanks.

>>11995828
>Your talk about a "trigger of existence" sounds awfully similar to the First Cause God, boy.
Because it is what I'm talking about.

>But don't pretend that this is what people usually understand by the word "God", because it's not.
Are you actually the same anon? Have you been reading my posts?
>I want to say that this impression of god ≒ Yahweh is just a result of the surroundings you grew up in.
>>How is it then not more productive to be completely secular?
>See my first sentence of this post. I've rarely run into this problem of god discussions devolving into a "Ok but now you're not talking about the kind of god _I_ want to talk about anymore"
And well, the term "god" just has a long history and implications associated with it that using a different term just wouldn't get the meaning across, even less so if everybody came up with a new one for their personal point of rational acceptance on the god scale.

>>11995838
Buddy, let's cut the crap and get down to it: do you believe the Aristotelian regression argument establishes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, with all the attributes Christian theology ascribes to it, or not?

>>11995830
>I'm the anon you replied to. What if there is no cause? or the cause is random.
That's a similar position I'm in, and my answer is that for there to be randomness in the first place (compare Wittgenstein: literally everything is practically random, and if there is something that isn't it would be that beyond/before our world) there first needs to have been established/configurated a system that allows for an event such as the creation of the universe. Unconsciously, probably (because how would an immortal being end up with shit like desires and wants in the first place?), but that creator is what I term god. In other words, the guy/force that deigned time and space to interact the way they do. The inventor of math's true axioms, if you want.

>>11995854
>I make no claim regarding the Judeo-Christian god's existence.
Read: No. I do not believe in any proofs for the existence of a Judeo-Christian god, nor any proofs against it. You didn't reread my posts, did you?

>>11995838
>And well, the term "god" just has a long history and implications associated with it that using a different term just wouldn't get the meaning across, even less so if everybody came up with a new one for their personal point of rational acceptance on the god scale.

But you ARE aware that what most people understand by the word "God" is not what you understand by it (which apparently is nothing more than the First Cause God), right? Because if you are aware of this linguistic fact, your use of the word "God" with a total different meaning than what is usually understood by it (that is, the notion of the Judeo-Christian God) is bound to cause unnecessary confusion.

>>11995880
Going to keep my answers short since I guess I was just slow on realizing you're baiting
>what most people understand by the word "God" is not what you understand by it
Globally my definition of god overlaps more with the average person's than yours.

>>11995890
>Globally my definition of god overlaps more with the average person's than yours.
No, not really. At least not with the average Western person. It seems you are not aware of being in a Western website, anon. If you use the word "God" in such a context, most people will undoubtedly understand "Judeo-Christian God" unless you explicitly state that you're not referring to such a god. This is a sociological fact.

>>11995878
>compare Wittgenstein: literally everything is practically random, and if there is something that isn't it would be that beyond/before our world
Where does Wittgenstein say this? I don't remember it being either in the Tractatus or the Philosophical Investigations.

>>11995923
Proposition 6 in the Tractatus, fairly close to the end where he establishes that everything in the world is random due to there being no physical necessities, only logical ones, and that something random can't have meaning, so that if there is meaning it must lie outside the world.

>>11995903
>If you use the word "God" in such a context, most people will undoubtedly understand "Judeo-Christian God"
>in such a context
You mean the context that I established by going
>There's literally no way the world would exist if there hadn't been some trigger to it. Why be an autist and refuse to just broaden your high school definition of god to include that trigger?

Remember: The reason you're going on about the implications of using the term "god" on 4chan is because you yourself were a "victim" of this confusion. Now you're implying the majority of people on this website would follow the same fate, which is equivalent to claiming that the majority of people on 4chan, when reading the above sentence, would think of a traditional god. That's wrong, you know it's wrong, you simply didn't read the context as I told you to.

I'll give you that the usual westerner thinks of the Christian god if he only hears "god." What you can't help but acknowledge is that in that idea of god, my definition of god is included, giving me the overlap I claimed even in the west. But that's irrelevant, the actual point of the argument lies in the above paragraph and I can't really be arsed to discuss something subjective like how strongly the christian thought of god drowns out oher notions of god unless specfically prompted to consider them in the usual westerner; especially because you won't get me to step off my mundane "overlap."

>>11995961
>There's literally no way the world would exist if there hadn't been some trigger to it. Why be an autist and refuse to just broaden your high school definition of god to include that trigger?
I truly wonder then what strange definition of "God" did you have in mind here. Because, yes, the Judeo-Christian God "includes" the First Cause God. In what definition of "God", where he is not the creator of the universe, were you thinking? Because it's even MORE far-fetched to think that a Westerner would understand by "God" an entity which did NOT create the universe. So, against who were you arguing, then?

>>11995961
I feel like I need to elaborate further after saying my definition is included in the traditional god and yet saying the people on here wouldn't think of him:
I was addressing atheists. If you think of god as a bearded dude on a cloud, consider that unreasonable and are thus an atheist, you're a retard. What you should do is include the notion of an ur-cause god. That way your idea of god entails an aspect that you (should) acknowledge, no longer making you an atheist.

Just in case, this the point I'm making, along with the point that the average guy on /lit/ would see it. Any contradiction with something I said before was just due my poor wording, although those wouldn't have been an issue if instead of harping on them you'd've just took a moment to reflect on where we came from.

>>11995977
>In what definition of "God", where he is not the creator of the universe, were you thinking? Because it's even MORE far-fetched to think that a Westerner would understand by "God" an entity which did NOT create the universe.
Yep there it is.
I was addressing an atheists definition of god. There, that's your answer.

>>11995982
>That way your idea of god entails an aspect that you (should) acknowledge, no longer making you an atheist.
Fine and dandy by me. But then again, if you believe in this incredibly diluted notion of God, as another poster said, why not go full secular? Because the notion of God as First Cause it's just that: he is the First Cause of the universe. No goodness, no justice, no omnipotence and omniscience, no infinite wisdom, no moral principles, no heaven and hell, are implied. Might as well just believe in whatever physical theory of the origin of the universe science is currently spouting.

>>11989818
Take the leap pill! CROAK!

>>11995977
>So, against who were you arguing, then?
Well, this guy for one. (Please tell me it's you) >>11995492

Which I want to say I alluded to, twice
>>11995436
>How do you even spend more than a year in your atheism phase?
>>11995822
>My bad, I forgot about the part where I made fun of atheists (which, by the way, is my point: That atheism is for brainlets)

There's no respectable justification for how badly you (intentionally as far as I can tell) avoided the point, really.

>>11995995
>why not go full secular?
Because in my experience it's less convenient to do so. That experience took a hit with this discussion, but oh well, it's still the case.

>>11996000
Ohhhhhh, now I see what triggered you: my description of the First Cause God as "atheistic". LMAO

>>11996007
>now i know what triggered you
>a post i made after you established your point!
I'll go ahead and say no. So it is you? Gotta say I'm impressed you're able to subconsciously block out the whole part where you claimed the exact opposite of what you now said here
>I truly wonder then what strange definition of "God" did you have in mind here. Because, yes, the Judeo-Christian God "includes" the First Cause God. In what definition of "God", where he is not the creator of the universe, were you thinking? Because it's even MORE far-fetched to think that a Westerner would understand by "God" an entity which did NOT create the universe.

>>11996000
>>How do you even spend more than a year in your atheism phase?
Buddy, your "theism" is basically saying GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That's it. To which I say: there is no proof. I prefer to stick to a physical explanation of the origin of the universe. If I were to believe in a god, it would certainly NOT be this anemic First Cause God: if I'm gonna start believing in things for which I have no rational proof, I might as well just believe in a comfy sky daddy that rewards me for being the good boy I am, which at least arguably has pragmatic advantages.

>>11996016
Eh? I described the First Cause God as "atheistic" as an exaggeration (meant to illustrate the huge difference between that notion of God and the Judeo-Christian notion of God) in my first post and gave it no importance whatsoever because I thought it would be obvious to everyone that belief in such a God would not be LITERALLY atheistic. Is this what you're so autistic about? No buddy, I don't believe you're an atheist if you believe just in the First God Cause. Are you happy now?

>>11996023
>Buddy, your "theism" is basically saying GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That's it. To which I say: there is no proof.
The universe exists. There must be a reason it exists. Physical explanations take place within the framework of logic. The framework of logic exists. There must be a reason it exists. These reasons, of which we know they exist, I coin god. In fact when I feel adventurous I term the system that first established a system of reason -> consequence "god."
Since a lack of proof was your only counter argument this time I'll take it that you no longer disagree? Sorry if you were expecting something grander than what's almost a platitude, but hey, consider this: people disagree with this platitude, so at least there is enough essence in it for it to cause disagreement.

>because I thought it would be obvious to everyone that belief in such a God would not be LITERALLY atheistic
Agreed! That's my point too, welcome welcome.

>>11996062
>The framework of logic exists. There must be a reason it exists.
Yes. It's called evolutionary biology.

>>11995599
>I'd like evidence for this.
People going to church for example.

>>11996090
That doesn't prove that God exists. That only proves that people believe God exists.

>>11996076
I think you misunderstood my idea of a framework of logic. I'm talking about analytic philosophy's idea behind it.
Think of it like this: A fact can be "true" or "false." Of course subjective things are neither, but technically that's because we don't define them down to absolute, atomic facts, and if we were able to then there really wouldn't be anything between true and false, but, more importantly: A state of affairs is either the case, or not. This in itself is a property of the universe, and if you ask me it makes sense to claim that there was something that originally configured this property. Now don't get tripped up by thinking of something like some "creature" deciding "Alright, time to get some distinction up in this place," there's actually literally no property I'd be able to assign to that guy other than just that: it's the reaso distinction exist.

So if you did have this canonical (we talking about the Vienna circle here man) idea of a framework of logic in mind then you'll have to explain what you meant by evolutionary biology, since I can't really combine the two as I know them.

>>11996100
Nevermind, I take it you understood framework of logic as something like human rationality. Yeah nah, I was more talking about the mathematical system behind logical truths and shit.

>>11996100
>If you ask me it makes sense to claim that there was something that originally configured this property.

To which I could say: "if you ask me it makes sense to claim that there was something that originally configured this thing - or whatever you like to call it - which configured this property". And then we have an infinite regression of gods. So much for your God! I might as well irrationally cling to the Christian God, which at least is claimed to be eternal, letting one get out of this mess.

>>11990045
Kill and rape all christcucks

>>11996134
In other words: if you don't want me asking about your beloved First Cause cause, you'll do better by imitating the Christians and weaving a spooky narrative about heaven and hell or some such, which is psychologically far more compelling than what you tell. I have NO reason not to ask about the cause of your First Cause: no logical reason, and no psychological reason. What is your First Cause going to do to me if I ask about what caused it? Nothing, because it just is an abstract principle. At least in Christianity I'm menaced by sky daddy's infinite power, which gives a psychologically compelling reason not to doubt his shit.

>>11996134
>And then we have an infinite regression of gods.
It gets better. You can claim there's a god that is the very manifestation of this "meta regression," i.e. take a step to the side instead of another step forward on the meta road, and you'll end up with a pretty solid overgod. At this point it's hard to come up with further properties of this system that aren't already covered in this definition of god. I think your issue with following me lies in the fact that you think some dude walked up and made a god, which isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something more agreeable than a physical explanation: A logical one. Here I'm talking about the analytical kind of logic again though, so if you're not convinced I'd recommend reading the pro's thoughts on it.

>I might as well irrationally cling to the Christian God, which at least is claimed to be eternal, letting one get out of this mess.
Sure you can. I just don't like the "irrational" part, nor the "getting out of this mess" part, because you're still in the mess, just closing your eyes. Basically you're saying your god includes the solution to this problem you just pointed out, but without explaining "how" he manages to solve it. That's a very real gap there that deserves some attention, since no one would want to be told about a god that's defined as "my god is the god that makes the most sense and is actually the real origin of all"

>I have NO reason not to ask about the cause of your First Cause: no logical reason, and no psychological reason. What is your First Cause going to do to me if I ask about what caused it?
Well, that's exactly what I'm contemplating when I think about god. So far the above is my answer. But yeah, boiled down my god is everybody else's god, be they Christian or Greek or whatever, except stripped of everything but the one thing we can actually ascribe to him: creating this whole thing. From there I'm trying to define what it means to "create this whole thing," while refusing to settle with a non-answer.

>you'll do better by imitating the Christians and weaving a spooky narrative about heaven and hell or some such, which is psychologically far more compelling than what you tell.
>At least in Christianity I'm menaced by sky daddy's infinite power, which gives a psychologically compelling reason not to doubt his shit.
Well those psychological reasons aren't convincing enough for me so I don't care. That's really all there is to it as far as my lack of caring about heaven and hell is concerned.

It seems like you're under the impression that you've found the one flaw to this whole idea that I, silly as I am, have been missing this whole time, but you should remind yourself of the fact that there's an entire field of philosophy that's dedicated itself to answering this one flaw, and it's actually made progress beyond what you've pointed out.

>>11996247
So your God is basically... A logical loop? Lmao. You manage the astounding feat of combining the worst aspects of a fedora tipper and a Christcuck. And for the record: I have no God, I'm an atheist. But that doesn't mean I can't see why Christianity is far more compelling than your larping logical theism.

>>11995767
Only someone truly ignorant and lost would *want* to believe something without some kind of compelling evidence of its truth. So far, you have provided none. I have never heard a religious person provide any. I find this infinitely frustrating, as you claim that "eternal salvation" is a benefit of belief, but you haven't provided a remotely compelling iota of proof that God is in fact real, making this "salvation" of yours a cloud of smoke you blow in my face. I want to believe, but that isn't a reason to think anything is more than a pleasant fantasy. Not the anon you were talking with before, by the way.

>>11996300
Why do you dislike a logical device as a god while acknowledging a potential physics based one? I'm intrigued by your reaction when I almost share your position, except with the additional characteristic of believing there is a part about a traditional god that's rationally explainable. I shouldn't have to say this (again) but this is what I'm doing: Trying to figure out how real god is. This is where this approach is going - defining the parts of a first cause god that make sense.
Don't hit me with a "Implying I wouldn't care about a rationally explainable god as well - you're just failing to do so": If I could do that it would be equivalent to proving god's existence, which isn't what you were expecting from me; what I've been talking about is simply the approach that's being used to attempt to arrive at this rationally explainable god.

Don't you think nobody would care about this idea of a god I'm talking about if it were as pointless as you think it is? This tells you that your current impression is off. This is a deduction skill you're expected to be familiar with.

I'll take your hostility as a sign that I managed to hit a nerve. Hope I've compelled you to read some philosophy on the matter.

>>11989818
Kierkegaard is one of the worst writers Denmark has to offer. Could he think? Sure, but could he write? Fuck no.
>>11989872
There are barely any christposters left, pretty sure they moved on to jbp threads. He's basically ironic christposting because he's perpetuating the same set of conservative morals, but you don't have to affect a genuine religious faith to live by it.

>>11996533
>There are barely any christposters left, pretty sure they moved on to jbp threads
>but you don't have to affect a genuine religious faith to live by it
newfag and illiteratepilled

>>11996357
Oh, I read the philosophy on the matter. I have a degree on it. I just don't believe in nonsense just because someone wrote about it in a philosophy book. I too recommend you a philosophy book: The Critique of Pure Reason. Maybe then you will see why all of this is complete nonsense.

>>11996637
Oh, and by the way: you started with the hostility when you implied than anyone spending more than a year in an "atheism phase" is an idiot. So just fuck off with your mumble-jumbo.

>le everything will be alright in the end

What a grand and intoxicating innocence, how could you be so naive?

>>11997067
M'Yagrum

>>11995638
I'm the anon who you replied to.
I've read three of his most famous works plus a couple guides to understanding him, and some of Sadler's videos on his work. I don't really have time to read every work right away, but I dont think I've misrepresented his points in my claim. You're welcome to prove me wrong though.

>>11996646
they are though

>>11996167
shut the fuck up, p*gan

>>11989818
It however didn't teach you how to actually make a coherent argument for your position instead of Facebook shitposting about your feels.

>Shitty cosmological arguments

Literally the best Christshills can come up with in this thread. Even worse arguments include "prayer works" and Pascal's wager. If God exists, why does he allow his representatives to be so fucking retarded? (Not a serious question.)

>>11998874
That pic makes so little sense
Proud to be #PAGANG btw *dabs*

>>11998935
Yeah I dunno

>>11998935
Jokes on you fatass, everyone knows Kierkegaard doesn't argue anyone into anything, he is our loving Christian poet with the greatest powers of seduction, all while being celibate himself. Christianity isn't a thing to be argued into.

>>11999534
Fedora honestly

>>11999548
be careful!

>>11999554

This fucking gay pretentious thread for atheists who like religion. Dont be ashamed. Its okay to not believe and so catholic thinga. Jesus. If it makes you happy do it. Dont fucking pretend to believe in god. Jesus if you truly believed you wouldnt need this shit and i have plenty friends both dumb and intelligent but nonetheless truly believe in spite of this. Dont make yourself for the sake of practises you like. You can do them and not believe. Just dont be a hypocrit.

>>11999733
>t.Retard projecting

>>11998935
If you can find a good answer for the contingency argument you'll be a very smart man.

So refute it

>>11998935
Every atheist should read Pascal’s Penseés.

>>11998935
>why doesn't this minority of users on an anime-based imageboard consistently effortpost in justification of their position?
How about seeking the truth for yourself?

>>11989820
Fake it till you make it I guess

>>11989820
>Sweetie, being a Christian larper is the new ratheism.
Open your eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2BUjd2wkY

>>11989820
Chesterton-quoting twitter trads are the new neckbeards desu

>>11991496
Which book of his should I read first? I have already read the Greeks, as well as a lot of political philosophy

>>11995436
>How do you even spend more than a year in your atheism phase?
Because I'm not stupid enough to fall for word games. First Cause is not god and is a terrible argument, and arguments from Maximal-ness are literally wrong.

Is The Sickness Unto Death just shitty amor fati?

>>12000523
>Because I'm not stupid enough to fall for word games. First Cause is not god and is a terrible argumet.

Because you have a ton of other arguments that show the first cause is God, read the summa theologica.

>>12000545

Poetry about farting in your wife's face as the sublime ideal of the world soul is awful enough. I have to know.

>>12000581
Jesus Christ. How can people unironically fall for first or final causes. Look around you; the universe gives literally no fucks it just is and doesn't need your semetic communist cultists to exist.

>>12000626
Christianity is Semitic-European, Judaism and Islam are Semitic. Regardless God isn’t real because if it was there would be extremely obvious, absolutely alien prose and scripture giving concrete evidence of its existence and it would not be even vaguely disputible that this being influenced reality. we’d see evidence for it everywhere in nature.

>>12000646
>He thinks Christianity is European.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you've adopted the reformation or the Roman Catholic Church, but the legitimate non-schismatic churches have more claim to Christianity and I don't think you'd call Armenians or Syrians or Copts European.

>>12000646
It’s not disputable. God influences reality

>>12000626
Sorry wait, you don't fly into the air due to the universe not giving a fuck?

Gravity isn't real, it's just the universe not giving a fuck brooo.

>>12000646
>we’d see evidence for it everywhere in nature.
How would you tell?

>>12000715
Sure, you wouldn't exist if gravity didn't exist. Does not mean gravity needed god. Classic sampling bias or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

>>12000789
So gravity isn't reliant on anything else to exist.

>>12000646
>If the Bible were God-inspired it would contain the most unfathomably beautiful words ever written. There is literally nothing significant about the Bible's stories or its prose.
Unironically Sam Harris. What absolute an absolute non-argument.

>>12000405
holy fuck

>>12000801
No?

>>12000967
Really?

So if no matter existed gravity would exist?

>>12000678
I'm not Christian anon.
>>12000696
Where and when, how? Show proof now.
>>12000722
There would be god forces, god particles, god's language, angels appearing, real demons, photographic evidence of miracles, wars in the heavens, verifiable reports of visiting celestial realms, we'd hear god's voice clearly in our minds without having to ever make any guess as to who it was, there would not be a multiplicity of retarded and disparate traditions. It would just be blatantly obvious, as obvious as the existence of thunder and lightening, as striking and unmistakable as a hurricane rolling onto the shores of the Atlantic coast. There would no wavering or uncertainty, god would be among us and atheism would be as laughable as flat earther thought.
>>12000842
No, you're an insipid faggot who thinks that language games, horrible logic, terrible presuppositions and dancing around in the twilight realm of theology and ontology is a way out from having any tangible evidence of the existence of an all-mighty god. Don't even begin to retreat into deism or pantheism, you know very well that's just a provisional front to open up a full campaign against materialism and to return to Scholastic interventionist theism. Retarded faggot

>>12000491

>Either/or. Outlines aesthetic vs ethical living, two philosophies of living that stand below religious living. Great first real debate about how to live. Selfish hedonist vs upstanding citizen. Only after he outlines the short comings of both is it beneficial to hear his points on Christianity.

>>12001086
>There would be god forces, god particles, god's language, angels appearing, real demons, photographic evidence of miracles, wars in the heavens, verifiable reports of visiting celestial realms, we'd hear god's voice clearly in our minds without having to ever make any guess as to who it was, there would not be a multiplicity of retarded and disparate traditions. It would just be blatantly obvious, as obvious as the existence of thunder and lightening, as striking and unmistakable as a hurricane rolling onto the shores of the Atlantic coast. There would no wavering or uncertainty, god would be among us and atheism would be as laughable as flat earther thought.


Why would you assume this? Wouldn't incontrovertible proof of good defeat free will? In the same way that if I put a gun to your head you couldn't refuse.