/lit/ - Literature

Spinoza wasn't Christian, he just got kicked out by the Jews. There is a difference.

>>12618186
I mean if there is a religion that’s going to be correct, it would definitely be Christianity

>>12618191
why tho

>>12618196
because he grew up with it and it just seems more normal to him

>>12618186
i don't know, but that's a hilariously well-used image

but yes, Christians are often found performing more rationalizations than any other group, i don't even argue with them anymore because the arguments they make, make no sense. i've seen them try to combine evolution or the big bang and christianity, it's just a trainwreck

also don't be mean to anyone, they're just tryna find their way in life, everyone is learning...

Brainlet OP

>>12618218
Christian philosophy is critically predicated on neoplatonism which is essentially a type of pantheism but then goes ahead and declares itself duelist. Its entire philosophical basis contradicts itself.

>>12618186
It proves the existence of God. It however is up to you to find which God that is.

>>12618201
But anon, haven't you heard from the pascalfag? Pascal proves that christianity is the one correct religion in Pensées!

>>12618186
How to make Western Civilization Neoplatonist again, bros?

>>12618332
Other mathematicians laughed him out of the room for that

>>12618353
>again
i dont think it ever was neoplatonist. a few cultists with varying political relevance that left the most texts from that era surely aren't representative of their zeitgeist.

>>12618370
Most mathematicians have the most basic materialist philosophy and only care about rearranging numbers to solve some trivial algebraic problem.

>>12618370
But even other mathematician in history didn't laugh ar that, is opposite, took it very seriously such as Leibniz. Leibniz thought if he give his book assumption of logic to emperor of china then he will convert to christian because the logic is somehow the ultimate route of christian god

>>12618191
You misspelled Hinduism

>>12618191
Weird way of saying Buddhism.
Daoism is more correct, of course, but only if you ignore the retarded tumour that is religious Daoism.

>>12618186
If you go the path of ecstatic religion, you create a God-head with specific attributes to justify your faith.

If you go the path of rational or philosophical religion, assigning attributes or anthropomorphizing god becomes a huge problem.

>>12618229
This, and I usually even go out of my on 4chan to be polite to Christians and to talk about how Jesus's gospels and Christian mystic literature contain a lot of wisdom and are great to read but then you guys still have to reflexively attack anything that's not Christian DESPITE having this contradiction of being predicated on non-Christian Neoplatonic ideas. I see some people treating with the same amount of hostility both militant atheists attacking Christianity and people more into pan-theism/mysticism/eastern thought but who still appreciate and respect Christianity. It's cringe although there are occasionally sometimes high-quality posters who are exceptions.

>>12618768
That doesn't mean Pascal's argument still isn't laughable

>>12618186

Yes, Pantheism is part of Christianity.

Absolute Idealism contains Dialectic contains Panentheism contains Pantheism.

>>12618785
Which part of Hinduism do you like, desu?

Stop reading the scholastics. Proving some generic uncaused cause is completely meaningless. Even an atheistic materialist could agree with it.

>>12618353
Found the chink-subversive poster. No, the western nations can't abandon their Aristotlian propaganda for the incredible developments in materialism and let the chinks to overtake us.

>>12618186
I swear to fucking god,the jews and their lies got your brain.

>>12618799
>That doesn't mean Pascal's argument still isn't laughable
And what argument might that be?

>>12618353
>implying we're not at the peak of neoplatonism

People believe in ideal entities and fundamental unity more than ever, they just are going about it in an extremely messy way.

>>12619143
Where are these people? I haven't seen it. Mathematical Platonists don't have the slightest understanding of the complete depth to Plato's thought.

>I never touched neoplatonist primary sources but they contradict themselves
>panentheism is pantheism
>neoplatonism is pantheist
>god no beard = renouncing abrahamism
>god really big = pantheism

Why is /lit/ full of so many actual mouthbreathers?

>>12618332
I never said he proves Christianity is the correct religion, but that he offers many reasons why he believes so. I mainly bring this up to refute the ignorant argument against the wager that references the existence of thousands of religions, which it irrelevant to the wager since Pascal explains why he thinks Christianity is the perfect religion. Anyone can read the reasons he has given, though it is best you read all of Penseés.

>>12618768
>Most mathematicians have the most basic materialist philosophy

Depends on the field, but many mathematicians are actually naive platonists.

> only care about rearranging numbers to solve some trivial algebraic problem

Ok thanks for revealing you don't understand anything about modern mathematics.

>>12619130
His arguments on why Christianity is right are largely the products of him being raised in a Catholic culture and assimilating catholic cultural norms and values, it has mostly to do with arbitrary (from the perspective of history) moral and aesthetic values that inevitably change from one culture to another in any given era. Naturally, someone will have the most aesthetic appreciation for and intuitive sense for the religious teachings of the land they are raised and live in. You could find the same sort of arguments for why Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc are the right answer in the writings of people who follow those religions. He also knew very little about eastern religions and eastern religious philosophy and which leaves a gaping hole in his claims because you can't seriously claim X is better than the other major options if you hardly know anything about them. There are not any good arguments that he makes that you could repeat here that are not either arbitrary aesthetic judgements or that are simply based on knowing little about other religions, but I invite you to try.

>>12619317
Literally all the prophecies. No other religion is prophesied like Christianity is.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_XI

>>12619201
To even consider the wager a serious idea worth addressing or responding to in the first place you'd have to accept his conclusions which most people don't anyway, hence the wager is mostly a useless non-starter unless you are already a Christian looking for reasoning to justify something you've already decided is true.

>>12619375
Read the sections preceding the wager and the wager, and you’ll understand why it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t read Penseés. Pascal doesn’t just appeal to getting into Heaven as a reason to believe. There are numerous benefits in this life as well

>>12619371
All of them amount to pure cohencidence, just taking your pic as an example that could be applied to all sorts of people and is only taken retroactively as applying to Jesus, but it could by used for any religious teacher who talks about being Divine or being connected with the Divine (a fairly common occurrence in classical and late antiquity) who then at some point (inevitably) dies. Many of the motifs and themes concerning the birth of Jesus are recycled from early Babylonian and Egyptian mythology/symbolism and even appear in the far east, that people would claim 'Jesus was born of a virgin and this was foretold!!!" is not prophecy in the slightest but people adhering to a very common pre-Christian framework. There are all sorts of predictions, claims and other statements in the OT which don't support the Jesus narrative but Christians just pick out from among the jumble the select lines which can be construed as supporting him. Stuff like "born a virgin" "preceded by a messenger" "betrayed by a friend" "Crucifixion (very common in that region of the world)" are all vague enough that you could fit them to all sorts of outcastes and religious nutjobs who were crucified throughout that era. Furthermore, Jesus and the people who compiled the Bible would have been aware of these OT claims and it's not at all implausible that they purposely decided to write about what actually happened in a way that made it seem to be more in alignment that it was. Non-Christian religions like Hinduism and Native American religions contain all sorts of prophecies about the future which perfectly describe modernity, that in itself does not prove those religions are the sole truth. In the same way, a jumble of abstract and vague claims taken from the OT (ignoring all the stuff that wouldn't fit) does not in any way prove Christianity is true, or even really give it much support.

>>12619404
>Pascal doesn’t just appeal to getting into Heaven as a reason to believe. There are numerous benefits in this life as well
Most other religions offer this as well, and several of them have a much larger portion of their teachings (like Hinduism and Buddhism) dedicated to this aspect than Christianity does. The idea that Pascal thought there were benefits to Christianity in this life does not in any way support the claim that Christianity is better than other ones or the truth, virtually every member of every religion would claim the same thing about their religion. Your response just reinforced my point that his arguments are just based on arbitrary aesthetic judgement that would be found mirrored in the writings of thinkers from other religions.

>>12619453
>In the same way, a jumble of abstract and vague claims taken from the OT (ignoring all the stuff that wouldn't fit) does not in any way prove Christianity is true, or even really give it much support.
It’s not about whether it’s true or not. The whole point was that it’s greater than other religions, don’t you remember? We must have faith in SOME God, Pascal says, so let’s see which religion we should have faith in. Yes, it is possible that all of Christianity is one elaborate lie that somehow tricked a lot of people, and that some historians are mistaken about the existence of Jesus, etc. Faith is necessary for any religion, but the question is which religion we should have faith in. And since Christianity is the only religion with such consistency over thousands of years, with the prophecies, and other things that Pascal talks about, it certainly seems the best religion. Can you think of any religion that compares?

>>12619482
That’s not what I meant. Pascal provides reasons for believing in God in general, in having faith in God, ny giving benefits in this life. This is long before he mentions Christianity at all. He’s simply trying to persuade you that belief is good for you. Later on, he tells why you should believe in the Christian God.

>>12619514
>It’s not about whether it’s true or not. The whole point was that it’s greater than other religions, don’t you remember? We must have faith in SOME God, Pascal says, so let’s see which religion we should have faith in.
Yes, this is exactly my point, he says this and then jumps to arbitrary aesthetic and cultural judgements which only makes sense and seem fitting because he was raised in a Catholic culture, when you step back and look at things from the larger picture of course people like him will buy into and be convinced by whatever the dominant narrative is regardless of what religion is being discussed.

>And since Christianity is the only religion with such consistency over thousands of years, with the prophecies, and other things that Pascal talks about, it certainly seems the best religion.
Is this a joke? Christianity is one of the least consistent religions and is heavily predicated on Neoplatonism which is totally at odds with Catholic doctrine. The symbolism and motifs all come from earlier Babylonian and Egyptian teachings, and the Jewish OT that Christianity takes as it's point of departure was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Judaism didn't exist as anything more than a basic tribal/city cult until the Persians freed the Jews from Babylon, sent them back to Palestine, ruled over them for 3 centuries and introduced into Judaism ideas like heaven/hell, good vs evil, demons & angels, a final judgement and resurrection. "Church" Christianity is from beginning to end is a hodgepodge of plagiarization, misinterpretations and retconnings (Jesus himself is still based though).

>Can you think of any religion that compares?
Yes, both Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all have cultural/religious narratives which have remained consistent which people who are raised into it accept as true. Muslims would see the fact that a small tribe in Arabia conquered two massive Empires and then around 25% of the world (and much of the most valuable resources) as a miracle decided by God and proof of Islam's truth. Buddhism contained all sorts of prophecies and predictions by Buddha that Dharma would decline after a certain point and spread elsewhere which came true. Hindu scriptures talk about cyclic existence and the steady decline of religion in the Kali Yuga and predicted all the attributes of the modern world, all these people would accept this stuff as consistent. Pascal is similarly just agreeing with stuff he was predisposed to agree with by default because of him being born into that culture, it's circular reasoning: I agree with X so X must be true because I agree with it (because I was told that my whole life and because most people I know agree)

>>12618188
Why do you bring up Spinoza? Of course he wasn't a Christian. He's arguably the first fedora.

>>12619523
>That’s not what I meant. Pascal provides reasons for believing in God in general, in having faith in God, ny giving benefits in this life. This is long before he mentions Christianity at all. He’s simply trying to persuade you that belief is good for you.
And? I'm not sure why you bring this up, it seems like you are trying to claim this part supports his claim the Christian God is the right one but that's not true because those ideas are found in the writings of most religions and are by no means original ideas which uniquely support Christianity.

>Later on, he tells why you should believe in the Christian God
None of which are solid arguments unless you are predisposed to believe in them

>>12618191
is this the only religion you know about or what

>>12618218
But anon, Orthodox philosophy is basically don't you DARE ask that question, its prying at the mysteries!

>>12619633
Here >>12619375 you said
>the wager is mostly a useless non-starter unless you are already a Christian looking for reasoning to justify something you've already decided is true.

to which I responded that the wager is not solely based on getting into the Christian heaven, but is desirable for philosophical reasons and for improving this life. The wager is non-specific to which God we should believe in. I’m not talking about Christianity at all, yet you keep bringing it up in this discussion

>>12619681
this is the strange paradox of Christian philosophy. It simultaneously prides itself on its flawless logic, but when you point to the several glaring consistences it hides it under the guise that they are great mysteries that don't make sense on purpose that require 'contemplation', which amounts to just ignoring it.

>>12619514
>utilitarianism
wrinkledpepe.jpeg

>>12619130
Isn't Pascal's Wager primarily an argument for antinatalism?

>>12619708
>prides itself on its flawless logic
?

>>12619699
>The wager is non-specific to which God we should believe in. I’m not talking about Christianity at all, yet you keep bringing it up in this discussion
My mistaken then, I assumed you were talking about Christianity because it's mentioned in the thread title, and because 99% of the time I see it being used on 4chan people use it to argue for specifically Christianity. I agree with general argument that the benefits which often come from practicing/accepting/believing in religion make doing so more beneficial to one's self than atheism.

>>12619726
Of course not. Antinatalism is pretty new and a cuck philosophy. Why would you assume a godfearing man like Pascal would adopt such a childish idea?

>>12619773
I'm not saying that he espoused antinatalism as such, but it's certainly a more natural conclusion of the wager than hoping newly existent people manage to guess right at what God wants (even if we accept Jesus is the one true god). I bet you Pascal is in hell right now,in spite of his wager. He dedicated his life to the pursuit of mathematics, not God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-lfhUPzFs

>>12618191
based and truthpilled, the description of God in the Christian tradition is the only one that remotely matches our experienced reality without contradictions or question-begging

>>12619822
What? Our experienced reality represents the creation of a dispassionate deistic God, if not a sadistic one. It certainly doesn't appear to be the creation of an omnibenevolent God.

>>12619614
Buddhism was founded by a mere man who claimed to be enlightened. How does he know of Nirvana or samsara? It is all speculation. Why have faith in that? Not to mention, if Buddhism or Hinduism is true, then how little will Christians suffer. Yet if Christianity is true, how great will the Buddhists and Hindus suffer! And as for Islam, it has inconsistencies. Muhammad claims Jesus wa only a prophet, but with what source is he getting this? Obviously not the Bible, so what text? Then you have Muhammed’s peaceful years in early Islam, when he had no power, yet later on he looted and killed for power. There have been men throughout history who have conquered parts of the world, that does not mean they are sent by God. And of course, Islam has no prophecies as Christianity does. If you HAD to choose between Christianity and Islam, I already know what you would say.

>>12619813
Pascal literally gave up math to give his life to God. You don’t know wha you’re talking about

>>12619847
>but with what source is he getting this?
the angel Gabriel

>>12619842
>omnibenevolent
What does this mean, and when does the Bible use it as a descriptor if God? What kind of world do you think a perfectly “omnibenevolent” God would create?

I can enjoy neoplatonism and Spinoza and still go to Catholic mass, you literally can't stop me.

>>12619856
read Plotinus, or Augustine, or Libinez

>>12619853
Well he said it, so it must be true. It’s easy to go into a cave alone and tell people you communicated with an angel. What does it even mean that Jesus was only a prophet? What parts of the NT are true, and what are false?

Galatians 1:8
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

>>12619873
I’m guessing you’ve read them? Then can you not tell me what omnibenevolence is? What does it mean for God to be omnibenevolent, and is that supported by the Bible?

>>12619842
>sadistic
imagine thinking that this is the worst the world can get. "ungrateful biped" indeed, you're so awash in unearned gifts you can't even see them, you're in the middle of the sea and you ram a handful of sand down your own throat

>>12619852
Nevertheless I stand by my initial point.

>>12618799
Who hurt you sweetie? May the neoplatonist not-personal God give your soul some peace.

>says Tyre will never exist again
>It still exists this very day
>took over 100 years from the time of the prophecy for it to even be remotely destroyed
>took another half a millenium for it to be flooded as the prophecy said it would
>mfw

>>12619890
The Bible says it’s best not to marry. But if you can’t prevent sexual immorality, then marry. The problem would then become trying to stay married to someone while not having a child. What would hold you together for all those years? It would most likely end in divorce, and then you will either commit adultery or other sins. Not to mention, if all Christians became antinatalists, then the whole world would be sinners, and more people would go to Hell than before.

>>12619907
whoops, meant for

>>12619371

>>12619883
>you're in the middle of the sea and you ram a handful of sand down your own throat

Stop trying to be poetic and clever

>>12618229
>pantheism
*Panentheism

>>12619847
Its another Christian loses his theory of mind episode.

>>12619881
Omnibenevolent means all-good, just like omnipotent means all-powerful and omnicient means all-knowing. yes, the fact that God is all-good is supported by not only the bible, but centuries of theological scholarship. Google the word theodicy

>>12619949
>good
Good for what?

>>12619876
>Well he said it, so it must be true.

This is exactly how I react to bible quotations

>>12619963
not good in an instrumental sense, good in a moral sense

>>12619938
stop trying to be edgy and bitter

>>12619371
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dir1SZs7e3Q

>>12619978
I'm not trying to be edgy and bitter. I am simply just being that way.

>>12619876
>Well he said it, so it must be true. It’s easy to go up on a mountain alone and tell people you communicated with a burning bush. What does it even mean to put no other God before him? What parts of Exodus are true, and what are false?

>>12619883
If he was in the middle of the sea, wouldn't he be, by some cruel irony that Coleridge made note of, surrounded by undrinkable water?

>>12619988
BASED

>>12619876
Wow. Do you genuinely not see the irony?

>>12619993
You’re comparing centuries of prophets and historical events that contribute to one massive story to one man who went into a cave, and amassed a dozen followers after years of effort. I’m not claiming Christianity is definitely true, faith is required, but it makes more sense to have faith in Christianity than Islam. Do you disagree?

>>12620010
>>12620012

>>12620012
I see no reason to assume one makes more sense than the other

>>12619988
Ok, this is epic

>>12620019
Well, you haven’t read all of Penseés

>>12619988
Holy h*cking based, batman

>>12619883
>Christians think you should be grateful for an existence that ultimately resolves into an eternity of torment

Not so great at math, are we?

>>12619988
shut the fuck up retard

>>12618191
Definitely

>>12619152
>Where are these people?

Everywhere. Most people who pretend to be materialists are unwitting idealists who mistake their ideas about the world (most said ideas being plagiarized for Plato and/or the philosophical tradition that started from him, including the Christian tradition) for material facts of the world, attribute substance and sometimes even materiality to those ideas, and go on to make systemized or half systemized explanation of their life rooted on these ideas. We live in the world of bizarro-platonism, hard-cut materialism is too much to handle for most people.

>Mathematical Platonists don't have the slightest understanding of the complete depth to Plato's thought.

Nobody has complete understanding of Plato's thought you retard, not even Plato who ultimately, like everyone else, had to rely on fundamental preferences and intuitiosn he could at best justifiy after the fact, never fully comprehend.

Scholars are still arguing over the exact meaning of some of his writings, how can anyone who didn't dedicate his life to understanding Plato claim to fully understand him ? But it's a moot point anyway, Platonism is not about exactly understanding the letter of Plato, it's a larger philosophical trend that springs from him (and his sources) and developed itself in a variety of ways.

>>12619988

why are people responding to this post?

why are fr*gposters still tolerated on this site?

>>12620012
Does not Muhammad and his successors conquering so much land militarily show they were granted some kind of Divine providence? Alexander conquering Persia was also God's will or granted by God, just like Christinaity spreading more than any other religion.

>>12619988
based&redpilled

>>12620029
No, if I weren't Christian, why would I do that? I can't even justify reading all of the Bible.

>>12619988
>>12620009
>>12620024
>>12620030
>>12620052
>>12620073
based schizoposter

>>12620052
>MODS STOP THE FROGPOSTERS FROM MAKING FUN OF MY GOD!
>MODS? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>12620029
have you? because I see threads about Pensees all the time but I don't think I've ever seen someone actually quote it. provide the relevant passages that privilege Christianity over Islam; I would genuinely like to see them

>>12620035
You wont believe it, but I've heard people say existing in hell would be better than nonexistence. Even Jesus himself says otherwise when talking about Judas.

>>12620093
The Christians here don't read and mostly just stick around to quote Aquinas in philosophy threads.

>>12618186
>looking for confirmation instead of the truth
A way to fail before you even begin.

>>12620029
Not him, I've read all of them. Very clever and ingenuous arguments, but ultimately rather contrived and I doubt you couldn't do the same for any major religion. In fact I once had a very interesting conversation with a religious Jew about this, and while he was merely of above average intelligence (so nowhere near Pascal's genius) the arguments he used to claim that the Holocaust was already implicitly prophetized in the scriptures about Esther were actual of the same kind (and just as compelling) as Pascal's.

So i'm afraid this kind of "arguing your way into finding the best religion to have faith in" ultimately devolves in a contest of hermeneutical virtuosity. If you could find an empirical and rational standard, that could reliably and unbiasiedly be applied to all majors religions, and allow to compare them on the basis of said standard, then that would be a different story, but I don"t see that happening anytime soon.

>>12620111
You'll never believe this anon, like, literally, you will refuse to accept it, your mind will reflexively vomit it back out, I know because I know you and understand your psyche through this special bond we've established via text on computer screens, you'll never believe what I'm about to tell you, you just won't.

>>12620127
you mad fren?

>>12620063
>a small tribe of middle eastern people has survived the antogonism of various great ((and now fallen) empires and held a dispropotionate influence over the world's destiny for the past few centuries
>the teachings of one old guy in China changed the history f the most populous country on Earth forever
>a single random indian man created a philosphy that defines the lives of billions people
>an obscure sect persecuted in the roman empire became the official religion of said empire and converted a third of humanity
>a nondescript tribe of fishermen conquered vast swathes of land in a matter of years, then founded several continent spanning empires, and founded a religion that now defins the daily life of a billion people

Maybe the conclusion we should take from that is that all successful religions are simultaneously true. Talk about mindblown.

>>12620127
> I know you and understand your psyche through this special bond we've established via text on computer screens

I'm jealous of you two now ;_;

>>12619871
Sure you can, but you can't claim to be a dualist and a non-dualist at once, is what you can't do.

>>12619876
Well Paul said it, so it must be true.

>>12620154
>blocks ur path

>>12620148
>>a nondescript tribe of fishermen conquered vast swathes of land in a matter of years, then founded several continent spanning empires, and founded a religion that now defins the daily life of a billion people
Who?

This entire day has been littered with moments where I thought they had exactly like this already come past. I counted more than 7 right now to myself.
And they are in no way like a deja-vu but each seems more like additionally I know this is how this will now continue. The further I scroll down the thread I see the files posted exactly where I know they will be or where I once saw they were.
It is frustration I now feel after so many feelings of having the same occurance come up as it already has before.

>>12619975
But what does it mean to be moral? Doesn’t morality have some end or goal? How could we determine whether or not a being is perfectly moral? Suffering exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean God is any less “moral,” right?

>>12619453
All of these bugman memes, the pity is that I surely have something legit in here to be interested by, but you're far below the point you can even cite me the reprise of "egyptian/babylonian" myths you're accusing the Bible of

>>12620185
Something Amerindian, Pacific or Hindic I imagine, it is pretty obscure desu
>>12620206
There is definitely that same user who asks Christians to cite Pascal's Thoughts if they claim reading him

>>12620218
read Plotinus, St. Augustine, and Liebinez (and google the word theodicy ffs)

>>12619629
>He's arguably the first fedora.
You would have to argue that with someone who does know of or read Spinoza, since he talked about God so much that his friends told him they would no longer talk to him if he didn't talk about something else. That's why he interchanges Nature with the word God. You're kinda retarded.

>>12619906
nobody hurt me but I feel pity for the people I mention who are so bound up in their aversion and attachment that they never come close to God

>>12618186
I think the least reasonable thing is that they assume the God who apprehends this universe is the only God. Why should it be the case that this is the only reality or that our God is the only God?

>>12619087
Aristotle dude...Aquinas often plagiarized him...

>>12619371
Uh Apollo's Oracle at Delphi and most Christian and Jewish prophecies like Daniel written after the fact....