/lit/ - Literature

>>13445388
Rene Guenon you brainlet

>>13445388
Science is empty as it is incapable of addressing metaphysics in a meaningful way. Asserting the material as the highest priority can only lead to a life of decadence and self destruction. Atheists willingly embrace their demise but are OK with it because they get their McDonald's and cummies in return.

I'm on the coast rn, what's the best bait to fish with?

science had its groundwork laid in religious societies

furry inflation porn

>>13445472
kek

>>13445388
I know right! I fucking LOVE science! Even though I still feel so empty

>outgrow theism
Based
>fine science
Yikes!

>>13445472
>laid in pagan societies
>under hellenistic culture
Yes, very religious groundwork indeed.

The Bible

>>13445388
This seems like a loaded question that would have worked ten years ago

>>13445388
I'm no longer very into anime, but I love seeing these scenes or images of old anime media - something so nostalgic to them, and they have such character to them as well.

>>13445413
>metaphysics
Such as ? Give some examples

>>13445388
imagine being a materialist

>>13445600
This but unironically.
Can't believe people actually remain religious after reading these jewish tales.

>>13445693
Imagine believing in supernatural mumbo jumbo.

>>13445388
>science is separate and competitive to theism
Absolute brainlet.

>>13445808
No don't say that the theists are going to call you fedora or soiboi. Watch out !

>>13445678
Why are there things instead of nothing?

>>13445818
Using the scientific method arbitrarily is ok therefore believing in claims or supernatural events that can not be proven, observed, repeated is ok because I don't want people to say I'm a fedora, lmao xD

>>13445824
Butthurt fedora.
Atheism is a cringe and childish philosophy.

>>13445818
Nigga read human history

>>13445839

>>13445693
>>13445818
imagine not being able to bring out the best of the material world and metaphysical world. pleb.

>>13445840
As opposed to your flavor of the century spiritual garbage. Yep you're definitely not a brainlet.

>>13445844
>wojak poster
>sub 100 IQ
Every time, lmao

>>13445849
>metaphysical world.
Your gibberish made up world doesn't exist brainlet. It's time to grow up, stop being a failure in the material world and stop coping by believing in garbage.

>>13445828
That's a question metaphysics has failed to answer thus far.

>>13445863
ok ok. so we can all insult. how about an actual discussion?

Depends on what your theism is ground in, if you have a faith founded in things such as the truth claims in the bible, immortal semen magic or the Koran then simply looking into textual and historical criticism will work - if your theism is ground in a more abstract philosophy then absolutely nothing

>>13445839
>>13445863
>In science, everything requires an explanation… even explanations. Not only do observations demand explanatory theories, but theories require explanations of their own. Unfortunately, it is sometimes forgotten that until something has been explained in an explicable way, it has not been properly explained at all. If a theory is not self-explanatory, then it must be reduced to a more fundamental theory that explains it; otherwise, it merely relies on assumptions. E.g., consider an explanation to the effect that “birds can fly because they have wings”. Without an explanation of atmospheric resistance, this explanation is incomplete; it contains no explanation of why or how wings enable flight, merely relying on the assumption that they do. Therefore, while it is true as far as it goes, it leaves out crucial supporting knowledge and cannot stand alone. Concisely, every theory that is not self-explanatory must be reducible to a more fundamental theory that explains and supports it, and this explanatory regress can only end with a self-explanatory theory. This fact is very frequently forgotten in evolutionary biology, where (e.g.) details of molecular structure and dynamics are used to explain organic phenomena. Although these details come from the more fundamental theories of quantum chemistry and physics, they will never constitute a satisfactory explanation of life until they incorporate not only an explanation of physics and chemistry, but reality at large. This is true because physical (observable) reality is not a complete model for physics and thus is not self-contained with respect to explanation - in this sense, any exclusively materialistic interpretation of physical theory is prima facie absurd - and because physics is a non-self-explanatory theory regardless of model. To explain organic phenomena using natural selection, one needs an explanation for natural selection, including the “natural selection” of the laws of physics and the universe as a whole.

>>13445870
Ok tell me what I'm missing by enjoying life in the material world without thinking about the spiritual plane.

>>13445873
Didn't read, lol. Tell your schizophrenia induced deity to punish me for this in the land of make believe.

>>13445885
>Materialist
>sub 100 IQ
Every. Single. Time.

>>13445891
>discussing with mentally ill faggots
I too believe in supernatural beings following me around and in higher planes of existence, I'm a normal person just like you.

>>13445678
They never will. At most he'll refer you to more vague terms.

It amazes me that in decrying physicalism as assumptive, they can't see that any alternative explanations are considerably more assumptive as they lack any indicating evidence.

Now they will say that since evidence presented through our experience, it must be considered suspect... This is a silly position however, for a number of reasons:
-They establish no certainty that our experience is not a phenomenon continuous with the universe. Indicators such as lack of omniscience and the intermittence of experience support the probability of such a continuity.
-Serious objections to physicalism are appeals to logic, as all arguments ultimately are; since logic is (just as evidence) predicated upon consistencies within our experience however, they would have to consider their own arguments equally suspect.
-Pragmatically, there is no alternative. We all pay heed to the probabilities established by evidence during our quotidian undertakings and in fact have no other reliable means of navigating the apparent. This standard is very selectively suspended by some in relation to certain questions, which suggests to me psychological trepidation as opposed to sensible objection.
-At best, the 'extension of experience' argument achieves technical uncertainty and never seems to address relative probabilities.

>>13445878
Ok, good place to start. a few ideas appeared to me, first: you bring up the question,
>..tell me what I'm missing by enjoying life in the material world without thinking about the spiritual plane.
well have you asked yourself this? see you brought the question up, I did not. perhaps there is something deep down you should address with yourself.
Second, what do you mean by this?
> without thinking about the spiritual plane
I have no idea what you even mean.
Third. when one acts in such a way as in to claim something, such as "I am enlightened, I have found it" and they persist beyond the "eureka!" phase, to the point were they are not actually the message they preach, but a puppet to the message they claim. then they are not enlightened. That is like telling yourself constantly "I am the best, I'm an alpha" if you preach it and do not live it. it is false.
If you enjoy your life they way you live it. there is nothing wrong with that. Just realize and be aware of the saying, live by sword die by the sword. be aware of what you do.

>>13445927
>perhaps there is something deep down you should address with yourself
No there is not, this is what spiritual fags unironically believe, this is the reason spiritualism exists in the first place, not just food for thought, it always claims to bring something positive, like snake oil.

>>13445942
I don't claim to bring anything.
what do you bring?

>>13445873
Wouldn't the refinement of knowledge and prediction via empiricism support the notion that things are reductively explicable? We obviously don't require complete knowledge to achieve the technology we do, so some degree of accuracy must be present in that incompleteness. So what is the standard of 'satisfactory'? Perfect knowledge? What is the alternative to physicalist reduction and indeed to the category of 'physical'? What would it mean for something to not be physical?

>>13445388
>>13445389
>>13445584
>>13445592
>>13445600
>>13445671
>>13445808
>>13445678
>>13445816
>>13445824
>>13445839
>>13445841
>>13445850
>>13445854
>>13445863
>>13445878
>>13445885
>>13445898
>>13445942
>t.

>>13445898
spirituality is an extension of you. If you dont believe in it, then you'll just be under someone else's spell whether you notice it or not

>>13445388
It's really been the inverse for me

Karl Popper basically DESTROYS theism with FACTS and LOGIC

>>13446156
I went through a rebellious phase in my early teenage years, le teapot xD, calling Christmas 'Festivus' and looking like a cringeworthy retard in front of relatives.
Then I grew up (properly this time) and learned to appreciate the rich and deeply intellectual philosophy, history and culture of Christianity (and other religions).
Mind you, I didn't return to Baptism, I became a Catholic.
Is this being born again?

religitards fuck off
there's no god, get over it

>>13445388
Ironically Cusanus' De Docta Ignorantia, a book of theology.

>>13446745
>atheism I intellectual guize!

>>13445592

>pagans weren't religious
>hellenic culture wasn't religious

>>13445388
Religion gives life meaning. Science does not

>>13445388
60IQ post

>>13445388
Atheists are so easy to run circles around in any arguments. They're trapped by logic and they have no idea how to prove god isn't real.

I've yet to meet an atheist capable of intelligently defending his position or being able to answer more than a few questions when I decide to press them.

>>13446795
So? Religion could be the best thing in the world for your psychology and the Catholic Church could give out 1 million to every new convert but that still wouldn't make it true. We know as a matter of objective fact that the Bible, and consequently Christianity, is untrue. Whether it's interesting to talk about or whether it gives you psychological benefits is utterly irrelevant.

>>13446798
More like 110 IQ, high enough above average to have an unwarranted sense of intelligence but too low to break the barrier of chronic midwittery.
Remember:
>90 IQ: believes in God
>110 IQ: doesn't believe in God
>130+ IQ: believes in religion

>>13446805
The onus is not on the atheist to prove that god isn't real since atheism makes no positive claims. The onus is on you to not only prove that god exists but prove that the god belonging to your religion exists.

>>13446816
Leo is that the best you can do?

>>13446832
Everything I said was absolutely correct. Too many religious people think they can spew off the first mover argument and act like they've made a case for their religion. You must not only prove that god exists but that your god exists. You can't.