/lit/ - Literature

i'll refute ur mom, n00b
pwnt

>>16997333
How?

>*makes poopy in pants*

>>16997345
Kek

>>16997345
Irrefutably based.

>>16997345
I 100% unironically pooped my pants today. ama.

>>16997344
Read him and find out Christcuck
He shits all over your theological arguments lolol

>>16997333
>goes to Epstein’s island and has sex with children, demonstrating irrefutably that atheists are evil and immoral

>>16997358
>He shits all over your theological arguments
like he shit his pants

>>16997357
What did it smell like?

>what do you mean there are philosophic arguments for g*d??!? NOOOOOOOOO
>what do you mean greeks were theists too!! the sky fairy man was invented by dirt-eating dark age peasants because they were afraid of dying
>what do you mean I have to understand intricate ontological and metaphysical systems, concepts, and terms in order to even begin to engage in criticism of theism? NOOOOOOO I'M SUPPOSE TO JUST BE ABLE TO SAY YOU HATE SCIENCE
>what do you mean Dawkins didn't refute Aquinas or Pascal and had no clue what he was talking about?? Ghraghghga Neil deGrasse Tyson save me!! *frantically subscribes to Kurzgesagt*
>save me, o wise and ancient hindus--us evil white westerners only ever ripped you off in the first place
>WHAT??! advaita vedanta and Hinduism are considered religions too???
>YOU MEAN MY BELIEF IS IN THE MINORITY AND THAT FOR THE WHOLE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE SYSTEMS OF THEISM PROPOUNDED BY THE MOST INTELLIGENT MINDS OF THE HUMAN RACE AND MY LITTLE IDEOLOGY CAN LITERALLY BE DECONSTRUCTED AS BEING THE COPE FILLED AUTISM OF 17TH SCIENTISTIC (MAINLY ANGLO) BRAINLETS WHO WERE UPSET THAT THEY WERE GETTING CALLED INCELS FOR DEMANDING THEIR MECHANISTIC THEORIES BE CONSIDERED ULTIMATE REALITY?
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16997488
Dilate

>>16997333
It still amazes me every day Christians exist still. young ones, even. I'm not a communist, not a prog, not a pagan. I'm considered racist and right wing by some people. Yet even I am deeply embarrassed to be on the same cultural side as Christians and other freaks who denounce materialism and even science itself when they know the reason science has gone to shit is because of leftist influence, and the reason our culture has gone to shit is because of judaism and christianity. Dawkins was painfully and obviously right and if that bothers you perhaps you should read Marx or transition genders because you are the problem

>>16997533
Bait

>>16997533
americans swallowed the jebus thing pretty hard. puritan influence.

>>16997538
I wrote it like hair, but it really isn't. Ice been trying to find common ground with Christians on the right for a decade and while I've made drive Christian friends there's an eventual point where our views are totally incompatible.

>>16997546
Yes and the puritan thing has created the horror of "social justice" because even our secular population is infected.

The right wing without God has so much potential I think it will eventually win, is just a shame that things are currently as they are

>>16997533
You’re ashamed of Christians like these? lol
Richard Dawkins can never compare to the great minds that Christianity has produced. Dawkins wishes he was Isaac Newton or Clerk Maxwell or Faraday, but he will be forgotten as soon as he dies.

>>16997533
Holy based

>>16998371
>scientists were rare in the middle ages so we only know a few as pioneers
>thousands of scientists making different discoveries every year
>no one remembers them
You think they'd still be Christian if they had access to modern technology and information of different cultures and religions?

>>16997533
Materialism was retroactively refuted by Albert Einstein (pbuh)..His observations made nazis and commies cope so hard, they banned his theory of relativity until the 60s.

I don’t even like Dawkins, but he makes fedora christians seethe, so I guess he’s alright

>>16999184
It’s not like Clerk Maxwell and Faraday weren’t aware of Darwinism or other religions around the world. They were.

It’s not like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and Leibniz weren’t aware of deism and atheism. They very much were aware of it, but were against it and didn’t like it. Robert Boyle even set money aside in his will for lectures to be held every year which supported Christianity against atheism, deism and non-Christian religions. Isaac Newton gave his support to these lectures. They decided to be Christian and were known to be extremely devout.

>>16999242
I did not post this in a long time but you deserve this pic, kind sir.

>>16999248
I’d post some dumb pic too, but all I need is point to posts in this thread to prove my point.

Disagreement makes you people assmad. I suggest you get some professional help for it, because that isn’t a healthy way to interact with people

>>16999260
Okay, what actual arguments where made in this thread on the atheist side? I did a quick scroll down and nothing of substance was posted beyond muh Dawkins. It is hilarious how shallow the new atheist understanding of philosophy is.

>>16999260
At least appeal to nihilism or solipsism or something because you have nothing.

>>16999281
>I’m a theist bro, debate me!
Literally fedora tier, sad!

Arguing religion is the biggest fools errand of all. Most deities are beyond reality so there is nothing in reality that can argue against them. The only real argument theists have at this point is a lot of people believe in god(s). If they can't see why that is a stupid argument then I don't know what to tell them. You'd have a better shot at flipping someone politically before you ever flipped them religiously.

>>16999298
Did your uncle fuck you in the ass when you were 9? Because you are acting like a massive faggot.

>>16999302
You sound very rational and totally not mad at all

>>16999304
Do you remember the time when the amazing atheist shoved a banana up his ass? Good times.

>>16999319
Cope

>>16999335
Dilate.

>>16999298
He's probably a larping tradcath cuck

>>16997488
Lmao, quite based, disregard the previous reply. We all know that Dawkins does not understand one lick of any form of philosophy and even Dennett can't explain qualia, so all he does is sit in a corner and cry that they do not exist which is an excellent coping strategy but unfortunately not true.

>>16997333
>>16997336
>>16997344
>>16997345
>>16997350
>>16997353
>>16997357
>>16997358
>>16997546
>>16998375
>>16999335
>>16999319
>How Dawkins got Pwned

>The word “pwn” remains in use as Internet social-culture slang meaning: to take unauthorized control of someone else or something belonging to someone else by exploiting a vulnerability.

>...Professor Dawkins’ explanation of religion, with which I agree completely, is that religion is a memeplex built around a central delusion, the God meme—an entirely unsubstantiated proposition. Religion exists because this memeplex is adaptive. This explanation is both necessary and sufficient. It is also parsimonious, à la Occam’s razor. It may not be simple, but it’s a heck of a lot simpler than “God.”

>In Darwinian terms, Professor Dawkins’ main point is that the adaptive interests of religion—or of any other memeplex—are not necessarily the same as the adaptive interests of its host. As a celibate priest, for example, you are helping Christianity to be fruitful and multiply. It’s performing no such service for you. Biologists have a word for this: parasitism.

>Universalism is the most successful Christian tradition today.... Some confusion may be afforded by he definition of success, by which I mean of course Darwinian, that is, reproductive success. The fact that the most influential repeaters of the Western world—the universities, state schools and the official press—are by any standards Universalist organs, is quite sufficient to demonstrate claim 3


> We should certainly expect to find positive effects of Universalism. If nothing else, any decent memetic parasite has the trivial positive effect of interfering with, undercutting, and generally destroying any potential competitors.


Thank you and god bless you!

>>16997345
lel

>>16999301
Look up the transcendental argument and then shut up.

>>17000728
What would demonstrate that that argument isn’t in line with reality?

>>16999281
What books of Dawkins' have you read that would give you this conclusion?

Christian culture is centered around Jews. They have holidays for Jews. They killed hundreds of thousands of white men to worship Jews. They listen to Jewish psalms. They elect a Jew as their first pope. They call you a Jew for not worshiping a Jew. They draw the entirety of their culture from Jewish mythology. They post stories about Jews. They celebrate the religious life of Early Jews. Their biggest event of the year involves the birth of a Jew. They use Jewish words like "Hallelujah" and "Amen" and name their children after Jews. When you say "Judeans/Israelites" they're not thinking of a Middle Eastern people. They're thinking of their "ancestors". Their churches are completely adorned with Jews. They worship their saints and prophets disproportionately filled with Jews and their Apostles also filled with Jews. Their men sit around dying for the King of the Kews while their women sit around praying to a Jewish mother. They worship Jews like Saul of Tarsus and Jehohanan and Thomas and the rabbi Yeshuah bar Yosef while attacking the Greeks and Romans who actually built an empire and scientific institutions before Jew worshipers took over. They hate Jews who don’t worship their Jew but love Jews who do worship him. They send their Jew worshipers to kill those who don’t worship Jews and celebrate when Ancient European monuments and shrines get destroyed because they don’t honour Jews. They read Jewish books to a point where "Holy Lands" does not make them think of their ancestral homelands but about a desert instead. They will tell you how much they hate Jews and how they threw them out all the time and they are just pretending to live with them now but the evidence speaks for itself in that Christianity has always been and will be a religion of Jew worship

>>16999184
Modern Christians have access to the same information technologies as you, yet keep their faith. Why do you think that is?

>>17000835
Probably because they have room temp (fahrenheit) IQs, if you are an example of the average Christian.

>>16999402
I'm glad the word "meme" has been seized and mutated by the greater world. Dawkins' use of it was gawpy and ill-advised.

>>17000845
That's an insult, anon, not a reason.
I will ask again. Why do you think modern Christians keep their faith? "Being stupid" is not a reason- after all, you're plenty stupid, and you're an atheist.

>>17000800
burger cope

>>17000864
People like him have no reason, anon. They simply foam at the mouth and make generalizations like "all Christians dumb" or "all blacks savage" without any reason besides muh feelings. And ironically these are the people who's worldview is based around "science", "observation" and best of all "facts".

>>16997358
>He shits all over your theological arguments lolol
He starts taking apart Thomas Aquinas without understanding basic Aristotelian lingo.
Dawkins is to theology what creationists are to biology. If you didn't know shit about it, they might have been convincing...

This is all you need to know about Dawkins. Just another blundering elite believing himself to be a foundational thinker and creator just because he's a brilliant scientist. I don't really fault him but it's highly symptomatic of a society on the decline

God probably doesn't exist, but religions are probably evolutionarily adaptive in terms of providing hope in bleak circumstances, reasons to form community, and guidelines for the lost. These factors would improve survival and procreation rates through useful memes.

>>17000924
I don’t need to understand the lingo used in astrology to know it’s bullshit

>>17001004
>sound teleological arguments = girls obsessing over personality traits
This behavior is why atheists are hated, and in some places killed.

>>17001004
>aristotle
>astrology
>/lit/
I am being trolled

>>17001053
guy was obviously making a comparison

>>17001063
In a stunning turn of event, atheist uses "it's metaphorical" to advocate for his POV.

>>17000740
Nothing as far as I know.

>>17001401
So if A is the case, it’s 100 percent true, and if the opposite B is the case, it’s also 100 percent true? How is this supposed to give me any indication on its truth value?

>>16997500
that your plan for the day?

>>16999184
Yes. Have you ever read Christian philosophy or philosophy in general from these time periods? Dawkins' The God Delusion was refuted in detail 1500 years ago. There are much better atheists if you wanted to go down that alley but New Atheism is petit bourgeois (at best, when really its supplanting the white trash Christian movement in the white American working/ consoomer class rapidly) midwit idiocy.

>>17001441
I understand what you're saying, you would have to find a non theistic worldview that isn't coherent. TAG is saying that it is impossible for a non-theistic worldview to be true because they are internally contradictory and incoherent on their own ground. I don't think it's doable.

>>17001895
*a non theistic worldview that IS coherent

>>16997333
Underworld was alright, another other writing of this fag’s any good?

>the west becomes irreligious to prepare to submit to Islam
hehe based

>>16997333
>fails to refute Thomas Aquinas five ways

do people actually take this guy seriously?

Read Caesar's Messiah. Christianity is a fabricated religion.

>>17002440
What would refute those?

>>17003116
An argument from someone actually intelligent.

>>17003116
literally any science after the 17th century.

thomism gets btfo by fucking evolution. one of the most established scientific facts in the history of humanity. it literally cant account for it, not that it should given that it was cobbled together before humanity had advanced to the point of being rational enough to grasp such a concept.

and as for thomism's cosmological arguments, not a single modern cosmologist is a thomist. that says it all.

also AI and transhumanism etc like gene-editing btfos thomistic philosophy of mind and theory of forms. vid very related https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4b33NTAuF5E

>>17003209
>Five ways cannot account for something it literally has nothing to do with
Profound

>>17003209
>cant provide a single argument and just mentions different things
based midwit

>>17002440
>>fails to refute Thomas Aquinas five ways

They were already demolished by Kant and Ockham.

*thinks*

christians btfo

>>17003209
>not a single modern cosmologist is a thomist. that says it all.

so modern cosmologists dont believe it, therefore its false? what kind of reasoning is this.

>>16997533
Religion is an important cultural and moral institution for the masses. Not everyone has the wherewithal to be a moral philosopher. I'd rather live in a Christian society than an atheist one, the latter tends to be more chaotic and finds stupid things to worship.

>>17003495
>muh existence is not a predicate
coooppeee

>>16997333
*ahem*

GOD AINT REAL

>>16997358
he professes that we are nothing but a product of natural processes

therefore he has no basis for the morale high horse he gets on to slam Christianity

total hypocrite

>>16997533
You have your cause and effect mixed up

>>17000969
wtf I love Dawkins now

>>17001004
You need to understand it up to a basic level, so that you can know which central claims of theirs are you refuting.

>>17003209
I think you are equivocating scientific cosmology with philosophical cosmology. Scientific cosmologists simply do not deals with questions concerning the causal origin of the natural world: the origin they deal with is already part of the natural world.
I'm not convinced by thomistic arguments, I just wanted to point it out.

>>17003883
Why do you disagree with it? The argument sounds solid to me.

>>17005216
>Scientific cosmologists simply do not deals with questions concerning the causal origin of the natural world: the origin they deal with is already part of the natural world.
how are these different for you?
in a Naturalistic metaphysics the origin of the cosmos would be a natural one, even if it's a "brute fact"

This book perfectly explains how willfully ignorant Richard Dawkins is.

>>17005347
I don't think cosmologists can actually prove that the existence of the natural world is (or isn't) a brute fact, since such a claim would escape any sort of empirical confirmation (properly, this would be a metaphysical position, rather than a physical one).
It's a bit like caring about wether mathematicians believe in platonic numbers or not: nothing in the study of mathematics actually pertains the ontological status of numbers, which means that their consensus doesn't actually tells us nothing about the validity or invalidity of that metaphysical view.

>>16997357
this image is sublime, I always laugh like a retard when I see it.

>>16999242
Christians don't wear fedoras, we wear cool basque berets.