/lit/ - Literature

You don't know what you're talking about

Even in something like filmmaking the best directors were religious. Griffith, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Kieslowski, Rohmer, Bresson (shit director but i'll leave him here because people love him)

>>20162000
I'm pretty knowledgable about the topic we can through each period of history and talk about the background and writings of all the artists up to today

>>20162006
>we can through each period of history
Ok, let's start with the antiquity.

>>20161989
None of the Greeks were christian and the entire "Christian" art tradition comes from them.

>>20162397
>>20162405
They didn't make art

>>20162430
LMFAOOO

>>20162430
>>20162405
You're both really retarded

>>20162397
>>20162405
>>20162430
>>20162437
>>20162440
OP here. By "Devout Christian" I just meant a religious person of any kind. There is no doubt though that the best art is mostly Christian with few exceptions.

>>20162405
They still believed in the divine. They were not atheists.

>>20161989
Because atheists have no love. Love is the key ingredient. Atheists are very bitter and can only create art to channel their bitterness.

>>20162447
>There is no doubt though that the best art is mostly Christian with few exceptions.
Said by someone who likely can only speak English, and is likely completely ignorant of any art created by a culture that's not his own. "Great art" is subjective in any case, and Christians are the least creative people nowadays.

>>20162453
What do they have with christianity though

>>20162460
This thread is not for postmodernists. Please leave the thread and do not post here again.

>>20161989
So since you were socialized into, and only consume western media, literature and Art, all the best of those are exactly the same as your socialization taught you.

>>20162476
You think people are like 5 year old children who can't judge or critique other peoples art? Are you suggesting African mud huts are on the level of cathedrals or that because we were born in a mud hut we can't appreciate the mud hut lol

>>20162472
>postmodernist
Fuck off Peterson, you're a moron and you don't understand art.

>>20162482
You have a mental illness and you need to leave the thread. Go back to leftypol

>>20162477

I'm suggesting that you're beginning with your conclusion, and writing the argument later.

>>20162460
I think he must have meant European. I know the East has a lot of valuable creative works, just as it has intellectual ones, but with no difficulty we can assert that they don't surpass European art. This is from someone who considers japanese cinema, for example, one of the greatest in the world. Now you tell me, what people are the creative people nowadays? What is being produced? Can you give me a few masterpieces of the last 30 years?

>>20162491
I disagree

>>20162472
>This thread is not for postmodernists
>being curious about other cultures is postmodernism

>>20162489
Jesus why do you people feel the need to make everything political.

>>20162498
Saying great art is subjective is postmodernist. Have some dignity and just come out and admit you hate the west and white people

>>20162500
It's political for you you just can't admit it or you admit defeat

>>20162503
Not the o.g anon you replied to.
Idk if art is subjective or objective I'm not smart enough to make that determination. I'd like to think there is some objective criterion but really who knows.
If you're going to say that Christian art is the best, one should have at least some knowledge about other cultures' art.
>admit you hate the west and white people
I don't understand why people here always read the worst intentions into the most mild statements. Never said a thing about white people or the west. Like everyone here is constantly boiling over with resentment.

>>20162503
Nothing better than scarecrowing postmodernism. Go back to reading Rod Dreher and other Christian retards who don't understand philosophy.

>>20162525
It is the best though. Who is the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner of other countries? Some fucking African banging on some drums? Give me a break.

>>20162506
I don't browse /pol/ or /leftypol/ i dont care about it
>the west is declining! the jews are winning!
>the capitalists are eating us alive!
>the postmoderns are sodomizing your children!
etc etc don't care. get a life

>>20162500
Art is political for them, which tells you enough that they have no real appreciation for anything, and art is only a way for them to prop up their tribe instead of anything that actually touches their soul, which is why they have no interest in exploring the works of other cultures.

>>20162535
I haven't listened to any african music so hard for me to say.
I would assume a pre-requisite to saying african art is inferior to Christian art, whatever that is, would be to actually listen to and experience African art.

>>20162492
Mushishi

>>20162536
Being apolitical is being a midwit. It means you have no values. No passions. No honor. Nothing. No interest in anything but hedonism. I would prefer a Communist over someone who is apolitical.

>>20162537
Art is not political to me but you have to retarded to not realize art is used politically by all sides.

>>20162545
>I only enjoy art based on whether or not if it conforms to my specific politics
Based retard

>>20162540
You'd think that'd be the case, but supremacist thought from west to east never happens like that.

>>20162545
I have values and beliefs of course. Just have no interest in the constant hysteria about nothing.

>>20162540
I have listened to music from almost every country. This is why I'm able to claim this. I'm actually a big fan of Hindu music.

>>20162548
When did I say that? Can you read?

>>20162551
I'd love to hear what your values and beliefs are

>>20162541
Thank you for proving my point.

>>20162564
1.Sodomizing children
2. Transgender
..
In seriousness idk. Politically I'm a basic bitch liberal but am suspicious of radical egalitarianism, & tend to value security & stability.
I'm still working out my philosophical beliefs. I'm interested in skepticism.

>>20161989
Im about to destroy your entire argument with two words, ready?

James Joyce.

/thread.

Now fuck back off so we can talk about literature instead of your cringy /pol/ obsession with Christianity and whatever warped version of western civilization you’ve got floating around in your otherwise empty head. Thanks.

>>20162575
What point?

>>20161989
No. Three greatest thinkers that changed the world completely were Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. None of them were religious.

>>20162577
So the only reason you're apolitical is because you already have the society you want. You realize once society moves to the far left as it's been doing with each passing decade that liberalism is going to lose and you won't be able to be apolitical anymore?

>>20162578
>Joyce had a complex relationship with religion.[352] Early in life, he lapsed from Roman Catholicism.[353] First-hand statements by himself,[ap] Stanislaus[aq] and Nora[ar] attest that he did not consider himself a Catholic. Nevertheless, his work is deeply influenced by Catholicism.[357] In particular, his intellectual foundations were grounded in his early Jesuitical education.[358][as] Even after he left Ireland, he sometimes went to church. When living in Trieste, he woke up early to attend Catholic Mass on Holy Thursday and Good Friday[360][at] or occasionally attended Eastern Orthodox services, stating that he liked the ceremonies better.[362]

>A number of Catholic critics suggest that Joyce never fully abandoned his faith,[363] wrestling with it in his writings and becoming increasingly reconciled with it.[364] They argue that Ulysses and Finnegans Wake are expressions of a Catholic sensibility,[365] insisting that the critical views of religion expressed by Stephen, the protagonist of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Ulysses, does not represent the views of Joyce the author.[366]

You notice with these great artists you always read something of the sort. They never really abandon the religious mindset.

>>20162584
Society isn't gonna move to the far left. It's too comfortable for everyone where it is. Hopefully, it becomes a technocracy eventually.

>>20162589
You don't think the Democrats are moving to the far left? Look at AOC, Bernie Sanders, and that crowd. Republican and moderate democrats are going to die off with age and the AOC Gen Zers will be all that's left

>>20162585
>>A number of Catholic critics suggest that Joyce never fully abandoned his faith
Very Unbiased viewpoint there.

>>20162595
I don't care for Joyce or know anything about him but if it's on the Wikipedia page (run by leftists mods) I imagine there is some substance to the argument whether you disagree or not.

>>20162581
Marx, Jewish-Christian and it shows in his ethics, Nietzsche born-Christian and wrote eulogies in his young life, renounced Christianity only to create his own mystical worldview, and Freud, again a Jew, but probably the closest to being a genuine atheist. None of them made a huge impact on history in the way religious thinkers did, Marx's effective influence lasted at best 100 or 200 years, Nietzsche's even less, Freud's is limited to a narrow intellectual discipline which is now all but abandoned after less than 50 years of popularity.

>>20162594
>You don't think the Democrats are moving to the far left?
And the right is moving to the far right to counterbalance it, what's your point?
For the record, Health care and Free college isn't "far left"

>>20162595
>Very Unbiased viewpoint there
ya because its even possible for a viewpoint to not be biased right kek

>>20162600
You don't see any problems with all the moderates dying out and all that's left is far left Democratic (not Stalin) Socialists and far right (definitely not racist) Trumpers?

>For the record, Health care and Free college
It's not basic liberal for one. Why not call yourself a Social Democrat? Do you prefer Bernie Sanders over a moderate Democrat?

>>20162585
Yeah sure he still thought about religion and Catholicism and explored it in his work but the original claim was that all great artists were devout Christians. Joyce, as you can clearly see in your cited passages from Wikipedia, was not.

>>20162611
So your one example is not an atheist but a guy who seemed to be having a crisis of faith but was still religious kek

>>20162606
No, But If I were to research someone like Mohammed, I would expect a secular historian to be less biased than a Muslim.

>>20162000
This is a good example of the stupid, mean apathy of humanity. OP wrote a post with actually thought behind it. Then this dead in sin fool sitting in a broken office chair comments this lazy unhelpful garbage.
It makes it frustrating that social interactions in society are making it necessary to have more interactions with these undesirables.

>>20162581
lol those people's ideologies are responses to Christian thought in some capacity. I hope people arent this ignorant. Christianity created an entire civilization that we are still beneficiaries of

>>20162618
>OP wrote a post with actually thought behind it.
Lol

>>20162612
“But was still religious”

Nothing you’ve given so far proves this to be true.

>>20162635
I'm not here to debate this but nothing in the wikipedia (run by leftists) says he is an atheist but says he was potentially still religious and having a crisis of faith. Can't you pick someone that was actually a confirmed atheist?

>>20162629
>those people's ideologies are responses to Christian thought in some capacity
Yeah, they were calling it dumb. Of course they were responding to it. To them, it was the all encompassing noose around any expression and progress of thought in their society.

>>20162405
Greeks believed in either Gods or a singular God. You do realize that the idea of God is not exclusive to Christianity, right?

>>20161989
plea from authority fallacy
>these people believe something, therefor you should too!

>>20162647
The OP was claiming all great art was made by christians, not "men of God".

>>20162613
ya cus history is all about getting the most unbiased story. what a faggot dude. do you eat toast with no spread as well?

>>20162651

>>20162447

>>20162649
I'm not telling you to believe in God. I'm saying all great art was made by religious people and when God died in the west so did great art.

>>20162653
>ya cus history is all about getting the most unbiased story.
Yeah, preferably. Otherwise I can just create a fantasy that suits me personally and call it history

>>20162662
Something tells me your criteria for Great art is anything Old that people call "classics" without any real understanding of what makes any of it great or how it even works.

>>20162664
having ideals is fantasy?

>>20162668
Something tells me you have no response to any of my points yet still feel strongly about it

>>20161989
Replace god with spirituality and you can look through modern pieces as well.

>>20162639
Wikipedia (run by leftists)

Zounds! Another baseless claim! Tell me, would you keel over dead if you used actual proof at some point?

>>20162674
You don't have any points, just political and religious bias, and a fear of the postmodernist boogeyman. Try experiencing art for its own sake for once instead whether or not it aligns with your particular identity politics

>>20161989
Nice plea from authority fallacy
>These people agree with me, therefor you should

>>20162689
Not everything can be proven by studies. Find me any wikipedia article on a political topic and we can look at Talk page and see what type of things the mods like to discuss. The fact that you would even argue that Wikipedia isn't run by leftists shows either how retarded or intellectually dishonest you are and just proves that I'm right in everything I say.

>>20162691
This is either bait or cope. I'm going with the former but if it's the latter please provide an argument.

>>20162707
>not everything can be proved by studies

Can’t it, though?
Whatever, man. Show me your college degree and we’ll talk, but I can’t imagine you making it through a class without being laughed out of the room.

All the great writers, composers, architects, painters, anyone you can name were devout homosexuals and they talked about their sexuality. They talked about how they made the art for boys or had some sort of erotic inspiration that allowed them to create. In comparison all the art made by heterosexuals feels like it is missing something. Like there is no passion. I believe that without the male form as the ideal no great art can ever be made. Now that masculinity is dead in the west what can replace the lack of male beauty to bring some passion back to art and a reason for people to create?

>>20162739
I'm OP and I actually agree.

>>20162751
Um. based. Homo-Catholicism is the ultimate synthesis

>>20162758

>>20162430
Are you dumb

>>20161989
Pagans made excellent art just fine

>>20162739
sad that this kind of nonsense could be typed out. We ALL know what the degenerates have done to the arts and humanities, but I guess some would prefer to burn in the fire

>>20162810
>We ALL know what the degenerates have done to the arts and humanities
A great deal of good... imagine a world with no Theognis, no Theocritus, no Sappho! I loathe to think about it!!

>>20162584
>So the only reason you're apolitical is because you already have the society you want. You realize once society moves to the far left as it's been doing with each passing decade that liberalism is going to lose and you won't be able to be apolitical anymore?
I see no reason not to be. Politics is just entertainment and autofellatio and seething about people you don't even know irl . No one cares or they care far too much about issues that are meaningless to me.
Idk what to believe anymore if I am honest. Online is full of fake shit.. The right has gone fascist. The left is distracted by pointless bullshit. Vapid liberals pontificating about diversity and inclusion to score good boy point. No one even knows what these words mean anymore when inclusion becomes its own kind of exclusivity. Leftist grifters making millions shilling communism to naive adolescents. Conservatives by contrast are entirely driven by the fear and paranoia of losing political power as demographics shift. Neither side can score a decisive victory so there is only stalemate. I am resigned. . I read the other day that in 2016 something like 30% of democrats and Republicans were okay with using violence against political opponents.
Hopefully I can save enough $ to leave behind this shithole country before all the pant shitting puritans that run this country kill eachother.

>All the great writers, composers, architects, painters, anyone you can name were devout Christians and they talked about their faith.
>what are literally all artists before Christianity

>>20161989
>Now, in respect of plastic art it is palpable that its ideally creative force diminished in exact proportion as it withdrew from contact with religion. Betwixt those sublimest revelations of religious art, in the godlike birth of the Redeemer and the last fulfilment of the work of the Judge of the world, the saddest of all pictures, that of the Saviour suffering on the cross, had likewise attained to its height of perfection; and this remained the archetype of the countless representations of martyred saints, their agonies illumined by the bliss of transport. Here the portrayal of bodily pain, with the instruments of torture and their wielders, already led the artists down to the common actual world, whose types of human wickedness and cruelty surrounded them beyond escape. And then came "Characteristique," with its multiple attraction for the artist; the consummate "portrait" of even the vulgarest criminal, such as might be found among the temporal and spiritual princes of that remarkable time, became the painter's most rewarding task; as on the other hand, he early enough had taken his motives for the Beautiful from the physical charms of the women in his voluptuous surroundings.
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form, to which the actual world alone seemed henceforth visible. What shape this actual world at last took on, and what types alone it offered to the plastic arts, we will still exclude from our inquiry; suffice it to say that that art which was destined to reach its apogee in its affinity with religion, completely severing itself from this communion—as no one can deny—has fallen into utter ruin.

This thread is garbage and isn't even /lit/ related. Jannies should do their fucking job.

>>20161989
Perhaps there can be a case of this for composers architects painters etc. but for writers it appears to me the best writing is generally secular. Regardless of author’s beliefs if the writing takes an amoral more grandeur view of the human condition it is generally esteemed higher. Most obvious example is Shakespeare, as opposed a moralist like Tolstoy I would say it is safe to assume the superiority of him.
And I don’t think the divine appreciation was the driving force behind these writers. More often than not, it is the personal struggles, inner turmoils, and peculiar experiences that bid them to write.
Now to think about it, it is even true for impressionist and expressionist painters. I would not regard them any lower than their renaissance counterparts.
Most of art was also created with the fuel of love. Human love. There are all sorts of passions. Today our primary passion is our drive to escape, to get out of this increasingly absurd and barren world. To escape from the machinations of an ever increasing all consuming technological singularity. To escape from the nonstop state propaganda. And today you can find many great arts passioned by this drive.

>>20161989
You're speaking in definitive, concrete terms as if what you're saying is truth, but what you're actually saying is something like:
>all my favorite artists were Christians
The reality is that Christianity used to be much more prevalent in the West. For any given artist, the chances that they were religious were much higher given the fact that everyone was more religious. Because religion is less popular these days, artists are less likely to be religious. Here's a couple examples of modern writers who were either irreligious, lapsed, and/or merely fascinated with the historicity of the structure:
>DFW
>McCarthy
>Faulkner
>Hemingway
>Pynchon
>Gaddis
>Nabokov
While some of the above flirted with religion, none were devout, and absolutely none were attached to the structures of the church.

You may not personally like some or any of the above. I don't like all of them either. But I do recognize their greatness. If you don't, you are either arguing in poor faith or have poor taste.

>>20161989
God is only dead in your head. Most people in the West are still Christian.

>>20161989
U

>>20163167
Do you think the writers you listed are the equivalent of Bach in literature? The only good one you listed is Faulkner, and I doubt he was an atheist.

>>20163132
>All the great writers
Literature isn't /lit/ related?

>hello I’m op and I don’t know what historical context is but here is my take on art and religion

>>20163259
Most people in west don’t believe in God and they might be Christian on some register. Americans believe in God more than Europeans yet American culture is cucked beyond belief

>>20163363
>Most people in west don’t believe in God
Wrong

>>20162500
because politics is their god

>>20163397
He's right though. That poster said that great art is subjective, so he's not worth engaging with. He's also right to call him a leftist, as cultural relativism is one of their main weapons against Beauty.

>>20162503
true. it's not subjective. All art has always followed a set of rules and conventions. It's just become hard to see with contemporary art because the convention today is that there is not supposed to be any conventions. art institutions of today shy away from the topic because addressing this question means to undermine their own status, but how could there be art institutions without a set of conventions? You don't have to be post-modern to see how different japanese wabi-sabi is from Greek art, because they're based on completely different views and assumptions

>>20162525
>>20163485
people have different degrees of openness towards art. a lot of people can't be arsed, and that's fair game, especially with contemporary art being the mess that it is today. Art has always been a mirror of the conventions of society, and in a post-modern world, this of course means fragmentation and relativism. Art as we define it today is deeply tied to the rise of the bourgeoisie as a separate class at the end of the middle-ages / beginning of renaissance. A new class had come into existence that depended heavily on reassuring itself and others of it's new status. Art played a vital role in this, but inner experience and personal attribution of values was still centuries away from gaining the central status that they hold in art today, unsurpirsingly going hand in hand with the erosion of common values in society.
The Egyptians didn't have a concept of art like we do today, all their works were in service of their religion. The Greek convention was beauty and order, and it's strikingly obvious when you look at what's left from back then. They also experimented heavily with abstract shapes at some point, but never with ugliness. This also meant their works were fundamentally sensually pleasing. It's no wonder Christians in medieval Europe had a problem with this, because again, like for the Egyptians, art was only justified when glorifying Christianity, which viewed sensual pleasures as the devils work. There were heavy debates in the West in the early middle ages about idolatry, and we weren't that far from an islam-style ban on depictions of nature itself. the way out was the argument that you could worship a saint through their depiction while not worshiping the depiction itself, it was a slippery slope. People are extremely susceptive towards images, memes and instagram are just two strong modern examples. But honestly, most Christian artworks before the Renaissance weren't that interesting because it was artisanry, not art. There are exceptions like Schongauer and Grünewald, Bosch was also already ot there but his mindset was still totally medieval. but it only really kicked off in the renaissance, as did polyphonic church music. I like Gregorian chants but lads like Desprez were on a whole different level, they began creating as individuals while putting their work into the service of Christianity. It's fascinating how church music had followed strict conventions for centuries which nobody questioned, but with the renaissance there also came a stronger focus on inner experience and beauty again, but still without the modern nihilism in the disguise of relativism of contemporary art. not a christian but contemporary art is extemely boring for the most part, it's simply not interested in having a connection with you. go to any exhibition and just have a look at how long the exhibition texts have to be to justify this as art

>>20163499
Holy crap no one cares that much about your dumb opinions you lowercase narcissitic parasite

>>20163272
>The only good one you listed is Faulkner
No, unfortunately he's not "the only good one." He may be the only one you like, but he's not the only good one. You seem to be incapable of evaluating artists on anything more than how much you like them. Without the ability to appreciate the artistry of artists you don't particularly care for, your opinions are always just going to be shit. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone who's incapable of seeing past their personal feelings.

This is, incidentally, one of my most common criticisms of the neo-cath crowd invading 4chan these days: you all have this kind of confidence to you which is completely unwarranted by the depth of your opinions and considerations of the issue at hand. Here, for example, you display no ability to think in depth. Your only point is that you don't personally think any of the authors I've listed are "equivalent" to Bach. You don't even give any reasoning for why you THINK Bach is the standard. Your "conversational" style struggles to be labeled as such, as it amounts more often to a solipsistic statement of your personal beliefs and opinions as fact.

I don't understand where that confidence comes from. It's an insipid halo encircling every neo-cath in sickly light by which you think your opinions matter more—quite literally: magically—ostensibly because you found God in the pipes and tubes of the internet. Your kind are responsible for the worst shitposting around. In that sense, you are upholding and propagating the genuine, sans-LARP and without pretension, traditions of the church and of the human race: basic, rank idiocy and poor taste.

>>20163517

>>20163536
>Your kind are responsible for the worst shitposting around. In that sense, you are upholding and propagating the genuine, sans-LARP and without pretension, traditions of the church and of the human race

>>20163544
>atheist seething intensifies

>>20163564
Who says I'm an atheist? you pants-on-head retard.

>>20163565
What are you? Don't write another block of text to explain your post constructivist norse-pantheisto-marxist crypto-atheism.

>I believe that without God as the ideal no great art can ever be made
Don't know about other anons but I've always found this cold. Whenever the ideal is human with all its sins and imperfections and whatnot I feel it and appreciate it much more strongly.

>>20163570
People are talking about great art, you're talking about neat art you like. It's a world of difference.

>>20163536
>>20163564
>>20163569
Kill yourself

>>20163573
Oops, triggered the atheist intellectual.

>>20163572
I'm talking about both

>>20163577
That's because you don't understand what great art is.

>>20163581
Tell me what great art is.

>>20163569
>What are you?
A human being. I demand to have my ideas addressed. So often, people involved in this kind of discussion try to find out each other's ideology so they can argue against their preconceptions of the label rather than engage with the content of the argument itself. I say again: I am a human being. I have thoughts and I have laid them out for you to engage with in whatever capacity you choose. So far, you've chosen to shitpost.

>>20163583
That which approaches Beauty, which is a transcedent quality.

>>20163585
>A human being. I demand to have my ideas addressed.

>>20163585
As a human being I demand not to adress your ideas because I don't care.

>>20163613
>>20163651
The irony is that you ARE addressing them. What you're saying through your shitposts is that you think you are above a genuine and honest discussion. Everything you say is a statement that holds meaning beyond what you intended it to have. It might feel good to make a quick, dismissive shitpost from your position of make-believe superiority, but at the end of the day the facts are this: I've made points and proposed some subjects to be discussed. You have declined to engage them in good faith and instead fall back on shitposting. The refusal to answer the insipid question of "what I am" in the manner which must easily allows you to categorize me and argue against my straw facsimile erected in your head, well, it throws an error in your brain. You are completely incapable of interacting with information you cannot categorize and subsume under rubrics of ideology and the thoughts of others. This is because you are intellectually slovenly. You consume the thoughts of others and engage yourself in debates over which Thinking Man whose thoughts you've slurped up are the Best Thoughts.

This is, of course, another hallmark of this puerile confidence I addressed earlier. The things I'm saying to you right now are, to you, beyond examination. You are so thoroughly indoctrinated and infantilized in your dependency on structures of tribal membership that your brain shuts down and starts blowing raspberries in the direction of your reaction image folder, which acts as an adult pacifier to be inserted directly into mouth upon contract with people who aren't playing by the rules of the game.

You are, simply, an idiot! I'm sorry, but it's true!

>>20163681
>The irony is that you ARE addressing them
Nope

>>20163686
We both know exactly what you're trying to do. We have both seen this same song and dance before. You disagree with what I've said. You refuse to engage with it (or, I suspect, are unable to) and will happily continue posting images of frogs and little white men until I get bored enough to stop replying, which point is of course rapidly approaching. The problem is that I still remember the context of this exchange, and I have seen this exact process play out hundreds of time, if not thousands. I know what you're doing. I know why you're doing it. You know what you're dog. You know why you're doing it.

>>20163699
>We both know exactly what you're trying to do.
Yeah I just post something whenever I get a tab notification so you don't kill yourself from loneliness.

>>20163707
Which is, of course, a lie. You don't care if I live or die. To be clear, I'm not asking you to. That is, in fact, the absolute last thing I'm looking for from you. The mock-concern is, after all, just another cowardly insult: the insult being that I am, for some reason you will (thematically, and in keeping with the rest of your "conversational" style) continue to leave completely vague, in danger of dying.

I didn't want to call my shot, because the oppositional nature of these exchanges is such that you would have simply posted another frog. But I did have the feeling you'd try a different angle since I've seen through the "I'll just keep posting frogs" approach.

Are you a conscious human being? Are you going to try to prove me wrong by posting another frog? No, that would be feeding into my earlier points. Will you try to pretend I'm feeling lonely again? Some other unevidenced personal attack? Maybe. It could be that at this point you'll just slink away. I'd imagine there's no fun in it when both people know exactly what's going on.

Is it really that hard to have a genuine viewpoint and to discuss it? We're all anonymous here. It's okay to have opinions and be wrong. It's okay to actually talk to each other, and to try to further one another's understanding. That's my angle here. The only thing I want is less shitposting.

>>20163724
>Which is, of course, a lie. You don't care if I live or die.
I do hope you live because human life is sacred and I'm sure you'll find the errors of your ways one day. At least you seem inquisitive, which is the first step to finding the truth. But you're probably too young, so you'll wander a few more years in the dark. Meantime, I'll continue posting frogs.

>>20163730
The puerile confidence of faith. It's impressive, in its own way, I'll admit. Faith seems to be a shortcut to that feeling of absolute confidence in what you believe. I can't imagine it. I am constantly criticizing my own beliefs, refining them, criticizing the new ones. I can't imagine what it's like to have that kind of idiotic confidence by which you shape everything to your pre-existing belief system. It's unironically fascinating on a behavioral level.

Putting myself in your shoes, having said the things I've said, I would be compelled to at least consider them. Faith is, in my opinion, something which withstands scrutiny. In your case it seems to preclude scrutiny. I don't understand that.

>The puerile confidence of faith.

Is this what all religious bait threads are like? Do the religion fans always just post Wojaks and frogs when people say things they don't like?

>>20162739
great people weren't great because they were gay
look at the enormous amount of gay people around today, where are all the great people now?

>>20163517

>https://youtu.be/z43ZcdJ74AE
>this thread
>literally the flagellants with wojaks and apu images instead of whips

>>20163813
>i'm being persecuted i demanded to be listened to i'm a human being goddamnit!!! my life has value (subjective value btw because nothing actually has value lol)

>>20163817
I'm just realizing that you don't even understand what I meant by that, even though I did go on to explain it. I'll say it again. The reason I said that I'm a human being when asked the question of what I am its because these conversations always devolve into tribes throwing stones at themselves. If I said I was a Methodist, you'd have gone on to argue against the things you like least about Methodism. If I'd said I'm an atheist, well, I'm sure you've got a pretty good image of The Atheist built up in your head. If I were a Marxist, I'm sure you've read the Wikipedia page on that, at least. I said that I'm a human being to reject that approach, because it's trite and it's not actually a discussion.

I did, of course, also say earlier that the point I'm actually trying to make here addresses something beyond even examination, so I shouldn't be surprised that it was beyond examination. I am, nevertheless, always somehow surprised when this happens.

>>20163839
>its because these conversations always devolve into tribes throwing stones at themselves
Rather, it's because these conversations always devolve into tribes throwing stones at each other.

>>20163839
>I'm just realizing that [another self-indulgent post]
I'm definitely going to read this one

>>20163925
>he doesn't like to try to understand everything he possibly can on principle
I forget that people like you exist. Philistine!