/lit/ - Literature

No books, drugs, but still I'm agnostic.

>>22603737
I read Ibn Arabi and Avicenna and after that new atheism just felt stupid

The One and the Many by Rushdoony was pretty instrumental for me because it helped me see how Christianity overcame the problem. At that point, it was just a matter of seeing how atheism, the denial of theism, was incoherent.

Gradual for me. Started with Hume, then backward to Decartes and Spinoza, then the Greeks and Augustine. Not a full on breadfag, but contemporary atheism is nonsense

>>22603801
>>22603820
>new atheism
Religicuck LARPer

>>22603737
Only larpers and idiots go through that conversion. I guess you could read some negative theology or Kierkegaard.

>>22603820
Hume is ironically great for coming around to the religious worldview once you realize the implications of Hume are that without it you can’t actually know anything about anything.

>>22604115
Can you offer an explanation as to why you cannot know anything without a religious worldview?

>>22604119
Logical reasoning is ultimately contradictory if it tries to justify itself. If something is said to be logically true, what is to say that the logic which justifies its truthfulness is itself true? Excepting the religious viewpoint, the only answer you can come up with is more logic, which traps you in circularity. Logic justifies logic, which justifies logic, so and so forth ad infinitum. That means that ultimately the truths you arrive at by reason alone can’t really be said to be true. Hume didn’t go so far as to say that, but it’s more or less implied in the picture he paints regarding logic and reasoning being inherently contradictory. Some Christians argue in favor of the transcendental argument to overcome this, arguing basically that logic and reason are not justified by more logic and reason but are creations of God and are accepted on the basis of transcendental knowledge about God. I’m sure there are books on that topic if you’re interested that.

To me, it was a confesion by Tolstoy.

>>22603737
The Divine Comedy

>>22604142
Thank you for the explanation. From my understanding, however, the only phenomenon which cannot be logically explained thus far is that of the origin of the universe as we know it. All other factors, to my understanding, are explainable through causality. For example, emotions are as a result of hormones which were developed through evolution, or gravity which is as a result accumulated bodies of mass.

I do not see the circularity of logic beyond the speculation on theories of origin. Is your refutation, in short, perhaps in relation to the fallibility of human instruments and perceptions?

>>22603737
Atheism is untenable. But for me, it was daoism, not christcuckery.

>>22603737
I practice religion but I don’t actually believe it in my mind. Not sure what category that puts me in.

>>22603737
This "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God convinced me to become a deist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/

>>22604193
That’s a nice logical argument, anon. How would you justify that logic?

Confessions by St. Augustine

>>22603737
She is not pretty.

>>22604193
No, see this is the problem with intellectual materialism. You are so bound up in overly intellectual rhetoric that you don’t even know basic philosophy. Everything you just said rests on a bedrock of logic. When you say “emotions are a result of hormones which were developed through evolution” what you’re really saying is “it’s logical to accept that emotions are the result of hormones, and it’s logical to accept that hormones developed through evolution”. Even to say “revolution occurred” is a truth claim that requires a logical basis to say. Materialists, atheists, scientists, engineers, overly intellectual types of all sorts don’t know this because they’ve been trained to think along strictly scientistic lines where these philosophical fundamentals are just ignored, but in reality, you can’t do science without philosophy. So once you realize that whatever claim you could make about this or that arising out of evolution is in reality a logical argument, that whatever you claim to know necessarily rests in a bedrock of logical arguments, you have to ask the question “well, how do I know I can trust the logical principles that give me the bedrock of my knowledge?” If you’re not a theist, you’re trapped because the best you can come up with is logical principles that justify your logical principles. But what justifies the logical principles that justify your logical principles? More logical principles. This is circular. It means that in the end, your logical principles are not justified, you can’t actually trust your logical principles, which means you can’t trust logical arguments, which means you can’t trust claims to truth that arise out of the bedrock of logical arguments (i.e. that evolution occurred). So whatever you think you know, you couldn’t actually know. The only way to escape this is to slide into abject skepticism where you admit you don’t actually know anything about anything, or accept a sort of theism that justifies your logical principles.

>>22604197
larper

>>22604405
why does everything have to be logically justified and rationalized this shit is gay and has ruined everything including religion

>>22603737
Yes, although not exactly theist
Unironically Nietzsche. And yes I subscribe by Nietzscheanism

>>22604504
How?

>>22604498
>he says, typing on a computer

>>22604405
The scientific method exists exactly for this reason lmao. It's used to test or reject scientific (and non-scientific) theories
Insanely low IQ display

>>22604507
What do you mean how? By reading Nietzsche.
Nigger do you know that Nietzsche has literal religious doctrines?

>>22604509
computers are extremely gay yes

>The scientific method exists exactly for this reason lmao

>>22604510
just here to watch you get obliterated in public
nothing personnel, kid

>>22604111
If it was possible for atheists in antiquity to become genuine believers then it's possible today, if perhaps more rare.

>>22604547
Prove I'm real
Prove kids are real

>>22603737
It’s never going to be a book, you need to take some drugs and have a spiritual experience for yourself. If as an atheist reading the fucking Bible makes you not an atheist you didn’t know what being one was in the first place. One of the best positions is that all these books were written by men thousands of years ago.

The Koran, I refuse to debate, read it yourself.

>>22604560
>One of the best positions is that all these books were written by men thousands of years ago.
Why is that a good position?

>>22604560
>just do drugs
lmao

Imagine how mindbroken by libs you have to be to go through that.

For me it was Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, Victor Hugo (poetry), Petrarca, Guénon, Jean Borella, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Plato (came late), Plotinus, St. Francis of Assisi, St. François of Sales, Joseph de Maistre and St. Maxim the Confessor.
Roughtly in that order and with some other readings I went from atheist to catholic.

>>22604483
Gee, thanks.

>>22604405
My argument is essentially that all of these things are measurable and observable. They are not circular because for something to exist, it is indicative of a causal factor that created the effect. The beaks of Darwin's birds, for instance, developed according to the needs of their environment. The bedrock is the reality of what you see in front of you, measured according to the limits of human tools and perceptions.

This is why I alluded to the theories of creation. Follow causal factors long enough and you will inevitably end up there.

Outside of that, I fail to see where your issue of circularity arises. Reality is not subjective.

>>22603737

I am happy to report that I have always remained in the truth and that I have never fallen into error. One of humanity's greatest weaknesses is the need for belonging in a social community, which often entails adoption of some religion, any religion, as a common language and culture. This is how it is that people are led astray and come to believe in fictions, or at least play along with it and not openly criticizing or challenging it. It is a social weakness, and I have not fallen prey to that weakness because I am smarter, stronger and better than others.

A talking fucking snake. A dead kike on a stick. Simple arithmetic errors in a book that is claimed to be perfect.

>>22604197
Culturally Christian/Muslim/Jewish etc.

>>22604142
>logic is contradictory if it tries to justify itself

Ok…sounds about right…

>so the solution is magic man make logic! now it justify!

Huh?

>>22604860
Yeah, maybe that’s the best available way to express it.

>>22604498
>why does everything have to be justified

Are you asking us to justify why things need to be justified? You cannot even avoid the need for justification in your rejection of it.

>>22604591
NTA, but for most people psychedelics or dissociatives will be the only cure for materialism. The average person does not care enough for meditation or reading dusty tomes like Critique of Pure Reason. The drugs are a simple first step for many. If you have never done psychedelics it is understandable that you would be skeptical of their effectiveness, but you are equally as retarded as any druggie hippie if you fall for the anti-drug propoganda.

>>22604639
You were never a serious atheist if you unironically fell for the psuedery of all of those writings.

>>22603737
>What book, except the bible,
I read the summa Theologica and theologiae back to back. It's like terry pratchett said, you have to start by believing the little things.
was the most influential in your conversion? Was the change quick or gradual?
Very very gradual. Still have moments of doubt. But over all I feel 10000x cleaner and just generally better.

>>22603737

>>22604862
Christians don’t accept that knowledge is arrived at by way of discursive reasoning. For Christians, knowledge comes from a revealed God that makes knowledge possible. In Christianity, logical principles would be justified by the essence/energy of God, which if true, evades the problem of circularity.

>>22604193
Don’t worry you’ll grow out of this

>>22604839
> I know what I can observe
> how do you know that?
> I’m observing it
This is circular. Whether you want to accept it or not, the ultimate justifications for what you observe really being the case are reason, logic. Evolutionary theory doesn’t merely state what is observably the case. It states a logical argument which uses observations as support. The basis is still logic. It wouldn’t even make sense to suggest it was observable because you strictly speaking cannot observe the past. You can only speculate about it on the basis of what is more or less logical.

>>22604510
And what do you use to test or reject the theory that the scientific method is a valid means of obtaining true knowledge? Let me guess. You suppose that the scientific method can tell you that the scientific method is valid…

>>22604498
Because you’re talking fundamentally about what is literally true and literally false. If you can’t even set up a premise that validates what truth is and how you get there, you’ve failed. It necessarily means you don’t actually know jack shit.

>>22604895
“Serious atheist” doesn’t really make sense. An atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in a god. It’s not a belief system in itself, it’s just a very broad term encompassing anyone whose answer to the question “is there a god?” is something other than “yes.”

>>22604945
>you don’t actually know jack shit

Welcome to the human experience, old boy.

>>22604922
The point is not that the past is not observable. It is that, through controlling factors, certain results are replicable. That and measurability are what allow for reliable chains of logic. I know what I can observe because I can interact with it and consistently demonstrate the process by which what I am observing came to be.

Whether or not you believe in the validity of human perception has no bearings on the process of causation. Gravity is always going to pull you down and fire is always going to generate heat.

>>22604911
If only you knew.

>>22603737
Yes but the picture you attached to this post is fucking retarded, so im not going to elaborate any further hahah

>pretending to naive positivism on /lit/

>>22604895
>psuedery of all of those writings.
You haven't read any of those writers or their works.
All of whom were exponentially more intelligent than you, by the way

>>22604895
Materialist philosophy is a ridiculous collection of petitions of principle. Neither La Mettrie, Marx, Bakunin, Claude Bernard nor any of the champions of analytic philosophy really knew how to defend it. Comtian positivism, which inherits the Kantian critique of metaphysics, is a little more interesting, but when you take a step backwards and equip yourself with a critique of Kantian epistemology, it's possible to dismiss it. Saint Thomas, who proposes an apology of religion according to reason, is a good way out of atheism, since he reasons in large part according to principles he shares with atheistic empiricists. Once you've started weighing up the depth of man, the world and being, without artificially adding a materialist or skeptic prism on top, atheism becomes unbearable to the intelligence.

>>22605052
How can you be sure your observation is correct?

relativity changes perception to be non-objective.
depending on your direction of movement and intensity of the force, gravity can slingshot you away.

>>22605157
I’m not a materialist, and materialism being wrong does not validate the Bible.

>>22604193
There is no gravity, Big Bang or evolution. Its all Jewish lies. The world is flat and we are immortal.

>>22605164
If you're able to observe the same or similar circumstances and the results are consistent, it follows reason that the observation is correct. I'd say the question is of how much variation in the results are acceptable for the observation to remain correct. And if you're wrong, you just reiterate.

If a gravitational force exerted on an object is contrary to what you might expect, I believe that that would indicate you are observing something different entirely. Something simple like dropping a pen from the same height over and over will have a predictable outcome.

>>22605173
Don't test that theory out by jumping from a second story window. Do not do it anon.

>>22603737
For me, all it took was the Gospels. I simply fell in love with the character of Jesus, who is the only person I have ever encountered who speaks so profoundly, who cuts to the heart of existence. I thank my parents too who never brought up religion even once in my entire life (they're simple working class people), so I didn't have any of the rebellious baggage that a lot of other people in the West have toward Christianity.

>To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek him the greatest adventure; to find him, the greatest human achievement. ―St. Augustine of Hippo
I wholeheartedly agree.

>>22605173
This but unironically. Minus the immortality.

>>22603737
Atheist to agnostic, at least. It started with reading Haidt years ago, describing the research on the feeling of awe. Then next time I was at a religious historical site, I tried to imagine what it would be like to be a person who gave a shit about being there, and was indeed overwhelmed by the feeling of being at a location that generations of people had focused their hopes and dreams on.

Later I read Maffie's Aztec Philosophy, and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Both helped drill in how unknowable reality is, or at least how silly a common-sense approach to knowledge really is. I also enjoyed reading some negative theology, with Psuedo-Dionysius and also Caputo's Specters of God.

I don't know what I believe, really. But at this point I can see why it makes sense to say humanity has a God-shaped hole at its heart, and can admire the intellectual rigor of (some) religious traditions.

>>22605252
you're jumping to the same thing again.
if i secretly gave you a weighed feather that fell as fast as a rock, you could repeatedly see that they fall at the same time regardless of weight.
Does not mean your observation is correct.

like is said in criminal law "somerhing being proven doesn't necessarily mean it is true"

>>22604405
>If you’re not a theist, you’re trapped because the best you can come up with is logical principles that justify your logical principles. But what justifies the logical principles that justify your logical principles? More logical principles. This is circular
lolno
Axioms exist whether theist or non-theist, it's just a matter of picking the least retarded ones.
Nice try tho christfrotter

>>22604938
The scientific method isn't really a theory, it's a process. See rock hit a smaller rock, smaller rock moves. Recreate. Observe same. Conclusion: rock hitting another rock makes smaller rock move. That's pretty much it
I guess you could subvert the assumption about whether what our brain understands as true and real are indeed true and real. Maybe we're just in a Matrix, that kind of thing. Nothing around us is real, including the rock hitting the smaller rock. But do you really want to argue that? Since it doesn't go anywhere, it's not like you can find some truth in that.

>>22605344
I'm saying the same thing because that's what it really is. In that case of the rock and the feather, what is it that you are observing for? To me it seems like more nuanced physics, regardless, which I profess not to know a lot about.

In criminal law, burden of proof also serves to settle cases by providing evidence which is beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly in life, things are multifaceted but are always as a result of causal factors.

>>22605363
>else you can only base it with things ascertained out of logic
>splendidly exemplified through axioms, that are unprovable truths.
congrats, you've just proven trascendental truth, which is one step from finding what originates this pre-existent notion, namely, God.

>>22603868
>cuck
>larper
These two made-up words are like 90% of internet atheist argument in current year. How hard do you even have to lose to have this shit become your m.o.

>>22605436
you're sidetracking.
you're saying that the logic that arises from an unproven logical foundation is proof in itself.
>>22605428
it has its limitations, still. else it's coping through scientism.

>>22605466
Care to explain what you're referring to when you say unproven logical foundation?

>>22603737

>>22605462
>These two made-up words are like 90% of internet atheist argument in current year. How hard do you even have to lose to have this shit become your m.o.

And 90% of Christian argument on here is pictures of fat men in fedoras with unflattering facial hair. Remove the beam from thine own eye, etc. etc.

>>22605466
Limitations really come from what you apply it to, i.e. the limitations lie on the reproductibility of what is being tested. Several scientific theories can't be empirically observed yet, in fact most don't (there are literally tens of thousands out there, we learn about very few). Some others do. That's how it works, it's the opposite of exciting.

Scientism actually doesn't use the scientific method. Scientism is belief without actual science, it just names it "science" and thinks it's correct.

>>22605485
the whole notion of observation being true rests on your logic about it making sense. That logic, in turn, is based on something else, say, notions in physics. Those need to be explained further, by kinematics and then smaller with particles.
You need to keep going down, and right at the base there isn't a logical explanation, only theories, as all the ones physics has going on attest.

observation may be true, but impossible to prove with logic alone.

>>22605518
So your argument is that because the current scientific framework does not cover a level of minutiae that you would see as acceptable, it is therefore invalid?

Is it not so that it still fails to disprove the foundation upon which many societal advancements have been made. Or that, generally, the same lines of logic will still create the same results?

Would you also see the existence of God as a reasonable substitute for the aforementioned unknown minutiae? Personally, I'd attribute it to technological limitations.

>>22605442
I didn't 'prove' anything, I just stated that all belief systems are build on *something* that is self-evident.
> For a, b > 0 where a > b, a + b > a
> Magical jewish sky wizard made everything and listens to all your thoughts
One of these axioms is not like the other.

>>22604142
>Excepting the religious viewpoint, the only answer you can come up with is more logic, which traps you in circularity. Logic justifies logic, which justifies logic, so and so forth ad infinitum. That means that ultimately the truths you arrive at by reason alone can’t really be said to be true.

>>22605597
It's the opposite. The scientific framework doesn't cover the level that asks "What does it mean for something to be true" or "What is truth". When I test a hypothesis, I literally make a logical argument. That logic is a necessary pre-requisite for the scientific method to be a valid method at all. The method alone can't validate the method.

>>22605052
It's not a question of the validity of human perception. Something is being perceived as a matter of fact. The question is specifically regarding whether the method by which the perception of something suggests something is itself justified. If I say "I accept the empirical method. I only accept the existence of that which for which empirical evidence exists.", that would be contradictory because there necessarily cannot be empirical evidence for the validity of the empirical method. I would have to accept the validity of the empirical method on the basis that it's logical to do so. It's one thing to merely state phenomena. It's another to construct a system that allows you to say things that are true or false using phenomena. The latter necessitates logical arguments. There's just absolutely no exception to this hard requirement. It's the bedrock of science. Don't you pseuds read foundational scientific texts?

>>22605972
>>22605983
I see, thanks. So essentially what I've been doing is treating the the scientific method as something self-referential? Puts what the anon said about circularity into context. What, then, would be an adequate framework to determine what is truthful or factual?

>Don't you pseuds read foundational scientific texts?
No, I don't. My worldview is mostly a mishmash of pop sci/psych with some Jung and Nietzsche thrown in.

>>22603737
>Is anyone here who went from atheist to theist?

I did

>What book, except the bible, was the most influential in your conversion?

Not a book but tragic life events which lead to desperation.

>Was the change quick or gradual?

I guess you could call it relatively quick. Though I came to my senses and became an atheist again

>>22603737
Taking appearances at face value isn't terribly ... empirical. Why would it be any different here.

>>22604569
literally the most annoying and repetitive piece of literature I’ve ever read. Does not deserve the praise it gets, if any

>>22603737
Pascals Wager was enough for me.

>>22604142
Lol, funny how in an attempt to forego contingency on logic itself this "transcendental knowledge" is completely pulled out of thin air considering it has to be, by definition.... not contingent on logic.

As Wolfgang Pauli would put it, "Not even wrong! ".

It wasnt a book, I started to live life. Atheism cannot survive outside of a sheltered environment.

Gilgamesh and some evolutionary biology texts

>>22606200

Good man. There are certain superior minds which are constitutionally arrayed against delusion, although some can fall into error and delusion for the usual human reasons, as you've just said. At least you righted yourself. As a friend who was given a catholic education said, he couldn't genuinely believe in god even if he really wanted to. In some, that sort of thing requires an "authentic religious experience", or: disordering trauma. In psychology, adults don't change their attitudes or behaviors unless confronted with some sort of a crisis.

This is also what is cynical in the church's preying on the weak as a mode of social reproduction. Get them when they're at their weakest and most suggestible, making them equal to every other cult. The strong have no need of it, if they haven't been convinced of it already.

>>22603737
the clear quran
gradual

>>22603737
All religions seem retarded to me, so I remain an atheist.

>>22603737
I went from Materialist to Dualist, to the extent that I believe I am a non-material object. I'm much more open to the notion of something that may be reasonably referred to as God because of this. I became convinced of mereological nihilism (the view that there aren't *actually* any composite objects). Problem for the materialist who accepts this:

If the only things that exist are Simples (simple non-composite objects), then I must be a simple or not exist.

I do exist.

If physicalism is true, then my mind is identical to the brain or the functioning of my brain.

If mereological nihilism is true, then brains don't exist.

Therefore, I must be a simple non-physical object.
There are a number of objections to this, but I think after examining them I didn't find any of them persuasive.

>>22606360
Pretty based, very similar to me. First was the realization that trying to reduce myself to "just a bunch of particles" is impossible. Then reading various supposed proofs of God, which didn't really prove it imo but did at least make it seem like his existence is plausible and the universe would make more sense if there was a God. Still not convinced enough to call myself a theist but definitely not an atheist either.

>>22604553
Depends on the reason they're atheist. Camus outlines reasons for it to always be tempting but it seems like they'd be ingenuine conversions. Atheists in the past didn't really have a reason to be atheists. If you look at the history of atheism there were plenty of external forces to give them reasons not to be atheists.

Nowadays though with no persecution and if the atheist is informed I doubt much progress can be seen.

>>22604142
Logic is logical is tautological. The only problem with tautological arguments is that they don't tell us very much. If we characterize formal logic it's something that always has true conclusions if it has the correct structure and true premises. That's good enough for me I don't need the logical equivalent of "mathematical proofs for why 1+1=2". We see that in the real world that in fact 1+1=2 is reality. So given that logic has been proven thru real world results why the fuck would I throw it away cause it fails to masturbate self justifications. That's like saying I can't wrench the wrench with the wrench better stop trusting it.

>>22604142
Take an introductory math course that handles the art of the proof. You won't regret it and you won't post things like this anymore.

>>22603737
>What book, except the bible, was the most influential in your conversion? Was the change quick or gradual?
The Bible and quick. Also, 91% of physics nobel laureates are theists compared to literature at 44%. Apparently studying made up stories doesn't lead to God - shocking.

>>22605972
The knowledge that the scientific method works is posteriori. Trying to get everything from a piece of paper logical argument just results in "I can't prove anything is real". So yeah I put more faith in my eyes than external being real cause in either one I have to believe my sensory experiences are real lol.

>>22606955
There is no proof of proofs. Ask any math professor to prove an axiom.

>>22606984
That reminds me, I once had a math professor preach to us about why faith in God makes sense because we have to put faith in mathematical axioms as well. I'm sure he doesn't represent all math professors but that was memorable.

>>22607053
I had a similar experience with a physics professor when it came to how science can't provide truth only evidence to support (with light hinting towards a god). Later he essentially pulled out the old fine tuned universe argument it was pretty cringe.

>>22606984
Why would I? It's nonsense. The fact that you think this is an argument in any way shows me that you have zero idea about how logic works.

>>22607126
Nta but asserting that you totally don't need to prove axioms, with no actual argument besides "it's nonsense and you are clueless", isn't very compelling.

>>22606243
how do you know which one to believe?

>>22607126
>okay, base your argument in logic by proving an axiom, the base of the logical chain, logically
>nah, you don't understand logic!
come on anon.

>>22607225
>>22607538
>asserting that you totally don't need to prove axioms
That's not what I'm doing. Also, axioms cannot be proven, you pseuds.

>>22607569
>axioms cannot be proven
that is literally the point.
you can't base logic in logic.

>>22607571
Anon, maybe you want to read the comment chain again. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about. I never disputed your statement.

>>22606984
> there is no way to prove proofs
>>22607569
> axioms cannot be proven

How did we get to a point where materialists think saying something is axiomatic is a get out of jail free card? It’s not. Even their existence refutes materialism. Even if you think that something being axiomatic for a proof means they need not be justified in philosophy (not the case), you must at the very least accept that they really do exist and that they’re immaterial. That alone refutes materialism. As for the rest who believe in axiomatic principles but believe nothing need justify them, you have to admit them that they’re fundamentally unjustified if that’s the case. So though you might accept that they’re axiomatic, you must also implicitly accept that they’re unjustified. Thus, you take something as a given but admit under your breath that you can’t really know that it’s a given. Your only position left is abject skepticism wherein you doubt everything, even the meaning of language and this conversation is pointless. Either something grounds axioms or objective knowledge is impossible. There is no alternative.

>>22606955
Philosophy is not math. Mathematics ends in logic, but philosophy necessarily goes beyond it. After all, if we can’t define truth or falsity, then what good is mathematics or logical proofs? They’d be useless.

>>22603737
I don't think it's possible nowadays for anyone of a sound rational mind to actually be persuaded from atheism to gnostic theism. The only people I see who've gone from irreligious to religious did so out of an emotional reaction, like recovering addicts looking for community and the feeling of being loved by an all-loving paternal figure or chuds who gravitated to religion because it's "trad west values".

>>22606949
How do you know logic has been proven through real world results? Would you say it’s LOGICAL to accept that? How do you know that’s logical?

LMAO

A wrench must have the attributes of a wrench that allows you to wrench before you can use it. Unjustified logic renders logic useless.

>>22607690
>gnostic
You've added a layer that wasn't in OP, which only specified theism

>>22607688
We can, though.

>>22607772
Yeah, you can…with philosophy and not mathematics. The use of mathematics is contained in and justified with philosophy. Math is a sort of philosophy.

Not a "proper" theist myself, but I've felt a gradual change over years. I was a firebrand atheist when I was younger. Four grams of magic mushrooms broke the materialist somnambulism overnight, that was the initial crack in the armor.

I began reading certain authors who I held in extremely high regard, who I later learned were deeply religious. So I began thinking to myself "Make it make sense". I began trying to actively rationalize or defend religious beliefs, as an exercise, instead of making snap-criticisms and debunking. This really widened my perspective.

Honestly, watching Jordan Peterson's "Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" lecture series blew my mind. Yeah yeah, JP, I know, but he really was different back then. As a biologist, his interpretations and recontextualization framed the stories in a way that made sense for the first time in my life.

So, no books, just life experience and being open and receptive.

>>22606312
>In psychology, adults don't change their attitudes or behaviors unless confronted with some sort of a crisis.

This is very accurate indeed. A personal crisis turned me towards religion and then another one brought me out of it. But the chances of the pendulum turning back are minimal since this time my life philosophy has changed as well. I am more aware of what the world is really like and more mindful for my own thoughts and preconceptions. Only a miracle could turn be back to religion now

>>22605288
I wish I had tried to sell you a bridge.

brothers karamazov

>>22603737
thats a man

>>22604142
Logic's foundation is axiomatic, not circular. We trust these rules to reason. Hume questioned induction, not all logic. Not every truth needs a religious basis.

>some gibberish nonsense about logic
>therefore skydaddy exists

Lol let me summarise the psyche of these cretins. And before discussing what they are let me start with what they aren't. Truth seekers. They are pseuds who try to play pretend they are referring of some substantial truth but at their core they are just male autistic versions of astrology obsessed salt lamp buying roasties.

They are not some logicians who arrived at some fundamental truth by observing the universe. They are your run of the mill christcucks and mudslimes trying to find justification for their monotheisticuckery. And the only reason they are compelled in this intellectual direction is because we live in a world where religion is no longer the guiding moral and social principle.

How do you even begin to go from "logic cannot create logic" to "muh skydaddy real". Of course they won't question how nonsensical this sounds. Because it is

>>22604862
>magic man
Transcendental topics lay beyond the scope of the atheist

>>22608218
That doesn’t even make sense. To say something is axiomatic means it must be taken as a given SPECIFICALLY TO DO SOMETHING THAT FOLLOWS FROM IT’S GIVENNESS. That logic is axiomatic in regard to making logical arguments, mathematics, even philosophy goes without saying. But philosophically speaking, it doesn’t at all mean that you are just supposed to blindly accept that logic exists and you don’t need any justification for how and why they can be said to exist and indeed can be used.

This was already mentioned above. You people think axioms are just a get out of jail free card. Philosophy doesn’t work like that. In fact, to say they’re axiomatic is an implicit admission that you haven’t justified them, if anything.

And for what’s it worth, you are quite literally making a logical argument when you say they’re axiomatic, you idiot. You are using logic to justify logic. That’s the very definition of circular.

>>22608223
Do you accept logical principles? If so, on what basis do you accept logical principles (both in the sense of affirming that they exist and can be used reliably)?

>>22608400
If I say “If I’m going to to do scientific experiments, using the scientific method, I have to take the foundation of logical principles as axiomatic.” That is a true statement. It means that in order to proceed with science, logic principles must be assumed. It does not mean that logical principles, independent of scientific inquiry or any other inquire that would necessitate them, can be said to really exist and be useful even without justification.

This is really very simple.

>>22608400
Axioms are starting points, not conclusions. Recognizing something as axiomatic doesn't mean it's unquestioned, but that it's a foundation from which other concepts are derived. Philosophically, questioning the validity of axioms is valid, but in practical reasoning, certain axioms are accepted to avoid infinite regress. This isn't circular reasoning but setting a starting point. Inductive logic, as Hume critiques, has its challenges, but deductive logic's foundation on axioms isn't inherently flawed.

>>22608654
Yeah, they’re starting points for making arguments for which they’re prerequisites. That doesn’t mean they can’t be addressed as fundamental presuppositions. You’re right that to say something is axiomatic doesn’t mean it’s unquestioned, but that’s exactly what atheists and scientistic dopes do all the time. It makes NO SENSE to pretend as if something you take as axiomatic is literally true merely on the basis that it’s taken as axiomatic. That is the definition of circular reasoning and Hume admitted this. Nobody is denying that you can take certain things as axiomatic and proceed to make certain arguments on that basis. Nobody denies that. What is denied, is that you can just accept these axiomatic things simply because they’re necessary to make an argument. Imagine it like a pyramid. Axioms are in the middle. All of the arguments that proceed from arise out of them and form the top. You might think those axioms are the basis of the pyramid from the perspective of the top (the arguments that proceed from them), but if you go to the “base” and ask “ok, but regardless of their use for the top, why do I accept these”. You either admit that you have no reason to accept them, or you justify them with theism. This is why these idiots do not understand what it means to say it’s axiomatic. That it avoids infinite regress is not a justification it “is the case”. It merely means it’s necessary for something else.

>>22608706
I find the pyramid analogy compelling and agree with its depiction of axioms as foundational. Much like the base of a pyramid is vital for the stability of the entire structure, axioms provide structure and direction to our reasoning. However, I'd argue that just because something is foundational doesn't mean it's without justification or merely accepted blindly. While theism can offer grounding for these axioms, there are also other avenues like empiricism, rationalism, and intersubjective agreement. Sometimes the utility of an axiom, its ability to produce consistent and coherent results, serves as its own form of justification. The challenge is not merely accepting an axiom but understanding why it serves as a strong foundation, whether that reason is rooted in theism, observation, or its pragmatic value in building coherent systems of thought.

Possible schizo here, but I had an actual vision similar to St Paul's vision on the road to Damascus

Is anyone here who went from theist to atheist? What book, except the bible, was the most influential in your conversion? Was the change quick or gradual

>>22608403
Not falling for this bait. Come up with better more convincing stuff if you really wanna prove sky daddy is real. Otherwise stfu about your invisible, imaginary friend that you bend your ass to or whatever.

What an idiot lmao. Thinks he can prove something that is obviously not there exists because of some words about logic.

>How do you even begin to go from "logic cannot create logic" to "muh skydaddy real". Of course they won't question how nonsensical this sounds. Because it is

>>22603737
I want to have sex with this Brazilian whore

>>22608780
For me it was The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. Since I had the propensity to think about and question stuff my faith was already standing on shaky grounds. The fact that my parents were not very religious didn't help either. All it took was this book to expose me to the possibility that God may not exist and I abandoned the idea. But it was more of a fedora atheist phase because my understanding of this world was still rooted in religious doctrine despite consciously proclaiming that I did not believe in God.

But I became an atheist much later in life and that was not because of any books but life experiences and realisations that taught me how this world really works. This time I abandoned all my precious thought patterns though it was not easy.

Tldr: life will teach you more than any gay book could. Don't just rely on the words of others.

>>22603737
Pic related (the entire volume, not just Confession) served as a sort of catechesis for me when I was a 19-year-old agnostic stemfag beginning to question my beliefs. Then, I made my journey through all the great philosophers independently over the years. Especially impacting for me were Plato, the Neoplatonics, Avicenna, Al-Ghazzali, Hume, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Still, I wouldn't say I'm a Christian, although I could come around to it one day. Most of the self-smug atheists itt don't read btw or if they do, it's horsepiss like Camus and Sartre.

>>22603737
If you unironically go from atheist to theist you're weak minded

>>22603737
Hegel. Truth is Fiction.

>>22608419
...ergo, logic does not yield any transcendental knowledge and is, hence, utterly contingent on its givens. NTA, but you are just justifying what the other anon said.

>>22608780
Ayn Rand, actually. I remember when I was a teenager, just reading a rant about religion from one of her characters and I thought: "yeah, he's probably right". Most critiques I had seen of religion before were leftist dross, so I never cared.
But I had already been primed for it because I had a good education and I'm not retarded.

>>22608065
What is it about psychedelics that have this effect on people? Can you explain how it changed your thinking? Genuinely curious how this works, because I would think that all psychedelics do in moderation is temporarily fuck with your brain and then you go back to normal.

>>22608904
psychedelics work as a deep reminder that everything you have ever experienced is a lie. you already know that logically (colors dont exist, only electromagnetic radiation, sounds dont exist only vibrations in matter etc etc) but psychedelics break the illusion on an emotional level. its basically just way to feel the concept "all you know is that you know nothing" instead of just thinking it. anons who extrapolate more than that are tripping

>>22608904
It's a very, very different experience from the way you perceive the world on a day-to-day basis. I took acid once, in a controled environment and at a "recommended" dose. It was nice. Everything dissolves. Your ego, reality. You manage to see your life and your memories from third-person perspective. Not actually in a detached way, but all the pillars that you construct to manage reality go down. I left my shitty job after it and just went on findinding a better one. I still remember some of the "realizations" I got during the trip, but most of them were quite retarded. Another friend wrote stuff down and read afterwards and it was hilarious gibberish. The perception of universal connection between you, others and the rest of the world and beyond is a common one. The feeling goes way after a while if you're not that suggestible.
I get it how it changes people because at least two friends of mine went through this. One became a born-again Christian entrepreneur, a 180º change from his previous life. The other left his law practice to become an ecotourism guide.

My dad hinted to me that he wishes to take mushrooms, so I might do that with him at the end of the year.

>>22608777
Checked.
I was a devout hedonist, then one day the guy delivering thai food to our place gave me a copy of The heart of buddhist meditation.
I read a bunch of other stuff, meditated a lot over many years (samatha) and was getting into pure land near the end. There is a pdf out there of three discourses on the pure land, the middle one is essentially a set of occult visualizations that work (kept up an interest in western occultism over those years).
Because I was doing some stuff with prayer beads, I got a book on the rosary on a whim, Stories of the rose (mostly historical, not even super great). My first time praying the rosary was really powerful. I kept it up and the mysteries guided reading different parts of the Bible.
The Rosary converted my heart to Christianity. Reading Meditations on the Tarot converted my head.
Yes, very gradual but very transformational. I think you need to have actual experiences, the books just give some support to frame/interpret them.

>some guy itt boogeymanning the word "logic"
it's insane to me that people can be socially functional enough to have internet access and still be so gullible lol

>>22605428
>The scientific method isn't really a theory, it's a process. See rock hit a smaller rock, smaller rock moves. Recreate. Observe same. Conclusion: rock hitting another rock makes smaller rock move. That's pretty much it
This is exactly why science and religion are entirely orthogonal domains. And that the scientific process cannot provide any intellectual meaning to itself, meaning being always rooted in the theoretical, the static, the non-processual. Hence, metaphysics. I am a theist and I fucking love science. Anybody else is trapped in language games.
>>22606183
>What, then, would be an adequate framework to determine what is truthful or factual?
One that parsimoniously handles established knowledge to uncover known unknowns while still maintaining room and adaptability for unknown unknowns.

>>22608822
shes a man bro

I wouldn't call myself an atheist per se at the time, but I was certainly neither a hard theist nor a Christian. I thought Christianity was a relic - a dusty room that had served its purpose and had been closed off forever. There was much more to the world than that, I told myself.

When that unbelievable moment in November came I was taken unawares: could Saul have known what was to become of him later that day as he hung his wallets from his mount and took to the road with his companions in the cool air of the morning?

Our circumstances before and after were in some ways quite similar, and of all the Apostles I see the most of myself in him. Neither of us were neutral observers, but rather partisans of the opposite camp in our own ways. Furthermore, both of us were directly shown mercy for no reason at all.

All I can really ask is why: why me? Why anyone?

But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, my friends. Perhaps, one day, it can happen to you as well.

>>22609063
>One that parsimoniously handles established knowledge to uncover known unknowns while still maintaining room and adaptability for unknown unknowns.

Understanding causal relationships seems sound in this instance. Would you agree?

>>22606289
>I started to live life
How?

>>22603737
Martyr's Mirror or The Bloody Theater by Thieleman J. van Braght.
Imagine innocent Christians (heretics) being tortured underground like Griffith simply due to wishing to follow Jesus.
It's a harrowing book.

>>22608904
Things you were *so sure* about are laid bare as just preferred or pragmatic assumptions you've made. It shows you just how invested you are in collective hallucinations. It's a dream-like experience where you realize your waking life is itself something like an ongoing dream you've never woken from. Everything is imbued with deeper significance and meaning, afterwards. Your frame is enlarged and you're humbled. It's a profoundly emotional experience. The words "magic", "religious", "spiritual" and "mystical" are all appropriate.

Imagine having a firehouse shoved down your throat and up your ass simultaneously, and you're flooded with raw gratitude. Love and "thank you's" pour out of your pores so intensely that the thought there is no God to thank for your existence is unbearable. You want a God, or some being, to exist to accept your thanks. I wept and sweat so hard I felt like a frog.

Anyway, you should look into it.

>>22609978
Yes, but a position on metaphysics, however derived (through discourse or cultural development or whatever), must inform the process. The current notion of "Progress" with a capital p is nothing more than a false idol.

>>22603737
Studying science, its history and philosophy, will make you stop being an atheist if you're not a midwit.

>>22607683
>Either something grounds axioms or objective knowledge is impossible. There is no alternative.
The alternative is that some axioms are more retarded than others.

>>22603737
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is a great start. God bless you anon

>>22603820
Brother, Christ wants us to give Him our all. We are either in or we are out. What made you stop at Augustine?

>>22610277
checked, not a christian but that book helped me understand the christian perspective

>>22610263
Not sound patronising, but does metaphysics have any value outside of mental masturbation?

>>22608878
>>22608896
Based

The Language of Creation - Matthieu Pageau

>>22603737
>What book, except the bible, was the most influential in your conversion?

From Philosophy: Plato's Republic, Analects of Confucious, Tao te ching by Lao Tzu, Xenophon generally, Epictetus generally

Theology: Saint Macrina, Saint John Chrysostom (particularly his homily on the Gospel of John), Saint Porphyrious,The Gospels, the Apostolic teachings, the Old Testament.

>>22610318
>does metaphysics have any value outside of mental masturbation?
look at him anon. youve made him sad

>>22610315
What made you not become Christian anon?

>>22610276
NTA but that sounds a lot like the rubric Carnap faded into in order to salvage Logical Positivism. However, he himself admitted it was basically just pragmatism and the project you seem to be advocating had failed. FYI: fedora tippers are largely unaware they're regurgitating a really basic version of ideas from the philosophy of science that were BTFO 100 years ago.

>>22610276
aka, you arbitrarily argue some truths are more true?
on what is that based?

>>22610387
Now why's that, anon?

>>22603737
Silence by Shusaku Endo

>religious person makes sceptical argument against knowledge
>therefore god!!!
erm,. why not just pyrrhonism?

>>22603737
I was studying Old Church Slavonic out of linguistic curiosity, but since most of the canon is comprised by either bible translations or commentaries and interpretations, I was funneled into reading lots of those. After that I got a curiosity about bible scholarship and then one day I just woke up and realized I had become a believer.

>>22604233
F
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2020/02/17/apotheosis-gilded-in-vague-chrysanthemums/

>>22603737
I did went from atheists to Christian. Apart from the Bible it was Miguel de Unamuno's The tragic sentiment of life.

>>22603737
For me it was this:

0. Does nothingness exist?
>No

1. Is everything matter?
>No, qualia exist

2. Do both matter and qualia exist together?
>No, the experience of matter is just another quale and dualism is wrong

3. So solipsism?
>No, solipsism is refused with anatta. If the personal self does not exist, solipsism is wrong

>>22606323
Hello, younger me. You're judging religion by its appearance. Probably judging religions by the retarded bovines you see in media which, by association, you may think they are the way they are *because* of the religion. But make no mistake - there are retards in every circle you draw. There are also great minds who truly believe, as well. Like a 16-bit RPG house, Religion is bigger on the inside than the outside.

>>22604197
Pragmatist atheist, kinda lika Charles Maurras

>>22603737
The reading took me from theist to deist and finally atheist.

>>22604197
You're in the same set as most other Christians in history

>>22604405
If anyone is being circular here, it's the idealists. The laws of logic are derived from the material world through observation. Aristotle made references to empirical evidence when constructing the law of non-contradiction. Given that the origin of logic is inseparable from material reality, you undermine logic itself when you try to negate the physical world.

>>22605972
Except 99.9% of all brings who have ever lived have not seriously wondered "what is truth" and most of the .1% who have are bourgeois elites playing word games in dusty libraries. The zebra doesn't wonder 'is this true' as it's being torn apart by the lion.

>>22611274
There are no idealists in this whole thread…

>>22608821
You’re “not falling for it” is just refusing to answer, and you refuse to answer because any answer you could seriously admit would refute your position entirely.

>>22611713
Are you seriously not able to infer his argument based on what he said?

>>22606901
>Atheists in the past didn't really have a reason to be atheists. If you look at the history of atheism there were plenty of external forces to give them reasons not to be atheists.
This is pretty audacious and not even historically true. There had been logical doubts about the existence of gods and naturalistic explanations for every conceivable phenomena for centuries. Atheism always exists for the same reasons. But today people want to act like an intelligent religious culture couldn't exist or that the overwhelming peer pressure of atheist culture has no effect on them.

I don't care about Camus' reasoning, genuine religious people exist and despite modernity's corrosive affect on faith I believe there is still genuine conversion.