/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10998331]

>all things are going from potentially to actuality endlessly, therefore there needs to be a source of all potentiality unconditioned by any other sources of potentiality. We can call this God.

>>therefore Jesus was both God and the Son of God who physically died despite being God and now you have to eat his flesh and pay tithes to the Church or else you'll be eternally damned

[Anonymous No.10998335]

>>10998331

[Anonymous No.10998337]

>>10998331
>all
This is why no one who isn't a brainlet will take your sad attempt of a I'm-better-than-you condescending shitpost seriously.

[Anonymous No.10998339]

It's why Islam is better than Christianity. (it's literally more logical)

[Anonymous No.10998345]

>>10998339
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.10998356]

>>10998339
Islam necessarily requires occasionalism, which posits there is no cause and effect because God wholly destroys and recreates the universe in each moment according to his whims and habits inshallah, without causation between occasioned moments.

[Anonymous No.10998366]

>>10998356
Absolute horsecrap. You can literally use Christian theological thought and Aristotleianism in defense of Islam more than Christianity.

In fact, if you would favor a form of Neo-Platonic Islam, this would logically be the best way to go. Kierkegaard can apply better to Islam than anything else. The idea of a state with religion is the greatest thing you can have. Islam offers that, and very beneficial financial/legal rules as well. It truly is a document from God (the Koran), because it is derived from the highest, most wise logical principles of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10998383]

>>10998366
Plus there's no trinity. Christians seem to be proud of the fact that it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.10998403]

>>10998383
How acceptable is Tasawuuf in mainstream Islam though? I wouldn't mind Islam so long as it doesn't start jailing sufis and the like.

[Anonymous No.10998478]

>>10998366
No you can't you kuffar. The only permissable Islamic philosophy is occasionalism. Stop committing shirk.

[Anonymous No.10998492]

>>10998478

[Anonymous No.10998494]

>>10998478
The truth is: the Koran says none of this. So if you're basing it on the Hadiths, that's going a bit too far anyway.

God can intervene whenever he wants to, but that was always true with all theology. The idea here is that God is an active force in reality. If that is missing or inactive in the Christian philosophers, then that is not compatible with Islam. But it's not missing with Kierkegaard.

Just my two cents.

[Anonymous No.10998495]

Strawman. Dismissed. Next.

[Anonymous No.10998498]

>>10998495
blatant reddit post style
just fuck off

[Anonymous No.10998519]

>>10998331
>everyone hates Christians
>therefore Christianity is true

[Anonymous No.10998526]

>>10998339
I get saddened by the thought than most /lit/posters are so desperate for God that they fall for the Christianity meme. Christ was a prophet of God, and to worship him is polytheism, no matter how you try to justify it. God gave us many prophets, and their message was always the same - dedicate yourself wholly to only Him, and seek His mercy. No weird trinity, no killing Himself to save us from His own wrath, just pure, simple logic. God made us to live good lives, as well as we can, and He will punish and reward as He sees fit, in His divine mercy.

[Anonymous No.10998530]

>>10998526
this is some skilled bait

[Anonymous No.10998534]

>>10998530
It's Aristotleianism, pleb. All is being, the most inclusive of all principles. One (unity/monad) has to exist before many.

[Anonymous No.10998551]

>>10998534
>rejects Christianity
>gives the Aristotelian God the attribute of "merciful" and then also refers to it as a "Him"

[Anonymous No.10998555]

>>10998551
Aristotle himself said the primary being has attributes, that's the main objective of the science of being pleb.

>not understanding Aristotle
Literally you right now

[Anonymous No.10998556]

>>10998555
>of the 'science of being', pleb

Ftfm, sorry. I'm doing a graveyard shift

[Anonymous No.10998559]

>>10998555
>>10998556
But how do you know God is merciful, without other sources? And what, pray tell, might those other sources be? ;)

[Anonymous No.10998567]

>>10998559
The phenomenon of God's interference with reality and logic.

Through pure logic, you can come to understand God, since his principles are what move the world.

Through his interference in reality, you can see he is merciful based on experience and faith. If you are lucky enough to live during the time of a prophet, this experience will be manifest, your proof of God is easy.

[Anonymous No.10998569]

>>10998567
What if that reality is inherently unreliable? ;)

[Anonymous No.10998572]

>believing in god

[Anonymous No.10998576]

>>10998572
>believing in anything

[Anonymous No.10998583]

This is not the argument made here

[Anonymous No.10998588]

Have you read Thomas Aquinas then?

[Anonymous No.10998592]

>>10998366
That anon is basically restating the beliefs of Al-Ghizali who was highly critical of pagan philosophers and their usage in Islamic thought.

[Anonymous No.10998596]

>>10998331

[Anonymous No.10998598]

>>10998331
ITT: people who don't understand what the Trinity is

[Anonymous No.10998600]

>>10998592
>Al-Ghizali
Wasn't this guy basically blamed for the intellectual and scientifical decline of Islam?

[Anonymous No.10998624]

>>10998598
according to christianity, no one understands the trinity

[Anonymous No.10998637]

>>10998624
What exactly is there to not understand?

[Anonymous No.10998638]

>>10998637
>why can't I understand God
Read more.

[Anonymous No.10998639]

>>10998624
The Trinity is like the idea of atomic structure. It's simply a conceptual means of articulating something inarticulate.

[Anonymous No.10998643]

>>10998637
The fact that it makes no conceptual sense?

God is One, yet also Three. It's literally just "1 = 3."

[Anonymous No.10998647]

>>10998639
You just described philosophy overall, way to go.

The essence of being, and the science pertaining to it thereof, is by definition theology. Physics should be combined with it, but unfortunately instead of heading into studying material relations with a decided mind set for the existence of being, and this existence being inclusive of all, these materialists have decided to derive their notion of being FROM the observable/empirical. People were making this mistake back in Aristotle’s time when he complained about it in Book Gamma of Metaphysics. It’s nothing new. Atheism is nothing new. Neither is polytheism, which is basically what the trinity is.

[Anonymous No.10998654]

>>10998600
That is difficult to say, but I would think that is a very simple argument to put forward and it is put forward by people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who I would not imagine to be well read in philosophy in general. Ghizali one of the if not the greatest genius produced by Islamic civilisation he produced a massive volume of work during his life time from philosophy (which he was keen student and world renowned lecturer in in the Islamic world), commentaries on Islamic law, Jurisprudence, Sufism and Theology. I have not read his most notable work in the west which is what these philosophers invoke, the Incoherence of the philosophers, though as far as I am aware he uses philosophy against the influential Islamic philosophers, Avicenna and the like, to prove their incoherence with regards to their own logic and with its regards to Islamic law and revelation.

The factors that brought about the collapse of Islamic high culture is probably due to a myriad of factors from constant invasions, dynastic infighting and decadence of the upper classes and of society in general. In a sense Ghizali is in reaction against all of this. He is held up by many in the Islamic world as a re-newer of the faith, those who arise at a time when the faith is in serious threat of being forgotten to return the Umma to correct path. So perhaps so. But Islamic science was also hampered by other taboos in their society, which were also present in Christian society, such as not being able to cut up and dissect human cadavers, even animal cadavers, for religious reasons of purity.

Curiously enough this idea that Ghizali is a cause of Islams decline is a contradiction within the liberal interpretation of Islamic history. By that I mean the very notion of an Islamic golden age was quite a liberal idea and is juxtaposed against the dark ages of religious superstition in Europe which had to steal these texts off of the Muslim through bloody crusade. Yet for all of their height of learning and possession of similar founding texts of the renaissance and the later scientific revolution and yet they could not achieve the heights of the European because of that exact same superstitious faith which curiously also facilitated that learning in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10998656]

>>10998643
>people who don't get the Trinity
For the last time, there aren't 3 Gods in christiniaty, Muhammed. The 3 "aspects" of the Trinity are the same fucking thing.
The Son isen't the Father, the Father isen't the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isen't the Son; but they are all God.
There isen't any logical problem in this. Just take a picture of the Trinity in the internet, is very easy.

[Anonymous No.10998662]

>>10998656
So why is God divided in the first place? And what does being "divided" even mean? If the Father is not the Son, but both are God, what separates them?

[Anonymous No.10998664]

>>10998600
>>10998654

This guy, Timothy Winter, talks about Ghizali and this very issue in this lecture that is well worth listening to. I found the comparisons with Ghizali's occasionalism with Quantum mechanics a little bit glib but it is overall interesting and well worth the lecture. This guy also does a comparison between Islam and the thought of Julius Evola.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWOKaOb33K4

[Anonymous No.10998676]

>>10998662
This is literaly one of the Holy Mysteries in Christian faith.
You can also be non-trinitarian and this won't make you less christian.
God isen't divided by three, he is one, even when you take the Trinity thing and literaly read it as three.
When people say that Jesus was the son of God, they are wrong. Jesus IS God (for trinitarians).
>"But Jesus talked to God didn't he?"
So what? Does God talking to himself makes him less holy? The Trinity isen't illogical, is just, realy, realy hard to understand from a human perspective.
We are talking about the actions of God, this goes beyond any current human understand of reality and so.
And the thing I said about Jesus is also one of the major problems in all of cristianitys history: the nature of Jesus. Is he holy? Is he human? Is he both? If any, how does this works?
As a matter of fact, if you take cristianitys history, Jesus only becomes God later on. He wasen't saw as God in the first moment.

God is God. He can all, he sees all. Even if he was divided in three pieces, hes power is so inhuman that all of these pieces would still be one.

[Anonymous No.10998687]

>>10998676
>This is literaly one of the Holy Mysteries in Christian faith.
Stopped reading here.

A religion which does not found itself on logic is no good. You cannot make meaningless platitudes and expect the populace to be happy for long. We want solid ground to stand on here, Paul.

[Anonymous No.10998705]

>>10998687
hi /r/atheism, which logic do you mean? Aristotelean? Hegelian? intuitionistic?

[Anonymous No.10998706]

>>10998687
I'm not the anon you're talking to but ohhh jeeeeeesus your fingerless gloves and black hat are showing. You know less about logic than anyone here who has actually studied the philosophy behind Christianity and found faith by it. God is a mystery, taken as a philosophical assumption, in order that we might explore theology and thereby find better ways of living (better than Doritos and Mtn Dew and DOTA and being a stubborn atheist on 4chan).

Really, just start with the Greeks. Read something. You have exactly the same amount of proof God does not exist as the person you're condemning as full of meaningless platitudes.

[Anonymous No.10998710]

>>10998705
>>10998706
>FEEEEDOOOORAAAAA
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.10998711]

>>10998710
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10998712]

>>10998710
wow, "trolled" "hard". he was pretending all along!

[Anonymous No.10998715]

>>10998706
>>10998710
Why do you guys do this?

[Anonymous No.10998724]

>>10998687
>he thinks that the approximations of science represent logic in itself
>he thinks that subjective experience can ever align with logic
>he doesn't realise that life cannot be lived as anything but a mystery

[Anonymous No.10998732]

>>10998687
Dude, I am just saying what the theological doctors say, mixed with some of my own conclusions.
When you talk about logic, you also find a problem here, because we are acting as if God is subject to logical inquiry. How can the creator of all be suject to the logics of the material world?
That said. I too believe that God needs to follow logic, otherwise he isen't real.
So let me go away from what I read and from what I understand and think about this hole deal.

First, if we are to believe in the Trinity, we will need to first understand that, God is one, but he has this three aspects. This dosen't mean '1=3', because neither of this aspects are independent from God. They are all the same, what they aren't, is one another. This means that the Holy Spirit is God in one of his aspects, but he isen't the Son nor the Father as independet beings. All the three are one, but neither of them are each other. If this sound repetitive, is because it kinda is.

Second. So, is God logical? I believe that, with the my case for the oness of God in the Trinity is quite clear, but like I said before, we fall into the problem of trying to make God subject to humano logic developed by human minds...
>"But God is the one who guides the human minds."
Bullshit, because if this is true, free will is a lie, and if free will is a lie, hell, wtf is life then? Just a puppet show for some evil deity who likes to play with mortal souls.
God is logical in the sense that the Trinity works pretty much like atoms in my view. For example, water. Is literaly H2O, h+h+o. If loses one, it isen't Warner anymore. If gets more, either. Water is one, but with three elements that, without one another, aren't water.

Three. Not all christians are trinitarians. It's true the Trinity is fucking hard and sometimes may look illogical; is also true that no one has truly grasped the exacta nature of Christ, but in the end, one will have effect on the other. If Jesus isen't the Son, who the fuck is it? Either way, this is more a secular view that I can just resume to: dude, this is just doctrine. People are still in the dark around truth.

I have some limited time for now, but if you want my honest opinion, the Trinity isen't even something you should realy bother with. The true question is, who is God and what does he want from us, if anything. Personaly, I believe that God isen't realy able to give us full attencion. He for sure is busy with cosmic horror levels of problems, so he probably expects us to be able to deal with our mortal problems like adults. He is also mercifull, he isen't gonna send you to hell or anything like that. He surely knows how hard mortal life is, so he will just want you to try your best and if you fail, he will tell you that you could try again, try be a better being (reincarnation).

Now I gotta go to uni. I will check this thread later. Hope you guys don't get to worked up over theological doctrine.

PS: Islam is right in many points tho.

[Anonymous No.10998734]

>>10998706
>>10998710
If you had payed attention in the arguments, you would have seen that I am not an atheist, you have lured yourselves for the purely cult-like mentality you must have to perpetuate a glaring logical flaw.
>>10998724
God is real. My experience of reality is everyone else’s and I can see he is real. The wind, the trees, the birds, everything is “Allah” (I would prefer to call him God of course).

I can see Islam mirrored in transcendentalism, like Thoreau or Emerson

[Anonymous No.10998738]

>>10998715
Because God walks the dark hills. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OGq4EXaXTM

Evangelism is a mission of the church, not mine, but some people are are such brainlets living in darkness I am compelled to outline the brilliant work started by the Greeks and built up by the Doctors of the Church. It's amazing to me that atheists of conviction can even exist. What makes them so certain God does not exist, other than their own bias against religion? Why are they so often choosing to live meaningless lives full of hollow pleasure? It's astounding.

[Anonymous No.10998740]

>>10998734
Lured should be outed ofc

[Anonymous No.10998743]

>>10998734
>"A religion which does not found itself on logic is no good."

>cultural Islamist
>suggesting that Islam is founded in "Logic" and does not share Christianity's Abrahamic roots
WEW

[Anonymous No.10998744]

>>10998738
sure, evangelise all you want but it just ends up in a memeing shit fest where you are no better than one another.

[Anonymous No.10998746]

>>10998383
Its that most logical formulation of reveled theology, not natural theology. Read Ratzinger on the topic you plebs.

[Anonymous No.10998747]

>>10998744
/lit/ is a Catholic board, anon.

[Anonymous No.10998752]

>>10998743
The historical fact that God has caused floods is no joke. Critias, The Old Testament, and The Epic of Gilgamesh can all attest to that.

How about you understand that you’ve been born and bred in a sinful world which teaches people to be atheists, and accept that there is something you can do about it by having severe faith and respect for God

[Anonymous No.10998753]

>>10998734
>My experience of reality is everyone else’s
How can you actually believe that?

[Anonymous No.10998761]

>>10998747
Explains the shit head meme fest that this board becomes at the moment people come to logger heads then?

[Anonymous No.10998763]

>>10998761
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP9LT5HuzrE

[Anonymous No.10998784]

>>10998331
You sound pretty desperate OP. Why are you conflating the religion and myths of the unwashed masses and philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10998812]

>>10998784
Because that's what Aquinas did. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been a Catholic monk.

[Anonymous No.10998995]

>>10998551
The most commonly invoked aspects of God in Islam are his Mercy and Compassion (ar-Rahman ir-Rahim)

[Anonymous No.10999008]

>>10998559
>But how do you know God is merciful, without other sources? And what, pray tell, might those other sources be? ;)
*ahem*

[Anonymous No.10999012]

>>10998526
This is why Hinduism is so based. It recognizes the very thing you said.

[Anonymous No.10999017]

>>10999008
>that part of Aristotle's Metaphysics where he attempts to give a geometrical proof of how there can be no bad in the Universe

I have no idea what the fuck that was about, and I spent days trying to understand it

[Anonymous No.10999024]

The only belief that makes sense is that the something which we call God exists. We have very little understanding of the Source but we can say it's necessary, eternal, uncaused, etc. All other religious beliefs require faith, which is mostly influenced by culture, geography, and indoctrination. How can anyone say they KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead, or Muhammed talked to God? If they were told that it was all made up just like every other religion, what logic and reason would they fall back on to remain religious, and to explain why they think it must be true?

[Anonymous No.10999078]

>>10998331
"Lemme just skip hundreds of pages from the summa justifying Aquinas' statements on this topic"

[Anonymous No.10999093]

>>10999078
>implying OP has read the Summa or any other book in his life

[Anonymous No.10999469]

>>10998331
Yeah I like Christian theology/philosophy but really none of it requires Jesus.

It's like the greatest philosophical minds in the last 2000 years were all boxed in with the necessity of Jesus rising from the dead.

>really interesting and thought provoking Christian thought
waow that is really interesting
>btw also this ethnic religion is now true for everyone because Jesus rose from the dead
hmm...

[Anonymous No.10999498]

>>10998732
>When you talk about logic, you also find a problem here, because we are acting as if God is subject to logical inquiry. How can the creator of all be suject to the logics of the material world?
good job contradicting yourself in the span of a couple of sentences

[Anonymous No.10999502]

>>10999012
>hinduism is based because it avoids polytheism

[Anonymous No.10999586]

If God is pure, infinite, unbound actuality, then the very concept of a God that is distinct from the world and his creation breaks down - how can God be unlimited and yet be something radically not-me or not-something? This introduces a limit in God's being, an epistemological break between subject and object which Christian philosophy tried to breach ever since. Traditionally this was done by introducing Christ's love as the bridge between Man and the radical distinctness of God's Being, a reconciliation taking place as the act of freely-given love. While this development was the necessary outcome of both Judaism Greek philosophy, in which this alienation is complete (Aristotle's prime mover which contemplates itself as the object wholly apart from created reality), it introduces contradictions which are impossible to heal, and indeed break down in the historical disillusion of scholasticism best seen in Spinoza.

Aquinas got the furthest among the Christian philosophers in recognising the Absolute as the act of Being rather than a Thing, but obviously his catholic comittment led him to preserve the distinction of radical separability. And thus modern philosophy contemplates only the subjective, relegating the God-concept to an empty formalism, but discovers in this contemplation the Absolute as its own object - an object which is indeed the process of subjectivity objectifying itself and becoming conscious of itself in the act of Reason.

[Anonymous No.10999597]

>>10998339
> religion
> logic

choose one.

Not even trying to be le epic atheist here. Everyone who has read The Bible (and most other religious books I'd assume) knows that you only become complete and perfected if you stop thinking about logic and common sense - you must leave all your worries to God.

[Anonymous No.10999620]

>this whole fucking thread
Brainlets and pseuds, the lot of you.

[Anonymous No.10999689]

>>10998403
To simplify a complex answer, Tasawuuf was ubiquitous for much of Islamic history but the rise of colonialism led to a sharp decline and ultimately the universalizing force of Wahhabism/Salafism has rendered it quite esoteric.
That said, in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa Sufi traditions remain dominant.

[Anonymous No.11000313]

>>10999024
Just empirical evidence, anon. Don’t you see how severe your doubt is? Don’t be worried, you’ve grown up in an atheistic academic culture. It won’t always be this way

[Anonymous No.11000325]

>>10999597
But that’s wrong. See that’s the type of thought that is fucking killing us over here. If you’re Christian, you have to leave your logic at the door. But with Islam, there is only one god (confirming the monad/ unity) and he is benevolent and evil exists (confirming Platonic contrarieties).

[Anonymous No.11000472]

>implying the Trinity isn't a much more sensible and beautiful concept of the Supreme Being than an undifferentiated unity of a completely alien Oneness
The first verses in Genesis refer to God as a plurality ; John tells us that God is Love. Now, is Love just a property of God's creative act or relation to created beings, or something absolutely intrinsic in God's being? The Trinity answers this perfectly - God is a relational entity, unity-in-difference. That is, The Father is in a relation of reciprocal love to the Son, the Son is in a relation of reciprocal love to the Holy Spirit etc., they relate to each other in an eternal bond of loving unity within the divine essence ; thus God is revealed not as a crudely undifferentiated formal unity without content, but a differentiated unity of perfect Being, sufficient in himself.
Plotinus already saw this very well, but Hegel's theology really cemented it rationally.

[Anonymous No.11000513]

>>10999017
Where, exactly, are you referring in the Metaphysics? What book was this in?

Mathematics, as it should have been, was a constant proof to Aristotle. I could help you here, I have read Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus and Timaeus by Plato. These help immensely.

>>10998753
I have a section from Metaphysics for you.
Book Gamma, section 5

>I mean that the same wine might seem, if it has changed or if the body has changed, at one time sweet and at another time sour; but at least the sweet taste itself has never yet changed to sour, and one is always right about it, since whatever is sweet is of necessity like it.

Sensory subjectivists/moral nihilists BTFO

[Anonymous No.11000535]

>>10998676
>Hegelian

[Anonymous No.11000540]

>>11000513
>Sensory subjectivists/moral nihilists BTFO
darwinian evolution disproves this

[Anonymous No.11000556]

>>11000472

>Plotinus already saw this very well, but Hegel's theology really cemented it rationally.

that was Augustine in De Trinitate, actually.

[Anonymous No.11000613]

>>11000540
You would have to first prove Darwinian evolution to be true, of which there are few proofs other than conjecture.

As a matter of fact, this notion is what supports the fact that Darwinian evolution, if it stands on a moral subjectivist ground is false; because there must be objective truth, subjective interpretation of reality, so far as it stands to scientific knowledge, is false. There must be order, not chaos, you see.

[Anonymous No.11000631]

>>11000313
>empirical evidence
The multiverse eliminates any credibility in empirical evidence. So long as the whole isn't known, every particular within the whole cannot be understood or related accurately. To simply live a good life not only ensures a chance of happiness for this life, possibly our only time here, but it also gives us a good chance of securing a good afterlife, though it's not guaranteed.

[Anonymous No.11000646]

>>11000631
I'm saying empirical evidence proves God exists, did you even read my post chain??

[Anonymous No.11000648]

>>10998596
who

[Anonymous No.11000660]

>>11000646
But I'm not questioning God's existence, only the leap from God's existence to a religion, especially human religions. They seem like a way for humans to try to understand God with their own symbology and conceptions, but the task can never be done thoroughly and credibly.

[Anonymous No.11000664]

I have never once in my life heard somebody argue the first way therefore Jesus. This is something that only exists in the minds of atheists. Aquinas didn't think that many of the things shown to us through revelation could be proved philosophically.

[Anonymous No.11000676]

>>11000660
Christianity is a historical claim and that is how it must be investigated. You're not going to find scientific evidence for a metaphysical claim just as you're not going to find philosophical evidence for a historical claim.

[Anonymous No.11000693]

>>11000613
>You would have to first prove Darwinian evolution to be true, of which there are few proofs other than conjecture.
evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt, please don't tell me you're a creationist

and i was talking about sensory subjetivism, not moral relativism, which is a whole different issue from scientific truthfulness (not sure why you would conflate the two desu)

[Anonymous No.11000694]

>>11000676
You can say the same thing of Islam, of course. The Koran is confirmatory of Jesus as well. Which should be further evidence he existed and had manifest proofs.

[Anonymous No.11000727]

>>11000693
>evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt,
Artificial selection =/= natural selection
Resistant bacteria =/= natural selection

>(not sure why you would conflate the two desu)
Then you have relatively little knowledge of philosophy or theology. Essentially, the idea that your senses are subjective is the same thing as morals being relative. A sensory experience, or how you perceive it, can be physical or ideological, it doesn't matter. This is why Aristotle combines these two concepts and never refers to either 'an idea perceived' or 'an object perceived', but says 'a thing perceived'. The fact that you think there is a difference leads into the main problem here. You are a sensory subjectivist, which can be extrapolated into moral relativism logically, but because you fail to see how, you don't understand how your own understanding of the universe may be negatively affecting your perception of the world. The same thing may be happening with evolution, or on a broader scale, with atheism, inside your own head.

Now then, the argument proceeds as thus: because you do not believe that something can be either true or not true perceptually, then anything, including morals can be either true or not true perceptually. If you think they can be at the same time true or not true perceptually though, then that extends to everything you perceive. Why wouldn't it? Why would you make a distinction between what you see and what you perceive a an idea? These are the same sorts of things. One of the big problems Aristotle deals with in Metaphysica is the rise of a 'scientific philosophy' which prides itself on only valuing what is visually perceived. But if what is visually perceived is false, it doesn't matter how many people agree with what is being perceived, it is simply false. The cult mentality approach is what you, and many other self-important atheists, use these days to affirm different theories.

Evolution does confirm sensory subjectivism, and therefore confirms moral relativism. If we needed further evidence to show that evolution doesn't exist, this is it.

[Anonymous No.11000937]

>>10998743
>suggesting that Islam is founded in "Logic" and does not share Christianity's Abrahamic roots
The problem I and the brother you commented have with Christianity are not its Abrahamic roots, you willful idiot.
>>11000472
>The first verses in Genesis refer to God as a plurality
Lies by Christian missionaries. Yes, the "original" text is in plural, but that is the same plural used by God in the Quran - the royal Us/We. Ask ANY person familiar with Judaism and Hebrew, and they will laugh at the idea that Genesis presented a triune God. What, all of God's prophets to the Jews were unaware of God having a split personality? All scholars, all prophets, from Adam to Abraham and Isac and Jacob, to David and Solomon, to Moses - all either didn't know God was 3, or didn't bother to tell their people who God was? Christianity is a religion based on thoughtless emotion, made by a mixture of truth and falsehood, built on Roman paganism. God sent Islam to right those wrongs by bringing us a clear message all humans can understand and accept.

[Anonymous No.11000972]

>>11000937
>>The problem I and the brother you commented have with Christianity are not its Abrahamic roots, you willful idiot.

>implying Islam is not precisely the same type of revealed religion as Christianity, with all its attendant mysteries and nonsense taboos.

[Anonymous No.11001018]

>>11000727
not him but it sound like you'd benefit from reading Kant, reason gives us concepts which are true but tautological and sensation gives us phenomenal images.
>Artificial selection =/= natural selection
There isn't any meaningful distinction on a metaphisical level between the two. Not that those two are the only proofs of evolution anyway.

[Anonymous No.11001492]

>>11000513
>Sensory subjectivists BTFO
moronic

[Anonymous No.11001539]

>evolution by natural selection isn't true because it leads me to conclusions which I don't like and can't square with an objective morality
Jesus Christ, the absolute state of this thread.
How much of an uneducated piece of shit does it take to be a creationist? We can literally observe natural selection happening within our lifetime, in the case of certain plant adaptations and such, fucking google it. There is literally no doubt whatsoever that the basic mechanism is described, even if we can't perfectly reconstruct the whole of evolutionary development of complex organisms like humans (yet). Well no shit, organs like brains are difficult and we're just getting started with understanding it, but there isn't really any conceptual problem in seeing it as an emergent organism culminating from the same process as literally every other biological organism in nature that we find. If you further consider the apparent lack of life in the known universe, this phenomenon of complex life-forms is so unlikely that it doesn't even require a remotely likely theory of development, just something that could happen on planets so far away that they can't even conceivably interact.

[Anonymous No.11001704]

>>11001018
>but tautological and sensation gives us phenomenal images.
Right, but unless you want to fall into the error of 'begging the question' you would have to ground these sensations on some objective understanding/standard in order to arrive at and define truth.

[Anonymous No.11001725]

>>11001492
Being a sensory subjectivist is moronic. If you actually believe that everything is subjective and there exists no other than yourself then you are officially a solipsist. Come now, this is philosophy 101, you cannot say everything is based on your perception of it, that's borderline retarded and if I met someone expressing that opinion I'd laugh at his face.

>>11001539
>just a big rant on evolutionary biology bullshit
Listen, we understand how academia works these days, they want to propagate theories no matter how false they are turning out to be. Evolutionary anything is a joke because it's all conjecture.

I mean, Jesus Christ you guys '''''discovered dinosaur bones'''''' only after the theories of Lamarck were initially developed. This is called a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'.

[Anonymous No.11001734]

>>10999469
Because he DID rise from the dead. That's the entire point. The Resurrection as a historical fact is foundational to Christianity. The entire reason the religion exists is that it really happened, and you can't have the religion without acknowledging the fact of the Resurrection.

This is the root of why we hate Muslims so much. They deny the Resurrection. They deny the most important event in the history of the world and try to usurp Christ for their own ends. It really is worth going to war over.

[Anonymous No.11001752]

>>11001734
That's not true. No one going to war with the Muslims hated 'historical facts'. Wars are started because of money or culture.

The Great Crusades, for instance, were started because of a toll the Saracens were exacting on the Christian nations of Europe to enter Jerusalem.

I am also not aware of the verse in the Quran that talks of this, and I have read the Quran extensively. As far as I know, if you take a straight Quranic interpretation of the world, Jesus could have resurrected. They don't disbelieve in anything else that happened, after all.

In addition, the Hadiths are largely based on greed and power. These are the sorts of things the Quran warns against.

In other words, you are wrong, there is no way in absolute hell that is the reason they went to war. But keep on posting false things.

[Anonymous No.11001760]

>>11001704
please read kant

[Anonymous No.11001854]

>>11001760
And I have read Aristotle. And having read Aristotle, prior to this I saw people claiming he did not verify or affirm God's existence. If I now read Kant and he does what will you say?

[Anonymous No.11001860]

>>11001752
But for Christians it's not a matter of whether he "could have" resurrected. It's a matter of him absolutely having risen from the dead. This is the source of the frustration. For Christianity the Resurrection is undeniable.

[Anonymous No.11001872]

>>11001860
Ah I see, yes I am a Muslim. He was resurrected. There, are we cool? Fuck Sharia law, most of it is bullshit anyway, I go by the Quran. Give to the poor, because it says to endlessly and respect everyone a decent amount.

Am I cool with you?

[Anonymous No.11001899]

>>10998337
>latches onto one word and then furiously rapes it

[Anonymous No.11001907]

>>10998598
>like, u just dont get it
>once u adopt the dogmatic framework ur rejecting, u will get it

[Anonymous No.11002527]

>>11001734
Let's say that Jesus DID rise from the dead, physically. Let's say that in order to enter eternal life, I have to accept this fact and and allow Christ to become my Lord.

Now let's say there are Muslims who deny this reality. They're denying the most intrinsic, perfect moment in human history.

Does that mean I'd want to kill them, knowing that Jesus did actually rise from the dead and they reject this?

No. All life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. I would not take the Lord's power of life and death into my own hands. To kill a Muslim for being an unbeliever is to usurp God's supremacy and claim yourself above Him.

Fuck that noise.

[Anonymous No.11002548]

>>11001872
Do one thing more. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

[Anonymous No.11003971]

>>10998331
i unironically think this is a simulation. i guess in a sense there would have to be a simulator

[Anonymous No.11004301]

>>10998331
>endlessly
>therefore there needs to be a source

[Anonymous No.11005141]

>>11001860
>my stringent dogmatism is the only legitimate interpretation of Christianity
ok bud

[Anonymous No.11005173]

>>11002548
Arbitrary point. All prophets have been saviors. You parroting the same thing over and over is boring, stupid, and God doesn't like it.

>>11004301
Is anyone else tired of this inane, borderline retard argument for atheism? I mean, bud, you are going to hell, you know that right? Enjoy the trip there.