One last thread before I leave

[Anonymous No.13032302]

To those who are curious about God, read Pascal. If you do not know of Pensées, you have mostly been fed lies and simplified versions of Pascal’s ideas. This book changed my life, and it may change yours, too. Read it. What do you have to lose?

[Anonymous No.13032307]

Thanks Pascal-poster, I will get around to reading it.

[Anonymous No.13032317]

>>13032302
Stop trying convert me, faggot.

[Anonymous No.13032331]

>>13032302
Time

[Anonymous No.13032341]

There's no rational way one can say the Christian faith is the right one.

[Anonymous No.13032350]

>>13032341
Pascal attempted that in Pensées. Have you read it?

[Anonymous No.13032379]

>>13032350

Yes, and that is way I made that post. He seems to have good arguments in favor of the fact that some sort of first cause or prime mover has to be taken in consideration, but I didn’t find any logical argument for the Christian faith. When it comes to this problem it seems to me that Pascal loses his cold head and force himself to believe in what he really wanted to believe in the first place, some sort of confirmation bias.

It’s easy to logically suppose that you either need an infinity or something arising out of nothing to explain Existence, but it’s impossible to stamp the seal of a specific religion on this logical argument: it depends on faith. Pascal reminds me of those philosophers that make an incredibly elegant and eloquent defense of an aesthetic principle, arguing that it’s a logical and fail-proof way of analyzing the worth of any art work, and yet in the end is just a clever way of dressing subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.13032395]

>>13032379
>He seems to have good arguments in favor of the fact that some sort of first cause or prime mover has to be taken in consideration
Where? I distinctly remember Pascal saying that reason does not prove or disprove God.
And what arguments for Christianity failed for you?

[Anonymous No.13032412]

>>13032331
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.13032491]

>>13032302
See you tomorrow

[Anonymous No.13032507]

>>13032302
>Penisées
haha

[Anonymous No.13032514]

Didn't Pascal's friends become heretics later on? They were proto-calvinists, with a very pessimistic view on life and humanity.

[Anonymous No.13032515]

>>13032302
good riddance, hopefully deleuzefag follows your example

[Anonymous No.13032561]

>>13032341

>> rational
>> faith

Choose one faggot. It's like your demanding we find you a boring passion, and then acting like you're smarter than everyone else in the room when we reasonably call you a faggot.

[Anonymous No.13032580]

>>13032561
One can use faith to believe, but reason to select what it is he wants to believe in. If Christianity were too reasonable, there would be no wonder, and more movement of the mind rather than the will. If Christianity were not reasonable enough, than it wouldn’t be discernible from other religions.

[Anonymous No.13032624]

>>13032302
I'm tentative about buying this because I don't want a book on my bookshelf that looks like "penises"

[Anonymous No.13032647]

>>13032379
my guy, i can tell you obviously havent read it just by viewing your post

[Anonymous No.13032722]

>>13032302
How do you choose? Pascal's arguments for Christianity aren't convincing.

[Anonymous No.13032736]

>>13032722
based and autistic

[Anonymous No.13032754]

>>13032302
I'd rather just read Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.13032801]

>>13032722
Retarded chart

[Anonymous No.13032810]

Ok, I'll bite and read it. Just hope it doesn't have too much proto-calvinist pessimism.

[Anonymous No.13032826]

>>13032722
>Pascal's arguments for Christianity aren't convincing.
You read them all? I think you could sum up Christianity’s merits by its difficulty to be faked and its accurate assessment of our nature, as well as giving us a remedy for our miserable state.

[Anonymous No.13032832]

>>13032302
>One last thread before I leave
If only. You'll continue to shit up this board.

[Anonymous No.13032839]

>>13032302
The BET you can't lose ?
and guess what i like to bet not

[Anonymous No.13032856]

>>13032826
>You read them all?
Nah I just wanted an excuse to post the chart. I've read enough early modern philosophers arguing for Christianity to get the feeling it won't be convincing, though.

>its difficulty to be faked and its accurate assessment of our nature
Interesting, mind expanding on both of these?

[Anonymous No.13032883]

>>13032722
>atheism has victory conditions
Hahahahaha, cope, cope, cope

[Anonymous No.13032891]

>>13032331
you're on 4chan lol

[Anonymous No.13032909]

>>13032302
>Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling rambles to cover and protect their weakness.

>Chased from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and sub-mission, as their legal sovereigns.

[Anonymous No.13033008]

>>13032883
I think Christianity is far more of a way to cope with reality than atheism is, no offence.

[Anonymous No.13033048]

>>13032856
>Interesting, mind expanding on both of these?
Christianity is pretty unique in that it did not spring out of nowhere. It’s founded on Judaism centuries before. The prophecies of Jesus in the OT perfectly correspond to the NT. Whoever faked Christianity would have been some sort of pseudo-Jew who was knowledgeable of the OT and Jewish tradition. Why would a real Jew fake it all? If you’re not a believer, you can’t really determine what’s real and what isn’t. Was Jesus a real person? Did the crucifixion happen? Were people simply tricked into believing Jesus was the messiah? Was it all made up, written down by a few men? What explains the explosion of believers in the first century, and the persecution of Christians? What other religion causes these difficulties in trying to refute it? How easy is it for Muhammad to conquer and claim he is a prophet? Or for Gautama to claim he is enlightened?

[Anonymous No.13033076]

>>13032856
As for our nature, Christianity perfectly captures the human condition. We are miserable and sinful. It does not shy away from telling us the truth of our imperfections. Yet through Jesus’ sacrifice we are able to overcome our flesh and death and go to heaven. We are told our flaws, confirmed everyday we live, we are told how to seek comfort and fight against temptations and struggle, making our consciences cleaner and guiding us in our lives, and ultimately we have hope that all will be well in the end.

[Anonymous No.13033120]

>>13033048
Do we know the Old Testament dating with confidence, for the parts that seemingly reference of the later Jesus? And do we know that Matthew, Luke, John and Mark were all real figures, and also not merely creating something that related to the earlier literary tradition? There are definitely inconsistencies in the accounts given of Jesus, be it his geneology or the acts which the Messiah was meant to fulfill. To what extent was Jesus a real figure, and what extent was he possibly fictionalized? And even if there was a man who performed real miracles (which is very difficult to accept by itself, simply on it being said so), this doesn't confirm their teaching to be true, or them to be infallible. It only means that sorcery is possible, which other cultures have their own practitioners of too. See the brujas of Mexico, or the skinwalkers of the Natives.

[Anonymous No.13033147]

>>13032302

[Anonymous No.13033176]

>>13032302
is their stuff to take from this without converting to christianity?

[Anonymous No.13033273]

>>13033176
bump my q

[Anonymous No.13033296]

>>13033147
heh

[Anonymous No.13033325]

>>13032302
Penisés

[Anonymous No.13033377]

>Pascal
Hérétique chrétien. Aucun religieux ne prend sa théorie du pari au sérieux.

Glad to see you leave retard

[Anonymous No.13034134]

>>13033176
yes, the first few sections don’t mention Christianity

[Anonymous No.13034151]

This was one of Bolaño's favorite books.

[Anonymous No.13034182]

>>13033377
Another atheist frog. You'll soon be Muslim, froggie.

[Anonymous No.13034470]

>>13032722
>Atheism Rewarded
What in the fuck

[Anonymous No.13034716]

>>13033048
And the Hebrew Bible evolved from Canaanite traditions, and so on. The Vedas are older. Saying that x is a derivative of y tradition, and is therefore can't be fictionalized, is extremely asinine and goes against the development basically every tradition the world over. Judaism is not, and was not, a monolith. How hard would it be for a Hebrew who was opposed to Roman occupation and the seeming complacency of the Temple to start a splinter faction? How hard would it be for that Hebrew to cause enough trouble for the Romans to crucify him? How hard would it be for his followers and their followers to play telephone until he becomes a local hero, then the Son of the Hebrew god? The Temple certainly wouldn't have approved. So these adherents make their own enclaves, and begin their own derivative traditions. How hard would that be? There doesn't have to be deception or trickery. Jesus the concepts are completely different from whoever Yeshua of Nazareth may have been. Pick any influential public figure alive right now, and you'll be able to see this distinction between x figure the concepts and x figure. Now add religious devotion and divergent traditions over the course of two millennia, on top of a lack of reliable accounts concurrent with the life of the figure, and you have Jesus.
As for non-believers not being able to tell what happened, to a degree, you're correct. However, non-believers can put together a better case for the historical development of Christianity since they're not hindered by the guilt and confirmation bias a lot of believers have. That isn't to say a believer can't have a historically consistent foundation for their beliefs, but if they do, it's not going to rest on "the Bible is true because I'm ignoring how traditions develop and also Pascal's wager".
As for other religions, it's as easy as yours. Over time, the actions and belief of people become warped through retelling. When those people, like Mohammad or Siddharta, lived in periods with piss-poor literacy rates and basically no other reliable forms of record keeping, they become warped even further to the point of making concepts unrecognizable from the people they were based on.
The reason why other people ask you why Pascal's wager should only apply to Christianity is because it can be lifted seamlessly from Christianity to any other religion. Why not follow the Eightfold Path? If you don't, nothing happens anyway. If you do, then you get that much closer to nirvana. Etc.

[Anonymous No.13035145]

well this sucks, it's sad to see you go
guess this will be my last
BASED PASCAL POSTER

[Anonymous No.13035196]

>>13032341
Pascal would agree with you

[Anonymous No.13035208]

>>13035196
>>13032580

[Anonymous No.13035220]

I'll do so when I feel it's in my interests to do so and not a second sooner.

[Anonymous No.13035241]

>>13032379
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.13035290]

>>13035208
“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”

I think Pascal would say that a believing Christian can use his reason to explore the faith in an intellectual way. However, when finding out whether the Christian faith is what one should put one's faith in, Pascal says we have to look at what Christianity says about the human condition, its place in creation, and its wretchedness that necessitates a redeemer. This is why he believes in Christianity; however, this sort of exploration is more for the heart and the spirit than for the reason.

[Anonymous No.13035419]

>>13033048
You and Pascal are looking at it in a posterior fashion. Judaism of the time wasn't strictly unified, and the subject of messianic reform was still a very open question. Even today there's no universal agreements among Abrahamics about whether Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. No Jew faked it, the earliest Christians were Jewish. The limits of our epistemology would leave that true for believers as well. Jesus was probably real, and probably crucified. They weren't tricked anymore than the people that believed in the other potential messiahs were. Possibly, it could also be allegorical, early Christians weren't even unified on whether Jesus was a physical entity (docetism). The same explains that as explains the popularity of other eastern religions in Rome at the time, and this overlooks the top-down imposition of Christianity from later emperors and ignores other Roman religious persecutions (e.g. the Dionysian mysteries).

Each religion has its own unique histories and could supply similar claims. At the end of it, these aren't convincing to a non-believer in reason alone.

>>13033076
But our condition isn't miserable. I enjoy it quite a bit and think of my life as something beautiful I've received so I can make what I can of the world. Sin is only meaningful to a believer.

[Anonymous No.13036160]

>>13032561
>I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.

[Anonymous No.13036330]

>>13034182
Is that you Zemmour?
Haha how pathetic.

[Anonymous No.13036459]

>>13032341

Rational as in wallowing in fact porridge, no. Rational as in contrary to the Empirical, yes.

[Anonymous No.13036574]

>>13036160

Christianity is prominently Rational. See Plato, Hegel.