/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13902389]

Who would win?

[Anonymous No.13902405]

>>13902389
All of the guys on the bottom will be forgotten within a decade of their death. No one but hardcore atheists themselves actually care about Stephen Hitchens. By 2028 you won't remember anything about Hawking unless someone brings him up, and even then you'll only know him as that asshole that would make you anxious about things he knew little about.

Guys like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine on the other hand have an eternal following.

[Anonymous No.13902406]

>>13902389
Modern thinkers have an unfair advantage. However, that's not relevant in this scenario, considering who you chose to represent the modern atheists.

[Anonymous No.13902413]

>>13902406
t. butthurt atheshit

[Anonymous No.13902426]

[Jerry Stiller, obvs.]

[Anonymous No.13902442]

>>13902389
>>13902405
Christianity is idealistic atheism
The bottom are materialistic atheists

[Anonymous No.13902449]

>>13902405
Name five Roman Pagan theologians.

[Anonymous No.13902451]

>>13902442
Gonna need to explain that one, bucko.

[Anonymous No.13902453]

>>13902389
Top. Bottom is all pseuds who can't comprehend anything beyond basic materialism.

[Anonymous No.13902458]

>>13902449
What's the fucking point of that? Christianity came along and did away with their silliness. Why would anyone remember a loser religion's thinkers?

[Anonymous No.13902459]

>>13902389
An atheist can never lose a debate with a theist.

They simply have to say these three, simple little words
>prove. your. god.

not a single theist can do it. not one.

QED.

[Anonymous No.13902461]

>>13902458
Where the fuck do you think you are, Liberal?

[Anonymous No.13902465]

>>13902458
Hubris is a sin, anon.

[Anonymous No.13902470]

>>13902389
>St. Augustine vs. Daniel Dennett
>St. Anselm of Canterbury vs. Richard Dawkins
>St. Thomas Aquinas vs. Sam Harris
>Blaise Pascal vs. Stephen Hawking
>G. K. Chesterton vs. Christopher Hitchens

[Anonymous No.13902471]

>>13902459
>

[Anonymous No.13902478]

>>13902459
All a theist has to say to win any debate with an atheshit is TWO simple words.
>*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.13902479]

>>13902449
>>13902458
>>13902465
holy shit, i have no seen this sick of a burn on /lit/ in a long time

[Anonymous No.13902490]

>>13902479
?

[Anonymous No.13902497]

>>13902389
William Howard Taft vs Ben Stiller would be an interesting fight.

[Anonymous No.13902515]

>>13902389
based Chesterton beating the living shit out of that smarmy snake known as Dawkins would be kino.

[Anonymous No.13902560]

>>13902515
Chesterton would assail Dawkins with paradoxes so complex that they would turn that smug midwit's brain inside fucking out. He'd spend the rest of his life utterly brainfucked in a wheelchair, mumbling unintelligibly to himself while staring at the wall.

[Anonymous No.13902605]

>>13902389
Chesterton could solo everyone except Dennett, although he would do it through Sophistical reasoning and being funny.

Aquinas could solo all of them, but as usual brainlets wouldn't bother to read Aquinas.

Augustine wouldn't bother: he would go to the New Atheists hoping to find truth, only to find that they are full of fallacious reasoning, and would turn away from them in disgust.

[Anonymous No.13902631]

>>13902470
Augustine beats Dennett,( although it's hard to tell)

Anselm loses to Dawkins

Aquinas completely obliterates Harris if the debate is done in a scholarly way. It isn't even close. Aquinas might lose if the debate is done in a public place, because Harris loves to play to the crowd, and Aquinas is so technical.

Pascal vs Hawking isn't a debate.

G.K. Chesterton would befriend Hitchens, so I guess you can count that as a win.

[Anonymous No.13902632]

>>13902451
A God written by a human is a God that literally doesn't exist. It's an image made by a human mind. Christianity is mono"theistic". By believing that the only God is the one that doesn't exist outside of writer's mind one denies the existence of any other possible God or spirit in actual reality that exist outside of ideas made with the means of human language. Christianity even refutes pantheism that could possibly save it from being an idealistic kind of atheism. It extrapolates someone's idea onto everything yet without saying that everything is that one idea. The Christian God doesn't exist beyond human language.
>inb4 it existed because it was in the writer's mind
If so then all the other gods in fiction and nonfiction exist too.
Again, existing in ones mind ≠ existing literally.

[Anonymous No.13902647]

>>13902632
This doesn't make much sense anon. I am sure you have good ideas: can you be a little more clear as to what you mean?

[Anonymous No.13902737]

>>13902449
Wasn't St. Augustine also a neo-platonist? Wouldn't that make him a pagan theologian as well?

[Anonymous No.13902811]

>>13902647
–The c. God was written in bible by human, means it's a product of writer's mind or interpritation of reality. It may exist there, in his mind, but it doesn't make it exist literally
–Christianity is monoshit. Which means a proper christian considers that there's only one god, the one, that literally does not exist, that may existed in writers mind, and now lives as an idea
–The c. God is an idea. It only exist because of writers' minds, and it has power and influence only because of the followers' minds. Instead of God that exists there are people who believe in God that doesn't
–Christianity refutes pantheism, and the idea that the God is in the mind. Basically Christianity refutes its own God at this point. Some religions don't do that

[Basedtard No.13902826]

>>13902449
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius

[Anonymous No.13902934]

>>13902389
IDK why anyone would ever read an atheist book. If you're worried about God you should try to understand God. The atheists mostly just cherry-pick Bible quotations and twist them around. Atheism is very simply not an intellectually serious position.

Also for me, it's Pascal and Augustine.

[Anonymous No.13902953]

>>13902389
Why do the atheists (apart from Sam Harris) look absolutely fucked?

[Anonymous No.13902962]

>>13902405
>By 2028 you won't remember anything about Hawking unless someone brings him up
Hawking will definitely be remembered for a long time due to his contributions in physics and appearances in popular culture, Dawkins as well to a lesser extent.

The others will probably be forgotten though.

[Anonymous No.13902989]

>>13902389
Spinoza

[Anonymous No.13902990]

>>13902389
Top: some of the most brilliant minds in history.

Bottom: some smug Brit pop scientist, a balding literal who journalist, a cripple (felt bad writing this, but it's basically the only reason people know who he is), some bearded old literal who pop scientist, and Ben Stiller (??? If you meant to post Sam Harris, 1) that's not him; and 2) he's a fucking yoga podcaster).
Only 2/5 of those guys have any philosophical training, and Sam Harris fucked off out of academia after getting his PhD to become a podcaster and has made zero (0) contributions to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13902993]

>>13902389
Ben Stiller

[Anonymous No.13903044]

>>13902479
Samefagging christcuck

[Anonymous No.13903054]

>>13902811
This is retarded, the Christian Church predates the Bible by three centuries, and every major religion has religious scripture in which their gods appear.
Are you saying that the only hypothetically true gods have never been written about? Then how can we have any knowledge of them?

[Anonymous No.13903120]

>>13902811
Different anon here,

I'm not sure how much of what you're saying only applies to a Christian god?

[Anonymous No.13903253]

>>13903054
>the Christian Church predates the Bible by three centuries
Still it's a mental image, doesn't matter whether the author wrote or said it first
Also don't take history as discipline too seriously, it operates in a religion kind of way, and its "knowledge" is mere belief
>Are you saying that the only hypothetically true gods have never been written about?
The true (because it's a bit more than mere idea) god is either the mind or the world the mind perceives, or maybe both, that created the c. god. Christianity refutes that, leaves only an idea (a product, creation of mind), claims it's the one true god. Even if the first christians saw their god doing miracles, it's their mind that saw and interpreted that it's a god doing the godly things.
>Then how can we have any knowledge of them?
You deal with them everyday. There's no need to accept abstract human made concepts as the only god. I guess the mind and the world to perceive are concepts too, but there's a least something behind them, they are not pure abstractions. The perception and the perceived are always with you, and there's no need to put some human made abstractions onto them to achieve redemption. At this point the kind of perception when you feel the world purely, without vocal descriptions that you read or heard by other humans is more of a redemption that what chritianity promises. If theims is mere belief in human made things, it's empty and hardly transecendental, contradicts its own purpose, humans may lie or not express their ideas too well. the language has its limitation after all. The true theism is knowledge, and the only thing that we know exists for sure and is the process of perception, where the perception and the perceived are two sides of it.

[Anonymous No.13903274]

>>13903120
What I said is not only about christianity
The thread is about christianity as opposed to the other kind of atheism

[Anonymous No.13903577]

>>13902962
Maybe in Academia, not in popular imagination.

[Anonymous No.13903649]

>>13902389
the dashing young man with the spectacles and the smug smirk of course

[Anonymous No.13903743]

>>13902389
..and spinozo-pragmatists constitute the audience

[Anonymous No.13903745]

>>13902389
The kikes

[Anonymous No.13903747]

tfw this centrury the christcuck is going to die

I am so glad, I would rather have ahmeds and voodoo nigs than these retards.

[Anonymous No.13904299]

>>13902478
YO YO YO. I'm an Aquinasist and all. I've got a copy of the Summa Theologiae in my bookshelf that I use to clear up general doubts about anything. I greatly respect the hylomorphist metaphysical view and virtue ethics system too. I go to my local Roman Catholic church every Sunday and do everything any good Christian would do, but I never trash on atheists wearing a fedora, simply because I too wear a fedora.
Being a Roman Catholic out of pure tradition, and not actual respect for and proper acceptance of the rational arguments provided by the Church Fathers and theologians that have upheld the Church's beliefs would be to act in a purely irrational manner, as if only following a temporal socially-motivated trend instead of an eternal truth.

[Anonymous No.13904301]

>>13902826
>Plotinus
>Pagan
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.13904376]

>>13902389
Guenon

[Anonymous No.13904384]

>>13904301
>it's another "Christcuck tries to appropiate Plotinus to Christianity" thread
If Plotinus was Christian, then why did he never praise, defend or otherwise mention it in his works? Why did the Christian authorities persecute Neoplatonists as heretics and kill them? Why did they shut down the Neoplatonic academy?

[Anonymous No.13904637]

>>13903747
People have been saying that every century, and Christ and his Church always prevailed