/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14015432]

Atheists are AFRAID to read this book because they would be forced to admit to themselves that Christianity is true.

Try recommending it to an atheist in person. Watch the trembling of the hands and lips. The sweating, the eyes darting about.

Try recommending it to Butterfly. Watch as she (male) desperately reels off some rant about Stirner to try and deflect.

[Anonymous No.14015436]

>penises

[Anonymous No.14015439]

>>14015432
why is this such a good book?

[Anonymous No.14015443]

Hi Pascalanon

[Anonymous No.14015469]

Butt Hurt Fly
lol

[Anonymous No.14015509]

>>14015432
No skin in the game

[Anonymous No.14015732]

>>14015432
I read the wager in its full original text and I'm still not convinced. Pascal biases his argument by asking us to consider the possibility of one kind of God whose existence we can't decide while leaving out an infinity of other possible Gods. Now what?

[Anonymous No.14015750]

>>14015732
>an infinity of other possible Gods.
You're upside down.

[Anonymous No.14016008]

>>14015750
No, he's right, Pascal presumes that he can apply the wager to only the Christian god because Christianity is more sentimentally attractive to him. Guess what? Guenon BTFO sentimentalism. Pascal only makes a fool of himself, anyone who is a brilliant autodidact who extensively reads religious philosophy/metaphysics is well aware that Christianity in certain regards is flawed and full of nonsensical paradoxes that other religions answer much better. The only people who could fall for Pascal's claim that Christianity is obviously the right choice because it seems perfect are uneducated morons.

[Anonymous No.14016018]

>>14016008
>Guenon BTFO sentimentalism
Book?

[Anonymous No.14016024]

>>14016008
>uneducated morons
So... atheists and Buttershit?

[Anonymous No.14016051]

God exists. He is actually the supreme embodiment of logic, science, and reason. Himself a liberal atheist, he created the world as a recruitment test for his paradise. To determine who of us is most worthy to serve him in the afterlife, he created different ideologies and religions with absolutely no evidence for them, such as Christianity and scientology, to see which of us will have the intellectual capacity and the strength to resist believing them. Those of us who become atheists, recognising the lack of evidence for religion, will serve as his engineers, scientists, teachers, and philosophers in the afterlife. Those who follow religion and stray from the true path of liberal humanism/atheism will be tortured for eternity, for our god is not one to take pity on the ignorant and credulous.

In view of this, why aren't you a liberal humanist atheist empiricist? Do you really wanna get tortured for eternity?

[Anonymous No.14016076]

>>14015432
The thing about Christianity is that you can apply the principles of Christ without having someone else's metaphysical map of the universe. For example, you don't need to agree with the Catholic Church when they claim that the same God that Jesus addresses as "the Heavenly Father" is also the god of creation in the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.14016122]

>>14016018
in East and West

[Anonymous No.14016133]

>>14016051
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14016145]

>>14016133
Nice argument, retard.

[Anonymous No.14016158]

>>14015432
>Christianity is true
why Christianity in particular? Sometimes I feel like the Christians are afraid to question their own religion for another one.

[Anonymous No.14016370]

>>14015732
Pascal talks about this in the rest of the Pensees. The wager isn't supposed to be a standalone argument.

[Anonymous No.14016371]

>>14015509
Taleb unironically defeated atheism

[Anonymous No.14016380]

>>14015432
I prefer Kierkegaardian fideism

[Anonymous No.14016386]

>>14016370
He doesn't at all provide convincing or serious answers though other than "Christianity subjectively seems best so therefor I can ignore the question of all other religions and only apply the wager to my favorite one, lmao"

[Anonymous No.14016433]

>>14016008
The fulfillment of the prophecies of the old testament is the heart of pascal's argument not the wager

[Anonymous No.14016446]

>>14016433
>dude some preacher fulfilled a random mix of predictions from a huge grab-bag of Jewish schizo fairy tales that he would have already known about from before he tried to promote himself! Therefore Christianity is true!

[Anonymous No.14016454]

>>14016446
Pascal never claimed Christianity was evidently true, hence his fideism.

[Anonymous No.14016503]

>>14015732
>dude what about the three million pig fucker inbred gods that I have never heard of and only care about to make this fedora tipping argument?
If there's a god it's probably the one everyone has heard of retard

[Anonymous No.14016506]

>>14015432
Frenchfag here, this is actually assigned reading in highschool and if you go for postsecondary education you will most likely have it assigned a second time if not more. Great book, unparalleled prose style, Pascal is truly a thinker above the cut and a clear forerunner to Nietzsche and the existentialists.

However everyone read it for the first part with its masterful analysis of ennui, evil, arbitrariness of human activity and general skepticism, as well as for the remarks on style. Few people touch the second part which is were the very shrewd apolegetics take place (and I'm not talking about the fucking wager). Pascal regularly makes use to a process of reasoning analogous to the Hegelian idea of ruse of reason, but for religion instead (so ruse of Providence if you will). It's remarkably clever, and if you're into that kind of thinking you might even get convinced. But I doubt any standard laical republican (aka 90% of Frenc teachers) will be swayed by it.

[Anonymous No.14016519]

>>14015432
tfw I read guenon once, that face when the only two things that appeal to me are Eastern Metaphysics and Atheism. tfw I think theology is dope even though I prescribe to no religion or tradition.

Any famous theologians/philosophers that critiqued religion and tradition but was inherently atheist?

[Anonymous No.14016524]

>>14016519
>Any famous theologians/philosophers that critiqued religion and tradition but was inherently atheist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buren
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._J._Altizer

[Anonymous No.14016535]

>>14016519
>>14016524
To add to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

[Anonymous No.14016539]

>>14016133
Don't forget to post have sex so they know btfo'd they truly are

[Anonymous No.14016561]

>>14015432
When you die and your heart is weighed against the feather, your petty sophistries will not save you from being devoured by the beast, OP
Belief is nothing without right and faithful action

[Anonymous No.14016563]

>>14016145
Everything you posted is unfalsifiable conjecture. There's nothing to argue about, brainlet

Dilate

[Anonymous No.14016570]

Fideism is literally feels over reals in philosophical form

[Anonymous No.14016572]

>>14016563
>1950+69
>logical positivism

[Anonymous No.14016581]

>>14016572
>Tell someone to argue about something
>Call them a logical positivist when they say it's not possible to argue over a non-argument
Retard

[Anonymous No.14016589]

>>14016581
>B-BUT YOU'RE VIOLATION MUH VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE

[Anonymous No.14016593]

>>14016008
>Guess what? Guenon BTFO sentimentalism
Is there anyone this madlad hasn't swiped the floor with?

[Anonymous No.14016596]

@14016589
Not giving you any more (You)s, buddy

I'm gonna go read while you seethe and post Basedjaks

[Anonymous No.14016601]

>>14016589
I bet you can't even explain what the verification principle is if I ask you

[Anonymous No.14016609]

>>14016596
>LET ME READ AYER AND RUSSELL IN PEACE

[Anonymous No.14016612]

>>14016601
>THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE VERIFICATIONISM ARE THE ONES WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND IT

[Anonymous No.14016619]

>>14016612
Are you saying you understand verificationism?

[Anonymous No.14016630]

>>14016619
>Daddy Ayer save me. This meanie doesn't like muh verification principle.

[Anonymous No.14016640]

>>14016630
Answer the question you fucking christcuck do you understand or not?

[Anonymous No.14016651]

>>14016640
>DADDY AYER, SAVE ME! THIS MEANIE PANTS DOESN'T LIKE VERIFICATIONISM!!

[Anonymous No.14016685]

>>14016651
First off, Ayer isn't a verificationist you tucking imbecile. Secondly, can you make an actual argument against it? All you are doing is posting the same shitty meme over and over.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14017478]

>>14015432
We actually only take the wager, to act out a belief, in a world run by the theist. In such a crazy world ones own life is in literal danger if you don’t hold their faith in just their exact way. The god is always benign. Clearly if there were any gods, they’re unconcerned, unknowing, dead or not actually real.

>>14016503
You have that absolutely backwards, you fool!
All the gods of Earth are completely lacking and provably false. The only gods left are the ephemeral weird ones, like Spinoza or even a kind of Lovecraftian god.

>(male)
It really hurts your fragile egos to talk with a woman smarter than you, doesn’t it

[Anonymous No.14017574]

>>14017478
let's face reality...
look at butterfly


seriously

it is so dumb i doubt humanity to be endowed with a kind of spirit or superior entelechy

it is due to people like these that i claim: we are nothing but brute matter