Is religion a mental disease, as Dawkins maintains? If so,

>>446538
religion was the founder of our modern day morals
morals are kind of important in a society

>>446538
Atheism is a mental disease, not the other way around. A society without morals will wither and die.

>>446815
Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray. They foster doubt in the validity and supreme authority of the word of the Lord and His laws. Many philosophers have attempted to use morals and ethics to disprove the Lord's benevolence. Like with science, Satan has enabled this by giving man the illusion he can understand ultimate truth, know more than the Omniscient. But the basis of science and morals and ethics is not knowledge, it is doubt, proving they are the work of Satan. Make no mistake, morals and ethics are humanistic in nature, an imperfect human tainted by sin can not begin to comprehend the thinking of the Creator. To attempt to apply them to the workings of the Divine is folly, morals and ethics do not apply to God. It is hubris to treat God as but a simple man. There is no God but God, concepts of relative fairness do not apply to God, for God has no equals. The only morals and ethics that apply to God are how he he judges all of mankind as the ultimate judge. The concept of morals and ethics are ultimately paradoxical. Man in his imperfection can not determine the ultimate truth and judge between right and wrong. Man putting his own finite thoughts ahead of the thoughts of infinite knowledge is beyond pointless. It is man saying he is superior to God. People enter conflict because of differing morals and ethics, a Satanic plot to divide and plant the seeds of doubt. Philosophers are Satanically inspired, they think because they doubt, not because they know. Only He who is perfect and omniscient can knows truth in its entirety, and the only being capable of judging what is good and evil. You can not judge God by the standards of man, you can not judge the word of God or the law of God, to do so is to presume dominion over God, the Creator of all. You, as man, need only know the absolute Truth of God, you, the imperfect being, can not comprehend nor understand God, the perfect being, you can only know God. God is the Truth.

File: 1450235627673.jpg (78KB, 677x475px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 677x475px

>>446538
Religion is an attempt to institutionalize mysticism.

Mysticism is transformative thought, in other words, the altering of one's perception of the self, the world, and the act of being. All religious traditions begin as mystic traditions. Mystics tend to be awesome people who instill confidence in people and assure them against the existential dread inherent to being a human being.

The result of mystics being likable and comforting is that everyone wants to be one. The problem with being a mystic is that it is extremely difficult and requires years of dedication to pursue. People don't want to spend years pursuing peace of mind, they want it now.

Religion is when you strip all of the actual work out of a mystical tradition, codify it, and then present it as a "how-to" guide for regular people. Instead of having to fast for 40 days, or pray for twenty hours, or live an austere life in a monastery in contemplation, you just say some words and bump your head against the ground and that's it.

What's ironic is that it works. Religion absolutely, unquestionably works as a tool to escape uncertainty. But for some people it isn't enough. In prior eras these people would have been mystics, but in our modern era, there is an alternative.

That alternative is recognized in every mystical tradition and indeed in most religions as the most dangerous of demons, Mammon. The god of material distraction, of wealth as a source of comfort, the God of Stuff. This is the god we worship now, even many who believe that they are Christian or Hindu or whatever.

Materialism has pervaded every element of the human experience, and has given people the terribly mistaken impression that they can fill the void that is their awareness of the inherent futility of their existence with Ipods and Game of Thrones. It is a cult of trivia, the idea that by ignoring the hole, it will go away. This religion is immune to criticism. It will kill us.

>>446848

>Materialism has pervaded every element of the human experience, and has given people the terribly mistaken impression that they can fill the void that is their awareness of the inherent futility of their existence with Ipods and Game of Thrones. It is a cult of trivia, the idea that by ignoring the hole, it will go away. This religion is immune to criticism. It will kill us.

And how much have you done against it? Have you given away all your material goods to a thrift store and started wandering the streets with all you own?

>>446538
That's a brief history of idolatry.

There are plenty of iconoclastic religions, the major one being Islam.

>>446783
>religion was the founder of our modern day morals
>morals are kind of important in a society
morals come from a society, a religion is not needed for morals. 400 years ago, Christian morals thought nothing bad of slavery, 150 years ago that had changed, no burning bush or angel in a cave needed for that.
So yes, morals are a social norm, if there is some sort of religion present they try to justify it via some holy book, but in the end morals are man made.

>>446863
Avoiding materialism doesn't mean avoiding material, it means not deluding oneself as to the nature of material and its relationship to you. Material does not make you happy, it allows you to distract yourself from misery. Happiness is achieved through mastery of the self.

I have not mastered myself. I am not happy. But I recognize why this is, and I am trying to fix it. That is the point of all of this. There is nothing wrong with owning stuff, but there is something very wrong with living for stuff.

File: what a pseudoscientist looks like.png (55KB, 601x314px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 601x314px

>>446870
Also, Dawkins is a prophet of a messianic ideology(/religion) himself, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Poor man's sophists.

>>446893

So in other words, you declare X a disease that will, in your own words, 'kill us', but this isn't an incentive enough to take radical action against it, just because you would feel uncomfortable for a little while?

Sounds to me like you don't really believe materialism to be the biggest threat in the world. Otherwise you would have done something about it by now

>>446538
That's not very accurate in regards to modern day religions, though. Islam, Christianity and their different branches, the ones to which pic related applies the most, were consciously created and used as political tools, legitimisers of power and social order, and declarations of belonging to (or denial of) a centre of power. Pic related happened throughout history when the two belligerents had opposing political goals and aspirations anyways and used religion as the formal casus belli. No major conflict has been fought based purely on differing beliefs.

>>446815
And you certainly need anthropomorphed deities, holy texts and international institutions to have morals. How else could it even be?

>>446538
>Is religion a mental disease, as Dawkins maintains? If so, what is the cure?
Disease is the wrong word. But the cure is human development, as pointed out, highly developed societies turn irreligious. Which kinda solves the problem.

File: 1443247688657.jpg (127KB, 494x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 494x640px

>>446538
No, but atheism is pure autism

>>447004
>The study, which looked at posts on 4chan

>>446538
Lots and lots of promiscuous sex, as per the instruction of Wilhelm Reich.

>>447187
>Lots and lots of promiscuous sex, as per the instruction of Wilhelm Reich.
I'll give that I try.

>>446538

Strange to think of a disease affecting most of the species.

The cure, such as it is: educate and enrich.

>>446538
>that image
*tips banana into anus*

File: 20130824.png (625KB, 648x3956px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 648x3956px

>>446538
defining "disease" is not actually that specific

File: rock.png (76KB, 500x424px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x424px

How can you pretend to be morally righteous and superior when this is a typical atheist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy95hbGiBmI

Atheism does not immunize you from the "mental disease" you are referring to, which is in fact not a disease, it is human nature to have ego and pride and people indulge in it because they are immoral.

>>447306

Bit like saying Robert Reed is a typical theist, no?

>>446538
that's a brief history of abrahamic religion, not of "religion"

>>447306
>your sign is fucking offensive

lel

File: Steampunk.png (880KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 900x900px

>>446538
Hear hear good sir!

>>447306
So the arguement is that all atheists believe in Camus style nihilism while at the same time being arrogant and that scientific research is bad. I don't get it?

>>446918
You didn't even read what he said. The material isn't the disease, it's our unrealistic expectations of it that are. >>446959

>>446538
This board is a fucking joke. Come back when you're out of high school friendo

>>447784

It's important to understand the psychological appeal of the false equivalence. If a good, slick, reasonable-seeming equivalence can be drawn, then at a stroke, virtually all criticisms of your own position are negated.

I mean, why is it that theists who are inclined to make sweeping statements about atheism (particularly "New Atheism") so often say "It's a religion"? Is it because they actually believe it's a religion?

Of course not. If they actually believed it was a religion, they wouldn't bother pointing it out. Lots of religions regard all others as false, lots of religions proselytise. In fact, insisting that atheism is a religion risks prompting the question: Are you saying there's something wrong with being a religion?

No, they say it because they feel that it negates any critique of religion that an atheist might offer. Conveniently skips the bits where they're expected to think about and address those criticisms. [spoiler]Not that all theists do this, of course.[/spoiler]

File: Atheist.png (322KB, 713x995px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 713x995px

>>447784
Quite right indeed and I must also declare that I haven't the foggiest idea why so many people seem to enjoy these ridiculous comics. Take the picture I've attached for example, it presents a complete strawman and doesn't even try to give a coherent argument yet I see it get posted all the time. These are very troubling times when basic concepts of reason and logic go ignored in favor of ludicrous tomfooleries.

>>447812
Atheists can be as dogmatic, shrill, and myopic about their worldview as any Christian. The fact you're still drawing battle lines between us and them and not understanding the real problem has always been the smug, self assured ignorance of those who profess to have the Truth - whether they read it in the Bible or because le Negro science man said it - tells me you don't give a shit about the truth and just wanna look smart regurgitating ebin burns from the God Delusion for fedorafags who have never studied a word of what they're categorically dismissing completely out of hand

>>447856
>The fact you're still drawing battle lines between us and them

Hmmm. I didn't do that, though. Looks like everything my having done that "told you" must not apply.

>>447865
Your post was just a bunch of bullshit of WHY CALL US A RELIGION ARENT YOU IMPLYING RELIGION IS A BAD THING HEHE CHECKMATE while completely missing the point that what's being compared is the equally insular and cultish attitudes of both camps

>>447896
>Your post was just a bunch of bullshit of WHY CALL US A RELIGION ARENT YOU IMPLYING RELIGION IS A BAD THING HEHE CHECKMATE

No, it was an attempt at accounting for the psychological motivations of such theists (I did identify them as a subset) that offer that argument. The part about implying that religion was bad was (go back and re-read if you must) offered explicitly as evidence of the argument's insincerity, not as a concrete implication.

The fact that you're freaking out this intensely over a brief analysis of a popular but bad argument should concern you.

>completely missing the point that what's being compared is the equally

Nah m8 it's the very implication of 'equally' that I'm addressing. One of us is definitely missing the point of something and I'm fairly sure it's not me.

>>446848
>Religion is an attempt to institutionalize mysticism.
Diz shit...
Before 1905 orthodoxy in Romania was a mystic group, tho a majority in the country it was a mystic church, a place where you went to practice rituals of Christ..
After 1905 became an independent state Institution... from that point forward both country and state went on downfall.

>>446990

That's due to lack of correct religious education. Teach people about Turin Shroud or Fatima and they will get more religious.

>>446538
>religion just popped up one day for no reason

I hate naturalist fallacies, that's where Dawkins and Harris and the rest of them lose their credibility.

>>446890
>Christian morals thought nothing bad of slavery
How convenient of it that not a single religion or society thought bad of slavery, but Christian countries were the first to legislate an effective global ban on slavery and it's trade.
Name a single society that ever came to fruition without religion and religious morals.
Atheist cuck.

File: 1450362037794.jpg (31KB, 343x362px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 343x362px

>>447954
>religion didn't pop up one day for no reason

Yeah, god showed up to Abraham and that was the beginning of religion, right?

>>447954
>I hate naturalist fallacies

Come again?

>>447964
Dumb frog poster.

>>447948
Wouldn't they respond with a resounding "meh" when confronted with those?

The shroud of Turin is a forgery which isn't even consistent with the bible (Provided you actually think the bible has any accuracy) since John specifically states that Jesus' burial wrappings were not one singular piece.


And Fatima has The issue of not having particularly consistent accounts for what happened.
The isolated "miracles" aside, the "miracle" of the sun was not consistent across all of the spectators, making it a greater case for mass religious hysteria than it does for the sun actually "dancing" in the sky, especially since it was a massed crowd of people that were already expecting a religious miracle of some nature and were told to look at the sun.

>>447954
>religion isn't the institutionalization/externalisation of inner experiences of the deepest essence of reality, experiences have always existed and will continue to exist as long as we are born thinking, feeling beings that question their place in an impossibly vast and mysterious reality

>>447948
>Teach people about Turin Shroud or Fatima and they will get more religious.

No, they will become less religious when they find out that it's about as rationally justifiable as the average urban legend

>>448015

Eucharistic miracles then.

>>448053
Claimed acts of magic concerning bread and wine are not particularly specific.
I may need you to narrow it down for me.

>there are people still arguing the historical reality of Bible stories you get told in Sunday school in 2015

>there are people whose faith in God as the creator and ultimate sustainer of reality is so strong... They can only defend it by trying to prove moses did in fact part the red sea

Lmao. Come on

>>448081
>>>/r/atheism

>>448098
I'm not even atheist. But come on nigga, the shroud of Turin? Arguing miracles? Is your faith completely supported on fucking Jesus' miracles?

>>448102

. . .the shroud uprighted itself every Friday for all to see. . . .

>>448102
I just joined this thread but to answer you.
My faith is supported by the martyr blood that is spread in every centimeter of land in my country.
Orthodox priests died and fought for universities to stay up, for kids to get free education... Then they got persecuted just because of their belief... people tried really hard to torture them and the absolute majority of them after years of torture came out almost saints contrary to what anyone would expect...

>>448112
so it's literally a meme for you? good to know

>>448107
>I can only support my belief in the supreme principle of the universe with stories and parables meant to illustrate deeper truths I am too fucking pleb to investigate so I'll settle for defending my faith with history channel-tier evidence instead

>>448112

That just means that these people are dedicated to their ideas, not that those ideas are true. It's admirable, but not a rational justification for anything

>>446538
Following tradition, keeping with the community, and trusting your gut are things normal people do. Especially since there is no absolute proof there is no god. There's nothing particularly wrong with being a theist so long as they don't try to justify actions with it.

But it is already fixing itself. Religion is no longer at the forefront of science and culture as it once was, not that it isn't still somewhat relevant. Being together these days doesn't always require religion.

>>448136
>Especially since there is no absolute proof there is no god.

My gut tells me that this is a bullshit fallacy

>>448127
Well exactly because it has nothing to do with rationality.
Orthodoxy is a mystic system that dictates how you behave and what your end-game goal is, it also answers the question for purpose of life... everything else is the same.

The question would be why would I just accept this mystic system? If it's just a mind game then it cannot possibly influence millions of people that are better prepared, educated and stronger than me. It must a be a reality in the archetypal plane of collective mental... it is a reality, you can experience all the mystical aspects of it.
I'm sorry about Catholicism, Protestantism, Pentecostals.. they are all anathematized and have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ and the purpose of the Church, they are independent state organization with material purposes and it's obvious that it will clash with day to day activities.

>>448127
>MUH RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION MUH RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION MUH RATIIBAL JUSTIFICATION

You faggots are giving me a fucking headache

>>448107
Source?

The shroud is not consistent with burial traditions of the time (Also the one claimed to have been used in John) since it is one solid piece and the body is typically cleansed of blood beforehand.
The weave is wrong for the time.
The blood is apparently not blood, but rather paint, given samples analysed and the fact that it doesn't look like old blood.
The body is slightly anatomically incorrect.
There is no distortion which would be the case if the shroud was wrapped around the figure.
The blood does not interact with the hair properly.
The shroud is dated to the middle ages.

>>448143
Well there isn't any absolute proof, nor is there any proof that would suggest that there is a god.

>>447960
> but Christian countries were the first to legislate an effective global ban on slavery and it's trade.

Ashoka

>>448168
See
>global
See
>Indian caste system

>religion is a mental disease
>attempting to make this idea into an enforceable law
>without the society turning into something akin to state atheism
>basically the USSR under Lenin and Stalin
>...b-b-but w-we atheists are n-not c-communists o-or anti-theists
>inb4 ur a fundamentalist hurr

The funniest part of this is that its said by person who has lived most of his life inside an academic vagina, in a liberal society that grants him freedom to argue against its own human rights, where as a society based on this premise would either make him a potential perpetrator or a victim of his own thinking.

That is amazing levels of cognitive dissonance.

Thankfully he backtracked on these remarks.

>>447960
Christian Europeans had no problem making the largest slave trade in the world.

They abolished it when it was no longer profitable.

>>448065
Lanciano.

>>448201
>person who has lived most of his life inside an academic vagina

Eh?

Also, 'cognitive dissonance' doesn't mean quite what you seem to think it does.

>>448216
Muslims, Aztecs, Incas, Indians and so on had no problem establishing slavery for their entirety of their existence.
Size or quality doesn't matter, it's that it happens.

>>448112

That sounds significantly less bad than what happened to the Cathars. Is this an argument that their religion was true?

>>448216
Exactly, they just looked on a different page in the big book o'morals and changed it. Morals come from societies, not from books,and as the society evolves, so does the interpretation of the book.

That said, the West (ex US) has largely given up on Religion, the majority is irreligious, but they still have morals.

>>448148

Maybe dumb shits like you should be given headaches

>>448221
>who is Richard Dawkins
>complaining about religious persecution and violence in the name of beliefs
>while advocating a position that would effectively be the same thing in practice
Try reading that again.

>>448154
>Well there isn't any absolute proof, nor is there any proof that would suggest that there is a god.

There isn't any absolute proof that I'm a computer AI, yet you respond to me like I'm a human behind a computer.

What does that tell you?

>>448216
And also note how the only place that was still dependant on slaves, the American south fought tooth and nail to keep them. Ironic that today its known as 'Jesus land'

>>448244
>>while advocating a position that would effectively be the same thing in practice

What position where?

>>448244

I've read it several times m8. I still have no idea what the fuck an academic vagina is, or what it means to have spent a great deal of time in one.

>>448242
>random fuckboy on a cartoon board who thinks everyone else's beliefs are suspect except his own
>thousands of orthodox mystics, saints, and holy men

Yeah I think I know I'm siding with

>>448247
>a supreme principle is just as plausible as [wacky reddit scenario], checkmate theists

Nigga pls

>>448252
See >>446538
One example where he made said remark:
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/493324386511118336

>>448266

I wonder what those mystics would have thought of a follower who unironically uses the word 'fuckboy'

They'd probably be rolling in their graves

>>448264
This is only what someone lodged deep in>>448266
an academic vagina would say

>>448271

>a supreme principle

Define this please

>is religion a mental disease
No. Dawkins is a philistine and should stick to studying genetics because that's all he's good at.

File: autism levels.jpg (57KB, 567x561px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 567x561px

>>446538
Atheism is actually a mental disease.

As a result of autism, atheists cannot contemplate the poetic language of religious texts. Nor can they contemplate theological principles. This is why atheists consider religion to be "fairy tales": autism inhibits them from being able to understand the hidden meanings of religions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-hutson/autism-atheism_b_1557098.html

>>448275
What else should I call someone who looks at someone with the integrity and comportment of an orthodox sage and thinks he's just a snake oil salesnan

>>448143
It's not. Science is silent on the existence of God.

>>448247
That you cannot prove or disprove a statement that is not falsifiable and that any scientific discussion about the existence of god is therefore futile?

>>446538
>there are people who believe religious conflict is or ever was a "battle over belief"

White liberals everyone

>>448293

Someone who doesn't fall for unfalsifiable woo-woo?

>>448296
>Scientific discussion about the existence of God

Please devise an experiment that can determine whether God does or does not exist.

>>448294

I think he means that drawing conclusions from the lack of 'absolute proof' is fallacious. It is, but I forget which one and I'm not arsed googling.

>>448294

Science is also silent on just about every other supernatural entity people have managed to come up with, yet that's no reason for you to believe in any of them

>>448302
>You shouldn't believe anything that isn't falsifiable

Then you cannot trust your senses or your rules of reason.

>>448313
I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that science is useless in determining the existence of a higher power.

>>448316

Not absolutely, no. Yet that's no reason for me to not trust them

File: abodisco.jpg (35KB, 400x264px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x264px

>>448308
I just stated that this is impossible. If you want to believe in imaginary friends you believe in imaginary friends. Neither is it impossible to do that, nor do I see added value in trying in.
>I live in a country where ~60% of people do not believe in god or follow a religion

>>448320

And yet people still attach epistemic labels to the supernatural. In fact, they roll out the most extreme labels they can find

>>448323
I agree. But you can't determine the extent of your beliefs about the world using a principle that is only used by scientists for pragmatic purposes.

>>448302
>orthodox saints peddle unfalsifiable woo-woo

The fuck you know about it. Learn a little humility. You're too autistic to comprehend why someone would dedicate their lives to a higher truth, that's no one's fault but your shitty impoverished inner life. You're not le enlightened science man having a sensible chuckle at the shitflinging savages crowding around his ivory tower. The fuck you know about life, about reality, about love, or God, or wisdom.


I was raised orthodox. I'm not it anymore but I saw the value in its system and I saw the integrity of its members. I'm not gonna have some pampered hipster faggot talk shit like he knows anything about.

>>448331
>But you can't determine the extent of your beliefs about the world using a principle that is only used by scientists for pragmatic purposes.

Then why do I have to consider religions 'true'?

>>448346
You don't.

>>448335
>tells others to 'Learn a little humility'
>proceeds to generalize others in namecalling rant

Tu quoque

>>448346
I'm a different person btw

>>448352

So I won't burn in hell if I don't think the events of the Bible actually happened?

>>448216
And Christian Americans lead the abolitionist movement.

Pol Pot was an atheist. See, we can keep playing this game. Or you can realize that just because one subscribes to a faith, that doesn't necessarily mean whatever they do represents their beliefs.

It would also help if you took the time to realize the actual purpose of religion.

>>448320

It kind of refuted the idea that the Universe was 6000 years old or that people were magicked out of clay or that lightning was caused by Thor or that banging pots would chase an eclipse away or that diseases were caused by "God" being angry or evil spirits. And vast numbers of other supernatural claims. Obviously you can keep pushing your "higher power" backwards into unrefutable territory, however science has rekt the claim "muh god did it" time and time again.

>It is true that if philosophers have suffered their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.

Thomas Huxley

>>448356
Is baby mad he can dish it but he can't take it

>>446538
Religion is the catalyst for civilization
Most likely the main reason why people began to gather together to begin.

Beyond that it brings an appreciation for something beyond the material, a sense of the aesthetic and subtilty of reality.

Atheism is a mental cancer, a symptom of egotism and heroic materialism

>>448371

No, I just don't consider yelling 'faggot' to someone a valid line of reasoning

>>448373
>Most likely the main reason why people began to gather together to begin.

Do apes practice crude religions, IYO?

>>446848
This a thousand times. This guy has actually studied religion and the origin of religion, which is mysticism. Unlike empiricists who like to ridicule man's urge to connect with the divine "a mental sickness."

>>448383
Bit difficult to ask apes what they believe

But we know the very earliest constructions are religious in nature, created at times when most humans would have still subsisted on hunting and were fairly nomadic. In this way faith helped unite the people and drive them to create great works to honour a higher power.

>>448400

And how does that make their assessments of those higher powers true?

>>448377
Neither is calling a rich spiritual tradition you don't know shit about 'woo woo' or implying that anyone willing to suffer for their beliefs has just been c ucked by confirmation bias for 40 years

>>446538
Deism > agnostics > everything els > horseshit > atheism > abrahamic religions (note abrahamic religions are not nessecarily the bottom tier depending on who is practicing it but as a rule their holy books are filled with so many contradictions and allows one to cherry pick what one should belive and claim it is the word of god when actually its the word of some guy who died thousands of years ago it also tends to promote extremism and intolorance of other religions/cultures)

>>446538
Religion is the norm. Atheists deviate from the norm. Therefore if anyone is mentally ill it's atheists.

The cure is a good beating. They should be locked in a monastery and beaten with sticks until they come to their senses. That's how drug addicts are cured in the balkans, it'll work on atheists too.

>>448409

I love how no one is allowed to put down anything you believe, despite that you constantly put down everything that you happen to disagree with

It's very consistent

>>448406
real recognizes real

>>448386

Mysticism seems like more of an attempt to push back making up stuff to the realm of "if I can be even more vague about the stuff I can make up then no one will ever be able to prove it wrong".

>>448420

That doesn't make any sense

>>448400

You're missing the point of the question. People were gathering together before they had language and quite possibly before they had thumbs. I'm not denigrating the importance of religion in human history, I'm just saying let's not go nuts.

>>448414
We don't need your ridiculous "tiers" in a poor attempt to assert your superiority.
Agnosticism isn't a faith nor is it a position on its own, and "deism" is just another lame excuse for agnostic theists to claim some petty moral superiority over everyone else.

>>448432
There's a difference between simple troops and civilization, especially when megalithic construction comes into play.

>>448439

Of course there is. My point is gathering (even on a small scale) clearly predates any plausible date for the development of religion. If you want to claim religion is the reason people first began to build, then try that. It's pretty speculative, but it's not as out there as what you've been saying.

>>448422

You literally have no idea what you're talking.

The mystic yearns to connect with the divine at the deepest levels of his being. These are states beyond logic and all discursive attempts to describe them. There's a reason why the Zen masters employ paradox to provoke the sudden experiences of enlightenment, or why mystics choose to describe God only as what he is NOT.

I love how religious people get bashed for implying humanity is important in the overall cosmic scheme of things, but as soon as you faggots read anything about the limits of our ability to describe the Ultimate it's all "WHADDAYA MEAN SCIENCE AND LANGUAGE CANT DESCRIBE LITERALLY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE WAAAAH"

>>448449
>My point is gathering (even on a small scale) clearly predates any plausible date for the development of religion.
can you prove that? there is enough archaeological evidence to back up the assertion that some sort of mystical tradition existed even among other early hominids

>>448422
it would seem that way since you've obviously never bothered to read anything related to any mystical tradition in your life.

>>448453

And I love how your beliefs are apparently extremely delicate and complex and should be treated as such, yet you generalize absolutely everything that isn't in line with them

If you're a christian, you have a remarkably bad understanding of the golden rule

>>448459
>can you prove that?

YES

APES

JESUS

>>448468
that doesn't look like any evidence
at lease we have grave goods from pre-humans and burial ceremonies showing at least some awareness of the afterlife.

anything older it becomes more difficult as the evidence is often worn away by time.

>>448465
I'm not Christian. You're projecting. The exoteric aspects of a religion are only the finger pointing the moon. These were writings inspired and informed by the experience of a divinely liberated consciousness, a consciousness that saw the vanity of worldly ambition and the emptiness of views. Their only solution was to go beyond all appearances and penetrate the thing-in-itself through meditation and prayer to get at the Ground of Being and reality.

These were states beyond language, precisely because the signal to noise ratio in language can be so large. The fact you think the rejection of discursive reasoning as a means to attain divine reality is a fault of the mystic and not our woeful ineptitude of language's ability to describe the undiscribeable says everything I need to know about where you're standing on this issue. You don't want to learn. you want to dismiss.

File: 1443246240081.png (81KB, 500x475px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x475px

>>446538

ITT

>>446819
>be Omniscient and Omnipotent
>create man with flaws and free will even tho i could have made them perfect with free will
>give them the chance to sin, wich i know they will since i am omniscient
>punish them for sinning wich i knew they would
>banish them for doing what i created them to do
>wait thousands of years
>reveal my self to one person at a time with several hundred of years between them
>this causes countless wars and attrocites, rember i am omniscent so i knew this would happen
>punish all those who refuse to belive in me even tho i have never given the majority of them any reason to belive in me other then the massive religions that do nothing but contradict it self and cause tensions between people
>punish all those who sin even tho i created them with original sin wich effectivly means i punish all humans (rember i am omiscent so i knew adam and eve would eat the apple)

sounds alot more like the adversary then god dont you think?

>>448492
>that doesn't look like any evidence

Apes travel in packs, bro. That's not evidence, it's proof, outside of some highly-contrived special pleading that human evolution involved isolated mating pairs until suddenly religion.

Again, this is not to denigrate the role of religion in human development. "The reason people first began to gather" is way, way too big a stretch.

File: Gods power.jpg (26KB, 424x417px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 424x417px

>>448512

>>448433
But deism is superior tho :^)

File: 1449877347146.jpg (145KB, 586x820px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 586x820px

>>448422
>>448424

Because you haven't bothered to do any research on it! God damn, how dense are you? Go read Israel Regardie's tge Philosopher's Stone and we can actually discuss these matters without basing our discourse on opinion only

This isn't entry level shit you idiots. Its as if you were trying to describe rocket science to me and all I say is "well that just seems like a bunch of boom boom fire explosions to me. I can put a stick of dynamite into a can and behold a rocketship"

Again, go read a fucking book before spouting off your shit. This isn't about who is right, it's a matter of ignorance. The average person knows next nothing about esotericism even though prominent figures in society like Freud were heavily influenced by things like medieval alchemical symbols and concepts which relate to consciousness. It's not that simple.

>>448503
>You don't want to learn. you want to dismiss.
>I have concluded this extremely general conclusion from a few posts
>by the way, you're not allowed to generalize anything I believe in

Honestly, you just show to be really confused. You certainly don't show any of the supposed open mindedness you pretend to believe in. Otherwise, you would have applied this to everyone's views, not just your own.

In an ironic twist, you show to be everything you rail against

>>448464

That's the lame come back every religious person comes up with. It strikes me as akin to the astrologist whining that I can't ignore astrology until I have learned all of their esoteric knowledge on how the position of the stars affects the chances of winning the lottery.

After you have finished learning every single thing there is to know about why some Hindus worship Hanuman the Monkey God or believe eating a tasty steak is a horrible sin or why Catholics believe cheap wafers and red wine, literally, turn into the blood and flesh of a Palestinian carpenter or how the deep theology of Islam proves Mohammad spoke to an angel in a cave then you can come back to me.

Once YOU have spent several centuries learning every piece of nonsense theology about every other religion ever and logically refuted them all THEN you can start whining about how I just don't know enough about mysticism to "understand" what you are saying.

Until then you can pitifully bleat about how I just "don't get" nonsense you have pulled out of your own anus to your heart's content.

File: 1384730086375.jpg (8KB, 255x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x247px

>>448527

See >>448530

>>448528
>I can shoot off demeaning generalizations about a topic I am totally and obviously ignorant about but don't you dare call me out on it mister

Give it a rest

>>448530
He's literally talking about mysticism which is the complete opposite of the dogmatic, exoteric rules you're posting about you absolute fucking mongoloid

>>448517
yes
apes do often travel in packs

but faith in the divine drove apes to unite as more than merely packs, but civil societies, centered around great works in honour of that divine.

this is pretty basic anthropological theory, unless you're going to pull the "civilization is subjective" card and claim chimp bands are civil society.

>>448539
>I am totally and obviously ignorant

And again, how do you know this?
Also, don't you see how this little phrase pretty much debunks everything you've been posting so far? You want people to look deeply into your point of view, while at the same time spending precisely zero time looking deeply into the views of others.

I'd debunk your horseshit, but I'm afraid you don't really need me. You debunk your own points yourself by demanding respect, while at the same time being a condescending douchebag to everyone who holds slightly different opinions as your own. Combine this with the fact that your views come from a book that also tells you specifically not to treat others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated, and I seriously begin to wonder who the unbeliever is

File: 1391260039433.jpg (18KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x300px

>>448550

Oh I'm so sorry!!

Does it have any evidence behind it that couldn't be described as "being pulled out of a monkey's asshole"?

>>448537
That's childish. You could have just said "No, you." The message would have been the same.

>>448571
>mysticism
>has a book

Fucking meme kiddies

>>448572
>>>reddit

File: Oak_Cathdrl_interior_sm.jpg (64KB, 570x705px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 570x705px

>>448530
>That's the lame come back every religious person comes up with.
maybe because Atheists have a chronic case of extreme ignorance when it comes to theology beyond the most blatant pop-culture aspects of it.

its not to understand the little idiosyncrasies of various faiths, but the nature of faith and God overall, the particular practice is largely up to the practitioner as the vehicle of his choice towards the same goal.

I get you're trying to be witty by saying I should go back and read over everything ever written on every possible faith ever then come back and lecture you, but really there are plenty of works out there that can shed light on the philosophy of faith which you should look into.

This isn't specifically for you but for anyone interested (as having some understanding of the faiths involved would make it easier), I picked up this book recently by a Japanese Buddhist where he looks at christianity and his own faith both as mystical traditions. I found it interesting to see such an alien view of my own faith.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/index.htm

>>448561
>this is pretty basic anthropological theory

No it's not, dog. Nothing that absurdly simplistic is basic anthropological anything.

>>448589

My point still stands.

You debunk your own mystical woo-woo by demanding respect, while giving none to others

File: buddha.jpg (593KB, 2556x1767px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 2556x1767px

ITT: Mostly people having no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Religion is a way of explaining human nature through allegorical language. I'll use Christianity and Buddhism as examples:

Christianity's most famous allegory is that of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were tempted by satan (natural temptations and hedonistic desires) to disobey God. Eve was convinced to do so, and in turn convinced Adam (women are known for tempting men). After disobeying God, they were banished from Eden (the temptations and hedonistic desires of humanity are unfulfilling).

Christianity and Buddhism have the same belief in regards to the world. The world is riddled with selfish temptations and hedonistic desires that are unfulfilling and harmful. Therefore, the path to Salvation or Nirvana is to remove separate oneself from worldly desires (monasticism). On the other hand, completely giving in to these desires is Hell.

Religion should be treated as a philosophy. After all, removing all the theological aspects of Jesus and Buddha basically makes them philosophers. However, autistic atheists never were good at understanding philosophy. Hence why they cling to black science man.

>>448589

>rebbit, rebbit, rebbit

Well that will certainly show us all how you have the answer to the nature of the Universe via unfalsifiable claims a retard could have made up.

Thanks for that. You sure showed me.

>>448592
oh boy

social structure, especially the divisions between various social groupings (such as bands, tribes, nations, ect...) are at the heart of athropological social theory.

at the most apes form kinship groups based on blood, this is not at all comparable to the kind of social complexity that was required to build something like Stonehenge or other megaliths

>>448600
mysticism and philosophy are not exactly the same however, and Jesus/the Buddha were far more than mere philosophers.

>>448602
What part of "genuine spiritual experiences are beyond the ability of the discursive mind to imagine them, let alone describe them" don't you understand you fucking retard? This isn't a cop out, it's a plain statement of fact that past a certain mind discursive reasoning is USELESS

>>448617
True. Many Muslims consider them both to have been prophets of Divine Knowledge.

>>446538
>If so, what is the cure?

The same as for trannies: not enabling it

>All religion was banned by the Khmer Rouge. Any people seen taking part in religious rituals or services would be executed. Several thousand Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs.

A fedora's utopia?

>>448600
>Religion should be treated as a philosophy.
I agree for the most part.

Each belief describes aspects of the same experienced reality, with different viewpoints intermixed, and within each belief you can find variations of the same central thesis and its outlying details.

>>447964
>>447979

>abrahamic faiths are the only relijuhns in the world

I'm talking animistic/pagan practices m80, something that developed in every corner of the world. They just allege that everyone is born an atheist and then ONE DAY some asshole decided to con everyone.

>>448530
What a simpleton you are. You can't even admit you're ignorant about a subject that purposely uses double blinds to obscure the knowledge of a teaching and keep it from being profaned by mental toddlers like you. Do you realize that the examples you mentioned were symbolic in nature and in purpose?

>>448631
China de-emphasizes religion, and all faiths that do exist in the open must be controlled by the State on some level.

desu they have arguably created the best working example of a faithless fascist society.
soon they will even implement a sort of "morality score" by which people are literally ranked in terms of how much they love the State and how good of citizens they are.

>>448633
one's particular religion is more up to their own choosing, its like everyone trying to go down the same road, and all picking different vehicles.
some vehicles might be more efficient, or others might suit their users better, but they all ultimately head towards the same goal.

>>448652
China is full of degenerate sociopaths, they don't give a shit about their fellow man and literally invent mystic nonsense reasons to justify torturing animals, ie. "the pain makes the meat tender" when science tells us the opposite.

File: tibet_execution_3.jpg (11KB, 411x244px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 411x244px

>>448652
>desu they have arguably created the best working example of a faithless fascist society.
If you have to kill innocent people to make it work, IT DOESN'T WORK.

>>448622

These can reproduced by secular meditation techniques, there is nothing special about them. You are just attaching a bunch if unecessary nonsense to something that doesn't need to be understood in that sense at all.

I

>>448688
You know what? Post examples, debunk them. Post examples of "nonsense" and debunk why they are a totally unnecessary edition to a secular meditation experience. Never mind the assumption that all mystics follow their breath for 10 minutes like Starbucks "Buddhists" and call it attainment, just do your research and post specifics because I'm getting tired of lecturing you about shit you're proud of not knowing

>>448527
Please sir, could I have some more on the Alchemy-Freud connection?

>>448433
>"deism" is just another lame excuse for agnostic theists to claim some petty moral superiority over everyone else.


You do know that Deists arent agnostic rigth?
also what does it have to do with claiming moral superiority?

its simply the rational choice
there is no way of proving any organized religion or holy scripture is the work of a god and i guess i dont belive in a god in the popular sens, but i do belive in what ever intelligence created the information needed for the complex structure that is the universe not to mention life it self, wether this is uncaused, self caused, or created dosent really matter since it caused and we are here rigth now and the intelligence needed to create structure out of chaos is still here with us

also spirituality and faith is still real
in the majority of cases we rely on physical evidence to prove or change a belief that they hold in their mind
yet EVERY SINGLE human has at one point or another belived in a power greater then themselves wich they can not understand and wich they can in no means prove with physical evidence yet they still belive it
this faith and spirituality has been for a long time been exploited by religions, most religious belief is based on information recived from a source that cannot be verified sometimes as hearsay, millions will follow the commandments of a religious text with ever having spoken to the author or they will belive in miracles they where told of by someone who wasent even alive or present at the time

Deism holds that spirituality and faith should be personal and individual since you are the only one who should be able to discern what you belive in, you should come to your conclusions your self and not just follow what others tell you or by what you have read sure these things can and will effect your belief but in the end only you should have the final say and that your individual opinion should be respected even if one does not agree with it

>>448680
it works in that its the best and most stable example of a Godless society which has replaced the divine Jade kingdom of God with the material Red kingdom of men

File: depositphotos_6374619-Two-girls-giggling.jpg (259KB, 1024x712px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1024x712px

>>448708
>he doesn't even know newton more about hermetics than he ever did about gravity

>>448688
medditation is a lot mroe than secularists make it out to be. I've been to such meditation groups and in essence they don't seek anything other than calmness, there is no development, no introspection, no understanding of anything beyond the material confines, only breath control for twitchy caffeine addicts.

while yes such exercise has health benefits, the spiritual exercise of meditation is far more than merely that.

File: religion_ispoison.jpg (136KB, 593x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 593x800px

>>446538
>If so, what is the cure?
Communism. nothing cures religious delusions as fast as Communism does.
They got the right ideology, the perfect methods and the right men to get the job done.

>>448362

> And Christian Americans lead the abolitionist movement.

Yes, they went right against their holy book which condones slavery.

> Pol Pot was an atheist. See, we can keep playing this game. Or you can realize that just because one subscribes to a faith, that doesn't necessarily mean whatever they do represents their beliefs.

Pol pot did not kill people "for atheism." A mass murdered who is Christian is different then someone using the bible to mass murder people who they think are witches. The bible has a direct line of motive for that type of slaughter.

>>448711
the claim of "rationality" is the claim of superiority.
in Calling yourself a Diest it means you dismiss the mystical side of faith and the connections between all things created to one another. Beyond that it also implies that those who are faithful and follow the mystical traditions are somehow ignorant of the material reality. Its not about denial of the material, but learning to recognize the spiritual and physical for what they are.

>>448713

> Jade kingdom
> Red kingdom

This is not a video game.

The only thing you need to have a moral compass is empathy.

>>447004

>looked at posts on autism forums

What a ridiculous research, obviously religious people with autism are more likely to find consolation in their religion rather than chatting with others about it.

>>446918
Why does he alone need to do something? Why can't you?

Oh yeah, 'cause instead of reading this anon's >>446848 post fully, you just react and cast blame to deflect from the fact that you yourself feel inadequate.

I'm not fully happy either, but at least I'll admit it.

>>448736
>they went right against their holy book which condones slavery.
it also emphasized the innate freedom and equality of men

File: evola.jpg (26KB, 363x501px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 363x501px

>all these posts using Abrahamic religions to argue about why religion is shit
>not even touching on Oriental religions
>not even touching on the metaphysical side of
spirituality
>no Hermeticism, Gnosticism, or Occult beliefs even mentioned

Sure is pleb in here.

>>448749

> it also emphasized the innate freedom and equality of men


And then goes right along and violates the freedom and equality of men. Just as Yahweh murders in the name of thou shall not kill. The bible is a mixed book which makes it as holy as any other man made book.

File: mfw amerifats believe there are no chinese forces south of the yalu.jpg (38KB, 271x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 271x400px

>>448720
>He responds to people trying to expand their knowledge base with reaction images

>>448740
>The only thing you need to have a moral compass is empathy.
morality is more than mere empathy, as the moral action isn't always the "nice" one.

today we have created a cult of "niceness", where people instead of being taught to be "Good" are told to be Nice.
similarly Ethics has come to dominate over Morality.
Niceness in this regard is an ultimately selfish sort of ethos, it is primarily concerned with creating sycophants and not stepping on anyone's toes. the "Nice Guy" seeks only not to offend, since offense is worse than truth; he treats ethics as a mode of exchange and reciprocity, whereby one nice act by necessity should be returned with a "nice" act to him.
It shows all the outward similarities towards being a Moral Man, but the underlying motivation is sour and twisted ultimately leading to bitterness and resentment among Nice Guys.

>>448751

Maybe because like the Abrahamic religions that all sounds like bullshit.

>>448751
we talk about what we know, and Evola was mostly concerned with ideas of honour and courage rather than the nature of God.

still his description of the Spiritual Warrior is another thing which the secularists fail to understand, which is why similar wars of faith will never be defeated by them.

>>448761
Dibs cap

>>448726

That's a bunch of secular claims about meditation that has nothing to do with magic.

>>448703

Of not knowing what? Something you made up or something you belive that someone else made up?

How about providing me with evidence?


http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate

>>448760

Empathy is creating a sympathetic chain of thoughts by placing yourself in another persons shoes. Your rant on "niceness" is more humor filled to me. In a world filled with violence and murder we should put more kind acts into society not less. Nice guys are not killing us...apathy is.

>>448765

> No evidence.

>>448766
>sam harris

also you gravely misunderstand the purpose of meditation, its not some tool to help calm you down, but a mode of introspection and detachment from the material.

>>448769
Niceness creates Apathy
people are taught that niceness is an exchange relationship, when that doesn't happen people give up on it and stop caring.

Morality and being Good is detached from any material gain or reward, being Moral is its own reward and goes beyond empathy to do what is right, rather than what makes people feel good for the time being.

File: sciencethroughtheages.jpg (77KB, 766x448px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 766x448px

>>447784
>scientific method is atheist
that is kind of an arrogant belief

>>447812
Most of the arguments by atheists are moral arguments, they argue that religion is a curse on society and responsible for a multitude of problems. So I'm not sure what isn't to get here. Religion isn't the root cause of these problems, it is a minor factor at best, and some insane atheist ideology like communism could take its place.

They could be looking at the psychology behind this behavior, they could be discussing theology (beyond "muh teacup") and abstract metaphysics, but that would be boring, instead discussions degrade into bitching, trolling and mockery. A little banter in the other direction is justified. Isn't it?

I am in the right place for this, surely.

>>448778

Niceness creates happier healthier groups of people. Apathy comes from a spoiled society too busy to care about how they got here.

Sounds to me like you've have the niceness squished out of you. Being "moral" is it's own reward but people acting kind and gentle is not the downfall of western civilization.

>>448781

Hi, morality doesn't matter to me when it comes to deities. The fact that you have no evidence is more pressing.

File: 0082 - XHykLww.gif (2MB, 425x481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 425x481px

>>448761
And I assume you know this through extensive research of all those different religions?

I'm fine with people dismissing an idea after having given it a fair chance, but I can tell from the way people are posting here that most of them don't know shit about the history or metaphysics behind religion, which effectively puts them in the same boat as /pol/ posters who believe in the things they want to believe and dismiss contrary evidence without ever even considering it.

>>448739
>in Calling yourself a Diest it means you dismiss the mystical side of faith and the connections between all things created to one another

no i do not

Deism is isent about how one practices ones religion it is about why one does it, it promotes questioning ones beliefs and the traditions one practices to question what it offers not only one self but the community as a whole
the only way to know why one thinks or acts as one does is to question why one does it
but yes as you implied i belive that most religious traditions and dogmas offers nothing but conforming those who practice it to the belief

personaly i practice no traditions and hold no belief as set other then that intelligence created the structure of the universe and a very basic set of morality wich basically boils down to do onto others as you would do unto yourself
all my other beliefs are "temporary" if you will because i constantly question my own beliefs and as my knowledge and understanding grows so does my view of the world change with it instead of having my knowledge limited by my religious beliefs
i am not saying that every religion limits ones knowledge as a matter of fact a religion that would limit one persons way of thinking migth help another persons understanding to grow

>the claim of "rationality" is the claim of superiority.
i guess that is true but from my point of view it is the rational choice not the one wich makes me superior

may i ask what beliefs you hold?

>>448781
But annon Descartes had his books BANNED.

>>448796
i forgot to add that i view equilibrium as one of my "set" or "core" beliefs

>>448795

> And I assume you know this through extensive research of all those different religions?

Yes. Have something new that hasn't been put to the test yet? I'm all ears for new ideas.

> I'm fine with people dismissing an idea after having given it a fair chance, but I can tell from the way people are posting here that most of them don't know shit about the history or metaphysics behind religion, which effectively puts them in the same boat as /pol/ posters who believe in the things they want to believe and dismiss contrary evidence without ever even considering it.

That was an entirely too long post to call me ignorant and biased. How about instead of such assertions you just present evidence for whatever belief system you want to support.

I'm open to accepting anything and rejoice when new sources can change my mind. Nothing so far has done so in regards to super natural. Doesn't mean I can't keep looking till I die!

>>448778
>people are taught that niceness is an exchange relationship, when that doesn't happen people give up on it and stop caring.
It's not just that. Because it's an exchange relationship, those who are actually in dire need are marginalized. They, by definition, have no exchange to offer.

>>448804
>I'm open to accepting anything and rejoice when new sources can change my mind. Nothing so far has done so in regards to super natural.
So you reject the existence of a permanent self?

>>448804
>How about instead of such assertions you just present evidence for whatever belief system you want to support.

I don't really support a particular belief system as I too am still learning about them.

With that being said, check out the 3 books of Occult philosophy by Agrippa. And while you're at it stay the hell away from Aleister Crowley. His works are, for the most part, gross misinterpretations of the Occult.

I'd also suggest Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World for a bit of a primer because it helps explore the worldview associated with this particular kind of spirituality more, which may be necessary depending on how accustomed you are to reading 16th century books on this sort of stuff.

>>448822

Isn't it just possible you could stop believing in things that have no evidence behind them? Whether that is the occult, or that Yakult yoghurts balance the gut, or that the position of the stars means you might meet the perfect partner or that Jesus magics himself into cheap red wine and biscuits, or that Mohammad wrote the perfect book thanks to an angel he met in a cage or that a four leaf clover will make the sports team you support win.

Why is there any need for making up nonsense?

>>448766
Read the first 50 pages of Ebola's introduction to magic. What you're not understanding is that a lot of esoteric traditions believe rationalism and science are a great tool, but a shitty master. Basic meditation uses the natural rhythm of the breath to center a person's awareness against the rush of their thoughts and emotion. With enough practice the mind quiets, and there is only a pure egoless awareness which many people describe as being peaceful and blissful. This state is beyond the grasping of the limited ego mind, because it intuitively perceives itself as fundamentally of the same substance as the world it experiences. Empathy and compassion are a natural by product of these practices.

Mystics from all cultures throughout time agree on then essential content of their experiences. Either a) these figures have actually described the ultimate nature of reality or b) their truths only happen to pertain to the human mind, and the real is a kind of metaphysical black box. There are good arguments on both sides, but dismissing the best of religion tight out the gate is retarded

>>448907

Don't you think this sort of experience could be better explained with research into neuroscience and secular meditation techniques rather than claiming it makes magic real?

>>447306
>that video
>typical atheist

Shitty b8. You don't even hear of the typical atheist, because he doesn't flaunt his non-belief everywhere.

Meanwhile religious people literally either shove their religion down everyone's throat with a gun, or through the school system.

>>448859
I really hope that you're not the same poster I was just replying to, because if so this post really made me reconsider giving you those recommendations.

>Isn't it just possible you could stop believing in things that have no evidence behind them?

The evidence is in the metaphysics.

>Jesus magics himself into cheap red wine and biscuits, or that Mohammad wrote the perfect book thanks to an angel he met in a cage or that a four leaf clover will make the sports team you support win.

This makes you sound retarded and confirms that you know nothing about the metaphysics and higher meaning of the religions you claim to have extensive knowledge of.

For fucks sake read some Aquinas and stop pretending you know everything.

Behind all this "nonsense" as you called it is a complex system of ideas that have influenced some of the greatest thinkers of the previous centuries. Too bad you'll never know that because you, ironically enough, take the Bible too literally. Hell, the New Testament is filled with Hermetic allegories and symbolism. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all is not what it seems.

File: 1359984986016.jpg (101KB, 475x401px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 475x401px

>>446538
Kids in modern age mentality:
>I feel like I have a special brain, by virtue of the
fact that I live in the 21st century my mind is different than the mind humans had even 200 years ago.

>I am right of course everyone else is wrong my mind is special.

And serious response to the topic of the thread, religion is not disease.. it is a very complex thing that is very tightly connected with our being.
There are archetypal symbols which are recurrent durring historical moments, passages of transit of humanity and stages of civilization.
The elements of death, birth, psycho spiritual rebirth are recurrent in all cultures and religious traditions in the world... humans have developed complex rituals everywhere to assure the younger ones that there is an afterlife, because in that state people can be more productive and rise the quality of life for all the tribe, town, civilization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimskyW2iB4

>>448943
Yet all these pseudo-intellectuals that show their hate towards religious people or towards anyone that follows a belief system are basically normies.
No scientific background, no real understanding of any science and 90% of their facts come from pop-science.

>>448948
Anyone that uses their reason can see that religions are false.

This has nothing to do with having a scientific background or not.

>>448955
False according to what?
You imply that people 5000 ago lacked this specific concept of reason you hold now?

File: 1436292748645.jpg (159KB, 659x720px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 659x720px

>>448729
I wouldn't say it's very successful when the people return back to religion as fast as communism fails.

>>448955
Facebook-tier meme reply

The Buddha told his monks to think critically about everything a holy man might say. Al kindi and Aquinas were theologians and philosophers who believed rationalism and God could easily coexist. Aristotle was a darling in the middle ages for both Islam and Christianity

You're clueless

>>448980
Russia is still pretty atheistic, just people are appreciating their past and the cultural aspects of the Orthodox Church, especially considering its claims of being THE church translating to Russian divine supremacy.
>>448955
except everyone who used their reason and found the opposite I assume, but then you will say their reason is not "rational" enough.

>>446538

the truth lies in balance, an understanding of the fallen world and the divine truth that lies beyond it.

Balance is always key, few can master it. The atheist and the religious fanatic are both unbalanced force

>>448515
If God were to create something perfect, which he could, but would not because He is perfect, he would only be creating himself. Because God is perfection, and anything different from God is imperfect. By creating perfection, He is only recreating himself, since he is infinite, and all prefect properties are perfectly identical, there is no change, even if he recreates perfection an infinite amount of times. God still encompasses infinity, and of perfect nature.

Your implication is that God could create something perfect that isn't God, which is silly, because God is synonymous with perfection. That's saying God should create a perfect imperfect thing. Because God is perfect, duplication of God only creates an identical being, which is synonymous with the first one and essentially the same entity.

Concepts of differences due to identity only exist because of differences. One man is not the same as another man. But a perfect God is identical to Himself. You might argue, what if you had two identical people like twins, but because they are finite, they can not occupy the same space-time as each other, and are inherently different in relation to the universe. God is infinite. A perfect being becomes synonymous with Him.

>>448942
Whilst I'm not religious myself, preach it. Why some people believe they can overturn literally millenium's of philosophical and metaphysical debate on the nature of God and religion by saying "well science hawhaw" is idiotic.

Religion and philosophy focus on completely different areas to scientific study. Maybe science can provide different accounts to contradict modern miracles, but it can't disprove the existence of a God in itself.

File: Aquinas.png (468KB, 942x877px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 942x877px

>>448942

>The evidence is in the metaphysics.

Nope. It can all be reduced to cogito ergos sum

>For fucks sake read some Aquinas and stop pretending you know everything.

Pic related.

>This makes you sound retarded and confirms that you know nothing about the metaphysics and higher meaning of the religions you claim to have extensive knowledge of.

It's not me that claims to know everything about everything. It is religious people.

>Behind all this "nonsense" as you called it is a complex system of ideas that have influenced some of the greatest thinkers of the previous centuries.

Galileo believed in astrology dude, Newton believed in alchemy. We all stand on the shoulders of giants but if you think referring to people from centuries ago other than their specific ideas that were proven right by time and evidence is a better argument than some reatrd that says "hey it's 2015" then you are very, very mistaken.

>>449031
But you can't disprove God with "Cogito ergo sum" either? How is that even an argument for or against the existence of a God?

>>449031
>metaphysics is just cogito ergo sum

Kill yourself my man

>>449042

When did anything I don't know have to be explainec by "god did it?"

>>448759
That asshole isn't me. Also, I misspoke. It was Carl Jung who was heavily influenced by alchemical symbolism and concepts. Freud may have incorporated some of the philosophy into his work as they were collegues, but it seems he was more influenced by the jewish kabbalah, albeit to a much lesser degree.

Links:
>Kabbalism influences on Alchemy, Psychoanalysis, and Analytic Psychology
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00332925.2012.677652#/doi/abs/10.1080/00332925.2012.677652
>Jung and the alchemical revival
http://gnosis.org/jung_alchemy.htm
Also a book, "Kabbalism and Postmodernism: a Dialogue"

I'd post more but my phone is cumbersome as fuck

>>449070
It doesn't, but you can't disprove God by saying "I think therefore I am". Where does that statement even come into this fucking debate??

>>448966
>You imply that people 5000 ago lacked this specific concept of reason you hold now?

They certainly lacked the ability to think critically and skeptically, i.e reasonably.

>>449088
>It doesn't, but you can't disprove God by saying "I think therefore I am".

It is the sum total of what philosophy can objectively prove.

It was certainly never an argument for or against the existence of god until you made it one.

>>449090
Then how on Earth did they build the Pyramids, or do complex mathematics, or invent a phonetic writing system...

>>449090
Tips

>>449031
>t's not me that claims to know everything about everything. It is religious people.

That explains why religious people have been fervently debating and studying the concept of God since the birth of religion, right? And it also explains how new concepts and theories on the nature of God are constantly arising right?

Seriously, you are fucking retarded. Please refer to >>449043 and just kill yourself.

>>449093
Because they didn't apply the same standards of reasonability to the material world as they did to their supernatural rituals and such?

Pretty much the same thing that most religious people do today. They believe in God and say Darwin is the Devil, but when they go to the doctor they pretty much acknowledge the superiority of medical science over prayer.

>>449092
Metaphysics doesn't all reduce to that. If you reduce all of metaphysics to that statement then no other objective reasoning could exist, nor any rational or scientific discovery, and so we have to further our understanding of metaphysics regardless of it. It clearly doesn't all reduce to that statement otherwise nothing would have been discovered or debated since the 17th Century.

>>449102
I meant of course the other way around, they don't apply the same standards to their supernaturalism, as they do to the material world.

>>449102
Medical science and the existence of God are completely compatible, as spirituality and materialism are by nature two different things

>>449112
>as spirituality and materialism are by nature two different things

Yes, one is tangible and testable and the other is white noise.

>>449102
Hey buddy I don't think you get it but no ones talking about the le family guy epin religious jokes XD over here if you think thousands of years of religion and philosophy has been summed up by that Jesus camp documentary or a couple of Bill bye debates go back to school the adults are talking

>>449099
It's also weird that Religious people are so often drawn to notions of epistemological humility.

>>449124
I never said thousands of years of religion and philosophy can be summed up by a couple of shitty debates or a Jesus Camp documentary, but if that's what you get from my critical statements about religion, you are clearly retarded.

>>448998
Okey let me rephrase that god could have created us so we would never have sinned wich in turn would mean that he would never need to punish us
god created sin not humans
he could have made us so that we where capable of sin but never actually felt the need to sin
the fact that god is omniscent means that he knew exactly what would happen with his creation it means he knew that adam and eve would eat the apple he knew original sin would be passed on to all humans he knew that he would torture the souls of man for all eternity in the pits of hell
he knew exactly how every single human would think and act before they where ever born
now since god felt the need to create humans so they sinned why make sin a sin, why make it so he would have to punish us for what he created

according to the abrahamic religions he created us so he could punish us and reward those who celebrate the fact the he will torture his creations for all eternity for no other reason then that he made them that way

God
Is
Satan

thats the entire secret behind abrahamic religions
ofc its the fiction of humans and what you say about "god" i.e the force behind creation is more or less true imo

now i dont know if you are a christian so this migth have been pointless to argue with you but you sure as hell sound as one so i do it anyways

last but not least you touched none of the other subjects i presented you only stated that god is perfection
your entire post was based of one missused word

>>449140
You equated thousands of years of religious behavior with some kind of soccer mom shitrag headline maymay stereotype of all religious people like some shit out of south park. It's exactly you meant fuckwit

>>449172
No I didn't. You just can't read.

>>449179
We're here literally giving you examples that rationalism and faith aren't mutually exclusive and you're sti here getting your fucking tip on

>>449168
God in his infinite capacity created every possible form of imperfection, of which you are but one. God's doctrine was created for your specific imperfection. Genesis says God created the Earth for man, not the universe, nor the heavens. You improperly addressed >>446819 in the first place. You can not apply human morals and ethics to God, which you attempted to do. It is illogical and impossible.

>>449168
>this is what humanists actually beleive

>>449205
you still have not touched the subject on why god would feel the need to punish for the imperfections he created

>>449197
You haven't done shit other than spewing bile at me m8.

So fuck yourself.

>>449222
no that is what the 2 largest religions on earth tell us

>>449228
>he doesn't believe there is a war between light and darkness going on RIGHT NOW

>>448605

Yeah, you're moving the goalposts. This:

>social structure, especially the divisions between various social groupings (such as bands, tribes, nations, ect...) are at the heart of athropological social theory.

... bears next to no relationship to this:

>>448561
>faith in the divine drove apes to unite as more than merely packs, but civil societies

Why don't you fuck off, mate? Like I'm not sure how stupid you expect people around you to be, but eh, manage your expectations.

>>449228
Because God's sense of justice and responsibility is absolute, because he is perfect. You as an imperfect being can not know the perfect thoughts of God. Rather, you are applying your finite, limited, human sense of justice to God. You can not apply human morals and ethics to God, which you attempted to do. It is illogical and impossible. But you continue to do so anyways.

You think you can hold God to the standards of man, because you falsely demand equivalence since God can apply his standards to man. To do this is to say man is God's equal, or daresay, His superior.

>>449234
Fucking retard. Go to bed its a school night

>>449260
so god is not benevolent?

>>448492

Burial cermonies aren't proof of the awareness of an afterlife though, its just about showing respect for your dead.

>>449300
Justice is benevolence. Your mistake is being humanocentric, and thinking human values trump universal laws.

>>449102
The thing I hate most about this argument, is that when medical science DOES fail, and you get better results elsewhere, that's not an argument against atheism.

>>449371
>and you get better results elsewhere

Like what?

>>449376
Well, among other things, prayer.

In personal experience though, the best means of knowledge for for treating my illness is the ineffable subjective knowledge that comes from personal combat with someone.

Which I guess is knowledge of "real reality" now.

>>449403
>Well, among other things, prayer.

Well now I know you're just a troll.

>>449328
>thinking human values trump universal laws.

Why would i belive this?
but i do belive we have diffrent opinions on what constitutes as universal law

>Justice is benevolence

no benevolence is benevolence, justice is justice

>Your mistake is being humanocentric

when it encompasses humanity being humanocentric is the only way to go
we can not rely that justice will be dealt in the afterlife when we can not even be certain of a afterlife

we can not rely on a god who does not prove himself therefore we must rely on men to prove themselves, to uphold the standards set by men
we have no standards to hold ourselves exept the ones we make
how could we possibly hold our selves to or base our standards against something we could never begin to understand
how could we possibly belive that we know what something we could never understand wants from us

there is no proof that holy scriptures are the word of god
but there is proof that they are made by men none of them deny that men wrote them that men dictated them

your mistake is beliving that you understand god there is no proof for anything you have said exept the fact that you hold it to be true
thoughts like the ones you have hade are what have created the standards and morals we live by not because god gave them to us but because we tougth of them
mabey these tougths are a act of god but since there is no way of knowing we can not rely upon it as a fact that it is god who made the tougths

blind faith is just as bad as no faith

File: 1443636954264.gif (2MB, 208x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 208x200px

>>449403
>Well, among other things, prayer.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Way to often I read about parents who have ignored medical practice to instead pray an illness away, like some sick version of Abe sacrificing his son to God.

>>449453
>Why would i belive this?
You tell me why you believe it.

>but i do belive we have diffrent opinions on what constitutes as universal law
The laws that apply to the universe as willed by God. Apples don't stop falling from trees because humans think it's bad.

>no benevolence is benevolence, justice is justice
Only God can determine the universal sense of good. Humans can barely scrape together a sense of good that applies to all humans, and even disagree with each other on that.

>when it encompasses humanity being humanocentric is the only way to go
It encompasses all of God's creation.

>your mistake is beliving that you understand god there is no proof for anything you have said exept the fact that you hold it to be true
You're projecting. God in his perfection is impossible for an imperfect human to understand. God is the only solution to the problem of induction, a finite being such as yourself only has the illusion that he can know truth.

>>449453
>no benevolence is benevolence, justice is justice

Not him, but the two can't conflict where they're determined by a single autonomous universal authority.

Keep the AfE in the realm of plausibility and it's all fine. Trying to move it into logical impossibility and you're just wasting your time.

>>449522
>You tell me why you believe it.

you honestly think i belive humans can will laws of nature to stop working? in that case you are dumber then i tougth

>Only God can determine the universal sense of good

true but we can not be certain of god,
wich is why we must establish a common sens of good and a judical system wich is adaptable according to circumstance and favors nothing but justice
if we rely soley on god to deal justice and to decide what is good and what is not we migth as well just remove all prisons and all laws since it dosent matter what humans do since god will deal the justice where he sees fit
we migth as well make murder theft and rape legal since everyone will be judged by god in the end so it does not matter what others do as long as you yourself behave

>Humans can barely scrape together a sense of good that applies to all humans

because the world is not black and white anon you can not apply one set of standards to every single human
you can create common standards wich the majority can uphold

>It encompasses all of God's creation.
elaborate please i can not see the context in what was discussed
it seams like you just spouted some generic response

>God in his perfection is impossible for an imperfect human to understand
i have not disagreed with you i have time and time again said that we can not know god
you on the other hand have claimed to know many things about god

>a finite being such as yourself only has the illusion that he can know truth.
are you not a finite being such as my self? you still claim you know the truth of the matter and you have implied over and over and over again that what you have said is the absolute truth


>You're projecting
No anon you are projecting your projection
i have done none of the things you claim yet you have done them all
all i have done is to say that we should not rely on something we can not know and that we should create standards and morals that the majority can uphold

File: 1445810474414.jpg (52KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x480px

Atheism is a mental illness.

God is real, atheimongs

>durrr nothing evolved to rocks which evolved to people

itt: atheists butthurt because evolutionism got debunked

>>449612
>because the world is not black and white anon you can not apply one set of standards to every single human
Humans are incapable of benevolence then, it's only God who knows absolute good who can be benevolent. If humans can not even agree on a definition of benevolent, how can humans use the fact that they judge God to not be benevolent as proof of His non-existence?

>>449413
>>449477
>We know our knowledge is the only valid kind, because experiences that don't conform to our expectation should be thrown out.
Not only do you fucks hate religion you hate science.

>People like you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Way to often I read about parents who have ignored medical practice to instead pray an illness away, like some sick version of Abe sacrificing his son to God.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Way too often have I SEEn parents who have ignored medical practice to instead demand a sick person go away, like some pathetic version of Stalin sending Darwinian off to the Gulag.

>>446815
Nothing about religion promotes morality. It promotes rule through fear

>>449640
That's weird, because without any cosmic justice, the only way to attain justice is rule through fear.

>>449641
You must be from a religion that doesn't have a big cosmic justice loophole. I'm planning on posthumous conversion.

>>449640
Poor bait.

File: 1448212078104.gif (2MB, 263x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 263x252px

>>449640
*tips* all priests... should not fear god... but me...

>>449640
Atheist states rule through fear.

>Communism
>National Socialism
>French Revolution and its barbarity

>>449636
> you can not apply one set of standards to every single human
this has nothing to do with benevolence

>If humans can not even agree on a definition of benevolent

humans can agree on a definiton of benevolance
if you can not comprehend this definition it is on you
Benevolence; tolerance, permissiveness, toleration, kindness against those who dont offer kindness in return, loving kindness against hatred

>Humans are incapable of benevolence then

humans are very much capable of benevolence this does not mean that all humans are benevolant

>it's only God who knows absolute good who can be benevolent

you have no need of knowing absolute good to be able to be benevolent

>how can humans use the fact that they judge God to not be benevolent as proof of His non-existence

i personally never did this i simply stated that the abrahamic version of god is contradictory and closer to what we would define as satan then god and that it is most likely the creation of man
how can god be benevolent if he punishes people for their flaws that is literally the opposite of the definition
either god is not benevolent or he does not punish
you cant have both

yet again you discarded everything i said exept what you could form a response to

File: gobekli.jpg (103KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x450px

>>446890
Religion predates civilization, so I'd say you are wrong.

File: NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg (34KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x341px

>>449748

Last two weren't atheist but whatevs. Other guy also a tard.

>>449768
>tolerance, permissiveness, toleration, kindness against those who dont offer kindness in return, loving kindness against hatred
Citation needed. The primary definition in most dictionaries is doing good, not your convoluted definition.

>>449800
Socialism is an atheist concept.

All of the modern political ideologies came AFTER the enlightenment period.

>>449803
not that guy but, nice rebuttal. you really furthered the discussion.

>>449809
>Socialism is an atheist concept.

No. A lot of socialists and communists etc have been atheist and many have incorporated atheism into their dogma, but no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

>>449820
Karl Marx praised Darwin.

Darwin´s evolution theory paved the way for the idea of communism.

Evolutionism is the platform on which both Communism and National Socialism sits on.

>>449829
>Darwin´s evolution theory paved the way for the idea of communism.

No. Gonna stop here, chief, you need to like, read some books and shit. And not whatever ones you've already read, real ones.

>>449835
Looks like you need to open a book and do some research.

Because its a well known fact that communists are godless atheists that believe in evolution.

>>449803
Yeah i honestly just took the first defintion page i found, i tougth it was also a bit weird that willingness to do good was not the first definition

but your original argument is still "people are incapable of doing good, only god can do good"
great job!

i would still argue that all those points stated are part of benevolence tho

"Good" values embodied by religions are humanistic, truthful values that transcend belief. The rest is delusion.

>>449839
>but your original argument is still "people are incapable of doing good, only god can do good"
No, the argument is that if people can't agree on what good means, then they are incapable of perfectly judging another as being good or bad. And such judgements are subjective and imperfect. Logically, only the perfect can make perfect and objective judgement. You can't apply your concepts of good to God like God can apply His concept of good to you. There's not even a human understanding of good, only a personal one.

>>446538
>horsey

>>449838
kek

communists were pleb tier evolutionists, just look at Lysenko

>>449940
Isn't this just a re-phrasing of the old "god works in mysterious ways" explanation? It still seems just as hard to rectify "good" with "kill all the caananites"

>>449969
It's the acceptance that God's mysteriousness comes from human fallibility. God is perfect, and him being mysterious is not a reflection that he is imperfect, but that you are imperfect. Only people under the illusion that they can know better than God attempt to judge Him, rather than judging themselves.

>>449969
>It still seems just as hard to rectify good with kill all the caananites

Should we wipe out cancer?
Should we wipe out ISIS?

If yes, why do you object to the elimination of ancient wicked cultures?

You and I might not even be here talking to eachother if it wasn´t for God keeping mankind pure in its early history, with the whole Nephilim thing.

>>449995
>wicked infants

>>449940
>people can't agree on what good means

then how come the majority of people share the same basic views on what is good and what is bad?

>>450005
>those poor baby cancer cells!
>that poor tiny tumor, let it grow! it dindu nuffin!

The Creator of the universe obviously knows better than you do, retard.

>>450009
Because social contract, which is why the social contract of good has changed over the ages and depending on the society. God has no need for a social contract, because there is only God. God has no peers.

>>450009
>the majority of people share the same basic views on what is good and what is bad?
Welcome to /his/ the history board. As you learn about history, you will discover humans have actually disagreed quite pointedly about these things. All the time, actually.

>>450014
Hey I don't even believe in thor.
I'm just that guy who gets you to say that genocide can be moral so that the rest of the world can cringe.

I find it ironic atheists use morality in order to judge God.

Why do you even care?

According to you, there is no God.
Therefore there is no morality. It´s all relative.
You believe in cultural and moral relativism.

What Hitler says because just as relevant as what Gandhi says. There is no absolute law. There is no good or wrong, everyone himself can decide since we´re all just a `cosmic accident`.

Atheism is a depressing and suicidal, nihilist world view.

If people believe they are just animals, don´t get surprised they start acting like animals

ITT: Atheist trolls troll atheists.

>>450029
Is bombing ISIS moral?

Answer my question.

>>450041
"The coalition targeting process minimizes collateral damage and maximizes precise effects on Daesh” - Brig. Gen. Thomas Weidley

>>450021
>>450020

Thats why i said basic
pretty much throughout all of history it has been considered bad to steal, kill innocent people and to cause needless pain (torture, animal abuse etc.)
this of course does not mean it has not happend but it has pretty much always been considered bad by the majority of the human population
i doubt there has ever been a period in time where the majority of humanity has considered any of these things good

File: 531425_10150941956067736_965042377_n.jpg (65KB, 720x557px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x557px

>>449940
>>449803

>>450206
>pretty much throughout all of history it has been considered bad to steal, kill innocent people and to cause needless pain (torture, animal abuse etc.)
No. Only from your peer group that you form a social contract with. Not with foreigners or people in classes lower than yours. You are hopelessly naive.

>>450020
>there is only God
if there is only god that means we are god

>God has no peers.
if we are god we are his equals

>>450231
There are no other gods but God. You can not have multiple concepts of perfection. There is only one perfection, and therefore only one God.

>>450223
>Only from your peer group that you form a social contract with

well there you are wrong
just because people see a action as wrong does not mean they can stop someone of greater social standing to commit them or punish them for doing it
its not like peopel think "oh hey that guy has higher social standing then me ofc he should be able to take every thing i own and kill my family if he wants"
just because they couldent stop a bad action does not mean they agreed with it

>>450245
But there is only god
and god is perfection
that means there is only perfection
wich means we are perfection
and if we are perfection we are god

>You can not have multiple concepts of perfection

i can have the concept of a perfect sandwich and the perfect weather
how is this possible if i can not have multiple concepts of perfection

>>450309
But the people of the higher class don't think it's wrong.

>>450322
Satan´s oldest lie

and ye shall be as gods!

>>450245

Now all you need to do is prove that an entity has a quality of 'perfection.' Sounds like you're just making things up.

>>450324
One person of high social standing migth not think its wrong while another person of equal social standing find it wrong
since they are of equal standing the one who finds it wrong can not stop him from doing it

>>450322
>But there is only god
In the context of God having peers, there are none. With man, there are many men.

>i can have the concept of a perfect sandwich and the perfect weather
Because these are imperfect ideas, you only think are perfect. But your idea of perfection might change over time, proving that they weren't perfect after all. Just the most ideal form you could conceive.

File: God.jpg (591KB, 700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 700x6826px

>>450329

The original cause (uncaused cause) HAS to be perfect.

>>450325
>god is everything

your words not mine if you dont like what that entails then dont belive it

>>450329
>induction

>>450333
But the point wasn't that someone people though it was wrong. You claimed there was a universal concept of good as understood by people.

>>450335
>Because these are imperfect ideas

just like your god

when you stand at deaths door and find no god nor devil no heaven nor hell, only your self
what will you do then?

>>450338
>god is everything
Where does it say that? You took "there is only God" out of context.

>God has no need for a social contract, because there is only God. God has no peers.
The meaning is that there is no one for God to form a social contract as an equal with.

>>450346
>You claimed there was a universal concept of good as understood by people.

no i claimed there was a concept of good that the MAJORITY of humanity has always agreed with
since only the majority agrees with it, its not universal

>>450325

Yes, because you should just trust Yahweh when he tells you he can't lie? How gullible are you?

>>450352
You keep projecting that it is possible for a human to comprehend perfection and that I claim to understand perfection. I only assert that perfection exists, not that my limited and finite capabilities of understanding can comprehend it.

>>450214
EBIIINNNN xD xD

>>450368
But that's not true. A Israelite didn't care if a Canaanite noble killed a Canaanite peasant.

>>450383
>>450383
yet if you would have asked that israelite if killing another human for no with out justification was bad he would have said yes

>>450336

Thomas Aquinas was full of shit. Cause and effect are temporal and don't apply till after we have a 'time' to measure. Nothing and I repeat nothing has to be perfect. You're just making that quality up as you go along.

>>450346

No such entity there to give a quality too. Perfect is subjective and wish washy while we're at it. We one day may be able to create Universes but it wouldn't make our speices 'perfect.' Nor would it make your deity.

>>450398
>No such entity there to give a quality too.
Unfalsifiable

>Perfect is subjective and wish washy while we're at it.
No, what you think is perfect is subjective. It's not that perfection does not exist, just that perfection is ineffable, and for a human, an abstraction.

> We one day may be able to create Universes but it wouldn't make our speices 'perfect.'
You wouldn't have created all of creation. Just a universe.

>>450373
>You keep projecting that it is possible for a human to comprehend perfection

yes it is completly possible for a human to understand perfection since perfection is a human concept
the ultimate truth behind the universe and its cause and reason for being on the other hand is unknowable yet you claim to know it as your diety wich you learned about in books written by humans

>>450397
Yeah, no. He probably would have said good, just like Trump would say Muslims killing Muslims is good.

>>450424
>yes it is completly possible for a human to understand perfection
Only as an abstraction, which is not true understanding.

>perfection is a human concept
Perfection is a transcends human understanding, the only concept is misunderstanding perfect as the most ideal humanly conceivable, or again, as an abstraction.

>the ultimate truth behind the universe and its cause and reason for being on the other hand is unknowable yet you claim to know it as your diety wich you learned about in books written by humans
That's a lot of projecting, atheist.

>>450426
you missunderstood when present someone not with labels but instead with just the word human wich could mean themselfs, their neighboor or somone on the other side of the globe they would then consider if killing somone without justification was wrong and 99 times out of a 100 they would reply yes it is wrong