Religious Philosophy

>>8366569
*tips fedora*

>>8366569
>knows little to nothing about religious texts
>starts a thread refuting religious texts as a whole
This is literal reddit, boyo

> intuitively immoral
Really? If you want to mock sacred texts (which is fine, I was in high school once too), you have to try just a little.

>intuitively immoral
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You need to stop with the literal interpretation, friend. Unless you're arguing against fundamentalism, there's no need for it.

>>8366569
>Supposedly written by the creator of the universe
Doesn't negate any message written in them. the author isn't important, the work is.

No one cares if Socrates even existed, we care about what he taugh.

>Claims to be universal
So do many other non religious books.

>Its philosophy can only be applied to a small time and place
not even gonna bother with this one.
by the looks of it you don't even understand what philosophy is.

>Moral philosophy contained within is intuitively immoral
nothing written in a book can be "intuitively immoral", and there is no "moral philosophy", philosophy can't be moral or immoral

and to claim you know all philosophy in all religious text seems naive and quite presemptuos

>Every other line is an injunction against not believing the philosophy
annnnnd it's a troll thread, no one can be this stupid.

i'm an atheist and you're missrepresenting us.

shut up and back to >>>/b/