Quickscope420dad posted:

Good post + username combo

5

Apogee15 posted:

Not like there is anything else good to respond to here. If you reply to something here, it's inevitably going to be dumb. Just like this post.

Narciss posted:

I always laugh at pasty college dweebs who think they have it all figured out. Yes, your beliefs are surely more valid than a religious tradition borne out of the desert sands that now spans 1/3rd of the world. Nevermind that it has been vetted for 1400 years and you're 19 years old.

Quickscope420dad posted:

at least they can provide crazy introspective experiences by loving your mind with psychotropics

oh hey guys heres some wine and a biscuit, how spiritual do you feel now

Glorgnole posted:

little bit late to the thread but, did anyone actually read all of this?

Spatula City posted:

Whoever this dude is that originally typed that inane dribble of santorum, he probably looks EXACTLY like the sort of dudes he's criticizing, but, like, maybe wearing a cross or something as well. Huge weenie.

I mean, could he have been any more condescending? It's like he thinks he's talking to children. Which, uh, I guess he thought he was.
loving Christian apologists.
"The real maturity is believing in Jesus."

No, the real maturity is not caring whether there's an afterlife or a God, but rather about how to live the best possible life. If that involves believing there is a God and afterlife, go for it. But most religion makes me miserable even thinking about it. It's cosmically unfair, in a way that the Indifferent Universe isn't. Imagine this big ancient being making arbitrary rules about who gets to live forever in happiness and who gets eternal torment. I'm sorry to anyone who believes in it, but the whole thing seems positively evil to me. The universe is absent any independent source of justice or injustice. It is. That's what I suspect.
Religions imagine man-made concepts as things existing outside of humanity. Abstractions, though, are still loving abstractions.
Truth doesn't exist outside of human perception as its own thing. "Good" and "Right" as well. We control these things, they do not control us. We built them. and they aren't universal. There's no existing Platonic ideal of the right path, of what justice looks like. We have to constantly strive for it, incrementally improve where we can, based on a combination of what works and our own judgment and feeling.
There is one element of Christianity that I appreciate, and that's Jesus. Jesus is loving great. Although it's really hosed up that the cross is Christianity's symbol. It's a symbol of pain, torment, and death, and I always remember that every time I see a cross. Christianity is a death cult.
But back to Jesus. Jesus advocated universal love and acceptance, decried rich people, warned about how religions could be turned into commercial enterprises, called usury evil, and (although this was scrubbed out of the official Bible by the horrifically misogynist people who put that book together), he was pretty progressive about women.
This is a bit cliche, but I really do think Jesus would be a socialist.

c'mon kyrie, call me a moron, I dare you.

EmmyOk posted:

Tautologicus posted:

where do you go from "morals are a means of controlling the chemical reactions in your brain". what do you do with that. why reduce human existence past the point of recognizance. why conflate biology and ethics to that degree. yes it's possible, but should you? it's barely recognizable as anything that could produce culture or moral philosophy. seems more like a way to continue to make the current discoveries of science relevant, by attaching them to as many disciplines as possible, almost by force. i dunno, i find your thinking fascist and dull. i see it a lot though.

no one's got anything to offer these days so people spend their time tearing each other down. i don't know what the alternative would look like and i don't know if there's ever been a golden age of western thought, but this isn't it. maybe around the time of Thoreau and Emerson, Enlightenment times, maybe that was the heyday, and even that was searching for integrity. All this trash now is senseless. internally consistent moral philosophy is not impossible and it has been done before. people don't even see that as something to aim for now.

Tautologicus posted:

That's just the chemicals in your brain telling you that.

TOILETLORD posted:

i said philosophers name in post i must be smart. i mean its not like it's

gently caress the ROW posted:

Chuck Dorkins, son of Dick Dorkins, became a strong baptist.. makes you think

Cardiovorax posted:

an amazing effort at putting big words together into the semblance of sentences without saying anything of value at all

Negative Entropy posted:

But isn't that really the philosophical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears?

Cardiovorax posted:

"to be or not to be" is about whether you should commit suicide because life sucks or if you shouldn't because the alternative is unknowable but possibly even worse.

it was also written 500 years ago.

Maoist Pussy posted:

"Nietzsche is dead." - God

bigzak posted:

ya it's dressing up in girl clothes and dancing infront of mirrors

Glorgnole posted:

i'm gonna emptyquote this now instead of the thing in the op.

Torka posted:

sometimes I prefer the kjv version of a passage just because it sounds more poetic

Tautologicus posted:

A family member of mine wrote a huge book on the Gospel of Thomas, and his basic point was that it can be dated earlier than the Synoptic Gospels and likely served as the original material for them. He's backed that up in a lot of ways, it's a 1400 page manuscript. But it goes into other stuff too.

So it is possible Christianity in written form did get started soon after Jesus's death and not 150 years later with Paul. It just did not look very much like what was later determined canon at the Council of Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas is more personal and human, albeit cryptic with Jesus teaching about the kingdom of heaven yet at the same time saying "I am not your teacher".

Kyrie eleison posted:

religion is an interpretation of our existential situation. it is a positive/constructive possibility. a religious person is simply someone who prefers to keep this possibility open. a religious person has hope in a positive outcome. the atheist chooses despair and prefers despair.

Blahsmack posted:

religious gamblers fallacy?

D1Sergo posted:

Agnosticism is wrong because God CAN'T exist because the definition of God relys on him/her/it existing outside the bounds of observable reality. If he existed he would exist, which contradicts the idea of being God. Checkmate, agnostics .

Benedick Cuckold posted:

yeah honestly these days being religious is really more of a lifestyle accessory than it is a deeply held belief you arrive at after long, careful, and heartfelt consideration

Chris Awful posted:

I hope this is the right thread... but why did God give people the ability to kill each other? My mommy says that we can kill each other because god gave us free will, but I think free will is superstition. I think people are compelled to kill and have no absolute choice in the matter, similar to how some people in poverty are compelled to commit crimes. Why does homogenous place such as Denmark have such a low murder rate, where as a very diverse place such as Honduras is the murder capital of the world? Who knows, but clearly some people are more compelled to murder each other due in part to their environments.

Negative Entropy posted:

Are you a philosophy major nomad?

Torka posted:

cain murdering abel is a metaphor for agricultural civilization overtaking and destroying hunter-gathering as a way of life