How are there so many Christians on this board? I am not even an edgy fedora-tipper...

the fact is /pol/ kill atheism with the fedora meme. At least they got the part of goebbels's teaching right.
>There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the **er, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

>le pol boogeyman meme
New Atheism is killing atheism. Nothing else

I think that at the base of every person's thought is an assumption that either the meaning of the world is within the world, or the meaning of the world comes from outside the world. In other words, every starts their journey for truth but assuming a materialist perspective or a supernaturalist perspective. From a materialist perspective, Christianity is sheer insanity that does nothing but make life more complicated, and is therefore obviously wrong.

But from a supernaturalist perspective, althought still being sheer instanity, Christianity offers a near perfect explanation of temporal life, but one that still cannot be maintained without constant doubt.

I'm a Catholic myself (not larping, serious) and I find myself doubting nearly every day. I can't help but wonder why God even made this place. But despite this, it still makes more sense to me than the materialist chaos theory perspective that all this is mere chance. Spirituality is just too deep and real to be nothing. I have no idea whether Christianity is true, but I am absolute certain that there is something beyond this world.

Because the Christ as emanation of the Word is founded in the roots of our philosophical tradition and Veeky Forums is a philosophy board.

>In other words, every starts their journey for truth but assuming a materialist perspective or a supernaturalist perspective
*everyone starts their journey for truth by assuming a materialist perspective or a supernaturalist perspective

shit i can't spell

it is precisely in the fact that you cannot know for sure that you must believe. But belief is not something to be turned on like a switch, you must be true to your subjective inward passion. That is faith.

no rational arguement can convince one, you pick Christ because you feel his pain, and the sins he died for in your heart. It is all up to what you feel within, listen and you will be further in your path to personal truth, and faith, than most. good luck user

no they are attempting to do the same thing with the chrsitcukery meme as well, but personally I found the fedora meme much more entertaining

The essential principles of Christianity are good: 1) there is a good god 2) the soul is eternal (that gets Plato's two major commandments out of the way) and it is rewarded or punished on account of morality or lack there of 3) listen to the inner Daemon (in Plato's terms, but the in-dwelling spirit of Christ in their terms, conscience in modern psychological terms), 4) don't go against the established order (another platonic necessity), I mean, Plato couldn't have orchestrated a better implementation of his formula if he tried (or maybe his school did try and this is what they came up with (see Philo Judaeus). I agree that the widespread acceptance of Christianity here is pathetic (I know this has become a bit of a meme at this point but I honestly went to seminary as a Christian and even from the horrible quality of evidence that they provided with regard to the historicity of Christ (before looking at the other side of the argument) I realized how absurd it is that Christianity still has members in the era of access to information), but it keeps the sheep civil and there is a world's-worth of value in that

good post user. what would this value system be called? enlightened in the traditional philosopher-king sense? a callous mythocracy? keeping the sheep civil is more than half the battle and the proper end of Platonic praxis. what did you do after seminary?

I wouldn't consider myself religious but I love defending the religion against sperglords like you who think the only reason religion exists is to fool people into coughing up money.
I don't care if Jesus was real any more than I care that the Big Lebowski wasn't, yet I can still see the good in the teachings of both these men, fictitious or otherwise.
It is hard to have a constructive discussion of religious texts without some shitstain crying about how unjust it is that people like the advice supposedly written by a magic invisible dad instead of surrendering to existential dread of autistic atheism that plagues these threads.

OP you a) lack faith and b) need to look harder in your quest for evidence. Also, stay away from hardcore skeptics, they wouldn't believe even if a miracle happened in front of them.

I work in an abandoned coffee shop giving me the opportunity to continue to study philosophy 7 hours a day while being paid for it (no exaggeration, two rich women have a coffee shop that no one comes to, it's like being a professor but I don't have to teach, no one tells me what I have to study, and I get free coffee, you should look into it) I'm guessing seminary friends of mine browse this sight that would recognize my by the Philo references and if this is the case, say our dean's first name and I'll holler at you

The bible isn't to be taken literally, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either ignorant(probably intentionally) or dishonest. Once you get past that, and approach the book as if there is actually something you could learn from it you might actually find something useful there.

The main issue is that you're trying to approach your everyday life like you're a scientist. You're not, you don't have to prove anything to anyone so just trust your own experience. It's the only thing you have after all, and fucking atheists and pop scientists will have you second guessing yourself constantly.

People don't believe in god because they want security. A harsh judge, constantly watching over you and weighing all of your actions does not provide security. A pit of infinite, indescribable terror and pain does not provide security. People believe in these things because they feel true. Because they can feel the presence of the divine with them all the time.

I think the atheists are the ones who are really lying to themselves for the sake of security. They want to live in a world that makes sense, one that is consistent and understandable. That idea is more comforting to them than a god, and they'll say as much.

>no evidence that the Christian God is real

you've at least imbibed one fedora-tipping talking point. Islam and Christianity represent more than half of the world's population. Islam is a Christian heresy. The next largest is Hinduism at 15%. Hindus believe that there is ultimately one all-powerful god. It's silly to talk about the "Christian God" as if He's one of many when He's actually one of three or four. The phrasing you've adopted was spread by atheists as a rhetorical tool.

> It requires "faith," which necessarily means that you must trust it without adequate evidence.

Paul defines Christian faith in the New Testament. You've adopted yet another fedora-tipping talking point. If you don't want to sound like a fedora tipper, read what Christians say about their religion. Read the Church Fathers-- Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Maximos the Confessor, etc.

>It seems to me that the vast majority of Christians, and people from almost all other religions for that matter, only believe in Christianity for the security it offers. It offers an afterlife, and a heavenly being who looks after you. That is all well and good, and obviously I would WANT to believe in that, who wouldn't

You're projecting your own desires onto Christians. It seems to me your post is the hedonist part of you trying to talk the spiritual part of you out of taking Christianity seriously.

God doesn't give you a pile of evidence, he just gives you a sign. I don't even know if it was a sign from God I received, but it was enough to sit down and reconsider everything I have every believed. Five years ago I would have never thought I'd be a deeply religious person. There was never a written book or blogpost that converted me, it came from somewhere else.

>keeps the sheep civil
You would do well to be more civil yourself. You sound like a lame sheep

I'm a theist, but I think the only world that makes sense from the point of view of the human is the one in which justice is a certain principle, one in which a good monotheistic god is present, otherwise there is no reason, no sense

No surprise he's drawn to gnosticism living a life that's only pleasing to him.

I visited st.josephs cathedral in Montreal on le cote de neige. Standing before the crucifix I felt God's love burning inside of me. I felt the love Jesus had for humanity as he died for us on the cross. I felt it and how can I deny that call to faith, how can I lie to myself of that eternal love? For now if it was shown to me that the truth lies outside of Christ, id sooner stand with Christ than truth. He died for me, and I have the sin to doubt? Theres nothing to doubt, nothing inside of it but despair. If I doubt the Christ's love why not doubt everything, why believe in anything. No if truth is what I seek I will be forever lost, instead I choose faith. Faith and faith is all! My life before God, what else can there be but such somplicity, such contingency with every fraction of what is me? And if I have love for my neighbour it is first because Christ loves me; if I have the strenghth to endure it is first because Christ endured. He endured for me and so too will I! What else could there be but that?

Yes. There's a cliche that people turn to religion after terrible experiences, like nearly being killed or having a spouse die, etc. For me it was the opposite. My life was so easy and carefree. Nothing terrible had ever happened to me, until religion. For me, the terrible thing that happened to me was religion, that is, the realisation that I was living my life completely wrong. That realisation plunged me into a near-suicidal nervous breakdown, which was only resolved after being dosed up on valium enough to be able to rationally consider the path I was about to start taking. After a few weeks, I went to mass for the first time and haven't turned back. I still don't know what I'm doing, and I don't know that I could ever defend my belief intellectually. But ever since becoming a Christian I've been a purer, more courageous person than ever before. For the first time in my life I'm alive. God bless- (inb4 fuck off larper)

What is more civil(ian) than being a lame sheep? In my opinion it is pretty respectable to look at the 2000 years of oppression that the church has put on the people, put three years of constant study into understanding why the fuck Christianity happened, finding out the entire explanation (Philo invented it, it is not that fucking difficult, do a little reading), and then returning to a low paying job for the purpose of continuing my education as opposed to being some guy trying to publicize the obvious sham that is Christianity. This is Veeky Forums, the Christian culture here is inherently contradictory on both sides, it needs to go

Don't worry, Christianity is true user.

Religion is artistic not scientific. As a text of biology or physics obviously the bible nonsensical.
As a story depicting the subjective realities of life in an abstract way then it is very accurate.

t. polytheist who doesn't think there's a contradiction between religion and science.

Phew, I hope that means anything

>he doesn't realize magic powers are real

Isn't it possible that other works of literary art serve this purpose better than the Bible (God swallows thousands of innocent people into the ground, I mean that is sort of confusing as a way to understand the world)

Who's he ho?

Thanks man, I really needed that today

Just because there are better dictionaries than Vebster's Knockoffs doesn't mean that they aren't dictionaries. Here's another: just because your post doesn't prove anything in this topic doesn't make it entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
See what I am getting at?

Veeky Forums goes through phases and droughts of christposting. Probably some genuine, some shitposty.

This is like a really long post that like doesnt say anything

Pic related LARPers are a big issue however I think another big issue is that because athiesm is no longer countercultral that one sided critical thinking that initially triggered the athiest movement is now being turned against it.

It also helps that Christianity is a much nicer lifestyle and has a greater wealth of literature and art behind it

Ya i wasn't implying there isn't value in the Bible (but the value most people find in the Old Testament is projected (the only reason it was used was because philo superimposed platonic philosophy over its strange mythology for the purpose of justifying the platonic philosophy of Mark and authentic paul of the New Testament), i honestly believe it speaks great truth in mark and Paul, just not how it is generally interpreted

So based on personal sensory and emotional content you've reinforced your own delusions? Pretty run of the mill

No offense, I appreciate your tone, but don't you think Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the artistic spirit? There were certainly pseudo Christians in the past (dost. And others) and a few less than radical writers, but as far as the arc of historical art is concerned, don't you see it running counter to that of Christianity?

Idk what you mean re religious literature. Eliots best work is done before his conversion. Stevens is not religious. Whitman is not religious. Chaucer follows boccacio more than Dante. Shakespeare has his own world. The only great religious lit is inferno and paradife

*when he comes back.

It's not like when you die you all just go to heaven. Not that he was the real deal anyway. He didn't even fill the prophesies yet people still believe in him.

Bodily resurrection at the end of times, judgment and the reconstitution of Earth. The idea that we go to a fancy noncoporeal land is a Greek heresy.

And Dante was clearly under the gun from church life. Look at the first circle of hell. It was clearly where he wanted to be with Socrates and companies. And he shat on the church all the way through the three volumes. He had serious church pressure on him. I wrote a long paper on his platonic influences and I'm convinced

fpbp

Yes I clearly stated
>if it was shown to me that the truth lays outside Christ, Id rather stand with Christ than truth.

It felt as if there was a massive release of dopamine. In purely scientific terms the experience could be attributed to chemicals. But why was that triggered? Does science have an answer besides I made it be so?

Motherfuckerfuckyouthatmakesnosense

Again with the Dostoyevsky quote pawned off as your own

> but don't you think Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the artistic spirit?

Firstly all religion - even iconoclastic ones have longer and more developed artistic expression which when compared to atheistic ones makes it seem ugly and infantile.

Not only does its materialism have less and more shallow sources of inspiration to it but simply atheism is extremely young so theres much less examples. Religious folk have had on average 2000 years of art and a monopoly on educated and talented people. Atheism is now only just starting to make waves - indeed we have still yet to witness a atheist society totally independent of religious belief.

Secondly most people her are connecting with religion through Christianity simply because its so culturally close, were the userbase here Indian there would be a Hindu "revival" instead.

>Idk what you mean re religious literature

Religion produced by religious people and by people who lived and were influenced by religious societies.

This. This is an alright thread so far but you will notice that in most instances the "Christians" you mention will either resort to calling you a fedora or arguing that religion is best for society for reasons beyond faith or salvation which matter little to them. They see it as a tool and a statement.

You didn't actually list artists that support Christianity. No true artists (in my book) support traditional Christianity apart from Dostoyevsky and a couple other writers that like mythology and support Christianity because they appreciate the mythological aspects of it, but there are a fuck-ton of artists out there, most of whom loathe the idea of organized religion. That is what i was referring to. But name a few of your favorite Christian artists and I'll be able to develope a better idea of where you are coming from

>You didn't actually list artists that support Christianity....most of whom loathe the idea of organized religion.
Because Christianity specifically or any one religion isn't the important part, the important part is:-

-religion allows one to escape from mundane and hyper determinism access the divine and transcendent.

-religious societies have been around longer and produced more and higher quality art work collectively.

Science explains the world perfectly without god. Everyone here can't do STEM

Dawg, that's a dawge,
Why won't you list some Christian artists for the purpose of determining whether or not the Christian spirit runs contrary to the artistic spirit, the conservative spirit contrary to the liberal spirit

I think there's two aspects to this. One is that the mythology of a religion is contanstly reinterpreted and expanded. Paradise Lost is so brilliant it became part of the popular understanding of Christianity without most christians even realising it's not a part of the Bible.

The other part is that what separates religion from other art forms and gives it its gravitas is that it has condensed wisdom over time. It's hard to know if any original work can match or surpass it in the short term because you don't know what you don't know and a religious teaching may contain the lesson you need in future.

That's also what faith is to me. I don't put my faith in the supernatural, I put my faith in the thousands of years of humans that came before me and what they thought I needed to know.

Well for directly Christian inspired works that deal with Christianity directly

Hildegard von Bingen

Pope Gregory I

The fellow who painted "Christ Pantocrator"

Isidore of Miletus/Anthemius of Tralles

You all are starting to sound like those Mormon sophists. Just agree that the only art christianity promotes is that art that uses the absurdity of Christianity as a foil (if you read other parts of Milton's complete works you will realize he was very opposed to the traditional Christianity of his time). It is not inherently a bad thing for Christianity, but it is certainly true (unless somehow you can come up with five artists that are lit approved and are genuinely supportive of traditional christianity)

But it wouldn't be crazy to suppose that creativity is always opposed to tradition. Each has its own advantages

"Religious societies" as you use it is a distinction without a difference. It's easy, true, and banal to say that the religious world produced the best art. The Christian world is the European one. In the same way, the religious world is the modern one. Modern as in historically recorded. Our entire history up to the 17-19th centuries was religious. So by saying that "religious society" takes credit for all the great works of art, you must also say that it takes credit for all the shoddy and non-art. There's no correlation between religiosity and great art. And it doesnt help your case that most great artists saw right through the curtain.

>And it doesnt help your case that most great artists saw right through the curtain.

What do you think my claim actually is?

The argument on the table regards whether or not there are lit approved artists that approve of traditional Christianity, I believe, but I keep reading the pointless aggravating paragraphs of rhetoric. Just list artists. It's easy

It's easy guys. The correlation is not between "religiosity" and good art. It's between "spirituality" and good art. The two are different, although currently everyone think they're sinonyms. Religion is a prime vehicle for the spirituality of the author to express itself.

Faith is necessary for being itself, faith is the beginning of everything. You couldn't be alive right now if you didn't have faith in some things, OP. The people who are LARPing as christians are uncreative people who can't find a new system of belief by themselves so they default to the recent trends

If you don't have faith in "God", then you still must have faith in any number of axiomatic assumptions. Existence is still paradoxical to you

> Just list artists. It's easy
I did in

I don't think it's so much the absurdity of Christianity in the art that it promotes as it is goodness in face of the absurdity of life.

Not that Christianity doesn't have absurdity in it or that those stories don't mention it to some degree, there's a reason I'm a polytheist and not a monotheist, I just think the central message of Christianity is how can you go on in life whilst being aware of the horrors endemic to being itself.

>Start with the Greeks (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are the most important)
unironically
>then read the Bible
>then go trough Medieval Christian philosophers

>"modern" philosophers like Decartes, Kant, Kierkegaard and Reitzinger are optional

There is no way you can still be an Atheist after that.

That was beautiful, thanks for sharing.

>How are there so many Christians on this board?
I dunno. A coherent worldview is better than a nonsensical one? a lot of people started off as atheists/materialists these days, that's what all the media, universities and famous writers/scientists preach in the 21st century. But some of us realized relativism, nihilism, naive empiricism aka "secular humanism" doesn't work, it's self-defeating and contradictory, so we became seekers, agnostics or platonists or deists or pantheists and searched around for a philosophy or system that can get us the truth, explain what's "going on". Eventually we rediscovered Christianity.
Christianity has the fullness of the truth.

How much have you researched it? Have you read the bible, the early church fathers, the saints and mystics?

>It requires "faith," which necessarily means that you must trust it without adequate evidence. How is this reasonable?
Reason by itself doesn't get you anywhere. You can't reason yourself until you have some sort of presupposition or intuition or arational axiom guiding your logic.

Christian faith is based on intuition and reason, and it's also a gift of the holy spirit. But it's not "pure reason" for "pure reason" can't get you anywhere and has no content or purpose.

Can anyone recommend me a religion I can larp as? I want to still be able to drink alcohol and I don’t want cut my dick off.

Hinduism

Thanks I'll start reading some of Socrates works right away.

This. You've answered the thread

>predominant opinion
What? How did you come to that conclusion, if atheism is on decline?

>implying atheism isn't just christianity without the sky daddy

Not in any statistically viable sense.

>more "christian" chantards on the board
>quality goes down

I appreciate that the left-footers have created their own containment thread.

Isn’t that more of an ethno-religion?

>if atheism is on decline?
He means in the West where most of the user base is from where it isnt declining, but growing at a horrific rate. Just because more africans are surviving past 5 doesnt suddenly mean atheism is shrinking in the US. Look at church attendance rates

>It seems to me that the vast majority of Christians, and people from almost all other religions for that matter, only believe in Christianity for the security it offers. It offers an afterlife, and a heavenly being who looks after you.
That is 100% true. Did you not see the "what's the scariest thing you read in a book" filled with replies along the lines of "God not existing"

This, and don't forget that it's easier to think you're going into nothingness, which means nothing you or anyone else does matters.

Nah, anyone can become a hindu. The caste system is a strong barrier though

yep, hinduism isn't open to people outside the caste system. I mean real hinduism, modernists can LARP as hindus and join some ashram and shave their heads I guess...but that's nonsense, not a valid initiation.

The closest thing would be buddhism, since it's just hinduism universalized for all, and it decided to call the ultimate Self "not-Self"; Everything else is basically the same.

European atheist teens are converting to Islam

How do I into buddhism? What should I read? Should I meditate? Should I become a vegitarian?

The only white people who convert in my country are former heroin addicts and unattractiv women in their mid-life crisis.

youtube thanissaro bhikku aka Ajaan Geoff, he's a good theravada teacher. also has a lot of free books/articles you can find online.

>what should i read
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/index.html

Majjhima Nikaya
The Middle-length Discourses

>Should I become a vegitarian?

only if you want.
buddha said its not necessary and it would be a hard burden on most monks since they depended on charity for food.
allegedly buddha died of eating tainted pork.

also i should mention I'm a christian, eastern orthodox, would highly recommend it over buddhism. But buddhism is better than nihilism/atheism/materialism/nominalism/scientism/secular humanism...etc

If you want a good run down of the major religions go on libgen.pw and search for "schuon" get "the essential frithjof schuon" I think its called, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. excellent must read, has sections on buddhism.

>European atheist teens are converting to Islam
Not in any relevant numbers and with retention rates that are fairly low. Likewise Muslim immigrants attend mosques less the longer they like in the European countries.

>How do I into Buddhism
Alan watts lectures on youtube, if youlike try his books but also start with Zen

>Should I meditate?
yes, more than anything else start with this, 10 or 20 minutes a day

>Should I become a vegitarian?
one thing at a time, meditation first

>the historical/factual case for the Resurrection is much stronger than people realize
>recommends a bunch of books
>if u dont buy these books, wait for amazon to ship them, and read them before this thread gets cut u cant refute my thesis
nice

why do people do this? what are the main points, and main bits of evidence supporting them?

>what is the burden of proof and who carries it?

>lack faith
>need to look harder for evidence
>faith
>evidence
pick one you donut. either you have faith or you have evidence

see like wats ur point dude, you quote him and then ramble some non sequiturs or don't flesh out the little bits of arguments you might or might not have

listen that was beautiful but u just admitted you became religious after "drugging yourself up enough to see things rationally"

whatever that means