Tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny

Disgusting.

we are the most hated group on the internet probably

Oh, the only serious branch of the CoE. Still monolingualism, but you could have at least picked up the tea parties from the mainland branch. Monolingualism and violence is just unbecoming really; you need something to round it out and a nice church fete or two with some open house Masons could really make you more palatable as a social movement.

>arbitrarily decide to remove Scripture which doesn't jive with your ideas
>1500 years of tradition got it wrong until one German stumbled upon the True Religion
>historically debunked claims about the arly Church not giving primacy to Rome and the sucessor of Peter
>sola fide guys, nevermind that most of Christ's message if explicitly about achieving virtue

Protestantism is absolute garbage tier. Just be an atheist, it's the logical conclusion of "pick your own church dogma" Christianity.

anti-catholic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth's_views_on_Mary

anti-religious:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_System_of_Nature
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity

I lapsed pretty bad but you should talk to an actual priest rather than the teenaged onanists that hang on on Veeky Forums these days. You'll learn to like other things over time probably, I did, or maybe you won't, look what happened to Job. Life's not about happiness. And Christianity's not all about avoiding personal sin, you have to love and help other people, especially poor people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_(Catholic_theology)
read it and never go back, or accept
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

I wish Friedrich, Immanuel, Albert or even Soren could slap the shit out of you. This is revolting OP. Fallenness ad infinitum.

>protestant

youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8

nah

>not protestant

youtube.com/watch?v=fHYKqQpJw2I

>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny
sage

Which catholic was it who said that protestants sing their way to hell?

Fuck off with your liberal garbage. I can tell you're either a fedora-tipper or a Protestant, the leftists of Christianity.

>town of yolo

I'm Catholic. I've got uncles who are priests.

But sure, Jesus didn't really care about the poor, he wanted you to feel superior about yourself and make nasty comments on a racist imageboard.

>Caring about the poor.
>Teaching poverty is a virtue.

Your sentiment is that of the liberal Catholic.
Helping the poor is important, but so is avoiding sin and so is partaking in the sacraments. These things will go together.

>Freidrich
>So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say ‘the purer man,’ or ‘the happier man,’ or ‘the sadder man,’ for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says, ‘the upper man,’ or ‘over man,’ a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker.
>when you get bitchslapped by Chesterton
>for being Nietzsche

>Immanuel
>The Christian concept of a god—the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit—is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the “here and now,” and for every lie about the “beyond”! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!...
>when you get bitschslapped by Nietzsche for being Schopenhauer's Jesus
>by calling Schopenhauer a good Christian

>Albert
>implying exCatholics exist
>even if you're atheist

>Soren
Soren slapping the shit out of someone I'd pay for t.b.h. No objection on this one.

Your objections are not objections, but merely vehicles to put out your take on them. All of them criticized the blind assimilation of dogma, everyone in their own ways.

Chesterton's bitchslap is a meme.

*Albert Camus

I'm in the exact same position OP.
>if I could just know for certain that Christianity were true I would have no intellectual qualm about devoting myself to it, it would be difficult but I would be content
>not knowing makes me wonder how I should live my life, given that my lifestyle will change drastically given what assumptions I live under, especially since I'm a homosexual

"I would soon have renounced pleasure," say they, "had I faith." For my part I tell you, "You would soon have faith, if you renounced pleasure." Now, it is for you to begin. If I could, I would give you faith. I cannot do so, nor therefore test the truth of what you say. But you can well renounce pleasure, and test whether what I say is true.
- Blaise Pascal

>joyless abstinence
I'm not religious but I've seen quite enough examples of this not being true. It's a joy different to the typical hedonistic joy, but joy nonetheless equally, if not more, powerful.

>I'm Catholic. I've got uncles who are priests.
I find it disturbing that you don't realise this makes you more likely to be a deluded leftist. You really have no clue about recent history of the Church or about anything that's going on.

This thesis is interestingly enough argued directly by Hannah Arendt and indirectly Alasdair MacIntyre and even made clear by Karl Barth, protestant fideism and a lack of a metaphysics will always lead people into atheism as Christianity is reduced from an absolute truth found in the nature of the world, fabric of human being, to a very strong opinion. This is even adapted by WLC. He's a shit tier philosopher, but he exemplifies this in adapting the materialistic analytic framework and just making God into an optional axiom.

>guy rightly says that there is more to Christianity than avoiding personal sin (while not denying that this is a component)
>rightly mentions the importance of loving and helping others, especially the poor
>WTF LIBERAL, PROTTIE, HERETIC

What on Earth. Just because the "Church of Nice" is awful doesn't mean you have to go completely the other way and become belligerent Pharisees.

>*Albert
>copying out those other philosophers' names is okay but don't call Albert by his first name like me
I'll call Albert whatever I fucking feel like, m8. The Catholic Church is the origin of the term "devil's advocate" so I hope you're not holding them in contrast to others who object to the blind assimilation of dogma.
>Chesterton's bitchslap is a meme
I wish it were, the board might be better. Nietzsche is pretty timid as a thinker; he highlights it with his bombastic prose because as he points out, some great acts of human charity are not complete without a thorough beating of the witnesses. e.g. in further paraphrase
>why am i like totally the smrtest bestest and coolests
>daily walks :3
>good diet bro

>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny

what?

are you serious?

the only philosophy that stands up to philosophical scrutiny is Jainism

I'm sorry lad, I get triggered by that shit too hard so I didn't read his comment carefully enough.

I sympathize, user. I've been in a relationship with a guy for several years and I'm pretty adamant about devoting myself to him. The vast chasm of uncertainty regarding the historical truth of Christ just doesn't convince me to abandon a relationship I've put a lot of effort into.

>>arbitrarily decide to remove Scripture which doesn't jive with your ideas
years of tradition got it wrong until one German stumbled upon the True Religion
>>historically debunked claims about the arly Church not giving primacy to Rome and the sucessor of Peter
>>sola fide guys, nevermind that most of Christ's message if explicitly about achieving virtue
is there a recent response to this sort of argument from a credible protestant intellectual online?
especially the one about rome

Jacques Maritain is that philosopher the /tv/ would describe as 'kino'.

Oh but I wasn't correcting you, I'm sorry it seemed that way. I just thought you were referencing another Albert, because of the utter irrelevance of what you said in regard to Camus' philosophy.

Chesterton misses Nietzsche's point by a thousand miles. He's demanding that Friedrich provides a system of thought based on absolute values, which is impossible without some kind of dogmatic base. Nietzsche simply tries to push men beyond the arbitrarily set limits that constitute dogmatic morals, not to disrupt them for the sake of it, but to question them and evaluate their validity in human terms, not in a false devinity's terms.
The Chesterton - Nietzsche matter would be worthy of a lenghty discussion and it doesn't matter, my whole point was merely that OP seems to be swayed by dogma, something all the first names above would condemn.

Simple solipsism*

You don't need to be a protestant intellectual to know that arbitrarily removing scriptures is exactly what the early church did when they decided the biblical canon.

Fuck knows what the badly written part about Rome's primacy meant. That along with sola fida is the religious equivalent of nerds arguing if Han shot first.

But the deciding of which works will be in the scriptures was not arbitrary, it followed from an already old tradition of what was canonical and it was made canonical not because they didn't know what was divine and what was not, but because they used it to combat heresies such as arianism which had their own versions of canon, contrary to that of the general church. I recommend Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman for more information. It's incredibly well researched and has compelling arguments.

Religion isn't something you can genuinely engage in unless you were indoctrinated from birth. You feel like a retard because you are trying to adhere to a set of beliefs that you have deemed to be philosophically sound but it's intertwined in shitty mythology that you will never embrace because you didn't have it imposed upon you before your brain was fully developed even if you agree with the underlying philosophy.

And protestants didn't arbitrarily remove them either. They used the 1000 years of subsequent research to pick a new canon. I simply used the same biased language to describe it as the previous poster.

Not arbitrarily, no. All of them did it by starting with the premise that it had to make sense.

>Religion isn't something you can genuinely engage in unless you were indoctrinated from birth.
This is false as there are a lot of cases of people who do exactly that. For Catholics, Edith Stein for example, if we keep it in terms of Veeky Forums. It would also make massive conversion impossible, but it happened in say China.
>You feel like a retard because you are trying to adhere to a set of beliefs that you have deemed to be philosophically sound but it's intertwined in shitty mythology that you will never embrace because you didn't have it imposed upon you before your brain was fully developed even if you agree with the underlying philosophy.

The mythology may be false, but shitty is something you can't prescribe to it.
He would be far from the first one to adopt Catholicism fully without being introduced to it from birth.

This is a very recent and limited take on the whole thing. There are plenty of people who sincerely come to believe in the "shitty mythology" despite a secular upbringing.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.", as Newman said. It's absolutely correct. I mean, when it comes down to it, the essential Christian claim is historical, and centers on authority. If the historical claims are weak and the authority is suspect, everything else falls apart. You can examine the evidence, and decide if the apostles founded a Church that was built on a rock and free from error, or you can be thrown into a vast sea of uncertainty and endless biblical nitpicking.

My problem with the Protestant claim is that it requires the Church to already be completely corrupt and invalid during the lifetime of the apostles. If we can't even trust any of the sources that early on, one inevitably wonders about the authority of the New Testament. Placing the entire stake on the independent witness of Scripture is very dangerous, and its fruits seem to only bring disagreement in every major area of doctrine.

Read Newman, consider his intellectual might and quality of his writings across literature, theology, philosophy and education, he is not read widely enough on Veeky Forums.

You should attend a Latin Mass (remember, don't take communion if you aren't Catholic). See if you like it.

If you aren't Christian, why not try praying for a few minutes a day for like a week?

You obviously feel some sort of draw or attachment to Catholicism, isn't this enough for you?

I'd try the above and read some essential thinkers, see pick related for starters.

>You obviously feel some sort of draw or attachment to Catholicism, isn't this enough for you?

What kind of reason to claim something is true is this? I abhor your way of thinking, cancer cell of humanity.

Stein converted in circumstances very different to today when science hadn't provided an extensive history of the world and universe.

In the modern day the only genuine converts to religion in adulthood are those who are in dire straits or approaching death and are afforded support and comfort by the aide, community, or actions or doctrine of the church and are thus willing to suspend logical belief to prevent cognitive dissonance.

Show me one modern example of a person who was not involved in any religion growing up and then converted when they weren't under financial, mental, or emotional duress (or getting married).

>>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny
>Cathoshits actually believe this
>mfw

You fail to account for plain stupid people.

Even stupid people need adversity or to have grown up in a religious environment to push them to religion, no one who is in a stable position in life with satisfying relationships converts because religion has nothing to offer them.

You are so full of shit, wow. Yeah, let's just pretend contemporary philosophers and theologians who work within the Thomist tradition don't exist. It's extremely intellectually dishonest to say nobody can convert based on convincing rational arguments, there are so many cases of this happening.
To stop being an asshole, you really need to realize that people come to hold wildly different metaphysical positions that are both rationally defensible. If this wasn't the case we would have "solved" philosophy already.

PETER GEACH
ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE
I haven't read them yet, but I'll have to soon, Anscombe is the only female philosopher whom Wittgenstein respected and thought wasn't a disgrace to the field.

Sometimes they do because the alternative is not easy for them to «understand». To be religious is usually renouncing to think about life in a deep way, because you outsource that to someone else.

What its some books about deism?

W didn't think that his female contemporaries were a disgrace because of how bad they were as philosophers but because he loathed the company of women. In fact, when he was lecturing he'd purposefully wait until all women exited the room he was lecturing in.

What knowledge about our universe do we have that renders Catholicism unreasonable?

That's top sperg.
In any case, his relationship with Anscombe was very interesting, through her influence he started taking the sacraments before he died and she was one of the 3 people to whom he entrusted his estate. He had a lot of respect for her.

Let's start with the biological fact that virgins don't get knocked up without male ejaculate entering their puss holes. Saying it is a miracle of God is not rational.

Which Rationality?

Take the Bodhi Pill

Camus was born Catholic, that's the joke.
>Chesterton misses Nietzsche's point
You missed Chesterton's point and Nietzsche's. He's not demanding absolute values; he's pointing out that Nietzsche's values aren't as extreme as people take them to be. Nietzsche speaks of funambulists precisely because he knows the value of timid values and empty noise- it's far preferable than brash values and empty noise.
>OP seems to be swayed by dogma
to be honest I don't think you know how Catholic dogma or doctrine work, what they consist of, or how OP is failing to be swayed by either to a notable extent. I appreciate you're trying to contribute but you're coming across as a Try Reading More case.

What knowledge about our universe do we have that renders Pastafarianism unreasonable?

>The McBuddhism contained in that image
Consider me triggered user.

It's the opposite of McBuddhism. The whole let's all get along happy lifestyle so zen incense instagram Buddhism is McBuddhism.

There are no convincing rational arguments for God's existence, the best you can do is define a deistic God who doesn't interact with the universe in any way and doesn't have a long storied history of mythology that has been constantly revised over time from previous religions and even then all you have is an unassailable position based on nothing.

>Not a trace theism remains
>Self is abandoned as a concept
>Abandon the thought of god
>etc.
That's top tier McBuddhism and quite literally Buddhist heresy.

>not going full everything is god and god is everything nondual vedanta mode

conventional buddhism is heresy against the message of gautama

...

Dumb. If the assumption that God exists is true, there is no reason he cannot intervene in the physical processes of his own creation. If it were possible no one would care. This is a non-argument, focus on something better.

that's what happens over the time, boyo. people will weaken every ideology until it no longer inconveniences them.

Camus was much more a cultural catholic than a believer, even as a child, by all accounts. Therefore it's irrelevant to the argument.

Now you have managed to miss Chesterton's, Nietzsche and even Hegel's writings. Nietzsche doesn't deal in values, he presents a man above values as they are presented by society and history (much like Camus' absurd man). Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values, but about a man that has trascended the absurd meanings attached to them. Nietzsche rejects morality as a concept because it's arbitrary and dogmatic.

OP is surely swayed by dogma, doing his thinking by starting with the premise that christianity is true. The bane of critical thinking.

«Read more»? You think more, user.

I'm legitimately confused can we take a step back, what's the "message of gautama"? are you referring to the pali canon?

Gods existence is an unproven premise and until you address that anything presupposing his existence is invalid.

I guess he's referring to true buddhism in a sense. Not that I necessarily agree.

>true buddhism
What

>catholicism
>ebin traditions
>qt swarthy hypocritical girls

Before you respond to him, keep in mind that anyone who in a discussion used 'critical thinking' as an argument is a cretin.
Save yourself some time.
Now that we are at it, I don't think Chesterton had a particularly strong critique of Nietzsche. In part lately because Nietzsche himself didn't have a coherent theory or ideas worth giving much attention to any more than Chesterton. Both are primarily stylists and neither developed a strong argument for anything, it was mostly about how to express an opinion in a poetic way.
And Chesterton was the superior writer.
Premises are generally unproven in philosophy.
That's why one is bound to be a Kantian if he accepts his premises, but is in no way supposed to accept his or anyone else's.

You better be Anglo-Irish CoI because the Ulster Scots Presbyterian churches are all muslim tier shits.

read the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian jaynes. theists are prototypical humans with lesser evolved cognitive faculties. they literally hear sky daddy whisper commands into their ears and they can't distinguish between their auditory hallucinations and real voices. if you've ever wondered why alvin plantinga's argument from religious experience and his reformed epistemology is considered the most "convincing" case for theism in the philosophy of religion despite it being a pile of shit, it's because most of the philosophers working in that area are theists and literally have schizophrenic minds.

Critical thinking hasn't been used as an argument.
You seem to be the typical Veeky Forums dueler that will spew things like «didn't have a coherent theory or ideas», without actually saying anything about them and, much less, presenting an idea.

«X is shit, X is derivative, X's ideas are incoherent wishful thinking»
«Why»
«...»

dweller*
of course.

In this life you can accept either truth or meaning, OP. There is no meaning in truth and there is no truth in meaning.

You can delude yourself into thinking there is place for a hopeful narrative for your meatsack existence or accept you're a void dweller bound for nothingness. You just have to determine which you desire more, meaning or truth.

Depending on your personality truth might even lead to a more agreeable life since you won't suffer the constant cognitive dissonance and guilt of being halfway invested in a faith that is no longer able to provide a coherent worldview.

>completely free of semitic influence
>deconstructing

>Camus was much more a cultural catholic than a believer, even as a child, by all accounts. Therefore it's irrelevant to the argument.
>he still doesn't get the joke
let's try a youtube clip since reading isn't working
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdolFXcNAH4

>Now you have managed to miss Chesterton's, Nietzsche and even Hegel's writings.
>trying this on the person who paraphrased and quoted both

>Nietzsche doesn't deal in values
He's usually credited with the transvaluation of values, and is a moralist, so you're really trying it on here. It's not just his readings you missed but his reputation. This is worse than wikipedia scholarship; it's making shit up and hoping it sticks.
>Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values
And both Nietzsche and Chesterton recognised this. It's why Chesterton calls him timid, and why Nietzsche uses references to hiking and tightrope walking. You'd also recognise from both Chesterton and Nietzsche if you'd read them that both speak of Aristotle's problem of living alone making men into beasts or gods as a pointlessly dichotomous false presentation of choice: both arrive at the conclusion one can be both as a philosopher instead. You see Chesterton looking for absolutes in Nietzsche or opposed to Nietzsche because you make a similar false split: Nietzsche must not be timid, when Nietzsche quite liked being timid, because you'd like him to not be timid.

>OP is surely swayed by dogma, doing his thinking by starting with the premise that christianity is true.
>further assumptions, still no understanding of Catholicism
you've great faith in your ability to re-write canon on your own by just putting down what you think must be true since you thought it on a malaysian pet rock care and advice forum. Your stereotype of Christianity is about as developed as someone who went atheist from listening to Tool in the 90s was. You really ought to read more because the philosopher you're trying to white knight is not your princess and wouldn't want to be.

BTFO

Yep, I am. Anglo-Irish built Ireland and we get treated like vermin by the government (both in Ulster and in the South, where we were ethnically cleansed in the twenties).

Personally I have nothing against Presbyterians though, at least they don't but bombs in bins or shoot us for going to work.

>Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values
>And both Nietzsche and Chesterton recognised this
>because you make a similar false split: Nietzsche must not be timid

Chesterton submitted Nietzsche's «timidity» as something to be criticized. When it's completely irrelevant to Nietzsche. When using terms as «weak» it's implicit that Nietzsche's writings are lacking, when they're only lacking in what Chesterton expects from him. You can present Nietzsche as a moralist, but only as the kind of moralist he defines, which is beyond the definitions Chesterton (and history) has about good and evil, therefore it's nonsensical to call him that without providing statements about what he considers morality to be.

«Nietzsche is a moralist» couldn't be more vague of a statement. You get hindered by semantics.

>Your stereotype of Christianity is about as developed as someone who went atheist from listening to Tool in the 90s was.

I'm not attacking (in this discussion) any aspects of Christianity besides its dogmatic nature. If you say Christianity isn't dogmatic, then you don't understand what dogmatic means.

Again, your argument about Camus would only work if he had been truly a believer at some reasonable point.

>trying this on the person who paraphrased and quoted both

To quote someone's writing doesn't mean one understands it. I should have said you missed their points, not their writings literally; I apologize, I overrated your comprehensive reading skills.

>Chesterton submitted Nietzsche's «timidity» as something to be criticized. When it's completely irrelevant to Nietzsche.
Really? Because Nietzsche thought it was relevant to both the "timidity of the crowd" that follows Christianity under the impression of depth and his main criticism of Schopenhauer and his worship of Kant. Chesterton criticising him for his same love of the opaque would really seem fair game there, especially when Nietzsche can ponder truth as a woman because she's "not even shallow", much like the Stygian depths of Christianity he slighted Schoppy for loving.
Or do you think Nietzsche was the only one who got to use the word timid in his criticism of other philosophers? kek
>When using terms as «weak» it's implicit that Nietzsche's writings are lacking, when they're only lacking in what Chesterton expects from him.
Heaven forfend, Nietzsche might not be an elevated being to the point of god-type. How ever did he live with himself. Oh yeah, wait, he was okay with that since he thought it was faff.
>You can present Nietzsche as a moralist
Because he was one. It why he wrote genealogies on morals and values and even advice on taking regular walks. You really need your princess to be a special snowflake even when that's contrary to his teachings. >«Nietzsche is a moralist» couldn't be more vague of a statement. You get hindered by semantics.
It's a statement which is not just true but points out your specific statement that Nietzsche doesn't deal in values is patently false if you picked up any of his work or even heard his basic reputation beyond "edgy". Since all you heard apparently was "edgy" and thought he was perfect bf material, you seem to think you can retcon his work to not be that of a moralist and to remove the many values he deals with from his work. Kind of pathetic, even for waifuing.

>I'm not attacking (in this discussion) any aspects of Christianity besides its dogmatic nature. If you say Christianity isn't dogmatic, then you don't understand what dogmatic means.
And like I said, I am so certain you know nothing of Catholic dogma or its difference from doctrine or how OP is following neither well at all according to either, that I know you cannot tell how wrong or shallow a reading this is. It's like you're hoping OP secretly meant "evangelical literalist" because otherwise you're fucked and might have to learn something about Catholicism or philosophy to contribute.
>Again, your argument about Camus would only work if he had been truly a believer at some reasonable point.
Still can't understand Catholic dogma, doctrine or cultural practice. I'd expect nothing more t.bh.

To say Nietzsche does not deal with values and needs a new category of values for the word moralist to apply to him is pretty much proof you've either not read or not understood Nietzsche. Apologies if my assumption you have not read him was to kind and the latter is simply the case.

>to kind
*too