Is it Veeky Forums to be religious?

It's weird to me how so many anons are falling for the religion meme unironically. Not in a cultural or academic sense, but actually buying into the mythology surrounding it.

Studying Christianity is Veeky Forums, particularly Catholicism or orthodoxy.

Stop masturbating to yourself and seek Christ, then you can study for real.

I did, I found nothing. He's a radical reformist Jewish philosopher from the early AD's who was executed for his attempts to undermine Roman culture and authority. His ideas live on today through Christianity.

I'm only "masturbating myself" half as much as the other posters ITT lmao

Leap of faith mah nigg

why catholocism?
what did you convert from?
any lingering doubts?

No

Times are bad and people need some kind of identity to attach to.

It just seems strange to me, to give extra sway to one set of ideas over another based on blind faith.

just do it, goof.

you can always back out if you realize you fucked up. give yourself over

"Give yourself over" sounds like joining a cult. Don't get me wrong, I respect catholic philosophy and apologetics, I'm not interested in throwing away things I hold close to my heart such as skepticism and the value of basing decisions and beliefs on empirical evidence.

This is probably the underlying reason for the resurgence of radical ideas across the board. Communism, fascism, separatism, etc.

People usually say the pendulum swings back and forth, but what's really happening is that one side ramps up the rhetoric, so the other side reacts and ramps up theirs.

It's not really a pendulum swinging, it's act-and-react.

Yh i understand why people would take a leap of faith (to escape fron the anxiety of no objective world (higher being, set morals, reasons to live etc)) but i like the idea of looking at life straight in the eyes better

>who was executed for his attempts to undermine Roman culture and authority.

That is blatantly false; Pilate himself said he could find no fault in Christ.

You know the wars in the Middle East, communism, corruption, death, and destruction are all the result of people who make value judgements based on empirical evidence? Nice thing to hold close to your heart.

Yes, my mistake. I typed that up on my phone so I wasn't thinking. The Pharisee got sick of his smear campaign. Granted Pilate was extremely liberal compared to other Roman officials of his day and age.

What a steaming pile of bullshit.

Technology, civilization, social structure and civil order, defense, improved agriculture and distribution methods, transportation, etc are all based on making judgements and drawing conclusions on empirical evidence. Faith alone only serves to soothe the soul against the anxieties of life.

If we rejected reason and relied on faith exclusively, we would be living in mud huts cutting our foreskins off for whatever deity we believed in at the time.

>It's not really a pendulum swinging, it's act-and-react.
How the fuck do you think a pendulum works you retard

>Not understanding that the universe is in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction that has been going on for eternity and that has more than likely wiped out better societies than ours and that no matter how much we strive and discover we won't be able to survive the end of the universe as it collapses unto itself

>Technology, civilization, social structure and civil order, defense, improved agriculture and distribution methods, transportation
None of those were developed through sin. You literally have no argument. How old are you?

By the entire apparatus moving from one side to the other.

Society doesn't have people changing their minds and magically becoming religious overnight.

Retard.

How old are you? You moved the goalposts from rational thought to the religious spook of sin. The things I mentioned were developed through human ingenuity.

I know you think you're being intellectually rigorous, but its just shallowness (and fear) masquerading as depth.

>the entire apparatus moving from one side to the other.
No dumbass, a pendulum works because it swings from a fixed point which doesn't move. Movement is introduced by force, you pulling or pushing the pendulum sets in motion. Have you ever heard of Newton? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? "A pendulum swinging" and "act-and-react" are the same thing.

So you hold ingenuity close to heart. If you misspoke you should just correct yourself instead of mouthing off like a bitch and embarrassing yourself in the process. This board is not for undergraduates.

Fucking hell this board is full of plebs these days, its embarrassing. Has /pol/ really gained this much ground here? Veeky Forums wasn't this emptyheaded when it was founded.

And yes, I am afraid. Afraid of what organized religious organizations could achieve if they seized back the amount of power they used to have in the dark ages.

Fuck off, liberal bug chasing faggot. You're just scared of religion because it condemns your degenerate ways of living.

How would this exclude the possibility of a prime mover?

Tsk tsk, you seem triggered. All the memeing in the world isn't going to change anything.

Who preserved knowledge in the dark ages?

>muh dark ages
Oh you mean when the Church was the only social institution that elevated individuals above the level of shit-trawling feudal farmers? The only institution that promoted literacy and preserved texts from antiquity? Those bastards

There is no prime mover, it's been doing this for all eternity. That explains better the concept of time and still doesn't violate the "the matter isn't destroyed, but transformed" law. Even if there were a prime mover, a God or whatever, considering the scale of the universe he would NEVER interact with us like Christ, Yahwee, Allah, Zeus, whomever, did

I've got a feeling many Catholics want to "convert" to SSPV but are unable to.

You obviously weren't around when Veeky Forums was "founded", It was way more traditionalist borderline neoreactionary than current Veeky Forums.

The Byzantine Empire and the Abbassid Dynasty, of course.

Christianity was hostile to much of what they considered classical knowledge, and mutilated many pagan texts with their memes.

There are convincing arguments for keeping an open mind to deism and agnosticism, nothing beyond that.

I can dig agnosticism but in the end its futile, it leads nowhere, and since we are not gonna figure out whos right in our lifetime is like putting that question in hold.

Give me an argument that opens my mind to a God, not even a God that interacts with humanity, just a creator.

>

An infinitely long train wouldn't move unless there was an engine somewhere along the line. That engine is the prime mover. It's the same idea with your endless cycle of universes, an infinite number of universes wouldn't move unless there was a mover. A common misconception about Aquinas and his argument from motion is that it only argues for the beginning of the universe or the "knocking down of the first domino" that led to our existence but this just isn't the case. The argument from motion concerns the change that is happening all around us right now. This idea of a endless cycles of universes doesn't contradict the argument from motion or the prime mover.

>Nietzsche

>Give me an argument that opens my mind to a God, not even a God that interacts with humanity, just a creator.

Theoretically what evidence would change your mind?

Why does the prime mover have to be a conscious being with a will?

...

The unvierse doesnt need a prime mvoer, its always been like it is.

>all the memeing in the world isn't going to change you being a faggot and a poz nonce

shame

what kind of question is that?

>Proposition A
Proposition A is wrong because this this and this
>Proposition A

Because the prime mover is pure actuality. If you're not read on Aquinas and don't understand what that means I can't help you.

It's exactly what it looks like. What would convince you that god exists?

If you're gonna give special attributes to a "first mover", which doesn't require to be moved by anything else; then why not give that same attribute to the universe itself?

Aquinas was a master of non-cognitivism.

You havent told me why the proposition of the universe being independent from a prime mover is wrong. You just slapped a prime mover in something which is eternal.

Probably if OP would stop being such a fag I would end up believing in God.

Why does /r9k/ hate religion so much?

If the universe itself was pure actual then I would call it god, but the reason I don't do that now is because the universe at the moment clearly has potential. It is changing so it can't be purely actual.

What doesn't /r9k/ hate?

Also religion is mostly a feminine pursuit, very few men participate in religion any more.

Nice herring, kid

I feel like I got some type of kierkegaardian revelation over thanksgiving. Maybe that's necessary to taking the leap of faith; you can't study yourself into being religious.

If your prime mover is unchanging, it can't be a prime mover, any movement is change in nature.

To be pure as Aquinas defines it is a non-cognitive concept.

Oh my, all these personal attacks. And implying I'm gay again? You seem frustrated about something, little buddy. Have you tried praying the gay away?

I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by change or motion. Change potential becoming actualized, pure actual or being itself (god) doesn't change in the sense that it has no potential that can be actualized. Actual is required for a potential to become realized and this is where the prime mover comes in.

There are very few convinced atheists in the world that actually, as the propagandists will say, "hate God." All they want is proof. Any proof. Not arguments or theories, you could spit those out for all eternity in favor of any make believe concept, then you could wrap that concept in so many layers of social context and history that it almost seems real. But if the core tenant is questioned it falls apart like a house build with paper mache as support beams.

Nobody knows what proof of God looks like because proof of God has never existed.

>everything has a cause
>except my uncaused cause xDDDDDDDd

>for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
>there is no effect without cause

Good stuff so far.

>therefore, my extremely specific manmade deity did it, not a nebulous divine concept that we could only theorize as an unnamed unknown

Whoa there pump the brakes.

I'll never understand why anybody would want proof of Gods existence, that knowledge would be terrifying.

You believe in this idea of infinite universe despite having no material proof. You accept this theory based on arguments and theories so why do you hold God to a completely different standard?

See, that's a concept made up by Aquinas. Change is impossible without change by the prompter itself.

Isn't it reasonable? I can't think of anything that would actualize itself.

No one claims to be sure about infinite universes, while people actually claim knowledge about the existence of a creator.

Knowledge is power, friendo

The prevailing idea about the nature of the universe is altered slightly with every new scrap of evidence collected by the astronomers and physicists. There are a few different theories on the nature of the universe, all of which hold water when weighed against current human knowledge.

God is theorized as an all powerful cosmic being that interacts with humans on a regular basis and sets rules to live by. That last part is the most important. If this concept wants to kick down the door and rule every aspect of our lives, it needs to be foolproof beyond a shadow of a doubt, and so far there's nothing besides ancient myths. Even if we managed to prove the divine, how do we know its Yahweh? What about Allah? What about the Hindu cosmology? What about Shinto? Do these not also hold water in this conversation?

That doesn't justify the different standards. Some people will say they know with 100% certainty that there is a multiverse, but what they say is irrelevant to our discussion.

Depends on what you mean by actualize itself. Particles emerge from vaccum all the time.

>The prevailing idea about the nature of the universe is altered slightly with every new scrap of evidence collected by the astronomers and physicists. There are a few different theories on the nature of the universe, all of which hold water when weighed against current human knowledge.

What is this evidence for the multiverse? From what I've seen it's all supernatural.

It does. Because these theories fulfill the laws of physics we've already discovered; while the existence of a creator is arbitrary.

Who are these people? Never heard a scientist make such a bold claim.

The multiverse is a pure hypothetical, based on speculation. Same as God.

The difference is that nobody is trying to pass laws and social regulations based on the will of universe 354B

I see you've ignored everything else I wrote. That's fine.

How is the multiverse theory rooted in physics? If that's true then there should be some material evidence of it.

I ignored what you wrote because we're discussing the existence of god and you're trying to move the goalposts into theology. Which religion is right and all that jazz is irrelevant.

>The multiverse is a pure hypothetical, based on speculation. Same as God.

This is the point I'm making. So why hold it to a different standard?

I'm not. I'm holding them to the same standard. Both are pure speculation in the absence of hard evidence. I feel I've said this numerous other times in this thread.

I'm not even an atheist, I'm an agnostic deist.

Speculation implies that there's no good reason to believe either way which is a ridiculous position. Just because there's no material evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence, or no good evidence. You wouldn't say math doesn't exist because it's purely abstract would you?

Math is purely logical, and has root in reality. Numbers stand in to represent real world quantites, and in the more abstract stages it can be borderline prophetic. Einstein spend the later years trying to disprove his theory of relativity because it allowed for objects of near-infinite mass that could swallow light, and he thought that was a mistake. Years later, black holes were confirmed. Math is a language in and of itself, the purest language in existence.

The histories of the bible are blatantly false. The myths are disproven and the modern believers refer to them as metaphors now. The entire firmament, the basis for the flat earth mouthbreathers, was the literal model of Hebrew cosmology the authors of the bible believed. Its been wrong at every turn.

I'm bored of this conversation. I feel like you're trolling me now.

cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html

All these disgusting Catholic posters.
Kill this guy or denounce the church.
How did you let a non-Christian become pope?

>Math is purely logical, and has root in reality

As does god if you actually examine the classic arguments for his existence.

There you go moving the goalposts into theology again. The bible has nothing to do with this discussion.

Except for the majority of its officiating and governing bodies?

What's your point? a supermajority of the people in the pews are women, Its getting really bad in some parishes.

>The histories of the bible are blatantly false. The myths are disproven and the modern believers refer to them as metaphors now. The entire firmament, the basis for the flat earth mouthbreathers, was the literal model of Hebrew cosmology the authors of the bible believed. Its been wrong at every turn.

Veeky Forums of all places should know that the bible is not a science book. According to Christians it is a divinely inspired book written by human hands, in the human language of the time within various ancient genres. If you don't take this into consideration you're going to come up with very goofy ideas which admittedly, many protestants believe. Christians don't believe that every word is factually true, they believe that everything the bible asserts is true. There's a very big difference there. The firmament was how the people of the time may have understood the world and that was how it was written by its human authors.

>concern for the poor
>love for the neighbor
>not Christian

>He thinks that is an argument
Love the sinner, not the sin.
He is encouraging sins, not decreasing the pain of sinners.

it's Veeky Forums to have a strong understanding of the Bible, because of it's huge influence in classical literature

/thread

this is so trite

>this thing is bad
>better devote myself to ideology and ego-stroking
There were no 'dark ages'.

There's a lot of great and entertaining stories in it too if you really put in the time and effort to understand them.