What's the most fedora tipping book you've ever read?

Hitchhiker's guide
Bloodmeridian
the long walk
Infinite jest

nice

underrated

desu I once wrote a pokemon fanfic that was an allegory of the israel-palestine conflict when I was 14

Found m'neckbeard.

>implying theism is anything more than magic sky daddy worship
No. All the societal functions of religion have secular alternatives today. Fuck off.

it's edgy but it's a good book to get insight about Satanism. People say LaVey asked to see a priest on his deathbed.

Explain yourself.

t. Fedora

I read it purely to disgust my hipster classmates when I was in undergrad

Toss up between these. Don't know why I did that to myself.

You should probably stop digging that hole.

it's super basic stuff like "don't be a pushover or let people take advantage of you" stuff you could learn from a psychology text book. if you're already an atheist none of this stuff will seem remotely edgy to you, there's been far more scathing critiques of religion with far more insight from people like hitchens or dawkins.
really it's stupid, I'm a fan of the gothic and macabre and anthony lavey seems like a funny interesting guy on a personal level. worked at carnivals and played the organ and hosted big events, etc. I'd rather hear more about his life then what's in this book.
I've also heard that the church of satan turned in to a big joke once lavey passed away.

>'
Spotted the lack of fedora

pic

It's spiritual LARPing that's highly derivative of Redbeard, Rand, Nietzsche, and Crowley. And only one, maybe two, of those people are actually worth reading.

>>And only one, maybe two are worth reading
Nietzsche and Crowley

Name one thing religion can do better than a science-based secular alternative.

fuck you that book is good
t. assblasted /g/ Christfag

Dawkins should have stuck with memes imo

Dawkins in general is always wearing an invisible fedora. Watch him smugly make an inference that God isn't real and all his fanboys clap and applaud like he and they are the only sane people in a crazy world.

Wouldnt the existence of satan imply the existence of god?

Save your soul.

How do we know souls exist?

t. Fedora

Not an argument

yeah, which is why satanists don't believe in satan. it's much more like a "church of the flying spaghetti monster" very tame and cheeky book

How do we know quarks exist?

How do we know?

But if you were satan wouldnt you hide behind stuff like this so as not to reveal the implication?

Well its not like we really have a clear idea of how the brain works yet. They say the pineal gland is the seat of the soul so i dont know.

the hiding behind it is the existence of it itself. christians are naturally going to go through lengths to avoid anything that's labeled "satanism" and dredge up a bunch of fear and mystique around it and warn their kids about it, which will naturally make the "church of satan" more intriguing to open minded people that are questioning their faith. the church of satan doesn't want mindless pathetic sheep that come looking for handouts and a feel good community. that's what a religious clergy is for.

This response is completely wrong until the last three words. You don't know. Nobody does. Knowledge is a meme. All anyone has is belief.

oh I thought you said if you were a satanist, nvm. yeah satan doesn't exist.

Except there are things that we can take as observable fact. Even if you make the "Shared Mass Hallucination" argument there isn't any proof of it, so until you can prove it get out of the gene-pool. You are holding the human race back.

are you in the gene pool? are you reproducing? yeah didn't think so fedora.

...

>there are things that we can take as observable fact

What do you think you can take as a fact? The things your fallible eyes and ears tell you? All "knowledge" is ultimately based on assumptions you cannot prove. You're relying on the unprovable assumption that "we can prove things by observation," a statement which itself cannot be proved by observation.

Empiricists aren't welcome here, son.

I concede this point. Ultimately we have no proof of our existence extending beyond our individual brain-boxes, this is true, that being said I am fairly convinced I am not arguing with myself, I am also fairly convinced that making pointless argument against testable conditions within our shared existence is cowardly and counter-productive to any attempt to find out the truth of our existence. Refuting what you call Empiricism is, while sometimes and entertaining way to waste some time, it is also ultimately fruitless. Philosophy is fine, but don't sit there and tell me you have answers based off of fairy tales from a preliterate culture trying to figure out what the sun is and where the rain comes from or some asinine garbage you cobbled together from Philosophy 101 and a lot of drugs.

>Refuting what you call Empiricism is ultimately fruitless
You're right, it's a waste of time for me to argue against empiricism when Kant already dealt the death blow two hundred years ago.

>but it doesn't matter i lost an argument since philosophy doesn't explain science :)
Only a moron thinks that's the point of philosophy. It's not. Please take your science worship and go jump in a lake.

>tfw you realize this poster will live a miserable life not knowing God in service of his own intellect
>tfw the existence of God was proved by aquinas almost a thousand years ago
>tfw even though this guy worships his own intellect, he's still wrong
>tfw he's going to hell

I feel sorry for you user. I'll pray for you.

Is this any good?

>tfw the existence of God was proved by aquinas almost a thousand years ago
Not so fast.

People that do the "icky le cringe XD fedoralords unite!!!" should be shot for the good of humanity. It's the worst way retarded Americans have shit up any discussion. Haha I have a picture of a guy in a fedora/trilby and that means your argument is defeated KEK.

What a bunch of troglodytes.

Russel got cucked by Gödel, making him look like a bitch.

>believing any of Aquinas' nonsense

His "Five Ways" only work if you adhere to their axioms. Kant didn't even believe this shit

Nah, Kant only btfo's the ontological argument. The cosmological argument works just fine.

Maybe so. But his criticisms of Aquinas' so called proofs are strong nonetheless.

>The cosmological argument works just fine.
It doesn't though. As a matter of fact I'd go as far to say that it's weaker than the ontological argument.

Why? I'd love to hear a good criticism of it. Especially why you think ontological is stronger.

>tfw user actually believes this

Well, since you seem to be fond of your capacity to cognitively function why don't we see how many fallacies you have committed in this post. Ad Hominem is there without saying. False Cause maybe... DEFINITELY an Appeal to Authority there with the Kant name drop without making the actual argument. Also, Kant knew nothing about neurosciences, so fuck off.

I think the ontological is stronger purely because it's more difficult to respond to abstract semantics. The cosmological argument however I find falls flat immediately because some of its premises are plain wrong.

I'm happy to respond to it. But first I'd like you to articulate what you understand the cosmological argument to be, since I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting it as often happens.

There's a bunch of variations of it. For a broad outline, I like starting from contingency. There's no way to answer the contingency claim without some first cause. This includes a multiverse, eternal, or cyclical universe, because of the arbitrary nature of them.

The first cause must be eternal (outside of time), enormously powerful, immaterial to be logically consistent. Otherwise you fall into several pitfalls, of which I'm sure you're aware.

It must also be conscious because of the fundamentally arbitrary nature of the universe. Analogous to the islamic argument that because the universe began at some arbitrary time, only a consciousness could have made the choice to start it then. Additionally, it's immaterial, and the only immaterial thing we know, besides ideas, is consciousness. Which isn't a solid argument, since there might be something else immaterial we don't know about, but lends it's a nice coincidence to support the claims.

Anyways. You end up needing something to answer the contingency claim. The 'something' must be an eternal, immaterial, enormously powerful, conscious creator of all things. Thus there's a God.

>implying I was making a logical argument
>implying I'm not using effective rhetorical techniques to make a point
You're showing off your high school debate team knowledge well, though.

>implying neuroscience teaches us about the nature of knowledge
It makes me sad that you actually believe this.

>There's a bunch of variations of it.
I know, that's why I want you to outline your understanding of it. I'm not doing this because I don't know what the cosmological argument is, I'm doing this so we can both be on the same page.

I can't exactly respond to a vague suggestion of an argument.

Man I saw a dude reading this on the bus once.

You can fill in the gaps from what I wrote, since you're clearly familiar with it. The vulnerable parts of the argument are the axioms, and the part about consciousness. I gave you the axiom, contingency. I explained the justification for consciousness.

The other derived properties of the first cause are pretty trivial to show once you accept the axioms, and there's not much variation in showing them. They're not really what I'm interested in arguing about, so I left out the specifics for brevity.

Please, critique what I wrote.

Does Reddit, Tumblr, and all of the parts of Veeky Forums that users from both corrupted count as volumes of a book? If yes, then I've yet to read any other book with more fedora tipping.

Stay sane Veeky Forums, you're the last part of Veeky Forums I can enjoy.

>You can fill in the gaps from what I wrote
That's just me doing your thinking for you. I'm starting to get the impression that you haven't actually read Summa Theologica and you only have a vague awareness of the cosmological argument, but that's irrelevant.

>Please, critique what I wrote.
As you wish.

>The first cause must be eternal (outside of time), enormously powerful, immaterial to be logically consistent. Otherwise you fall into several pitfalls
All I can say to this given there's no reasoning or structure behind it is why?

> only a consciousness could have made the choice to start it then
How did you possibly come to this conclusion?
This is like saying when a tree falls that tree must be conscious to have chosen to fall at that moment. It's nonsense.

>Additionally, it's immaterial
How did you find that out?

This is by far and away the worst rendition of the cosmological argument I've ever seen, the cosmological non-argument if you will. It's a soup of hot opinions and unexplained claims. I don't know what you expect me to say to it besides prompting you for more elaboration. It's just you describing what you think god is like without any argumentation as to why this might be the case. The only possible responses to something like this is "Why" or "I disagree".

The summa theologica is about a zillion pages. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes to an hour typing out the argument in detail. You're clearly familiar with it, you clearly know the claims I'm making. You implied you had a canned response to the arguments. You implied you knew the difference between the ontological, and cosmological arguments, meaning we have a shared notion of what is being referred to. Then you claim what I outlined is too vague for you to respond. Would you like me to summarize the entire book? Or would you like to give me the reasons why you don't find the cosmological argument convincing.

> I'm not going to spend 30 minutes to an hour typing out the argument in detail.
The thing about the cosmological argument is in all forms it's extremely straight-forward.

You put out your axioms, then you reason as to how they lead to your conclusions. Given it's basically pure logic it can be as simple as b) follows from a) therefore c). This is the problem with your post there are no axioms or reasoning, it's just your conclusion as to what god must be like.

> you clearly know the claims I'm making.
This is the thing. I don't, as we already know there's multiple variations of the cosmological argument most of which disagree with each other. I can't honestly counter an argument that I'm essentially making myself, and doing that would just lead to the inevitable response of "that's not what I meant" which will either go on like that ad-infinitum or eventually provoke you to explain what you meant - and it would be infinitely easier for both of us if you just did that now.

>meaning we have a shared notion of what is being referred to.
Clearly not because the first thing I did was ask you to explain your position so we could be certain we know what we're referring to, which you attempted to do but now are furiously backpeddling out of.

>Then you claim what I outlined is too vague for you to respond.
It is. It's just pure assertions with no demonstration or even pointing out your premises.

> Or would you like to give me the reasons why you don't find the cosmological argument convincing.
I'd love to do that, but first we need to figure out what cosmological argument we're on about.

>cucked by Gödel
>Gödel
>Godel
>God

what did he mean by zis?

communist books are all fedora tier prove me wrong i want a communist book not written by a beta manlet

Got given an older copy of this book since I'm rather into the occult, macabre and paranormal imagery. Haven't read it yet

...

>t.fedora

>Hitchhiker's guide
And it wasn't even funny to begin with.

Fuck your fairy tale.

Does this count?
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

No, they're absolute shit. Russel literally didn't understand even one of them. His descrpition of Aquinas overall is literally a bunch of ad homs.

>There's no way to answer the contingency claim without some first cause
Yes there is, it's just that aquinasfags don't understand infinite regress.

He also cried like a bitch.

Can anyone actually say what's fedora about it?

yeah according to christians

>hitchens
>Dawkins

You're in the right thread

I'll pray for the 3 of you. :)

I'm sure posting frog memes on a Kiowa Scalp and Rape Tipi will make him see the error of his ways.

>hey padre do you think I'm going to hell?
>possibly my son
>oh cool Satan's gonna love me