How can anyone earnestly be a Christian after having read these guys?
Christianity is BTFO and it requires willful ignorance to not see that.
>>332721
Honestly, a better picture would be the 4 gospels. I don't know how anyone can be an earnest christian after reading them. They can't even agree on when Jesus was crucified.
>>332728
also 3 of them are second hand accounts that copy paste each other's lines and the third one is written after the other 3 were already in circulation.....
>>332721
Most people are Christian because their parents are, and never bother to learn philosophy. It's the sad truth. That's why Christianity is growing like mad in uneducated places like Africa and shrinking in the West
>>332728
You might as well just say the whole bible.
Anyone can see a book with a talking snake and a talking donkey in it is a work of fiction.
>>332728
That's all covered in Feuerbach, my man.
>>332721
>Marx
I hope this is b8
>>332766
Just because he was bad at economics it doens't necessarily make him wrong on other issues.
>>332766
>2015
>not realizing that even if you aren't a liberal, materialist dialectics will still reveal the bourgeoise nature of christianity
i threw him in there to cover more philosophical biases
replace him with stirner if you so wish
>Hume
>Marx
>>332775
How do you ean bad at economics? He wrote other economy related works outside of the communist stuff too, which are highly regarded
>>332789
>>Hume
Hume is one of the greatest philosophers of all time, IDK how you can say that.
>>332789
What could you possibly have against Hume?
>>332797
>fat
>anglo
>literally wears towels on his head for no reason
But yeah his philosophy is pretty good
I don't know.
But I do now that they could never assail Al Quran without inventing lies, and constructing fallacious arguments upon those lies.
>>332721
I think that they are different thoughts to achieve different purposes in different environments. Adding the fact that you are generalizing Christians.
The thing that Christianity holds in favor is the unanimous and rock solid faith. Faith, believe it or not, is not about the "truth", but about how humans as an organized group can achieve great things.
This four individuals that you mention make great points, but theirs don't prove the others wrong.
You see, humbleness doesn't necessarily mean weakness. Self control doesn't either. It's just about bending the concepts at your convenience. I highly encourage to apply all these concepts in the place and time that is more convenient.Being both statements of high value.
>>332818
Are you high?
Reading Das Kapital truly opened my eyes
Religion is just a reflection of the real world with its exploitation and oppression
Because their spooks didn't get busted enough
>>332746
tell me more bullshit mr enlightened undergrad
>>332827
No, but you just destroyed my argument with that simple sentence. Fuck.
>>332721
By reading classical Christians and criticisms of Hume.
Feuerbach and Nietzsche have poor grasps of Christianity before their time. Max Scheler especially lays bare how wrong Nietzsche was about Christianity.
Marx echoes Feuerbach.
Hume is by far the hardest to take on as you need to know something of philosophy before you look into his criticisms. He is a brilliant man, albeit screwed up at times. His grasp of causality is a confusion of causality and how it worked in metaphysics prior to his time; Is-Ought is not some great revelation but him realizing a consequence of a previous philosophical position put forth by Descartes and (accidentally) by Francis Bacon and prior to both of them the scholastics had already refuted the problem of Is-Ought. This sort of thing is how you tackle Hume.
>>332766
Marx's correctly pointed out religion has been used as a means of control in virtually all cases, a way for the elite to manipulate the masses.
You can argue that his economics are wrong but nothing less than lying would allow you to say he was wrong about religion.
>>332844
What's funny is his statement about Christianity decaying in countries that are developed is correct. When your only comeback to a statistical fact is an insult you are basically acknowledging the other guy is right....
>>332803
At least he's Scottish, the ubermensch of the bongs.
>>332818
Belief is merely dishonest skepticism.
Nietzsche
>Christianity is shit based on my strawman of Christianity
Fuerbach
>Christianity is shit because I don't believe in the spiritual and Christianity cares about it
Hume
>Christianity is shit because miracles are ridiculous
Marx
>Christianity is shit because if working class people were atheists then they'd run the world
>>332911
>he couldn't handle Nietzsches bants
>>332728
Yep. I started having doubts about my lack of faith, read the 4 gospels. Doubts went away.
>>332897
Nietzsche is one of the most important figures in history to understanding early Christianity. Jung and Campbell in their analysis of the religions refer to Nietzsche just as much if not more than people like Irenaeus.
>>332923
Nietzsche projected his ressentiment of Christianity onto Christianity itself
Let me be thy guest, O Zarathustra, for a single night! Nowhere on earth shall I now feel better than with thee!"--
"Amen! So shall it be!" said Zarathustra, with great astonishment; "up thither leadeth the way, there lieth the cave of Zarathustra.
Gladly, forsooth, would I conduct thee thither myself, thou venerable one; for I love all pious men. But now a cry of distress calleth me hastily away from thee.
In my domain shall no one come to grief; my cave is a good haven. And best of all would I like to put every sorrowful one again on firm land and firm legs.
http://www.hamilton.net.au/nietzsche/zarathustra/zara077.html
>>332899
>Marx's correctly pointed out religion has been used as a means of control in virtually all cases, a way for the elite to manipulate the masses.
Except that religion predates class stratification and the very formation of "masses" and "elites".
>>332897
>scholastics had already refuted the problem of Is-Ought
Pfft
>>332936
In Ecce Homo he mentions that he never felt threatened or harmed by Christianity and that no Christian ever found him disagreeable. He says this is the only reason why he has a right to criticize the religion so harshly, because he in fact has zero resentment towards it. Our records of his life in theological schools as well as his students of him when he was a teacher confirm this. They found him to be brilliant and eccentric. He wasn't a fedora.
>>332952
Besides, any serious analysis of the history of religion shows how much reformist movements were rooted in religious language, from Mazdak to Dorothy Day, passing through John Ball. Or how religious elites were in conflict with aristocratic elites (think Guelphs vs Ghibellines, or the conflict between the ulama and various Muslim rulers in the Islamic world).
The whole "hurr durr religion is about the elites manipulating the masses" bullshit is extremely dumb, I actually do not believe that Marx would be that dumb, that's more like something a 7th grade student would think.
>>332936
WOW SO BACK ONTO HIM SO DEEP MUCH EDGY
worst argument ever
>>332899
>Marx's correctly pointed out religion has been used as a means of control in virtually all cases, a way for the elite to manipulate the masses.
Please explain how this is any more than conspiracy theory shit. We know the intellectual history of Christianity, the support of the papacy, the institution of monarchs and of Natural Law, and everything it did to make Europe what it was before the Reformation and none of it is some secret manipulation of the religion onto the people to rule them.
>>332918
>Such as.. whom?
Max Scheler is a quality refutation of Nietzsche's views of Christianity, though there are agreements in other places. Edward Feser is a pretty good author on Scholasticism, does a good job explaining it to modern audiences, and takes on modern criticisms nicely. Etienne Gilson is a historian of philosophy and does a brilliant job explaining the transition from Aquinas to Ockham to Descartes to Kant and generally everything surrounding it along with explaining the essence of Christianity classically. If your grasp of Christianity is from Protestant Christianity, Scott Hahn is a good transitional source to classical Christianity: His early books focus on the transitional period between Protestant to Catholicism but his later stuff gets into the essence of the religion. You could also look into the saints if you wish but I'd say they're a bit of a jump so I'd recommend the modern sources first.
Hell, you can read Canticle of the Brother Sun by St. Francis of Assisi - the rudest of ascetics in Medieval times - and see a Christianity Nietzsche fails to recognize.
>>332967
Come at me, anon. Final Causality being accepted shuts down Is-Ought from being a problem. After Bacon/Descartes denied Final Causality it led to Is-Ought being a problem again, which was finally recognized by Hume sometime after its dismissal.
>>332931
And this is wholly wrong, I'm not sure if you're trying to do anything more meaningful than troll me.
>>332976
No resentment? What do you call this?
>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won.... The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth!
>>332999
His argument is worse, quoting the two most Latin theologians he could (Tertullian and Aquinas) and using them to represent Christianity as filled with ressentiment.
>>333021
>Final Causality being accepted
>>332897
Wolfshiem...I like you. That's why I'm actually starting to study scholastic semi-serously. I've realized two things from them
1. Scholasticism is a Muslim and to some degree Jewish invention, it was started in the "golden age" and carried over into Christian Scholasticism.
2. They were probably the worst philosophers in history as nothing I've heard from them is even remotly relevant to anything what so ever It's all pointless crap "what does it mean for God to be perfect" or coming up sophistry to try to descredit other religions. The Muslim/Jewish Scholastics spent centuries arguing that God's 'oneness' meant he could not be a trinity and the Christians spent centuries arguing that it's not a contradiction. Pointless questions about imaginery things "what does it mean to be perfect?" "Is God's power the same thing as his wisdom?" If something did get done it was an accident.
It's a philosophical black-hole in which nothing ever gets done, I wouldn't even call this philosophy...it's arguing about symnnatics. As far as i can tell it was legacy of sophistry which actually sent philosophy BACKWARDS, we needed to have Spinoza come in fix the giant mess.
>>332918
A sample of Max Scheler's view from wikipedia.
>Nietzsche saw Christian morality as a kind of slave morality, while Greek and Roman culture was characterized as a master morality. Scheler disagrees. He begins with a comparison of Greek love and Christian love. Greek love is described as a movement from lower value to higher value. The weaker love the stronger, the less perfect love the more perfect. The perfect do not love the imperfect because that would diminish their value or corrupt their existence. Greek love is rooted in need and want. This is clearly indicated by the Aristotelian concept of God as the "Unmoved Mover". The unmoved mover is self-sufficient being completely immersed in its own existence. The highest object of contemplation, and who moves others through the force of attraction because efficient causality would degrade its nature.
part 1/2
>>333035
>changing goalposts this hard
If you want discourse on final causality you're going to have to go elsewhere. Whether its accepted is irrelevant right now, the point was to fully realize the situation so you can see the discourse in full. Is-Ought isn't some big discovery of a consequence to a previous decision. If you don't grasp the core question at hand you're doing nothing meaningful in discussing Is-Ought.
>>333067
Part 2 of 2.
>In Christian love, there is a reversal in the movement of love. The strong bend to the weak, the healthy help the sick, the noble help the vulgar. This movement is a consequence of the Christian understanding of the nature of God as fullness of being. God's love is an expression of His superabundance. The motive for love is not charity nor the neediness of the lover, but it is rooted in a deeply felt confidence that through loving I become more personalized and most real to myself. The motive for the world is not need or lack (à la Schopenhauer), but a creative urge to express the infinite fullness of being. Poverty and sickness are not values to be celebrated in order to spite those who are rich and healthy, but they simply provide the opportunity for a person to express his love. Rich people are harder to love because they are less in need of your generosity. Fear of death is a sign of a declining, sick, and broken life (Ressent 60). St. Francis' love and care for the lepers would have mortified the Greek mind, but for St. Francis, the threats to well-being are inconsequential because at the core of his being there is the awareness that his existence is firmly rooted in and sustained by the ground of ultimate being. In genuine, Christian love, the lower values that are relative to life are renounced not because they are bad, but simply because they are obstacles to those absolute values which allow a person to enter into a relationship with God. It is through loving like God that we are deified. This is why Scheler sees the Christian saint as a manifestation of strength and nobility and not manifesting ressentiment.
>>333067
>if you accept the premise then the conclusion is true
Top kek
>>332818
>Faith, believe it or not, is not about the "truth", but about how humans as an organized group can achieve great things.
This appears to be merely agreeing with the premise that religion is not true and is about controlling the population.
>>333027
"Not having Ressentiment" doesn't mean not being angry. Ressentiment is about being reactive and vengful. Nietzsche isn't angry at Christians because he had a bad experience with Christians; his father was a fucking priest and he has nothing but respect for his father. He is against the religion because it is against his values.
For instance. The Eternal Recurrence says we should embrace and appreciate every aspect of life, you cannot regret ANYTHTING or want to take it back. The idea of confession a sin directly contradicts this. If you sin you should not regret it, you need to embrace sin and want the sin to be part of your eternal recurrence. So the very idea of sin at all is anti-Nietzsche.
What he says is actually what he means. And it's pretty much true. Some of the words might be misinterpreted, for instance the word "noble" has a different meaning within his writing. He clearly defines what noble instincts and noble society is in Beyond Good and Evil and Christianity is directly opposed to such things.
Also you need to understand, from Nietzsche's point of view Christianity is reacting against his philosophy, his philosophy is a continuation of much older Greek philosophy and certain Roman tradition...traditions and ideas that the Christians specifically opposed. So from this perspective the earliest Christians were resentfulness against Nietzsche's ancestors. Examples would be Epicurus and Heraclitus.
>>332746
I'm Roman Catholic, of course my parents are religious, but they are also very open-minded. I could be openly Atheist if I wanted to, and I recognize most arguments in favor of Atheism as true to some, or even most, extent. However I simply enjoy being Christian, going to Church, etc. I don't understand why this reconciliation is seen as somehow unacceptable.
>>332728
>God is not real and Jesus' teachings invalid because there are disagreements on the dates of significant events
>>333064
From what I understand, Spinoza was heavily influenced by Cartesian philosophy and the break it made with scholastic thought. Much of that break has to do with the Cartesian approach devaluing authority and emphasizing careful, independent reasoning. They pushed philosophy to be more mathematical in its approach. Spinoza was influenced by some philosophers who would arguably count as scholastic, but he mostly spent his time critiquing the gaps in their arguments instead of agreeing with them. Many of the scholia of the Ethics are polemics against scholastic arguments, so you should consider paying some attention to those.
>>332952
>Except that religion predates class stratification and the very formation of "masses" and "elites".
Let's accept this as a fact; it doesn't contradict that religion is, in fact, an opiate of the masses and has been used in class warfare since the formation of classes. Labor and means of production predate classes as well, the point is how they are directed within your various class societies.
>>333112
Anger without ressentiment means to carry out one's revenge immediately and fully; ressentiment is a long snipe of carrying a grudge and making petty (in this case, purely verbal) attacks.
>If you sin you should not regret it
Thou shalt not?
>Also you need to understand, from Nietzsche's point of view Christianity is reacting against his philosophy, his philosophy is a continuation of much older Greek philosophy
His philosophy is a continuation of the Athenian side of the Melian dialogue, which hardly represents the standard Greek perspective. The Spartans were disgusted with how genocidal the Athenians were toward free Greeks (notice how much more magnanimous the Spartans were toward the Athenians), and blamed it on Athenian democracy. The same morality Nietzsche touts in contrast to democracy was identified as the worst face of democracy in ancient Greece.
>>333067
The final cause is just that for the sake of which something is done, so to say that the final cause is the good is just to say that the good is our general or ultimate aim when we do things. For example, suppose I think that the good is the maximization of pleasure, then to say the good is the final cause is just to say that when I do things I aim to maximize pleasure.
If we get into the nitty-gritty of this, there are some contentions: for instance, do people ever act contrary to what they think the good is, or do they just disagree about what the good is? if they act contrary to what they think the good is, do they do this accidentally or deliberately? But these sorts of issues are general problems in moral epistemology/moral motivation, rather than anything having to do with Thomistic ethics in particular.
Beyond these sorts of details, the proposal that the final end is the good isn't particularly jarring, and it can be asserted in the context of, say, Kant's deontology or Mill's utilitarianism as much as Aquinas' natural law theory.
Faith is belief in the unprovable
Religion all in all is an absurd concept, which is why it is hard to be religious; but that is precisely why many thinkers are still religious even after doubting the existence of a higher diety
>>333168
Also, taking all this into account, it's not surprise that Nietzsche's proclaimed enemy among the Greeks, Plato, was extremely anti-democratic (probably due to how democracy treated Socrates).
>>333067
But the Greeks and Romans had writings that described the early Christians as being directly opposed to their values. You guys were so opposed to their values your religion had to be out-lawed. Your entire religion started with a guy rejecting the sovernity of the emperor and declaring himself king
=/
>>333074
You're basically saying that Christianity says we should invite these poor refugees into Europe. You know...have the strong help the weak? That's exactly what the Catholic church is doing. Nietzsche would be telling us it's fucking suicide.
>>333191
>Nietzsche would be telling us it's fucking suicide.
>>333151
>The Christian God is not real because the "Divinely inspired and perfect" holy texts contain obvious errors.
>>333199
The Bible is only infallible in Orthodoxy and Catholicism in matters of doctrine.
>>333168
>Thou shalt not?
Regret and the eternal recurrence are mutually incompatible. If you would want to live your life over again it means you never regretted anything.
>>333190
Nietzsche's enemy among the Greeks was Socrates. He attacked Plato for putting the "other world" as separate and superior to the real world but considered him just an idealist that miscalculated the consequences of his philosophy. In other words Plato was not an enemy, he just made one of the biggest mistakes in philosophy. In contrast he says Socrates was an idiot who got himself taken seriously and he thinks Socrates did indeed corrupt his generation.
>>333198
He's not wrong.
>>333164
>religion is, in fact, an opiate of the masses and has been used in class warfare since the formation of classes
Let's accept "class warfare" as a fact, too, then. The greatest use religion had in class warfare across history is not as an "opiate of the masses", but as the exact opposite, religion has been consistently used as a way to mobilize the masses against the political, military and economical elites.
>>333199
The Bible is not meant to be divinely inspired or perfect considering it was written by man and the New Testament is entirely different men's accounts.
>>333220
>Regret and the eternal recurrence are mutually incompatible. If you would want to live your life over again it means you never regretted anything.
No one has adhered to this, it's ridiculous. Pindar say 2/3rds of life is suffering. None of the Greek heroes would want to relive every moment exactly if they could do things differently, and to say you would is engaging in self-delusion. You might say, "I'd be happy to live it all over again, or I'd strongly prefer that to oblivion," but to say every single moment is the best possible world for you is self-delusion, it's sour grapes.
>Nietzsche's enemy among the Greeks was Socrates.
Socrates and Plato are effectively the same philosopher.
>>333198
Nietzsche makes distinctions between higher and lower races. He doesn't do it often but he doesn't think all races are equal. For instance he tells us the Japanese are better than the Chinese. So he doesn't advocate blind race mixing. It is a fact that a mix between two equal genetic pools is overall an improvement since natural selection picks out the best results between the two.
>>333207
And yet both groups proclaim that the books were (Luke aside) written by eyewitnesses. This is severely doubtful considering the numerous errors they contain.
>>333242
>what is 2 Timothy 3:16
>>333207
Infallibility is one of the most misunderstood and caricatured notion there is
>>333245
Nietzsche did a genetic study of Chinese DNA compared to Japanese?
>>333064
>1. Scholasticism is a Muslim and to some degree Jewish invention, it was started in the "golden age" and carried over into Christian Scholasticism.
Scholasticism is defined by its classical theism. Classical Theism historically extends from Greek thought so it's Greek in origin, though you're right that Scholasticism is a collaborative effort between different schools with different disagreements. Christendom played its part too.
>They were probably the worst philosophers in history
Scholasticism housed the second largest expansion of formal logic since Ancient Greeks. I can't speak for the whole tradition, of course, but there was theological discourse alongside natural discourse. For the example you mention about the trinity, all religions do take their time arguing their view over anothers for political and philosophical ends and that's precisely what they did. This is not any different from atheist thinkers, for the past hundreds of years, arguing about whether evil existing means an old man in the sky doesn't exist. And even that's hilariously trivial and muddleheaded compared to the thinkers you're talking about.
Just like those atheists, them posing theological arguments aren't all they do.
I'm curious though, what are you reading?
I would recommend Etienne Gilson.
>>333093
Why yes, but logical necessity. My point is to realize the actual question at hand, which you don't get just going to Hume and hearing about Is-Ought.
>>333180
It is important to separate wills from natural ends in discussing final causality. I'm not going to get into this all right now though.
>Beyond these sorts of details, the proposal that the final end is the good isn't particularly jarring, and it can be asserted in the context of, say, Kant's deontology or Mill's utilitarianism as much as Aquinas' natural law theory.
I would say that's a stretch and natural law would be overall more comprehensive and both others could be used for other means.
>>333255
No they don't, how could they be when they mention events that the author obviously wasn't present for?
>This is severely doubtful considering the numerous errors they contain
Errors actually substantiate them. If they agreed completely, in a court of law it would be assumed that the witnesses were collaborating ahead of time to create a uniform narrative.
>>333243
>Socrates and Plato are effectively the same philosopher.
Incorrect. Socrates philosophy is primarly about dismantling other other people's philosophy and trying to say everyone else is a fool. This is his Socratic method. This is why he see's Socrates as destructive.
Plato's philosophy is about idealism, in which everything is striving to mimic it's 'form'.
The two cross over because Plato uses Socrates as a sock-puppet to communicate his own ideas but a comparison between texts shows the two had different ideas.
>No one has adhered to this, it's ridiculous.
The Eternal Recurrence is supposed to be nearly-impossible to achieve. You got to aim high. It's something that you are supposed to work towards as a motivator. The outcome isn't binary, the more of your life you can affirm as wanting to relive the closer you were to to success. The fun parts are easy to affirm, the painful parts are where you are tested.
>Pindar say 2/3rds of life is suffering
And you are supposed to embrace suffering as a means to become stronger
>>333290
>Incorrect. Socrates philosophy is primarly about dismantling other other people's philosophy and trying to say everyone else is a fool. This is his Socratic method. This is why he see's Socrates as destructive.
According to whom, Plato? What about Aristophanes' portrayal of him as a metaphysician?
>The two cross over because Plato uses Socrates as a sock-puppet to communicate his own ideas but a comparison between texts shows the two had different ideas.
I think you're looking at the dialogues as polemics, when in fact they weren't. Socrates loses sometimes, and objects to his own ideas sometimes. Dialogues were not just supposed to answer objections like how Aquinas writes.
>The Eternal Recurrence is supposed to be nearly-impossible to achieve. You got to aim high. It's something that you are supposed to work towards as a motivator. The outcome isn't binary, the more of your life you can affirm as wanting to relive the closer you were to to success. The fun parts are easy to affirm, the painful parts are where you are tested.
It would be absurd to expect Achilles to affirm that he wanted Patroclus to die.
>And you are supposed to embrace suffering as a means to become stronger
So, Christianity, then?
>>332721
Three are trash (special mention to dialectrical materia-moronism) and Hume didn't "btfo" anything except perhaps Bacon.
I know many of you don't like Aristotle (a bit sane for some tastes) but why have so many people never heard of the confusion of the genres? These philosophers commentaries on religion are about as insightful as their views on what music, optoelectronics and poetry should be.
>>333274
Nietzsche didn't research anything like for every other subject. The only thing he did research on was for the birth of tragedy, and classicists have exploded Nietzsche writings about that.
>>333296
Lets work through what I said:
>Is-Ought is not some great revelation but him realizing a consequence of a previous philosophical position put forth by Descartes and (accidentally) by Francis Bacon and prior to both of them the scholastics had already refuted the problem of Is-Ought.
>Is-Ought is not some great revelation but him realizing a consequence of a previous philosophical position put forth
>put forth by Descartes and (accidentally) by Francis Bacon
>and prior to both of them the scholastics had already refuted the problem of Is-Ought.
Obviously the scholastics had a solid refutation, then the philosophical position of Descartes/Bacon came about which led to the consequences of it being realized, which includes "is-ought". That was my point - to explain the core of the issue.
I apologize if me writing it up the first time was confusing but I hope we understand each other.
>>333315
>These philosophers commentaries on religion are about as insightful as their views on what music, optoelectronics and poetry should be.
So you are saying religion is merely equivalent to one's taste in music? Pick whichever religion you like based on your personal tastes?
That completely destroys the notion of divine revelation that are intrinsic to the monotheistic faiths.
>>333228
>The greatest use religion had in class warfare across history is not as an "opiate of the masses", but as the exact opposite, religion has been consistently used as a way to mobilize the masses against the political, military and economical elites.
You're talking about mere blips in the timeline of history. Religion is a man made artifact and it sometimes inspires bottom to top reaction but most of the time religion is consolidated at the top for their own ends. Don't even know how this is debatable, every human society with classes always places the priesthood at the top of the order, often at its summit. This is not controversial.
>>333328
>Obviously the scholastics had a solid refutation
>but only if you "accept final cause"
It's literally nothing, there is no refutation
>>333354
Well the issue itself is predicated on the refutation of Final Causality so you can't pose Is-Ought as a problem without making a comment about Final Causality first.
This is stupid, anon.
>Scholastics had a solid refutation of Is-Ought
>by accepting final causality as real
>Hume posed Is-Ought as a problem
>based on the premise of final causality not being real
>>333338
You are reading strange things in my post.
The fact that philosophy is largely irrelevant to the subject (at least in its historio/psycho/socio-babble form like in Nietzsche or Marx) doesn't imply that things are "merely equivalent to one's taste in music".
>Pick whichever religion you like based on your personal tastes?
Everyone picks everything according to one's tastes. The only doubtful thing here is the use of the word pick.
>That completely destroys the notion of divine revelation that are intrinsic to the monotheistic faiths.
It's barely connected to the beginning of your post. Revelation doesn't mean you have to take it qua revelation. And even if you do, it doesn't mean you can't reject God.
>>333401
>the premise of final causality not being real
Which is a true premise
>>333282
As far as I know, all mainstream groups of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy claim that:
Mark was written by St Mark, Peter's secretary
Matthew was written by the disciple of the same name
John was written by another one of the disciples.
>Errors actually substantiate them. If they agreed completely, in a court of law it would be assumed that the witnesses were collaborating ahead of time to create a uniform narrative.
Errors in what is common knowledge in Judea, like which theological positions belonged to which political/religious groups of the day, what words in the local language mean, and the titles of local notables might knock at them being collaborative projects, but it doesn't do much for the claim of the "eyewitnesses" actually being there.
>>333439
>As far as I know, all mainstream groups of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy claim that
Is there any actual evidence for who wrote them?
>>333436
>why aren't you arguing with me about this different topic!
Anon you can stop.
But I'm out for now.
>>333422
>The fact that philosophy is largely irrelevant to the subject (at least in its historio/psycho/socio-babble form like in Nietzsche or Marx) doesn't imply that things are "merely equivalent to one's taste in music".
So philosophy is relevant, merely not the ones you dismiss as babble.
>Everyone picks everything according to one's tastes.
Would you merely prefer choose? Let's look through a theasaurus for fun synomyms.
>It's barely connected to the beginning of your post
It's entirely connected. Monotheistic religions are based on being dun, dun, dun "THE TRUTH" based on the claim they are the divine revelations of "GOD".
>>333484
>a different topic
>your core assumption about scholastics having a refutation
OK kid
>>333446
I mean, you can make certain broad guesses by where the oldest manuscripts sprang up and the sort of Greek used in them, but if you want to pin it down to a specific individual, I don't think there's any real locks on any of the Gospel authors.
>>333509
What about at least where these authors got their information from?
>>333146
same here but a muslim instead.
Sometimes being part of a community and meeting new people is enough for me to stay in this religion.
>>333457
I think this was meant for >>333276
>>333514
Well, at least my wiki-level knowledge, the "mainstream" academic theory is that Luke and Matthew drew a lot of their stuff from the earlier Mark and the "Q" source. Mark is believed to be working from older oral traditions about Jesus, and John from a different set of older traditions and very possibly some now lost Gnostic texts.
But I'm hardly an expert on the subject and I've probably garbled what I've picked up, so don't take my word for it.
>>333276
>>Classical Theism historically extends from Greek thought so it's Greek in origin.
There has always been talk of religion in philosophy, most of the Greek thought distanced philosophy from religion, see Xenophanes. This is why Greek philosophy was better because unless it is handled in a very certain way mixing religion with philosophy destroys both.
>>arguing about whether evil existing
Let's put it this way. Let's ignore whether or not God exists. Evil which is generally defined as pain and certain choices is something we interact with every day. That's proper thing to philosophize about. God which outside of 'miracles' does not interact with this world so talking about is meaningless. This is why in general religious philosophy never accomplishes anything it's concerned with things that they insist don't even exist in the universe! We also get a giant lexicon of useless words that lead to understanding reality WORST.
Furthermore I'd argue formal logic in discussion of religion is terrible for the religion. People like Spinoza are the fruits of scholastism. The more you try to understand God logically the more you realize he is not logical until at least we arrive at destroying him. This is what the Orthodox figured out that the Catholics never did, religion is about spiritual experiences. Once you try to calculate the spirit you destroy it. Trying to understand "god" logically doesn't bring you closer to him, it moves you away. Spiritual things can only be felt.
The place for religion in philosophy is entirely functional. Whether the religion or theology is 'true' doesn't even matter. Consider that you beleive every religion other than your own is not true but the religions were still used to achieve certain ends, to give certain spiritual feelings.
>>I'm curious though, what are you reading?
Skimming through podcasts. If I find someone I think is worth reading I'll read their texts directly.
>>333439
That doesn't mean they witnessed first hand all the events described in the Gospels
>>332721
read Tolstoy you figlet
>>333577
>not Dostoevsky
>>333492
>So philosophy is relevant, merely not the ones you dismiss as babble.
Not really. I don't like William James much either if that's an answer.
>Would you merely prefer choose? Let's look through a theasaurus for fun synomyms.
The idea was that everything you act for is always done according to your tastes.
Also, the reason I didn't like the word pick is not remedied with choose. A technician may be said to evaluate his work and to "pick" to best issue but that's a very broad use of the term.
>It's entirely connected. Monotheistic religions are based on being dun, dun, dun "THE TRUTH" based on the claim they are the divine revelations of "GOD".
Even if that was the case, it doesn't clash at all with people picking their religion. When one recognizes something as divine, and then accept it, there is nothing going against his "tastes" or preferences or choices.
"If there is a reason to doubt, there is a reason to doubt. If there is a reason to believe, then there is a reason to believe. Presumption is not reason."
- Socrates
"The first lie isn't the lie that is presented; it's the lie that you have no choice but to pick from what is presented to you."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
"The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you are screaming that something is positive and physically present, you have to have positive evidence. People do not have to provide you evidence to the contrary for lack of evidence is what we call a negative."
- Christopher Hitchens
>>332728
Eh, it's more about the message of the Gospels than whats in them. I'm not particularly religious but there's no denying that the Bible teaches lessons about respect and being charitable.
>>332721
>Marx
Oh yeah, the guy that never got a job and lived off of handouts from his friends, he sure knew what he was talking about
>>333646
The Third one by Hitchens goes against many practices outside journalism about what is refutation.
Burden of proof has never been an argument for anything. Every proposition is "problematic" and there is no reason to separate some "positive" claims from "negative" ones.
>>333345
Well, the problem is that your thinking is based on revolutionary propaganda, not on fact. The priestly class being firmly allied with the ruling elite is what is actually a blip in the timeline of history. Most of the time, military and priestly castes were at each other throat.
>>333615
>Even if that was the case,
It is the case.
> it doesn't clash at all with people picking their religion.
Apart from the fairly obvious point that they can't all be true and by the very action of designating one to be true they are declaring all the others to be not true.
You were the one that chose that chose the analogy of music etc. Declaring I like Wagner more than Mozart is mere taste in music. Declaring you are a Christian, for example, is explicity staking the claim that Islam, Hinduism etc etc are not true.
>>332752
>Anyone can see a book with a talking snake and a talking donkey in it is a work of fiction.
Or, you know, a book of parables.
Oh right, how could I forget? People with autism can't comprehend hidden meanings.
>>333704
That's not correct thought.
Citation:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
>>333831
My favorite parable is the one about the cross. It's not literally true just a parable. After all a talking snake is even LESS believable than necromancy!
>>332721
I'm not a Christian but I would like to believe in a God.
>>333704
>goes against many practices
1.) Argument from authority fallacy
2.) Argumentum ad populum fallacy
3.) Exestential fallacy
4.) Positive genetic fallacy
>Burden of proof has never been an argument for anything.
1.) Argument from ignorance fallacy
>Every proposition is "problematic"
1.) Existential fallacy
2.) Conflation fallacy
3.) Personal incredulity fallacy
4.) Argument from ignorance fallacy
etc...
Do you even know what Intellectual Honesty is?
It means checking to see if YOU'RE making ASSUMPTIONS.
>>333831
>a book of parables.
Like the zombie invasion in John?
>>333861
Even if the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is simply a parable, it still holds meaning.
The Divine sacrificing Itself for It's creation is, I daresay, revolutionary. Also, Christianity ushered in a new perception: classes don't matter. We're all equal in the eyes of the Creator.
>>332721
This is where Marx is wrong. In the case of Christianity, religion is not an opiate. Rather, it inspired people to look past social and political hierarchy. This would eventually lead to the Reformation, which allowed for the Enlightenment.
In the case of Nietzsche, Christianity does wish to keep man from natural desires. However, this is done to create what one might call 'ubermensch'. Man freeing himself from lust, anger, and pride in order to help others through charity, love, and humility would ultimately make not only a better man, but also a better world.
>>333199
Precisely. The CHRISTIAN GOD. Atheists always point to inconsistencies and scream
>SEE, THERE IS NO GOD.
When this is discrediting but ONE of an infinite possibilities of what a God could be
>>333191
>rejecting the sovernity of the emperor
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." - Mark 12:17
>>333885
Writings fallacies behind things doesn't give them value.
Even then, where would the 'existential fallacy" be?
I would add a derogatory comment about how some philosophers sure know much about bullshit since that's what their "discipline" is but I guess there is already a scholar term for the additional fallacy.
The only assumption I make here is about your position on the spectrum.
>>333939
>Christianity ushered in a new perception: classes don't matter. We're all equal in the eyes of the Creator.
AKA Marxist cancer. Let's get rid of classes and all be equal :^)
>Man freeing himself from lust, anger, and pride in order to help others through charity, love, and humility would ultimately make not only a better man, but also a better world
>The Divine sacrificing Itself for It's creation is, I daresay, revolutionary
There's plenty of stories where divine figures sacrifice themself. Usually it's done doing something heroic like fighting a monster or stealing away fire. What's unique about Jesus is the anti-heroism.
>Man freeing himself from lust, anger, and pride in order to help others through charity, love, and humility would ultimately make not only a better man, but also a better world.
Face it. If Alexander the great didn't have his pride to move him forward, his anger to allow him to fight, and his lust for power to give him motivation he would have never fucking left his house. Pride, lust for conquest, and wrath against one's enemies are the very traits that make one successful. These are the motivators, the life givers.
Hows that charity for those poor immigrants coming about? How's that being humble and not offending the black lesbians with your white hetrosexual supremacy coming along?
The fact that you view basic human emotions like "pride" as something to run away from...to free yourself from your own ego, from your drive, from your very self is disgusting. It's a sin against one's body. You might want to repent for that....not to Jesus though but to yourself.
>>334078
So you're admitting to ignorance, but at the same time you cycle in denialism?
Please tell me you know epistemology is, because if you're rejecting Elenctic deduction, then here is no hope for you.
It takes like 4 minutes to master Epistemology, The Socratic Method, The Elenctic Process, Logical Fallacies and Connotative Biases.
Look up their step by step process.
Look up a list of their definitions.
Profit.
>>333816
>
You were the one that chose that chose the analogy of music etc. Declaring I like Wagner more than Mozart is mere taste in music. Declaring you are a Christian, for example, is explicity staking the claim that Islam, Hinduism etc etc are not true.
Indeed. That doesn't class at all as I said with the notion of people taking preferences.
Reminder that what I say about clashing refers to
>Pick whichever religion you like based on your personal tastes? That completely destroys the notion of divine revelation that are intrinsic to the monotheistic faiths.
It doesn't.
>>333979
You don't get it. Being a citizen of Rome meant you acknowledged the emperor was divine. You could worship any God you wanted but you also needed to beleive the emperor was at least partially divine. This is the one beleif that united the whole country, it was the single act that made you patriot.
Christ denied God and declared he was the king. He made a direct challenge to Rome's authority by insisting that HE not the rightful king was in charge. This is why he went to fucking court. This was anti-government activity, it was TREASON. And if you haven't' caught on I'm also telling you Jesus was completely guilty.
This is why the Christians were anti-Roman, anti-country, and anti-patriots the one thing! It was an early revolution and as this guy pointed out>>333939 it was a revolution that was downright Marxist! The entire religion started as a reactionary force where the slaves opposed their Roman Master. The early Christians were all lower class people that hated the rulers. This is what Nietzsche is getting at. It really was a slave revolt in the purest sense. They wanted to remove all classes and have everyone be "equal"....of course all just like Communism failed to do that so did Christianity, the Pope just took the role of being the new slave owner.
>>334101
>It doesn't.
Yes it does.
Choosing, based on prefererence, that divine revelation shows Jesus is god is a claim that non-trinitarians and Islam is wrong.
Because God is in the heart of all beings and when He is recognized you will never go back to the stage of ignorance before enlightenment.
>>334098
I'm more curious about the reverse. Could you point to a 100 pages+ work of philosophy written in, say, English, and relatively well known, that makes no "fallacies" at all, not a single one, according to your requirements?
Is it possible to believe in parts of a religion and not other parts?
Fuck claiming to be "Christian" or "Jewish". If that shit makes sense to you, believe it. Fuck everything else. Fuck association and identification. Take on every idea as a singular and determine whether or not it makes sense to you.
I find a lot of people being agnostic then looking into religions and their teachings then deciding that religion isn't for them. Why? Is it possible to be religions without identification? Is it possible to believe in a higher power without calling yourself something? Many people seem to think it's not. I've dreamt up the entirety of my "religion", believing in a Devine being, but not sure whether it's the planet, the universe, or a fifth dimensional being, but I believe in one. I have to call myself theist, but am I religious? I believe it doesn't fucking matter. Fuck organized religion. It gets in the way and encourages greed.
Fuck Christianity, fuck religion, fuck this thread. At the bottom line, what does it fucking matter to discuss religion (personal belief)? Why does it matter what one person believes? Is it not all just blind faith? Is any one more correct than another? If it makes you happy, who fucking cares if others don't agree? If theirs makes them happy, who cares if you don't agree?
Religion pisses me off.
>>334172
You forgot your fedora's m8
>>334139
All right, I'll take the bait.
There is a proposition to consider : people choose/pick after their preferences.
Then you claimed that it clashes with " the notion of divine revelation", whereas I fail to see the clash here.
>Choosing, based on prefererence, that divine revelation shows Jesus is god is a claim that non-trinitarians and Islam is wrong.
And that has nothing to say about there being revelation or not.
>>334145
Yes, actually.
That's what the different processes entail.
It can all be broken down into 2 parts:
1.) Are there presumptions
2.) Double check the list to see commonly skipped or missed presumptions; the lists also show where the flaw is in examples
It's that simple.
Logic isn't hard.
It's:
1.) Sequential analysis
2.) Analysis of presumptions
>>333939
>This is where Marx is wrong. In the case of Christianity, religion is not an opiate. Rather, it inspired people to look past social and political hierarchy. This would eventually lead to the Reformation, which allowed for the Enlightenment.
This is where you're wrong. Opiates are not opiates. Opiates allow you to look past social and political hierarchy.
>>334080
>AKA Marxist cancer. Let's get rid of classes and all be equal :^)
Nope. Simply an encouragement for one to look past classes. Hierarchies are obviously still in place.
>Face it. If Alexander the great didn't have his pride to move him forward, his anger to allow him to fight, and his lust for power to give him motivation he would have never fucking left his house. Pride, lust for conquest, and wrath against one's enemies are the very traits that make one successful. These are the motivators, the life givers
Pride in one's own accomplishments is fine. Flexing in the mirror, appreciating you gains, is fine. Pride becomes sinful when one basks in themselves so much to the point that it damages their relationships and possibly themselves.
As for lust, I am more so referring to the lust of carnal pleasures, money, and control. These often lead to one letting their desires take control of them, dictating their actions. Once these desires take over, it can lead to the end of relationships, cheating one another, dishonesty, and in serious cases rape and killing. These, I daresay, are the life enders.
As for Alexander, he was a learned man with respectful ambitions. He wanted to be a hero for his people, and remembered in history. He did kill people, but I can look that past that. After all, he did not bask in himself and his accomplishments to the point of his own collapse and I doubt he barred a true hatred for his enemies.
Charity should be done by the individual, not a government. Humility is modesty, not catering to degeneracy.
>>334210
Looking past hierarchy means you do not see it as important.
Hence why Protest German peasants rose up against their landlords and seized Church property during the Reformation.
>>334198
>Then you claimed that it clashes with " the notion of divine revelation", whereas I fail to see the clash here.
You fail to see the claim that there is a clash between the Quran being divine revelation that Jesus is not god and (trinitarian) Christian claims that divine revelation shows that Jesus is god?
If you can't see they are mutually exclusive I can't see anyway to explain it better to you.
>And that has nothing to say about there being revelation or not.
Whether it exists or not is your department, as an agnostic I have no idea whether it exists or not, I have no evidence to indicate it does though.
>>334200
I'm more of a retard learning by examples instead of these grandiose claims. So where are these books respecting logic?
By the way, it would be preferable if these books talked about something else than logic.
>>334251
Excatly, get fucking stoned and you'll not see hierarchy as important either.
>>334266
To claim ignorance is not a grandiose claim.
Also:
>Socrates, Aristotle, Diogenes of Sinope, Sartre, Daudrillard, Descarte, Kant, etc.
Their way of explaining logic is more by example, which you might prefer.
I'm a literalist that looks at sequential charts and looks for obvious errors [presumptions].
>>334294
You claim that both Aristotle and Descartes wrote according to logic and yet the second was accusing the first of being a raging self-contradicting faggot full of errors (and not merely in "assumptions") all the time.
Diogenes writings didn't even reach us.
>>332791
Marxian economics is basically non-existant at an academic level. Everything he wrote on economics was wrong
>>334614
>the more I say it the more true it is!!!
>>334625
Can you point to me one economic concept unique to marx that has been empirically validated
>>334710
The concept of the clear navel:
It is the only way you can reconcile empirically Marx's notions, which require his head to be quite far up his own ass, with the fact that he walked around without bumping into things.
>>332976
WRONG. He was the ultimate fedora, who in fact stopped being friends with Wagner when the latter converted to Christianity.
>>332721
Were any of these autists first-hand witnesses who could refute the testimonies of the early Christian Church? No. Then why should we give their opinions more credence than those accounts of the early Christian movement? For no reason that I can surmise.
>Friedrich "The Crucified One" Nietzsche
>>334802
He stopped being friends with Wagner because of his antisemitism and obsession with nationalism. As for Wagner and Christianity Nietzsche says the Christian influences ruined his music, Wagner actually changed his music in order to make it more acceptable to the Christian community, like he completly redid his style. Nietzche has no problems with Christan themes his favorite book is fucking Faust and he makes allusions to Dante's Inferno all the time. The man was a fucking art-critic.
And if you actually know about Wagner's symphonies you would know that his work before he was Christian are considered masterpieces while they later works are inferior. "Ride of Valkyire" "Hall of the Mountain King" etc.
But you don't know about Nietzsche or about music. Fucking Christ-fags are OBSESSED with hating atheists for the simple reason that they are atheists, Nietzsche actually lays out his reasons for opposing Christianity is 100% consistent, he doesn't criticize Christians he believe possess traits traits he likes such Cesar Borgia.
>>334196
>>333027
>His argument is worse, quoting the two most Latin theologians he could (Tertullian and Aquinas) and using them to represent Christianity as filled with ressentiment.
Scream "I only ever read The Genealogy of Morals" even louder.
>No resentment? What do you call this?
You reading bullshit into Nietzsche that you want to read into Nietzsche.
>>332721
>>>/leftypol/
>>334907
>1885
>not being gay
>>334908
>Hall of the Mountain King
That ain't Wagner
>>334908
>"Hall of the Mountain King"
It's a composition of Edvard Grieg.
>>332721
I still fail understand how someone can read the bible and still remain a christian
>>334908
>"Hall of the Mountain King"
>you don't know about Nietzsche or about MUSIC
topkek
>>335314
stop mixing cloth types, heretic
Christianity is kinda the base level as far as esoteric knowledge and wisdom goes. Reading revisions will dumb you down hardcore. If you wanna step up your spiritual game, studying all the doctrines of peace and prosperity hidden between the layers of all religions is a good idea.
>>335354
Studying all spiritual systems is great but trying to combine them all is a fucking logistical nightmare. They vary so much on doctrine.
>>332721
all the fedoras in this thread
>>332903
I keked.
these atheists need to leave
>>335399
Need a safe place free of atheists? Try /r/Christianity
>>332721
if they're so smart, how come they are all ded?
>>332721
by reading pic related:
>>333074
>Unbridled faith and belief impassions an abstraction of behaviour towards action in conjunction with the ideal
Where do you find this twisted shit?
Do any of you actually believe this crap?
How the fuck can you accept these authors?
>>332721
Because I don't think their descriptions are necessarily an argument against it.
>>335897
I don't think he does believe in it. He pulled up a no-name philosophy who is an obvious charlaton spouting hall-mark card nonsense. As far as Christian counters to Nietzsche go Dostoevsky is the best but Dostoevsky is Orthodox but Wolfshiem seems to favor the nobody because he's a Catholic. It's part of Wolfshiem's nature as a shill.
>>333245
>Nietzsche makes distinctions between higher and lower races
He doesn't seems to do do that.
No, we do not love Mankind! On the other hand, however, we are not nearly "German" enough (in the sense in which the word " German " is current at present) to advocate nationalism and RACE-HATRED, or take delight in the national heart-itch and blood-poisoning, on account of which the nations of Europe are at present bounded off and secluded from one another as if by quarantines. [...] Will it not be obliged to desire the perpetuation of the petty-state system of Europe? . . . We homeless ones are too diverse and MIXED IN RACE and descent for "modern men," and are consequently little tempted to participate in the FALSIFIED RACIAL SELF-ADMIRATION and lewdness which at present display themselves in Germany, as signs of German sentiment, and which strike one as doubly false and unbecoming in the people with the "historical sense." We are, in a word - and it shall be our word of honour! - good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, over-wealthy heirs, but too deeply obligated heirs of millenniums of European thought. As such, we have also outgrown Christianity, and are disinclined to it - and just because we have grown out of it, because our forefathers were Christians uncompromising in their Christian integrity, who willingly sacrificed possessions and positions, blood and country, for the sake of their belief. We do the same. For what, then? For our unbelief? For all sorts of unbelief? Nay, you know better than that, my friends! The hidden Yea in you is stronger than all the Nays and Perhapses, of which you and your age are sick; and when you are obliged to put out to sea, you emigrants, it is once more a faith which urges you thereto!...
The Gay Science - #377
>>332721
They can't be, it isn't logically possible
Anyone who claims otherwise has not understood them
>>337423
This isn't a denial of there being a hierarchy in some genetic way. Nietzsche stresses several times that there are differences between people. He talks about "breeding" in several places.
You need to read that thing you posted again
>We homeless ones are too diverse and MIXED IN RACE and descent for "modern men," and are consequently little tempted to participate in the FALSIFIED RACIAL SELF-ADMIRATION
He's saying that people have been race mixing to the point where racial identity is harder to maintain. For instance the Germans actually have a ton of Jewish blood in them, I think more than any other Europian race, so being anti-semetic is stupid. The whole of Europe is one giant mix called "white". This isn't to say he thinks that some guy from South Africa has the same genes as a German or Jew.
>We are, in a word - and it shall be our word of honour! - good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, over-wealthy heirs, but too deeply obligated heirs of millenniums of European thought
He affirms this again, he's saying there isn't much of a genetic difference between the various European countries. You need to understand he is writing in a type before globalization. "Nationalism" for him means comparing your country to another country in Europe, there is no concept of comparing it something like China, Arabia, or Africa because these lands never interact with you apart from sending a bit of literature and spices.
>>337336
Considering the nonsense the wolf spouts, I would definitely say he believes it
>>335868
Is that Leibniz?
I wrote a shitty paper claiming that christianity didnt affect the fall of rome and gibbon was my primary source.
>>335868
>best of all possible worlds
>Leibniz BTFO
>>333146
Because the atheists that make these threads are sad, jealous people. Think about it, this dude took time out if his day to blatantly shitpost. Most of the militant atheists I've met are sad lonely people like OP who blame their lack of religion, or everyone else's possession of religion, for all of their social problems. The fedora atheists meme exists for a reason.
>>333146
>>338248
To be fair the 4 people posted above have legitimate philosophical points against the religion. If you don't want to engage in philosophy and just do your own thing that's ok. But to say that talking about philosophy of religion is "shit-posting" because it paints a negative picture is ridiculous, especially when it is involving discussing the ideas of legitimate philosophers as opposed to say Dawkins.
>>332899
>Marx's correctly pointed out religion has been used as a means of control in virtually all cases, a way for the elite to manipulate the masses.
That's bullshit usually the cause of most political upheavals is religion based.
The war on terror right now is basically "Islam wants to rip the middle east apart"
>>332899
>its used as a means to manipulate
>therefore its wrong
I could the say the same thing about your liberal arts education
I'm an atheist and im disgusted by your ignorance
Any thoughts christfags ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJ3sqkdCRE
Why the hell do people actually admire this douchebag?
>>338411
This to be honest family
If you're against coercion, cohesion and control you need to be against any form of civilization that has existed and will exist in the immediate future.
The rest of us will try to build sustainable civilizations in the meantime.
>>338248
>Because the atheists that make these threads are sad, jealous people
>projecting this hard
>>338168
Yes
>How can anyone earnestly be a Christian after having read these guys?
Faith.
>>332721
None of them mounted a rebuttal of the central premise. Of them, Hume came closest.
>>342304
This
99% of believing Christians didnt get that way through reading well constructed apologetics and rational demonstration. Even Wolfsheim has said in other threads that even if the arguments of Aquinas were to be disproved he would still be a Catholic.
>>338248
Lol I'm doing great in my life and get along great with Christians IRL. I think you're just projecting m8
>>338388
Nice bald-faced assertion, you sure convinced me with that hot negation.
>>342304
A walk through the lunatic asylum will prove that faith is meaningless
>>342326
"Central" is relative.
>>342686
>implying faith matters to non Christians
>>342686
The thing is an entirely faith based argument doesn't allow you to proselytize. You can't be upset when someone dismisses your beliefs as 'santa clause' when you have no way to back it up. Further more it would mean you have to accept universal reconciliation (everyone goes to heaven) since all other religions are also operating on the same principle of faith, there would be no way to figure out the 'correct' one.
This is essentially what Orthodoxy moves towards. It's also the reason they are the branch that shitposts the least.
>>344067
No, it's not.
If you can't refute the central thesis of Christianity, all their objections are moot.
>>344590
If some person tells you their central thesis is that figgity facks are fuckity wuts, you tell them to fuck off.
That's Christianity to nonbelievers. You act like we have to refute your "central thesis", no we don't.
>>344590
>the central thesis of Christianity
The divinity of Jesus? The burden of proof is on Christians to prove that one.
>>332721
>Christianity
>Not all religion
Fuck off virgin neckbeard-NEET... we get it, you were too pathetic to rebel in school so this is your way of rebelling against society
>>344684
>>344698
OK, so to follow the logic of OP, I can "prove" the point simply.
1) By hanging out on 4chan and making the argument, you're living in denial of your absolute freedom, and just sublimating yourself into a herd mentality.
2) You are making the argument because it projects an image of yourself that you find pleasing. The quality of the arguments themselves are irrelevant to you, as the qualities you imagine the argument gives you.
3) You're deriving an is from an ought.
4) By posting on 4chan, you are distracted from taking part in class struggle.
There. Since you agree that addressing the central argument is irrelevant, this should be a sufficient proof that atheism is intellectually untenable for you.
>>345003
Ought from and is*
>>345003
>Since you agree that addressing the central argument is irrelevant,
I said the burden of proof was on Christians
>>344427
Faith just means divine inspiration, well I have no divine inspiration.
>>345003
Lmao you take yourself seriously
>>344968
>virgin neckbeard NEET
yup! 100% exactly
>>345894
No. OP's Question is "How can anyone earnestly be a Christian after having read these guys?"
In this case, OP believes that these four authors can provide some reason to disbelieve the Central Premise of Christianity.
But none of them do. All of them engage in side arguments that are irrelevant. Even granting them their entire arguments, there's still no reason in them not to be Christian.
>>346639
>But none of them do.
They don't have to if the main thesis is unproven
>>346693
Yes, they do. They're the ones advancing a positive argument.
>>346639
Hume among other things wrecks the idea of faith and miracles
Nietzsche destroys the origin of the church and accuses the first Christians of corrupting the original message of Christ, than exposes their philosophy as pure corruption.
Marx tracks the history of the religion and concludes it's nothing more than a means of controlling the masses.
Haven't read the last other guy but OP is right. A lot of their arguments have yet to be countered properly and if anything they have gotten stronger over time. What we know about Paul actually fits Nietzsche's narrative more than the official one for instance.
>>346725
And all that is still irrelevant to the central matter.
Also
>Marx tracks the history of the religion
You haven't even read Marx.
>>332721
From my nonstudied experience that you can dismiss if you so choose, people aren't nearly as logical as you think. We cater more towards our emotional well being and life narrative. I'd guess even you have more of that to answer for your separation from Christianity than all the philosophy in the world.
Christianity, while wildly illogical on many levels, offers its believers many psychologically important benefits. Faith lets you have a quasi center of control over events you have no control over. Prayer lets you talk with the most supportive imaginary friend available, with all the benefits of common social interaction. And you get to belong to a community set in keeping you.
The only thing atheism offers you is superiority over Christian's shit. It's pretty lonely being an atheist, there's no natural hugbox when you need it, and when you're in a religious environment, you become the antagonist to a lot of people. You aren't the center of the universe anymore, you realize just how easily bad luck can fuck you over. Philosophy is accurate. But other than superiority, it is not self serving.
>>346639
Stop reciting this central thesis bullshit
Christians are as neurotic as coke addicts
>>346766
Yeah but Nietzsche dispels the illusion that Chrisianity is "helping me"
>>346722
You've literally been posturing nonstop and have said not one thing of value or interest. Fuck off
>>332721
Nietzsche pointed out that resentiment is one of the worst things a person can be engulfed in. Yet it is atheistic left wing egalitarian that is most full of resentiment, where Catholicism is even more life affirming than even Nietzsche taught us to be.
Darwin gave evidence for something roughly held by Augustine already.
Hume showed us the errors of pure empiricism through his philosophical errors, showing us why Aristotelean Scholasticism gives us a superior system that maintains a respect for empirical observation.
Marx inverted christian mythology and showed us that such attempts to secularize christian concepts tends to destruction. Attempts to secularize Catholic concepts always ends in failure, yet without them we are left with nothing of value in western society.
>>333064
You should probably do some serious academic study of the scholastics before you comment on them. It takes allot to really get into the groove of what was going on.
I suggest John Marenbon's book on Medieval Philosophy for one. You should also check out the Bosley and Tweedale " Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy"- it highlights allot of the more important philosophical results rather than the theological ones. Another thing you need to realize is that on the way to those "pointless" theological results allot of philosophical innovation took place, whether it be Abelard's de dicto vs de re distinction, Scotus' notion of Haecceity, his argument for self change, choice at an instant, or his modal revolution, Aquinas' discovery of closed vs open time intervals and his arguments against mistaken views on infinity, etc very few philosophers who have actually engaged in Scholasticism seriously have such a low estimation of it.
Also the "its arguing about semantics" is true some of the time, but that is because they understood ( as analytics due today) that you have to be rigorous about the language you use if you are basing your discipline on discursive arguments.
>>347400
>yet without them we are left with nothing of value in western society.
That is the most impossibly fucking arrogant thing I've ever heard.
>>347400
>Darwin gave evidence for something roughly held by Augustine already.
Also, that's not Darwin that's Ludwig Feuerbach.
>>347432
Oh ok, my mistake. Why should we take Feuerbach seriously ?
>>347428
Meh. I'm not even sure I could qualify as being Catholic. I just can't think of anything of value that didn't initially come from either Catholicism or its constituent parts ( Germanic, Roman, Hebrew and Greek civilizations/culture)
>>347513
>or its constituent parts
Oh fuck right off. If those values came fom "its constituent parts" they are not fucking catholic values. What is it with this fucking place and acting as though common values are somehow some sort of great ideological innovation on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. I honestly think it's just authority worship.
>Why should we take Feuerbach seriously ?
He was an influential philosopher. I'm personally not a big fan.
Also, while we're at it:
>Yet it is atheistic left wing egalitarian that is most full of resentiment, where Catholicism is even more life affirming than even Nietzsche taught us to be.
An utterly unsubstantiated statement followed by an equally unsubstantiated statement. Step it up.
>>347313
>Stop reciting this central thesis bullshit
You're literally asking me to stop thinking and addressing the problem in a clear and logical manner.
It was one of the first methods of entertainment in the home while teaching morals to those who read. If anything else had been produced massivley that early it would have the status of the Bible from its longevity in circulation.
>>347527
Catholicism by in large "appropriated" a bunch of other cultural forms and produced a unity that is more than the sum of its parts. Catholicism carried on those cultures by perfecting them.
Left wing egalitarianism is based around hatred of those in power because they are able to assert themselves and express their wills and dominate the social discourse, where leftists find themselves jealous that they cannot do the same and are on the lower end of the hierarchy. Hence they go on rampages and try to level society to the ground in order to instantiate their ideal world where they are on top, or at least no one is. Left wing egalitarianism is all about negating hierarchy for the sake of an mythologized political utopia, and committing mass violence due to a gnostic impulse to negate society for the sake of bringing down who ever is deemed as being " on top". The left has always been about constant negation of their betters.
Catholicism tells us to love our enemies, that humanity is inherently sinfull and yet also children of God regardless. Even the most brutal of life's hardships " Christ suffering on the cross" is transposed into divinity and love. Catholicism embraces even the ugliest of humanity and redeems them. We are told to do good works because this world matters. Catholics know that we cannot negate the world and turn it into a heaven, we have to simply do our best given our fallen nature and love each other the best we can regardless of the inherent agony that comes with existence. Nietzsche says that forgiveness is the luxury of the strong, who is more powerful than Christ in this regard ?
>>347601
I take it you aren't a fan of liberation theology Catholics.
>Catholicism tells us to love our enemies, that humanity is inherently sinfull and yet also children of God regardless. Even the most brutal of life's hardships " Christ suffering on the cross" is transposed into divinity and love. Catholicism embraces even the ugliest of humanity and redeems them
Actually that seems to be more in line with the Orthodox Church. Catholics had no problem burning people at the stake out of love - probably the least Christ like activity one can do.
>>347400
>Yet it is atheistic left wing egalitarian that is most full of resentment,
This is correct. Nietzsche actually discusses this. A Christian explains it here.
https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/new-atheists-nietzsches-english-flat-heads/
>it's either secular left or my religion
false dichotomy. Besides with how you church is acting you might as well have Karl Marx on Peter's chair.
>where Catholicism is even more life affirming than even Nietzsche taught us to be
You can't even affirm basic aspects of the human condition, you call them 'sin'. You still stick to the origin story that humanity is a huge fuck up with eden.
>Augustine
One of the theologians Nietzsche singled as being an example of life denying. He treats heaven like a big revenge fantasy, Nietzsche had some quote by him about how God's elect will gain pleasure in heaven by watching the bullies that hurt them being tortured in hell.
>Darwin
Is the worst thing to happen to your church since Nietzsche himself. He ruined the entire Christian view of "evil" overnight. Consider that all the things Catholics insist are 'sin' and 'a result of the fall' are now proven to be how life always was, even before Eden (which is now impossible to reconcile with Evolution since the first man and first woman lived thousands of years apart). You're back to the thing Nietzsche accused you, you can't accept affirm a world where the strong dominate the weak. You can't accept that all war for the sake conquest is the natural law. You can't appreciate the cruelity and violence of the jungle. You're whole morality is revealed as one giant revolt against nature.
>Aristotelean
Replaced by Einstein's relativity physics which invalidate literally all metaphysics made in by the scholastic. Can you tell me if there is something to scholasticism other than sucking Aristotle's dick that would really help save time in my research?
1/2
>>347400
2/2
>You should probably do some serious academic study of the scholastics before you comment on them
Do I also need to do serious academic work before I comment on feminism? I'm going to give it a quick overlook and if there is someone even close to resembling a real philosopher I'll dive in. Right now Beauvoir's feminism is looking more relevant to reality. No I'm not exaggerating. There are a million things I could be researching right now. Aquinas and Avicenna are some of the most obvious charlatans I've seen, the fact that they are exalted by their respective religions really shows that the religious philosophy is one giant circle jerk. You can also see that when Catholics such as yourself barely mention Islamic or Jewish scholastics, the point isn't to learn about philosophy it's to make your religion look good.
Anyway thanks for your information. The way you treat philosophy is truly disgusting. It's just used a vehicle to peddle your cult. In all the time I've seen people like you shit-post about it not ONCE have praised the people that allowed your Catholic scholastics possible. Not ONCE have I seen praise for Avicenna despite that he was essential to Aquina's work. There is no respect for tradition, no respect for heritage. It would be like praising Hegel while trying to pretend Plato never existed. I'm actually trying to learn your scholastic from it's roots with the Muslims and Jews before moving onto the Christians. Your attempts to utterly LIE about Nietzsche are also illuminating. As well as your cult worship of physics that are objectively false.
Than in all this you ask me to consider your side? If anything you've lowered my respect for your school's philosophy it probably had the same respect for every other person who reads this. But what do you care, scholasticism is just a circle-jerk. So no I'm sorry but I will decline to read your book.
>>347742
Hey outer what are your thoughts on Stirner?
>>332721
HEY GUYS LETS AGITATE FOR A HISTORY BOARD!!!!!!11 Xd xd XD
>FLOODS IT WITH ATHEISTS BTFO!
>>347741
>You can't appreciate the cruelity and violence of the jungle.
I've never really understood why anyone would want that as a model for human behaviour.
Every time someone knowledgeable of Nietzsche starts talking about his morals, it sounds like the man just wanted us to break down into a Mad Max apocalypse.
>>347792
>I've never really understood why anyone would want that as a model for human behaviour.
Its less about desiring and more about recognising that reality doesnt really accord with normative and idealistic claims.
>>347825
Makes sense. Might makes reality and all that.
>>347792
>model for human behaviour.
It's not the model it's the reality. Violence HAS to happen. Just getting a burger involves killing a cow. States are built on conquest and the police sometimes need to kill people.
There are really only two ways to approach this. Either you need to try to eliminate ALL violence or you need to accept it.
Trying to eliminate all violence is nightmare. Even if you succeeded in turning everyone in the nation into a Janist monk someone is going to invade you and than it's back to square one. You need to remember that just because you accept a philosophy not everyone else in the world will accept it, and you won't be able to convert them. The idea that if everyone becomes a sheep no one gets hurt is bullshit. All it does is make it so the people who become wolves have a feast.
So the only choose is to accept that violence is natural. That doesn't everyone goes around killing each other but you don't delude yourself into thinking it's 'evil' or 'sin'. If you are forced to shoot terrorists you might as well learn to have fun rather than sobbing about the horrors of war. If your country is founded on conquest (all are) than you might as well say that the conquest really was noble, rather than feeling yourself with white guilt about all the slavery and dead Indians. From this you can see that only be accepting that violence is a natural part of the world can you actually have a functioning country. Consider the absurdity of 'police brutality' the idea that cops are no longer allowed to beat looters because violence is 'evil'.
I know what I am saying sound like I'm a super villain, I used to think this crap was extreme myself. I actually went the opposite path for awhile, I did spend some time as vegetarian because 'pain is bad'.
>>347774
I actually need to read more of him. He's amazing, so far I think he's one of the best philosophers ever. Apart from that I think he's a very good entry into philosophy.
>>333831
yeah god is a parable
>>347851
>So the only choose is to accept that violence is natural. That doesn't everyone goes around killing each other but you don't delude yourself into thinking it's 'evil' or 'sin'. If you are forced to shoot terrorists you might as well learn to have fun rather than sobbing about the horrors of war. If your country is founded on conquest (all are) than you might as well say that the conquest really was noble, rather than feeling yourself with white guilt about all the slavery and dead Indians. From this you can see that only be accepting that violence is a natural part of the world can you actually have a functioning country. Consider the absurdity of 'police brutality' the idea that cops are no longer allowed to beat looters because violence is 'evil'.
That sounds to me like a pointless glorification of violence that will just make things worse for everyone. Yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but it's not something to be lauded. If you exalt the hammer, everything is going to start looking like a nail.
Take this discussion, would it be enhanced if this Christian had the view that violence is a glorious solution to its conclusion?
>>347851
Also, there are purely pragmatic, egoistic reasons to avoid violence. The largely non-violent conduct of society is a net benefit for everyone within it, yourself included. You don't have to make it out to be some sort of supreme evil, but anybody with half a brain can see that there is almost always a better solution.
>>347742
If you actually looked at either of the books I recommended you you would see that Avicenna has a huge amount of representation in both of them.
Also, I already mentioned that while I'm sympathetic I hardly qualify as catholic.
>>347513
Its not my church, and it seems like the mainstream church has gone astray anyways.
>You can't even affirm basic aspects of the human condition, you call them 'sin'.
And Catholics also accept that this is inherent in human beings and that we just have to love the sinner and do our best to correct it, knowing that it will never be perfect so as long as we exist in this state. Which isn't so bad, because there is plenty of good anyways.
Nietzsche isn't particularly good with history of philosophy. I would want to see his sources before passing judgement, though generally I do find some problems with Augustine anyways ( like the platonic dualism).
Darwin didn't really do much. Your sentence is incredibly vague. How does Darwin's findings make any difference to catholic moral theory ?
>are now proven to be how life always was
You can't "prove" anything with Science, you gain stronger and stronger evidence, but you never get an actual proof out of it. Nor does it really make a difference, since the old testament does'nt have to be taken literally.
One can accept that the world has certain vices inherent in it without foaming out the mouth over them in. I personally appreciate displays of power but It isn't that impressive, why reduce ourselves to apes when we dont have to ?
>Replaced by Einstein's relativity physics which invalidate literally all metaphysics made in by the scholastic.
People say this, but whenever they try to give examples it completely falls apart.
1/2
>>347924
>why reduce ourselves to apes when we dont have to ?
Because we are apes.
>>335897
Granted the explanation of the worldview in that is incomplete, I don't see where your concern lies.
>>347742
2/2
>Do I also need to do serious academic work before I comment on feminism?
Yes
> Aquinas and Avicenna are some of the most obvious charlatans I've seen, the fact that they are exalted by their respective religions really shows that the religious philosophy is one giant circle jerk.
So why does Aquinas spend so much time arguing against bad arguments for his faith, like Anselm's proof of God. Why does Scotus spend so much time criticizing Aquinas proof of God ? Why does Ockham spend so much time criticizing Scotus' proof of God? If it was a big circle jerk would'nt everyone just be affirming each others results instead of constantly poking holes in each others works ? As I mentioned, get educated on this material before you comment on it.
>You can also see that when Catholics such as yourself barely mention Islamic or Jewish scholastics, the point isn't to learn about philosophy it's to make your religion look good.
Again, the books I mentioned cover the Islamic and Jewish Scholastics.
>It's just used a vehicle to peddle your cult. In all the time I've seen people like you shit-post about it not ONCE have praised the people that allowed your Catholic scholastics possible
Literally every time I've been asked for recs for Scholasticism on this forum i've mentioned Avicenna. Maybe you should stop strawmanning me? You've invented some boogeyman your head that you are ranting against, thinking you are making a point against me when you have no idea who I am. Its just incredibly sloppy argumentation.
>Your attempts to utterly LIE about Nietzsche are also illuminating.
I explained that by reading Nietzsche I discovered that part of his work is correct and I disagree with other parts. I never said that Nietzsche thought what I do.
>>347950
Also, a short list of Scholastic innovations, since you asked.
Aquinas: Closed vs open time intervals. Analogical theory of religious language- grounding a middle point between Maimonides' negative theology and Aristotelean demonstration.
Abelard: Nominalism, the de re vs dicto distinction
Duns Scotus: Breaks away from old Aristotelean modalities and works towards new ones. Roots the modal idea in a new form of contingent causality. Choice at and instance. Adds a "formal distinction" as a middle distinction between "real" and "mental" distinction. Intuitive cognition. Explicitly argues for the univocity of being. Explains how self change is possible. Extends the categorical of the transcendentals. Posits the idea of haecceity. ( I mostly work on Scotus)
John Buridan: Solves the self referential paradox in the 14th century. Begins impetus theory.
Suarez: Makes the first full account of entia rationis to explain what negations, privations, utterances about non existent things, etc are all about.
Al-Ghazali: An new Medieval atomist theory. Starts up Occasionalism.
William of Ockham: Makes a powerful distinction regarding the difference between necessary knowledge and determined events.
Ockahm's razor, of course.
>>347972
>Aquinas: Closed vs open time intervals. Analogical theory of religious language- grounding a middle point between Maimonides' negative theology and Aristotelean demonstration.
What does this mean?
also what is the self referential paradox?
>>347703
Not really. But it certainly seems less toxic than atheistic leftist views. And really, it is obvious that real human abuses due happen due to capitalism and the state at times. So if liberation theology can help on that front it can't be totally awful.
I think that while it is questionable, I don't particularily care about the burnings that much since it was done to maintain order and guard against dangerous errors- rather than for resentment against the individuals themselves.
>>347924
>>347890
>would it be enhanced if this Christian had the view that violence is a glorious solution to its conclusion
That's such an odd question, given that it would be so hard to reconcile with Jesus himself. Let me put it this way though. Judaism is basically what you are describing, it has similar morality to Christianity but half the book is military campaign.
Do you see the Jews going around being serial killers? Consider that Israel is the only country with a completely healthy view of how to fight it's enemies. Even in the USA we have people that think it's 'wrong' to hurt our enemies.
>If you exalt the hammer, everything is going to start looking like a nail.
The word to describe Nietzsche's philosophy isn't violence, it's aggressive and assertiveness. It can take physical form in the way of violence, verbal form, anything, it's conduct really. Uncontrolled anger is a sign of weakness actually, there's a part in Geneology where he writes that strong nations tend to actually be more lenient to their criminals. The harshest penalties are found in the more primitive nations (hand cut off for minor theft) while the stronger nations are more likely to let you off with a warning.
Only the strong can really understand what mercy is because they are in the position to provide it. The weak become obsessed with revenge once they get their first taste of power.
>>338613
Well honestly there isn't much to say.
I'm with him that it's absolutely right to seek truth rather than if something is useful or not though I'm unaware if he denies it in a utilitarian framework or not.
He says the arguments he has assessed did not convince him.
As an atheist, he also attests to the lack of an afterlife.
That's it. Pretty unsubstantial stuff, man.
Now I know little of Bertrand Russell's overall works, he seems plenty respectable, but he seems very aware of any position of Christianity outside the modern one (which is fair, given his experience with Christianity is largely Presbyterian I have just come to find out) and it shows we he critiques pre-modern arguments. Think when he criticizes the impossibility of an infinite chain of causation while failing to recognize that he's discussing an essentially order series. and thus fails to represent the argument correctly. He has a more quality critique of Aquinas' moral standings as a philosopher, though. Either way, I'm very certain he had worked off of a modern concept of God, unaware of the classical understanding of Christianity.
Video is meh.
>>347946
It's ok I understand you. Don't forget that I'm your friend. I don't think you would bother responding to me if it didn't help you in some way.
>>347924
>How does Darwin's findings make any difference to catholic moral theory
The fact that humans obey the same rules as animals, are part of the same set, really changes morals. It's much harder to have a concept of 'evil' when all these things are part of our nature. There's no evil in nature, only consequences. We are apes.
Even worst. Darwin basically makes them unable to answer the problem of evil.
Is evil the result of free will? Well than could God have made a world with less evil and the same free will, nope this is the best of all possible worlds. But as Voltiare says, that's comedy. For instance earth quakes cause suffering no will involved as do disease and wild animals.This is usually explained away as a result of the "fall" but as we learned from evolution there was always disease, war, violence etc.
>If it was a big circle jerk would'nt everyone just be affirming each others results
They did. Have you noticed that there were no Catholic scholastic that argued a trinity was unlogical? Or that there are no Islamic scholars arguing FOR a trinity? If they were unbiased and just trying to come up with the nature of the universe you would expect a ton of ideas that don't fit the official narrative. None of them make the first attempt to become real philosophers, to ignore sacred cows. But hey what do you expect from religion? I could completly forgive them if they were actually doing something spiritual I would even forgive the fact that all the theology is based on sophistry.
But as I said it's a anti-spiritual way of approaching religion. Trying to analyze the divine with autistic, logical, 'rationalism', reducing the mysteries of the universe to legal jargon, as if angels were puzzles to be solved. I can understand applying this to their ethics and law but beyond that it's cancer.
1/2
>>348078
2/2
I can totally see why Luther opposed the practice. I imagine if Jesus returned he would treat the scholastics like the money changers in the market place: both corrupted spiritualism. In regards to Aquins and Avicenna, being con-men that only worked for fame. Just look at their fucking history. The way they paint themself as rock-stars "Oh Aveccenna your'e so smart did you really memorize the Koran when you were 10!" Than they take Aristotle's nice metaphysics and spew sewage on it, adding some gimmick that meets the demands of their peers. Aquinas created the perfect divide between reason and faith! Isn't that wonderful we know there is a God but we must have faith to know which God? Just as he defined God into existence he could have easily defined God's traits into existence to make it so it was the one of his faith (Avicenna did this) but that would be far less marketable.
>People say this, but whenever they try to give examples it completely falls apart.
Are you implying that Einstein is not relevant?
>>348003
>I think that while it is questionable, I don't particularily care about the burnings that much since it was done to maintain order and guard against dangerous errors- rather than for resentment against the individuals themselves.
The fact they often tortured them before hand seems to indicate otherwise.
Why were the Orthodox able to devote themselves to Christs love without the need to torture and burn people on a mass scale?
>>347989
>closed vs open intervals
Say we have two numbers, 1 and 2. And we are interested in the numbers in their interval.
If we include all numbers in our consideration it is a closed interval, we'll symbolize it as [1,2].
If we include all numbers in our consideration except 1 and 2 themselves we have an open interval, lets symbolize it like this. (1,2).
We can also have intervals that are closed on one end and open on another. (1,2] [1,2)
Now notice that [0,1) [1,2] exhaust all numbers between 0 up to and including 2.
Now, time is dense- we can take any stretch of time and divide it in half, and so on, infinitely.
If we want to ask a question about an event at a time chunk ET1 and what the world was like just before that time at the instant WT0 we run into an issue. Given that time is dense we can never get a proper analysis of the instant of time right before ET1, since we can divide up the space between ET1 and WT0 and continue to divide up our new divisions.
Now given our model of open and closed intervals above we can identify and account for what we want to like this:
[WT0(a),WT0(b)) , [ET1(a),ET2(b)]
When a is our beginning and b is our end of any temporal chunk we want to consider.
A first instant is assigned to WT0, on WT0(a), but no last instant is assigned to WT0 on Wt0(b). Instead we take the whole time chunk represented by WT0(b) up to the instant of ET1(a) as our account of what precedes ET1. We can provide a first instant of ET1 with ET1(a) and a last instant to it with ET1(b) to account for the event we want to consider itself.
So Thomas' case would be Transubstantiation. WT0 would be the priest speaking the words and ET1 would be when the bread turns into the body of Christ. But this covers any general case when we want an event and a specification of what is going on right before it.
This was a really incredible result for Thomas- while he applied it in plain language, mathematicians accounted for it formally 600 years later.
>>348123
I fail to see which philosophical problem this solves.
>>348123
Im sorry, I hope other posters will understand it but I cannot. Im guess you are No True Scotus right?
>>348078
>The fact that humans obey the same rules as animals, are part of the same set, really changes morals.
Man was always considered an animal, he was just considered a rational one. We still are distinct from all other species. If anything all we can really gather from it is that there is less of a divide between man and other animals than we thought- this doesn't stop us from having distinct properties that other animals don't that makes us moral beings and them not. We have cognitive capacities they don't- or at least an argument can be made for it. It isn't a particularly damning issue. Especially since it is inductive science and not a deductive proof which is grounding it.
> nope this is the best of all possible worlds
Ockham points out that such a term is incoherent. Given that God is omnipotent he could always make a better world. The problem of evil isn't too hard to solve either. The main point to realize is that God isn't actually obligated to make any sort of world- though the story changes a bit depending on if you are a divine voluntarist or not. There are really good solutions within the scholastic texts, you should check them out.
The problem with your Darwinian analysis is that you assume a uniformity of nature- we can't actually know what natural laws held 100 000 years ago. Nor do you have to interpret the story of the fall literally and place it spatio-temporally, that sounds like a fundamentalist heresy to me. Likewise we can't actually know what things were "always like", we can't assume that the same regularities have held for all time- God could have set up the "laws" so that they change across time. This is part of why Aquinas believed that we could not demonstrate if the world had a temporal beginning or not. There is so much possible room for that account to be false. It does'nt really stand up to much scrutiny.
>>348167
Part II
>They did. Have you noticed that there were no Catholic scholastic that argued a trinity was unlogical?
Actually it was very common for Aquinas to say that he couldn't rationally demonstrate an article of faith.
" By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist"
( ST 1a 46.2 c)
Scotus also denied that God's omnipotence could be proven ( though he says yes one time and no another time, we don't know which work is later).
Buridan claimed that there was no intellectually oriented reason to believe that we had immaterial souls. The nice thing about having faith to fall back on is that you don't feel to need to make a sophistical argument for something you believe when you can't ground it rationally.
As far as the Trinity goes: Scotus showed that it was logically coherent and even made something of an argument why God is a trinity ( though I only know a sketch of it). Aquinas on the other hand was fine saying that it was a mystery and that human reason couldn't penetrate it.
Also Scotus and Aquinas had radically different metaphysical systems even though they shared a faith. The fact that they have some theological end goals set out in front of them doesn't change the fact that they were honest about their results and were incredibly rigorous philosophers.
>>348081
This first part is all vague conjecture.
>Are you implying that Einstein is not relevant?
Einstein is great and totally relevant.
The problem is that people try to evoke certain scientific against the scholastics- and in theory it should work. But I've never seen it actually work. It is always misapplied and made irrelevant to the issue at hand. It could be that the metaphysics are such that multiple physical systems can work with them. Feser has a good piece on how Aquinas and Newton actually had very similar views on motion. Stump and Kretzzman do a great job utilizing Einstein's works for Thomistic ends as well.
>>348116
That was very uncommon until the counter reformation( and even then most of what we here is an exaggeration). The Medieval Inquisition was a joke, they would kill 2ish people a year and usually gave people slaps on the wrist if that. Allot of silly narratives have been pushed since the reformation and the again during the French Revolution. Luckily we are getting better history these days.
Orthodox Christians have never had a violent streak ? Sounds unlikely.
>>348138
>>348123
>If we want to ask a question about an event at a time chunk ET1 and what the world was like just before that time at the instant WT0 we run into an issue. Given that time is dense we can never get a proper analysis of the instant of time right before ET1, since we can divide up the space between ET1 and WT0 and continue to divide up our new divisions.
It's about how to properly account for concurrent events given that time is dense.
>>348147
Yes. Some posters mentioned that they didn't want trips on this board. I thought I would oblige them. I mainly had the trip so people could keep who was arguing what if many posters were in a thread. But I just come here to work through ideas so my time spent not doing schoolwork isn't a total waste- I don't really need people to know who I am. Sorry. This is a fairly new result for me. In the future I will maybe have a better formalization of it.
>>348213
Did you ever find out why that Lecturer of Schoalistics of yours was still an atheist despite his knowledge in the are?
>>348213
>That was very uncommon until the counter reformation( and even then most of what we here is an exaggeration).
The counter reformation is exactly what Im referring to. The torture they used on the Anabaptist was probably the pinnacle of human sadism.
To continue on with
>>347989
Since I gave 1/3.
The Analogical theory of religious language is basically how we can predicate things of God given that he isn't a normal substance. Things have actuality, where God is actuality. So we use analogical language so to make sense of saying " God is actual" since it actually means something different for God than what it does for creatures.
A Term ‘F’ is analogical when F may be predicated of a subject ‘x’ for one of the two distinct relations either:
(1) (a) x possesses F in the highest degree possible, (b) is wholly identical with F, and (c) is the cause of other things less properly termed “f” or else
(2) X is itself that of which “F” is less properly said because (a) X does not possess F in the highest possible degree, and (b) X is not identical with F.
Finally, a self referential paradox is a paradox when by self referencing you get a contradiction. The liars paradox is a nice case, Buridan goes through a whole bunch of similar cases as well. If someone says " this sentence is a lie" then either, A- the sentence is a lie and thus the sentence is true and is not a lie, or B- the sentence is not a lie- therefore it is a lie. So it seems that when trying to apply a truth value to the sentence we are always stuck in a contradiction. I can't do Buridan's solution off hand but I recall it was very elegant. This was the kind of thing early analytic philosophers were working on- unbeknownst to them a 14th century scholastic had already beat them to it.
>>348224
>>348228
If what happened is as bad as you say I would say that it is unfortunate that they did not have more faith in their Scholastics at the time like Suarez. The church was fairly insecure at that time I would imagine, hence the excess.
>>348224
I never bothered asking- I only have so much time to work with him, and figuring out ways to make the material I'm working on better for the sake of my own academic career takes precedence. I'm not even sure what he would identify with.
No True, how do I know God loves me? Can I feel it?
Serious question.
>>348213
This should be changed
>It's about how to properly account for concurrent events given that time is dense.
To
>It's about how to properly account for events that are immediate to one another given that time is dense.
My mistake, it is getting late.
