Why bother studying philosophy if religion is enough to comfort you till death...

wait what? i thought god wrote the bible

>If religion is enough to comfort you
It has never been enough, that's how schism happens.

Unless there is something truthful about that religion, it is the worst kind of cope for (You): one that doesnt even comfort.

As for the social and selfhelp aspect, scientology, thuggee, and a few apocalyptic cults fit an overlapping bill.

Your idea sounds calm and comfy user; wait till you see NPCs take them to their absolute conclusions.

>why value truth over comforting delusions?

Christ pill includes Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, but you are probably a retarded protestant faggot

By the same argument, philosophies are man made and we can ignore them without loss. I am not sure this is true.

Here's one thing about successful cope: it reveals a weakness and a need implicitly, and contains a counter. All these bear examination, if only cursorily.

Neoplatonism is fundamentally incompatible with Christanity and it's a sign of Christians intellectual bankruptcy when they try to coopt it. In the Byzantine Empire prominent Neoplatonists were often executed and they would have to pretend to be Christian and cloak their ideas in Christian terms in order to not be killed.

Christianity borrowed a lot from Neo-platonism

/thread

>an actual understanding of reality.
God is real though, and atheism is a comforting delusion which prevents you from being free

prove it

Atheists are too dumb to realize that human brain is unreliable.

Love of Christ is more important than ancient byzantine politics and dogmas.

didn't you read about Solomon ?

How can a man be free if he turns away from God?

everything about God you ever received was mediated by at least one unreliable human brain

You have done nothing to establish to necessity of God for human freedom, nor have you indicated what kind of freedom you're talking about. Can you describe the state you mean when you say "freedom"?

Because it builds up your faith. If you don't understand and go through philosophy your faith is childish and brittle.

It borrowed where it could from it but they are still fundamentally incompatible insofar as Neoplatonism is a form of non-dualism and Christianity posits a central duality between creator and created, between God and man. Important Christian theologians and mystics have also borrowed from Jewish and Islamic thinkers before but that doesn't mean they compatible with one another.

>You have done nothing to establish to necessity of God for human freedom
If you don't understand how this sentence contradicts itself, you have a ways to go kid. Come back when you even understand what it is you are pretending not to believe in

I mean it depends on what you mean by atheist, but if we're to take atheism as not believing in a God or gods, then what you bring up is precisely why some people are atheists. There needs to be the distinction between Gnosticism and agnosticism. When some people say "I don't believe" what they mean is that they have a lack of belief either way. Its not a binary answer; you can choose neither to affirm or deny, but it it's the latter it still technically falls into "I don't believe", it's just not in the "I believe there are no gods" sense.

Philosophy is for smart faggots, there’s no way around it. Brainlets like me can’t and won’t understand it.

I have some questions to ask, just for the fuck of it.

>religion
>simpler
>posts the good Doctor
>philosophical dithering

mate you're retarded

> they're two separate things
not really, or at least, not through most of the pre-modern era. Modern sub-disciplines like analytic philosophy of science or something are relatively distinct from religion, but its never entirely out of the picture overall.

>"reject...everything bordering on the metaphysical"
>makes metaphysical statements
Ah, the power of the free and enlightened mind

you're about 15 years too late for this to be worth responding to, even Dawkins doesn't talk like this anymore

them thangs, them thangs, don't even ask me

Please, give me even the semblance of a position rather than just hiding behind vague and pretentious statements.

based

why not both?

>Ah, the power of the free and enlightened mind

Is this your refutation of my argument? Strawmanning my ideological convictions to confirm a false hypothesis?
You pseudo-intellectual religious nutjobs never cease to amaze me.

Are you capable of differentiating between empirical observations and unfalsifiable theological drivel?

Post-twentieth century metaphysical literary works are almost exclusively theological - if you accepted how limited your knowledge of this subject was, you would not quarrel.

In conclusion: if you truly wish to assert outdated philosophical practices in place of modern scientific inquiry, then be my guest; please, school me on the prerequisite aesthetical maxims required to enjoy the beauty of a sunset.

how many mistakes can one post contain?

Everything about this post and your previous post sets off my pseud detector, and the line I quoted was the most economical way of illustrating it. You know just enough terms to pepper in your sentences, but you don't use them in the right way, in the way that someone with actual philosophical training would.

Example: Metaphysics is not a synonym for "spooky conjecture". You're using a lot of words above your pay grade to hide the fact that you're not saying anything particularly interesting. Also, how you can even conceive of "modern scientific inquiry" apart from philosophy, which I remind you contains epistemology, is just baffling to me.

How is belief in God a vague or pretentious position? It's about as certain and humble a position as its possible to have. Do atheists have any self awareness?

I'm not that guy, but you were the one originally making a claim (the necessity of God for human freedom), and then when they called you out for not substantiating it you fell back and just tried to act as though they were calling belief in God vague/pretentious when really they were criticizing the additional claim that you never substantiated.

If you want to genuinely change peoples minds and convert them, or even improve your own argumentation skills, you'd do well to at least try to provide an argument for the original claim; after all there is no consequence if you do poorly because its anonymous.

>you were the one originally making a claim (the necessity of God for human freedom)
Other way around kid. He claimed you had to pretend God wasn't real to be free (a self-evidently false claim). God is obviously necessary for human freedom as he's necessary for anything at all

>Other way around kid. He claimed you had to pretend God wasn't real to be free
Oh okay, my mistake then

>God is obviously necessary for human freedom as he's necessary for anything at all
This is itself though an unfalsifiable claim that's also circular

philosophy should be about reaching comfort as well

No, it was "God-breathed", never mind all the contradictions.

bro, I came in with "prove it"
and you still have yet to prove it

>larping as an atheist on the internet

Attached: 26773459436_74016fd202_b.jpg (1024x691, 178K)

the two are naturally connected

t. philosophy grad doing a masters in theology

Sound interesting user.

>Reject everything metaphysical for "true freedom", a metaphysical concept
Wow dude you are very deep and smart

On the contrary, every infant is an atheist. Human beings begin life as atheists, by the most proper etymological definition, absence of belief. No, the infant doesn't have a soul (nor IS he a soul) or a special spark in which god is immanent, or anything else of the kind.

Before you try misconstruing the above, let's pre-emptively shut you down: the above is not a value judgment to conflate any purported "goodness" of atheism with "goodness" or "innocence" of infants, nor is it some admission whereby atheism itself can be judged stupid (as opposed to impossible), merely because it is attached to stupid people (infants). It is, simply, a statement of fact based upon the definition of the word.

On the contrary once again, there has never been any such thing as a sincere practicing Christian who uses Yea Forums, a pornographic website historically populated by nihilistic young men.

On the contrary a third time, "LARPing" is a banality which has been misused on Yea Forums in these and related contexts for the past few years. LARP stands for "live action role playing", which entails that the people involved actually get together, get into character, and put on costumes to act out their autistic game in a directly interpersonal way. While the exchanges here take place in real time, they do so at a physical remove, and so cannot be referred to as LARPing. LARPing is what you actually do when you're a jew and you put on the funny hat and coat and live your jew life in modern Israel.

what school?

uchicago div?

I don't know why you cannot be a normal Christian and go on Yea Forums every once in a while.

Christians do not use this website, user. Stop with the pretending, it gets old.

because some people are looking for the truth instead of comfort

>No true Scotsman

>every infant is an atheist
Uh huh huh dumbass
>islam101.com/dawah/newBorn.htm
In any case its literally impossible for humans to be atheist. Its like hard skepticism or full of nihilism. Such positions can exist conceptually, I understand that. But no human has ever sincerely held such a position.

Do you know what comforts you even better? Oxycodone

>On the contrary once again, there has never been any such thing as a sincere practicing Christian who uses Yea Forums, a pornographic website historically populated by nihilistic young men.
When the teachers of the law who were Phariseessaw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
On hearing this, Jesus said to them,“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

You were pre-emptively dealt with in the post that you replied to, and so you have simply blithered. You confuse your displeasure for an impossibility, again already treated before you even wrote.

Most tellingly, you repair to the world's youngest major cult of all things-the worst choice short of minor ones. In doing so, you embarrass yourself. At least Christianity has a somewhat more historically robust (though equally false) historical corpus that it can draw upon to pretend truth.

I knew this stupid crap was coming; it has been suggested before as I've made the same true point before. I repeat that no Christian uses, or ever has used, Yea Forums. As you yourself know, you yourself are no Christian, but simply someone having a bit of fun, role-playing.

>You were pre-emptively dealt with in the post that you replied
Not really, you told a lie about babies being atheist and you've been called out. No baby is an atheist, such a thing is literally impossible. Nobody is an atheist, including you. You pretend to yourself that you are for egoistic reasons, but deep down you know its bullshit, like you know the universe doesn't really disappear when you close your eyes.

No, I did not. Babies are atheists. You're doing rote sentimentality because you do not understand reality.

Religion is good for stupid people that should be ruled over and bent into good citizens by fear and force.

Philosophy is for individuals who need something more.

What is interested anti-Christian about Yea Forums? Is it a requirement of the website that you be nihilistic and watch porn? What's wrong with a Christian going on Yea Forums to discuss literature?

Why did you post a picture of Thomas Aquinas, a Christian who wrote a massive book of philosophical explanations of Christianity?

This is a stupid post, because you're side-stepping the central claim. I told you what you already know: that no Christian uses Yea Forums. Secondarily, you also have poor English grammer like the above poster who is also substantively wrong in his ideas.

It really boils down too whether you want a comforting lie or an inconvenient truth.

The problem with the lie is that its not actually that comforting unless you're a total brainlet who can't see that wool pulled over your eyes.

Attached: illusory.png (1122x176, 35K)

How do you know there is not a single Christian who uses Yea Forums?

Now you're asking the interesting questions.

>Babies are atheists.
No babies believe in God like all humans. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. I understand you are on the Internet, and Yea Forums is a good forum for playing devil's advocate and holding positions you don't really hold. It's fun to pretend to be a nihilist, or a solipsist. But, it's literaly impossible for humans to be atheists. Our brains just aren't made that way. You can't even conceptualise the possibility.
He doesn't, he's being edgy on Yea Forums.

Because either you are a shitty Christian or a LARPing atheist. Pick one.

But why? That's why I asked what makes Yea Forums inherently anti-christian. What is it that makes Yea Forums so fundamentally opposed to Christianity that, by the mere fact that someone uses it, they are incapable of being a true Christian?

>It is far simpler
>posts a guy who's writings are still not understood by most of Christendom to this day

Probably the sheer amount of sin you indulge in by merely being present here.
Aquinas is, ironically, better understood if you aren't a Christian. Since you'll just understand that he himself didn't know a lot about what he discussed.

You can be surrounded by sin while not indulging in it.

You enable it with your active participation.

>God
>far simpler to grasp

Attached: 1523096160669.jpg (221x246, 36K)

Forgiveness from sins is kind of a big deal in Christianity, but you knew that already
>give me freedom from waifus and an end to shitposting, but not yet

>I might actively indulge in degeneracy but Jesus will forgive me so its all good
It's a pretty fundamentally retarded facet of the religion, but I think you knew that already.

Yes, to be a Christian is to know we are all sinners, since Adam in fact. Yet through Jesus we may be redeemed. It's a pretty good system

>Forgiveness is retarded

People shouldnt be rewarded just because they apologize, they should live their life through virtue and earn it.

Cringe

I thought I was blackpilled