How did old philosophers believe in God if they were so smart?

God I hope I too can do this soon!

imagine believing in God and not the Cosmic Egg

Mysticism precedes philosophy

Richard Dawkins in the middle

>You say the Inquisition was a dark part of the Church's history? Trust me, I want to bring back the Inquisition and a whole lot worse.

How can Christians ever be trusted?

Attached: barron-1024x724.jpg (1024x724, 44K)

Considering the present state of things, I'd say that there are good times ahead for the old fashioned sadist.

Attached: The_Hanging_by_Jacques_Callot.jpg (1458x643, 1.85M)

Atheist are soretarded

Y'all are evil perverse hypocritical creatures. Tell me one thing atheists value I promise I'll disprove it. I'll show u that u only accept atheism because it's comfortable

I value the song I'm listening to.
youtube.com/watch?v=35CBWwy98nc

Does that follow from atheism? Atheists is a grouping based on essence of atheism. So u don't value being genuine, next

I can go into the song, y do u value it?

the absolute state of christards

What do u value about atheism u scared bitch

little

Good song lad but you're still wrong for being an Atheist. Not the original user you were talking to though, his argument is weird and aggressive.

lmfao

It's worth noting most of them were monotheistic despite not even having access to scripture

at least from what I've seen

>says atheism is irrational
>weird
>christian

I can identify a good argument from a bad one, and saying that atheists "don't value anything" is a very strange argument

Atheism is mystical nihilism which is rejection of value. Atheists usually pump their lives w value by adopting humanism and science. It's a metaphysically regular statement

Its a misapplication of value or a misdirection of the rightful instinct towards value, based on your own statements even. I'm sure there are some atheists out there who genuinely do lead nihilistic lives but I don't think its fair to characterize that as the norm.

No you're getting caught in semantic labels vs ontological being. Atheism is necessarily a rejection of value, particularly the value, or essence, of religion. I explained to you how atheists usually take value in which most are not complete nihilists. Nonetheless they are still mystical nihilists and that has an effect on them as ppl and it leads them to the rejection of immaterial things like justice etc, again, leading to pure nihilism. I'm not talking about your friends, I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking about the actual ontological basis of what atheism is.

Even Augustine would agree with me here, this isn't as semantic as you think. We have a natural inclination towards value and therefore towards religion, but this inclination can be inappropriately directed, and even though it appears to be a rejection, it makes leaps and assumptions the likes of which make religion look downright reasonable.

Example: the amount of atheists and otherwise staunch materialists who are perfectly happy to believe simulation theory

It should make you consider, kiddo. If the geniuses of the past believed in God...than what makes a dumbass like you so sure there isn't one...makes ya think don't it kid?

Dude you've twice missed the point. You should read more. I'll say it once more but an atheist accepting another value system does not make them not mystical nihilists by definition. It's kinda like if your boat is sinking and u employ a bucket to bail out the water, ur boat is still sinking, they're still mystical nihilists on the way to pure nihilism.

I think we're talking past each other and perhaps I've missed one of your definitions. How would you define the term "mystical nihilism?"

Yeah we are
Like rejection of mysticism/religion

Okay, now I get it. I still disagree though, because I don't think they actually do reject these things, they just reject the words and the outer form of them. The fact that they seek the same type of experience in different areas shows that they are just misguided.

For example:
God: heh nice try kid you expect me to believe in something I can't see try again I'm all about the facts baby cold hard logic

Simulation theory: We live in a computer but we can't see the computer and never can but if you look really close we can ascertain that reality is actually a source code and therefore must correspond to non-local hardware.

They accept cosmological arguments and all sorts of other metaphysically binding positions that look a lot like religion, but because its in language thats less offensive to their modern insecurities, it doesn't become a problem. They want faith without wanting to know that they have faith. Also, I know not every atheist is a simulation theorist, but the groups do overlap, and you can think of plenty of other examples that work just as well I'm sure.

I thought this board was about literature, instead it is full of christfag threads, christfag bait, and christfag larpers reacting to the former two

Ur point of God is agnosticism not atheism

Simulation theory is thus material by your definition

I agree everything is necessitated by Metaphysics, u can still try denying it tho and it leads u to mental illness and a depraved life

Yfw u realize Christbait threads r made by Christian's to ralley the forces

No, I will take these people at their word that they are atheist, since they don't believe in God in any meaningful sense, but my point is that they are still looking for the God experience in lesser things.

Simulation theory is technically materialist in that it requires a physical computer somewhere (as far as I understand it) to produce the simulation we currently occupy, but that isn't terribly important. My point is that even being nominally materialist, it requires metaphysical commitments and arguments that are indistinguishable in form from the type you would encounter in classical Theism.

I'm guessing you're older or from rural areas?

If they are consciously looking for the God experience then they are not technically atheists, they would be at most agnostic.

What commitments are those?
>but if you look really close we can ascertain that reality is actually a source code and therefore must correspond to non-local hardware.
This implies an empiricism of materialism. Basic induction
>therefore must correspond to non-local hardware.
Is not Metaphysics, although there is necessarily a metaphysical claim to anything.
For instance doing bayesian math doesn't imply you're a metaphysician yet there be a metaphysical structure

>I'm guessing you're older or from rural areas
Neither, 30s and from a city of 8 million.

>If they are consciously looking for the God experience then they are not technically atheists, they would be at most agnostic.
I'm saying they aren't consciously looking for the God experience, but they are looking for it, because its part of our constitution as human beings to do so.

In regards to simulation theory, which again is just one particular example and not necessarily something I'm trying to get sidetracked on, the key is that their materialism becomes indistinguishable from immaterialist or transcendental metaphysical positions in the type of thinking it requires and the types of "evidence" that one must assent to. A cosmological argument directed towards machines is still a cosmological argument.

Alright but I wasn't questioning their sincerity

We basically agree I just regard atheism as irrational, as you must seek a mystical metaphysical structure by necessity, and that it leads towards horridity

So to promote atheism is to promote antivalues

I value myself and my family

People are much more a product of their societies than they might think. Objectivity is super-hard. And there's a selection effect, you couldn't just say whatever you wanted, which furthermore limited the amount of opinions the next generation was exposed to. Cultures can spend hundreds of years in such a cycle. It only ended when pagan works were translated more frequently, thus starting the Renaissance.

Attached: alpha2.jpg (762x730, 208K)

>early church fathers were limited in interaction with pagan philosophies

Big bruh

Attached: images (14).jpg (483x635, 56K)

“Where did you find God?”

“I found him where I left creatures.”

“Who are you anyway?”

“I am a king.”

“And where is your kingdom?”

“In my soul, where everything is in good order; where the passions obey reason, and reason obeys God.”

“How have you come to such a state of perfection?”

“By silence. I practice silence towards men, while I cultivate the habit of speaking with God. Conversing with God is the way I found and maintain my peace of soul.”

Attached: 1548286958323.jpg (399x324, 37K)

>not being an atheistich mystic

Attached: schopenhauer.jpg (217x300, 7K)

the same we believe in materialism now.

A lot of the Greek works were never translated into Latin because most educated Romans could speak Greek. After the collapse of Byzantium that situation bettered because of the influx of people from the Greek-speaking world. Also, Cordoba and the transfer via the Muslims.

Attached: alpha7.jpg (450x645, 134K)

Because they're just a bunch of fucking redditors lets be real here for a gd second.

Because reason leads to the conclusion there is a creator.

Agreed, the diversity of philosophical and religious thought was deeper there than now

Explain?

This

Think harder, OP.

Don't listen to him, he's an idiot

fpbp

5 summas

>How come philosophers did not reach the conclusion I reached back when I was 14 and watched too many Carl Sagan videos if they were so smart?

Attached: OK6W_koKDTOqqqLDbIoPAqpezOVYuMW6gcxbcvRy5pE.png (800x600, 472K)

unironically this

Spoken like a true npc.

A philosopher like Spinoza's conception of God is incalculably more nuanced and developed than the typical uneducated believer's.

Whether God is real or not, the thoughts found in the pursuit of him are real, and are often enough exactly the thoughts one should have.

Spinoza was a stupid jew