How and when did you come out of your shitty atheist phase?

L

I have never been a materialist in that sense, and I'm sure I'll never be either. I think I've read enough philosophy and thought enough not to fall into that trap.

I left New Atheism about 15 years ago when I started researching mythology and religion intensely. The Gospels helped me finally believe in God.

>Why yes, I am a nontheist that questions the evolutionary hypothesis. How could you tell?

Attached: 1562156031851.png (500x500, 131K)

>How
Reading about folk religion, animism and the history of religion and man's relationship to the divine. Basic comparative religion stuff, really.

>and when did you come out of your shitty atheist phase?
My edgy atheist phase was basically just teenage angst and some thoroughly unpleasant experiences with both church and a religious school and passed by the beginning of junior year.

>Which book helped you?
The big ones were "The Masks of God" and "Myths to Live by" by Joseph Campbell and the Sacred and the Profane by Mircia Eliade. Also very important was an outstanding (if somewhat dry) book about the principles of Shinto that I can't recall the title of at the moment and several academic papers about the Christianization of Europe.

user can i ask you a question

Feel free.

The disbelief in God is just as irrational as the belief in God. Pseud.

when is the last time you masturbated or how long has it been

rationality presupposes God.
For example, the idea that we ought to argue rationally is an "ought" which is part of an ethic. Can't have ethics without God.
rationality depends on logical laws being operative, which are immaterial, transcendent and unchanging, otherwise it falls into relativism.
Without God existing calling someone's argument "irrational" loses all force and meaning of critique, the answer to being labeled "irrational" would be "so what?"

Pic. Kills naive "science fuck yeah" atheism and demonstrates the scientific neccesity of God to produce the observed universe. Has metaphysical argument too, but shit-tier athiesm can be killed within the domain of scientific observation and theory.

Attached: 9780802863836.jpg (1008x1512, 987K)

Wrong. It's irrational to believe something there is no evidence for. Disbelief in God, just like disbelief in unicorns and santa clause is the rational position, moron.

>How and when did you come out of your shitty atheist phase?
Like 8 years ago.
>Which book helped you?
I didn't read anything. Just happened as part of growing up. Honestly, though, if you're trying to help an atheist, almost any book ought to work.

You just constructed a fairytale of your intellectual journey to self-satisfy as the hero of your life enplotment you dumb mythopoeic ape.

Attached: Mythopoeic Man.jpg (335x500, 36K)

>naive empiricism
>denial of the empirical necessity of God to produce the observed universe
Grow up kiddo.

I just told you how it is. Why are you so triggered?
>denial of the empirical necessity of God to produce the observed universe
There's an impossible leap from a first mover which you may call God to a person God which your dumb fairytale religion worships
>grow up
just kek, I grew up when I stopped believing in fairytales
Projection at its hardest

LMAO
So true

I guess you really are the hero of your life fairytale then, why not write a book about yourself, it sounds very interesting.

ily user and BASED AF

>Disbelief in God is just like disbelief in unicorns and santa clause
No, disbelief in God is more like saying that you believe the universe was not created last Thursday, or that we in fact are not living in a simulation. It is a denial of grand, reality shaping things that none of us can truly claim to know. The point of atheism is an angsty rebellious phase against dumb christcucks, as you have exercised in your comparing God to Santa Claus, when they are clearly unequal comparisons as I have just illustrated. Atheism is an infatuation with the belief that religion is a primitive mode of thought, and that it ought to be removed from society because it represents irrationality and counter to science and progress. This is what drives people to make statements like "God is not real," or "believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus."
If you're not baiting, and really are atheist, I would assume you to have inferred already that I am religious. This also stems from the belief that religious thinkers are irrational, in that the words and arguments that they use ought to be assumed to be biased. This is another incorrect assumption of atheist mentality, which is that religious people are swept by an air of madness and irrationality.
Of course, the atheist understands that nobody could ever come to believe in God rationally. Something like that is illogical. Clearly, these religious people have been manipulated by their emotional weaknesses into reaching for convenient, though incorrect answers. An atheist must believe to have chosen to overcome the emotional vulnerability and to face the world truthfully, with logic and unbiased reason. This is why the atheist comes to the conclusion that God is not real, and that religion is a massive construct of human ineptitude and contrivance, amounting to millenia of injustice, suffering, and death.
This is the platform of the atheist.
Comparing God to Santa Claus ought to be blatantly incorrect. It is more an emotional comparison than a logical one. Santa Claus is a trivial matter, a story we tell to children for tradition, of which they mature and learn that he is not real. It is the obligation of atheism to view religious people as comparisons to the children that believe in Santa Claus. Without this perceived necessity to dismantle religion, nobody would ever actually claim to be atheist. The most logical, least angst ridden position would be to simply be agnostic or non religious. I would describe myself as non religious, as I'd really prefer to just not describe any relationship to religion at all, but I believe it is important here to state this in that, if I did claim to belong to a religion, the meaning of my words would change to the atheist. This is why I said earlier that I would assumed the atheist to have judged me religious and biased.
Atheism is an issue of character, manifested by angst and frustration. It creates a self imposed, fabricated air of opposition and illogic.

Yea Forums at its finest
You belong here

You can leave

Not a first mover argument. You need formal and material causes too, not just efficient.

The observed universe additionally requires active management to produce a universe capable of carbon chemistry. Without going through every stage of required fine tuning (like the gravitational constant needing to be so precisely small it doesn't cause an immediate big crunch, but also so precisely large that galaxies can form, and then within them first generation stars, and within them higher elements that then explode and for second generation stars with seeded protoplanetsry discs etc.) you need a God that can produce fine-tuned cosmic inflation to stick his finger in the universe to male it grow at the exact time and pull put at the exact moment shortly afterwards, all after the "first cause" and the "first movement".

Attached: Big_bang_inflation_vs_standard_genericchart.png (500x414, 191K)

Developed between age 19-21.
I became a radical sceptic, or rather realized intuition is before all understanding, and intuition is not knowledge but our strongest belief: trust, hope, and conviction, are at the root of all human thought and action and interaction. The idea of "rational" and "reasonable" are beliefs, sanity is a belief, everything is belief—so I embraced this and realized I already believe in X and Y and to believe I shouldn't believe in more or less are equally true (objectively speaking). And I guess all of this intellectual entertainment of belief changed something in my brain, because I'm now deep in theology and mysticism, and I might have been on the doorstep of mystic experience.

Attached: Orpheus_Piazza_della_Vittoria_MAR_Palermo_NI2287.jpg (1960x2376, 3.62M)

Intelligence is so fucking beautiful
Ty anons. Knowing you are out there gives me strength

Attached: 4CCA966D-F5C6-41CF-BCF3-7482CCB260ED.jpg (421x421, 62K)

>their belief is irrational
>but my belief is rational

And people wonder why there are agnostics.

are suggesting it’s better to fill this feeling of emptiness with delusions?

Why is Yea Forums being flooded by offtopic, shit threads promoting christianity and attacking atheism?
Remember to report this garbage

To believe having delusions is bad is itself a delusional belief based on nothing (or based on beliefs based on beliefs on ad infinitum/on nothing), it's a subjective opinion, objectively speaking.

plato’s ideas aren’t the same thing as god retard
not true, but ok
why do people usually add religion and theism to the belief in god?
there’re philosophical arguments for the existence of god, but they don’t justify theism and don’t point to any specific religion

You never read Plato in your life please stop posing and posting

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

Attached: mooney1.jpg (630x750, 73K)

the user seems to think that “filling this feeling of emptiness” with material things is bad/wrong, i’m asking what’s the viable alternative

i’ve read some of his works concerning ethics/virtues (such as symposium, which i think are the only his works worth reading not only because of their cultural importance), but i’m more or less acquainted with his main ideas

>Makes inter-subjective value judgements based on nothing but emotion criticizing others for doing the same
>not realising that his values are as unsubstantial as any other belief, scientifically speaking

Attached: 41032_1000.jpg (1000x1396, 492K)

read Phaedrus
it's his meta-dialogue

Attached: 1566212486628.png (620x977, 789K)

>daily reminders

that’s how they get to you

Attached: AE94EEB5-2728-46A1-8567-F1E5806D5D22.jpg (800x800, 218K)

Again, you have never read Plato in your life please stop posing and posting

is the disbelief in faeries as unsubstantial as the belief in faeries?
or is the disbelief in solipsism as unsubstantial as the belief in solipsism?

each requires a leap of faith to some degree, but it doesn’t mean they’re equally probable

Guenon! start with his first book

Attached: 0cd5e145141fbed880dbb2850b3b84d1--abd-islam.jpg (236x240, 17K)

excellent argument user

No, he is showing how the facts of science don’t stand up to the charges brought by atheists to refute teleology
Learn to read

thank you

and your opinions about opinions is an opinion, what's ur deal retard

Yes, objectively speaking, since what is and isn't reasonable is belief. A computer free of belief couldn't rationalize why it shouldn't study the effects of cutting down 27% of all branches of every third tree starting with the tree that is exactly 47.8 cm thick at 2 meters from the ground or if it should try to cure cancer, to science/objectivity itself these are equally worth doing since all value is belief.

Attached: 1561492021563.jpg (255x253, 11K)

No books, my brain just grew big enough to see the bigger picture.

Attached: 1534242000509.jpg (680x788, 74K)

>13718886
The fuck are you on about? Science has nothing to do with teleology, as it never asks "why" but always "how".

It doesn't even matter if you acknowledge the grand 'ole watchmaker, as you can't substantiate the claim to go from Deism to Theism.

That the anthropocentric intersubjectivity of value is greater than reason alone—since reason and rationality is based on our naturally evolved temperaments, not objectivity.
Pragmatism is only a tool, to apply something you have to believe, and WE already believe before all action.

Attached: 1565394007521.jpg (640x556, 209K)

LEARN TO READ
E
A
R
N

T
O

R
E
A
D

you're literally a retard, this objectivity you're talking about isn't the only spook flying around in ur tiny head, i imagine

Sorry
Was meant to

First google what rational means is a philosophical context.
Than consider reading Anselm of Canterbury.
Than read Kants critique of pure reason and notice that his critique is not that the argument isn't rational but that it's removed from possible objects of experience.

After that notice that you are on the empirical and not the rational side of the argument.

And finally kill yourself.

That's the point you idiot.
EVERYTHING IS BELIEF
as in unverifiable except by belief (intuition) internally by beliefs (values) that we already act upon every day.

>be me atheist
>universe and all of its operations and inner workings
>there's a clear law that operates in this universe that says: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
>the source of energy itself can therefore not have been created by itself, something bigger than it, something that is outside this universe, something that operates on a completely different set of laws has to have created this universe, otherwise there is no other logical explanation for the rise of this universe
>Atheist: But you can't prove God exists that means I'm exempt from having to explain my leap of faith wrt physical impossibility of the creation of energy
>yfw
Reminder that all deist to atheist ''converts'' did were move on from an uncomprehensive explanation, to an illogical one. The question is not whether you ''fucking love science'', it's about how these laws and all the matter that came with it started to operate in the first place.
Atheism is a bigger leap of faith to explain the universe than deism.

Attached: 2vfsq9.jpg (488x463, 22K)

OOOOOOOF

Atheists are the worst at everything

>Anselm
Anyone who takes him seriously after the ontological argument is an extreme brainlet. t. Not an atheist

Can you elaborate on that?

Philosophy such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, mythology and the Bible. They will all help you realise reality is more fonplicated than meets the eye.

>mfw non materialist atheist who never feels empty

consumerists are subhuman sheep, what now?

they don’t understand philosophy, they are just obsessed with science because they believe science answers every question.

>Anselm of Canterbury
Even Aquinas disagreed with the ontological argument (in “Summa contra Gentiles”.

>associating atheism with degenerate leftism.

A bizarre yet persistent shitpost.

ur espousing solipsists believes that have been dealed with eons ago, retard

Philosophy isn’t the same thing as theology.

You should read more user, a lot more, indefinitely

So do you disagree with what I said?

Bizarre because its true
Persistent because it’s common knowledge now

ALOT MORE

"alot"

>Never read Euthyphro

I am an atheist and I don't do drugs, I am not a feminist and I oppose open borders. same with many of the atheists I know.

Only unintelligent people need superstition to live virtuous, meaningful lives.

lol, your brain on STEM

True religion isn’t about superstition, if you read and understood the bible you would know this. stick to science books maybe brainlet.

The overwhelming majority of philosophers are atheists

>”philosophers”

The basic difference between theology and philosophy is that the former bases its arguments on authority and the latter on reason.

...

So what is it about if not about superstition?

...

Not an argument
Cope

Seriously. It’s these morsels of light peaking through the dark cavernous world of absolute void that give me hope

No you absolute fucking idiot I'M EMBRACING THE REALITY OF INUTION
I BELIEVE IN REALITY BECAUSE OF INTUITION
I'M NOT A SOLIPSIST BECAUSE OF THESE BELIEFS
the point is you have to BELIEVE in a multitude of things to NOT be a solipsist

That has nothing to do with what I said.

As someone with both a deep scientific and philosophical background, I realized that physicalists, especially of the reductive variety, and people who promote scientism are full of shit. I know these people are wrong, but it is difficult to find what is true. Also, materialist atheists must acknowledge how they cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. I've developed my own perspective that is very difficult to refute, regardless.
>the bible
You're a bigger idiot than him.

True religion, how to live your life properly aka what every human wants. You have your own way of doing this, the Bible simply presents a better one.

>he thinks I want to argue with him

Attached: 81070D2E-F6DB-4C67-ACBF-7F16D5F8483D.jpg (539x416, 36K)

Based Af

look at this retard trying to convince himself he isn't a solipsist

Of course you don't want to, deep down inside you know you're wrong.

I find threads like these wholly unproductive because “atheists” always come here and derail the discussion by showing they know fuck all about religion. They are the religious equivalent of flat-earthers.

If you don’t “get” religion, that is not on religion; it’s on you. You need some background in philosophy and literature to understand religion or else you are going to be reading the texts like a materialist and nothing will make any sense.

You need to believe that so that you can maintain your identity

no u
solipsism is an affirmative belief and not a negation, in fact there are no agnostic positions, every negation affirms something else; why should I affirm myself, solipsism is not absolute skepticism. Descartes is a pussy, he didn't go all the way.

Attached: 0efd1fdeb61f115a9be896b9f7b3c84d.jpg (1160x1732, 520K)

...

Jesus I didn't think this thread would become so based so quickly

Your not smart and your funny pictures aren’t clever and your posturing isn’t cute nd your posts aren’t appreciated

Nice projection
Cope

/thread

Still fun to to see atheists get put in their place

>no you
>name calling
>he thinks I want to argue with him

nothing is objectively verifiable, including this statement
To negate is to affirm
To affirm is to negates
To act is to affirm
To be is to not be objective
Feels = reals

It’s impossible to justify religions, only deism.
Just admit that your faith in whatever religion is wholly irrational.

If only you knew how retarded you and your arguments are. But of course, you're not interested in actual arguments, all you christcucks care it is to BTFO the silly atheists with le epic meme. There's never any use arguing with any of you, because you know you will never change your mind. Your minds have already been made up.

watching the young pope and seeing so many failed transitions in beta males.

It's good that we are on the same page: that our intuitions that tell us to believe in reason and empiricism are not illusory but truly ate telling us the truth of our being.

Ok I admit it
SIKE
you actually thought that would work

>the young pope

Attached: 15662719157138608627861803546146.png (454x520, 219K)

But the similarity between god and santa claus (or faeries) is that they’re both not based in experience and belong to the immaterial world.
You can’t disprove god (or faeries), but this fact shouldn’t be enough to make one believe in them. (check out russel’s teapot)