>has a portrait of Rousseau in his office>his most famous work contains a refutation of all major proofs of God's existence>develops the first fully atheistic moral theory>supports the French Revolution>circumvents censorship to publish a work on religion>gets a ban on publishing on these topics>is reported to ridicule religious practiceHow tf do you still think he's a theist, faggots? >lulz he himself says soHave you never heard of Pantheismusstreit or Atheismusstreit?>I [Kant] am an investigator by inclination. I feel a great thirst for knowledge and an impatient eagerness to advance, also satisfaction at each progressive step. There was a time when I thought that all this could constitute the honor of humanity, and I despised the mob, which knows nothing about it. Rousseau set me straight. This dazzling excellence vanishes; I learn to honor men, and would consider myself much less useful than common laborers if I did not believe that this consideration could give all the others a value, to establish the rights of humanity.> In the 18th Century university system defending such views often led to dismissal and/or lack of promotion. Kant, himself, was always cautious when writing on such topics. In the context of censorship, writers tend to become circumspect. To avoid trouble, they may publish something anonymously; or they may make oblique remarks instead of direct statements; or they may have second thoughts and retract earlier statements. Kant did all three things. But, for later readers in increasingly secular ages, it is easy to miss Kant’s subtleties and implications.> He dedicated the Universal Natural History to Frederick the Great and published it in spring 1755. With this publication, Kant cautiously published anonymously. The problem was not risking religious opposition by endorsing Newton. Rather, it was that Kant had sharpened celestial mechanics to a secular and dynamic cosmology, while replacing Newton’s Christian view of natural design with a non-anthropocentric and naturalistic teleology. He supported Newtonian mechanics and cosmology, but to the detriment of biblical creation stories.>Scheffner had often heard Kant scoff at prayer and other religious practices. Organized religion filled him with ire. It was clear to anyone who knew Kant personally that he had no faith in a personal God. Having postulated God and immortality, he himself did not believe in either.
Funny how a pledditor atheist literally SPERGING OUT when in the fucking preface Kant says he holds faith above knowledge.AHAHAHAHHAHA
>>23618036cope
>>23618105t. (you)
>>23618027>atheistic moral theorystopped reading there
>>23618110>*metaprojection*
>>23618113Which of these words is too difficult to comprehend?
Yeah it's pretty easy to debunk Kant and this retarded atheist morality: it's another atheist narcissistic delusion that other people will want what i want, but atheists are desperate to create a mental framework with universalism at its core, in order to earn some atheist karma point, so they are obsessed with ''wanting what others want'', because you know if they think something, then it means any other people will think their way, it cant be otherwise oKAYYY. It's vaginal. And all their intellectual despair stem from their killing of the semitic god lol. They are just embarrassing themselves at this point. Atheists are always trying to reinvent the wheel, trying to pass their made up mental masturbation as the new obvious god, (but without calling it a religion lol, ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OKAAYYY BIGOT!!! MY OWN MIND TOLD ME SO!!!111), but it turns out that even other atheists dont acknowledge that the < current intellectual fad > is obvious and ready to be the new god (they always ask in their defining Pavlovian way their famous question: dude you got a source for that??huh?huh? where's the source?where is it?huh?I'm still waiting for a source!!) .Atheists always eat each other alive. If atheists want universalism so bad, they should not have used relativism to seize power and settle atheism as the norm in order to spend their life virtue signaling.Atheism is this: twitter is my religion, joe biden my god, ambear heard my christ and elon musk my satan.Good thing that humanism is dying and plenty of people are not humanist.
>>23618128>*schizo rant about contemporary atheism having nothing to do with the historical question of whether Kant was an atheist or not*
>>23618128Are there atheists in the room with us now?
>>23618122are you smarter than me?
>>23618146No, but he is.
>>23618135anyone who is not explicitly a Christian is necessarily not a Christian
>>23618148You know 0 of Leibniz and it shows.
>>23618148>pulls out some dude in a wigI raise you literally God Himself, the Logos incarnate, the protagonist of reality, the Lord Jesus Christ.
>>23618128Based refutation
>>23618027Being annoyed with normies and their religious beliefs isn’t a comment on religion as a whole.
>>23618720That's not quite my point. This first quote was supposed to indicate why Kant wasn't opposed to religious faith (and said it's justifiable on moral grounds) even though he himself didn't have it. He quite literally asserts that despite his annoyance with intellectually unsophisticated people (tm), he, following Rousseau, thinks that morality is completly independent from theoretical knowledge. Whether he's correct is another question but this fully explains his attitude towards religion imo.
>>23618169>pulls out some dead rabbi
>>23618169>the protagonist of realitySo god built a universe, a story if you will, so that he could be the literal self-insert protagonist of said universe? Really makes god sound like a bore.
>>23618720What about being annoyed with normies and their atheistic beliefs as a comment on atheism as a whole?
>>23618756no I didn'tJesus is alive.
Another reminder that he was an atheist. Saying that he's not is the greatest cope in the history of philosophy. His biographers literally fabricated this whole story that Kant was a devout Christian to avoid controversy. And Nietzsche was a retarded schizophrenic faggot.>Kant’s first biographers were L.E. Borowski, R.B. Jachmann, and E.A.C. Wasianski. Their accounts appeared in Königsberg, in the year of Kant’s death (12 Feb. 1804). As the three writers knew their subject personally—Borowski had been his frequent guest; Jachmann had been his research assistant; and Wasianski had been his assistant and executor of will—their portraits were accepted as authoritative. All three had degrees in theology; Jachmann held church services, Wasianski was a deacon, and Borowski was a church administrator. They stressed the importance of Pietism for Kant and presented their subject as a good Christian. This distortion was partly due to an innocent projection of the biographers’ preferences, but to some extent, it was also a systematic effort at spinning the facts, especially in the case of Borowski. Borowski worried that his association with Kant would harm his career and tried to preempt critics, for Kant’s scorn for fundamentalists (Schwärmer) was notorious, and his influence was blamed for the empty churches in town. Kant was cool towards Christianity and did not support its doctrines.
>>23618027The true Christianity was the friends we made along the way.
He's not an atheist but a heretic which is much worse, unless you're in this life to get pussy
>>23619400>Kant was cool towards Christianity and did not support its doctrines.Sounds like you added that in yourself to feel better about being a pathetic atheist cuck.Cope harder
>>23620271it's a literal quote, nigga
>>23620279>>Borowski>>Hachann>>Wasianaski>GEE there's nothing peculiar about THOSE last names
>>23620291what's peculiar about them
>>23620300You literally extracted that block of shit from a ((Peer))-edited journal in association and the backing from the (((Royal Society)))
>>23620315so what?
Kant was pretty brutal but Jesus was pretty brutal too, he’s most analogous to the apostle Nathaniel and his habitual sitting underneath the fig tree ‘what good can come from Galilee?’ Is pure Kant. Not to mention his scoffing at pagan ritual just elucidates even more of a ‘Jewish personality’. And his idea of ‘progress’ is clearly Pharisaical in the Pauline fashion. None of which contradict his fully endorsed commitment to Christ as being the pinnacle of humanity or his faith in Him being the one true son of the living God. Rousseau was also counter-enlightenment. They all hated that bugman shit and had more a young rich arrogant Jewish male type of personality
>>23621074this. Nietzche hated him because he was a Polish oriental larping as an Aryan while Kant was an actual Aryan larping as a Jewish oriental
>>23618027Daily reminder for you theistic midwits that he was a based atheist.
He continued to read, but he took in little. Writing was almostimpossible. By August 1801, a friend wrote that Kant was able “only atsingular moments to write down his thoughts on philosophicalmatters.” Often he fell asleep in his chair, slipped out of it, and fellto the ground. Having fallen, he could not get up. He calmly lay wherehe fell and waited until someone helped him up. It is not clear howoften this happened, until Wasianski provided him with an armchairthat prevented him from falling. He still read in bed. Three times, hisnightcap caught fire. Kant stamped out the fire with his feet. Wasianskiprovided him with a bottle of water by his bed, and changed the designof his nightcap. He also instructed him to read at a greater distancefrom the candle. Wasianski now had to attend to Kant several times aday. Their friends began to feel sorry for Kant and Wasianski.Kantbros... not like this.
>>23622684On October 8, 1803, Kant’s condition became life-threatening.According to Wasianski, this was a result of Kant’s diet. He had eatenbadly during the last few years, not liking any of the traditional dishes.On the other hand, he had developed a craving for a sandwich withgrated dry English cheese (cheddar), which Wasianski considered badfor him. On October 7, he ate, against Wasianski’s advice, a largequantity of it:He for the first time made an exception in his customary approval and acceptance ofmy suggestion. He insisted excitedly on the satisfaction of his craving. I do not thinkI err when I say that this was the first time I noticed a certain kind of animosityagainst me, which was meant to suggest that I had stepped over the line he haddrawn for me. He appealed to the fact that this food had never harmed him andcould not harm him. He ate the cheese – and more had to be grated. I had to besilent and give in, after having tried everything to change his mind.At 9:00 A.M. the next morning, being led by his sister on a walkthrough the house, Kant lost consciousness and fell to the ground. Hewas put to bed in his study, which was heated. The doctor came. Kantmade noises, but he could not articulate words. Later that day hemanaged to speak, but he slurred the words. Though he had probablysuffered a stroke rather than an attack of indigestion, he got no morecheese at Wasianski’s order.159 Still, it might have been the cheese thatcaused Kant’s “sickness” – at least indirectly. The excitement over theforbidden food might have raised his blood pressure and brought on thestroke. Whether or not this was the case we will never know, but whatwe can know is that Wasianski felt responsible.He was a slut for cheddar.
>>23622333The true midwit here is you. Keep coping thinking Kant held no faith fedoratard
I mean, I don’t.
