Why did it take otherwise intelligent men until like 1850 to figure out that God wasn't real? And even then so many great authors and philosophers were religious for another 100 years. So much great literature is just kind of meaningless because it appeals to a nonexistent higher power.
everyone knew it wasn't real but they played along to not cause problems like today everyone knows men can't become women but it's just easier to go along with it.
>>24724187>>24724197>We all have a sense of what is "good" and what is "bad"That compass is proof of God.
>>24724187>God wasn't real?Look up Apophatic Theology
>>24724207how
>>24724223don't be stupid
>>24724187Theology had lots of people on the theology payroll and no one was being paid to promote atheism yet. I al sure most of the Sadducees didn't believe in the very god they were priests of and that was 2000 years ago.
>>24724187Very well phrased question, OP. Human beings are unfortunately, and against all evidence honestly considered, hard-wired for some form of religious feeling, a fundamental defect that we will always need to overcome and get clear of, once and for all. And that imperative is never going to go away. To invoke any sort of god is always to reduce your capacity to correctly understand and negotiate reality. Just as unfortunate, humans live a few decades, transmit their fictions to their children, and then grow old and die, never having seriously interrogated their own biases, or else having accepted the unsatisfying copes that their traditions feed them ("it's all a test", as one silly example, favored by islam). In other words, the shortness of the human lifespan allows individuals to escape accountability for their false and unwarranted beliefs. This is helped by a tendency to go along and get along, which devalues truth.The tragedy of the western university system itself is that it was founded with the transmission of theology and the like as its core purpose. In this way, its very formation was poisoned from the start, much as the academic discipline of sociology has been poisoned right from the very start through its association with Marx.>>24724207This is one of the sillier replies. Whatever else you may think about him (and he can be tone-deaf on certain things, like literary appreciation), Dawkins does in fact supply a satisfying answer on where morality comes from. You would do better to focus on the absurdity of something coming from nothing, the (measurable) health benefits of prayer, etc.
>>24724187Because when you're working 16 hours a day to keep the ((lord)) well-fed and you go home to fuck your crusty wife while your 8 kids watch (of whom 5 will be dead by winter), you don't have time to question the existence of God
>>24724187Enjoy hell
>>24724207If that were true we wouldn’t have people earnestly believing men are women.We don’t even have a reliable compass for what’s true and false much less for what’s right or wrong.
>>24724823WTF are you talking about? There are absolutes in truth and false. And being a tranny is wrong.
>>24724752I'm already in hell. All of you only exist to heighten my suffering by contrast.
>>24724187Mass education still follows the path set in nineteenth century, no wonder that its victims only consider that only things they were told were real are real.
I think it's the proliferation of science. You con forgive people like Newton for giving God the benefit of the doubt when science was just starting out, but surely given a hundred years someone somewhere would have been able to prove God's existence by the rigors of the scientific method. The fact that no one (in spite of the massive financial interest in religion) was able to do so says all we need to know.
Atheism only emerged in the 19th century once Deism as a theological conceptualization of god was widespread, making atheism a rational choice to the alternative of a deity being nothing other than a big billiard ball in the sky. But modern atheism is basically not in communication with classical Greek metaphysics and theology in our post-Kantian world and has no clue what a “God” even is. Whether or not that’s legitimate, it’s true that “atheism” as such has no response to the old questions that the Greeks were asking because it’s been forgotten. MacIntyre aptly said that the God of the atheists was invented in the 16th century.
>>24724187This isn't going to make sense to you as a turbomidwit, but men didn't "figure out" God is dead like it was ever some Big Lie. They actually "killed" him by turning metaphysics into epistemology. The only substantial change is the shift in tradition, from the medieval pre-Copernican mode to the modern (considering both in their most charitable forms). In ultimate terms God is as real as ever.You can still enjoy that old literature if you substitute its historically constrained notions of divinity for more perennial metaphysical questions as they pertain to man.
>>24725031>being so dumb he doesn't know how science and God are one and the same. I thought /lit/ was well read.
>>24724272tell me where you think intelligence comes from and i might debate you
>>24724207You cannot be serious, gullible retard
>>24724923Sucks to be you.
>>24725661What's your counterargument?
Look, you have to understand that the direction of science is contingent, we just decided that we should lay the groundwork of our knowledge mostly exclusively on sense input and just decided to ignore other means of knowledge just for the convenience of it. In a worldview that only values sense input and distrusts reason and rationality, God conveniently does not exist, or if he does, he just ignores it. You can look at the world in other ways though.Just remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. https://www.reformedclassicalist.com/home/presuppositional-apologetics
>>24725987>Look, you have to understand that the direction of science is contingent, we just decided that we should lay the groundwork of our knowledge mostly exclusively on sense input and just decided to ignore other means of knowledge just for the convenience of itIf something else worked better than sense data, we'd be using it.
>>24726006Not really, one can still believe in a philosophical system, nothing wrong with it. Personally I have never seen a persuasive refutation of Aristotle's prime mover.
>>24725987>there is nothing rational or reasonable about feelings.>they are just negative sentiments, they include a wide variety of things though such as religious feelings, feelings of power, feelings of emotions and the like. >take for instance a concept which has never possessed any concreteness such as a god. There are always a class of people who put total faith in such abstractions and as a result are completely incapable of demonstration beyond what you might expect from a brute. >these people are just pedants. More accurately just female pedants who need to go back to extra absorbent maxipads or whatever garbage they shove up their decayed and rotted meat pockets.>they may not even be capable of ludicrous notions beyond foolishness.>the voegelin larper performs a pedantry double dip since he has conflated god with politics, the latter in most cases just another concept without concreteness in most people. >his complete inability to demonstrate might also be a triple dip on his part since the female postmodern larper also has conflated religion in this as well, and this is another form of pedantry for the traditionalist since they have no conceteness whatsoever on any of those 3 things.>this pomo female sort of bitch just goes about vomiting feelings and the like hoping for a free tampon here or there. >in more civilized times we would just throw these things in asylums.
>>24724272>Human beings are unfortunately, and against all evidence honestly considered, hard-wired for some form of religious feeling, a fundamental defect that we will always need to overcome and get clear of, once and for allThis is what I have discovered as well. In the case that Christianity is false, I have formulated my own quasi religion that's based on sodomy. Why sodomy, you ask? Because sex and religion use the same reward neural pathways in the brain, which is why the ancients noticed a conflict between the two passions. Abrahamic faiths often times personify god as a father, husband, warrior, and shepherd, while the followers are the children, wive, subjects, and sheep of god. These symbols are powerful because they encompass the full range of social attachment figures (from subsistence, authoritative, pedagogical, defensive, and emotional care); my goal is to hack that part of the brain by approximating these symbols, but this may be a pipe dream. My faith — for lack of a better term — would revolve around these precepts:>in each orgy and relationship, one man can bottom for exactly one man, while that same man can top unlimited men>a top must be stronger or bigger than the bottom (preferably both)>a top must be more masculine than a bottom (feminine in this context refers to skirts, dresses, heels, nail polish, but this is not an exhausted list; masculine and feminine are relative expressions) >a top must be a soldier or farmer (preferably both>each partner must be tested for diseases>each top is bound by contract to provide and fight for the bottom>each bottom is bound by contract to serve and praise the top>a festival/ritual should be created and performed for each heroic and life-saving act that is done by a top>the "king" of the hierarchy will be determined in a battle of strength and intelligenceI might add more points, but you get the idea
Why do you post as if you want another TAG thread?
>>24724197>everyoneI woudn't say everyone, but a lot of people yes. Certainly going all the way back to the Buddha and some of the Greek philosophers as well.
