nomind-allthought:

nonplussedbyreligion:

Kierkegaard

… I don’t think I have ever seen a more ironic post in my entire fucking life.

Congrats New Atheists, you have officially failed at everything.

If it were so, as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not then be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, be certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearance, by the flattering conceit that considers itself absolutely secure against being deceived. Which deception is more dangerous? Whose recovery is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see, or that of the person who sees and yet does not see? Which is more difficult-to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake?

Works of Love 

More context: This is one of the works Kierkegaard that he signed under his own name which are more religious than the pseudonymous work. This work in particular is designed to lead the reader to his Christian ethic.