[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 19 KB, 480x360, doe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648463 No.11648463[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

You can't be an atheist because of Dostoevsky

>> No.11648469
File: 6 KB, 216x250, 1515132381269s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648469

>you can't be atheist because it would hurt my feelings if there were no god and i don't want my feelings hurt

>> No.11648488
File: 13 KB, 252x212, kot just.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648488

>>11648463
>when all of your opinions are dictated by works of fiction on the "human condition"

>> No.11648529

>>11648463
even if you believe in a God, I think you'd be able to see the flaw(s) in this argument Peterson uses. with how he uses atheism, sure, he can say "you're not *really* an atheist", but at the same time he has to acknowledge he doesn't have ownership over words' meanings - no one does for that matter - and that most people who use atheist simply mean "one who doesn't believe in a god / gods".

he also uses the "you're not an atheist because you're 'religious'", which, in my opinion, is to horrendously oversimplify was religion has been since the beginning of known history. it's for these reasons (and some others depending on your worldview) that Peterson is considered a hack.

>> No.11648535

JUDEO!!!!, christianity

>> No.11648538

who is this?

>> No.11648548

>>11648538
Wash ur frkn room man

>> No.11648554

>>11648538
Scrub yer cockhole

>> No.11648560

>>11648538

gordan betersin

>> No.11648561
File: 224 KB, 1200x800, 1200px-Reggie_Watts_at_PopTech_2011_(a).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648561

>>11648548
>>11648554
I see

>> No.11648565

>>11648538
Just a cult leader, nothing special

>> No.11648564

>>11648538
Peter Jordanson

>> No.11648574

>>11648538

Juden Peterstein

>> No.11648588

>You haven't even engaged with the great religious thinkers. Jung, Dostoyevsky... the list goes on!

>> No.11648603
File: 2 KB, 163x209, 1485220337131.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648603

>Says he is an atheist.
>Behaves and acts and thinks as though he worships that which guides those things through the symbolic and unconscious presentation of such ideas inside the forum of action which constitutes the reality for which we live and value life.

>> No.11648626

>>11648588
You forgot Nietzsche.

>> No.11648724

Peterson is a mess of contradictions. He believes in objective moral and mythological truths, yet he holds that there is an objective, 'Newtonian', world, independent of our perceptions. If truth is what corresponds to the real, objective, world, there can be no truth other than what corresponds to the objective world. Myths - religious scripture or great works of fiction - are just false stories. There can be no truth in them. In fact, there can be no free will on the Newtonian materialistic view because our consciousnesses is solely determined by the physical processes in brains - our consciousnesses is simply an illusion, as Dennett implies. Meaning itself is a false illusion.
However, there is a way out for Peterson if he would just find the door. He must reject the notion of the objective world and objective truth altogether. I think he grasps that the past and the future are stories - myths - we tell ourselves to give our lives context and thus meaning. But he must go further. Given that the past and the future are myths, and that the present is an infinitely fleeting moment in between our two myths, our entire perception is essentially a mythical creation. The next step is to reject the unproven theory that these myths in any way correspond to things or events in an objective physical world. As quantum physics shows, the 'physical' world of collapsed wave functions isn't objective, given that two observers can disagree about the same series of events, as Rovelli shows. A better theory is that our world is mental - idealist or cosmo-panpsychist.
On this view, our lives are entirely mythical and subjective. This opens the door to transcendent, though subjective, truths - those revealed in our great religious myths and works of fiction - which Peterson holds so dear.

>> No.11648735

>>11648724
>As quantum physics shows
spot the pseud

>> No.11648749

>>11648538
foreskin eaterson

>> No.11648761

>>11648735
Quantum mechanics poses a huge challenge to realism and thus materialism. This is undeniable.

>> No.11648777

>>11648761
No it doesn't.
t. physicist working with quantum mechanics every fucking day.

>> No.11648785

>>11648463
>>11648469
Is your dad oppressing you with his unenlightened beliefs again, anon?

btw you can probably use jordan peterson to make fun of anything, the guy is all over the place

>> No.11648793

>>11648724
>our consciousnesses is simply an illusion, as Dennett implies


Reddit is that way, kid...

>> No.11648801

>>11648724
>A better theory is that our world is mental - idealist or cosmo-panpsychist.

ignoring all the horrible crap you wrote before this, an idealist picture of the universe is as bad as you can get. did you not read kant? literally go read the Refutation of Idealism in the CPR. there is a reason that idealism is the massive problem of all modern philosophy: its problems are ten times more destructive than its solutions are constructive. i know idealism sounds super cool and vedantic or whatever but it is actually the single most problematic philosophical standpoint in the history of all philosophy. not only for purely metaphysical reasons, but for phenomenological ones as well.

>> No.11648809
File: 169 KB, 720x619, Screenshot_2018-08-18-22-37-00-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648809

>>11648463
yeah okay but then it's like...you don't know what you're talking about, bucko. you don't know.

>> No.11648813

>racial purity is foolhardy
>collectivism based on ethnicity is laughable
>right wingers go too far when they argue for racial purity

>Dr. Peterson, what about the jews? They do all of those things openly and it's never talked about

>Y-yeah haha, they have high IQ.

I don't care if he loves Israel or whatever, but this blatant hypocrisy irritates me.

>the jews were persecuted all through history!
So were the Irish, and the Polish. They were never colonial nations either, but they obviously don't get a homeland because they're white.

>> No.11648844

>>11648777
>>11648801
Not arguments.

>> No.11648853

>>11648793
Also not an argument.

>> No.11648862
File: 90 KB, 927x482, 030F1503-46E7-4FF0-98C2-63978C0823FA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648862

>>11648463
What’s bothers me about Peterson is he rebukes atheism but can only offer pic related as his definition of God

>> No.11648863

>>11648463
MUH AXIOMS

>> No.11648870

>>11648538
Jordan Petersout

>> No.11648886

>>11648813
They don't get a homeland because they weren't used as a two-bit rent-a-cop to police the middle east and agitate unwilling participants into joining in on the great game of global banking.

>> No.11648888

>>11648463
Of course you can.

>You can be an atheist because an apple falls on your stupid-ass head when you sit under an apple tree.
>You can even "invent" gravity.

The fuck you mean I can't be inspired by some totally unrelated subject or some long-irrelevant, dead, cis-gendered white scum male's corpus of BS? Isn't that how race and racism started?

<spoiler>Ye I'm trolling.</spoiler>

>> No.11648895

>>11648862
that tweet is so pseud it makes pseuds on /lit/ seem smart

>> No.11648917

>>11648862
Is he trying you can't be religious if you believe in a spook?
Meaning: Spook = God

>> No.11648920

>>11648895
it’s also ostensibly atheistic

>> No.11648988

>>11648777
In light of the measurement problem, to which interpretation of quantum mechanics do you subscribe?

>> No.11649036

>>11648801
can I get a quick rundown

>> No.11649169

>>11648538
Benis Washerson

>> No.11649198

>>11648538
Derrida Foucault

>> No.11649225

Does no one else here sympathise with this abstract almost unexplainable belief in a higher being without organised religion? I read Les Mis and now I’m having an existential crisis and I don’t understand these feels

>> No.11649248
File: 14 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649248

>>11649225
do shrooms lol

>> No.11649252

Why doesn't he just admit that he is Christian

>> No.11649279

>>11649225
There’s nothing abstract about God without religion; you just have to take belief out of the equation. It only becomes abstract when you try to put It into words. God is grounded in direction experience because God is Being and that is why religion is ultimately flawed. The metaphysical is one step removed from God.

>> No.11649280

>>11648469
>>11648463
Have you never sat down and just deeply I mean deeply wondered about life, about humans, about existence itself? Tried to imagine the beginning, the cause of it all? Something beyond our human world that we take for granted and eternal. For me the thoughts always lead to the same conclusion, that something gave beginning to the existence.

>> No.11649290

>>11648463
>be a product of evolution
>group dynamics select for morality systems
>"you have morality systems therefore you believe in god!"

???

>> No.11649292

>>11649279
>The metaphysical is one step removed from God.
is God just 'everything' or what am i missing here. does the concept of everything go into metaphysics and not this being thing you're talking about

pls help

>> No.11649297

>>11649280
>For me the thoughts always lead to the same conclusion, that something gave beginning to the existence.

Wow, that must mean its true

>> No.11649299
File: 72 KB, 720x720, 1524026817291.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649299

>>11649292
>he doesn't know

>> No.11649308

>>11649297
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just expressing my feelings on the matter.

>> No.11649310

>>11649290
It also selected religious and supernatural beliefs, humans are naturally inclined to believe but are also naturally inclined to br rational and hedonists. We tear ourselves apart over these.

>> No.11649323

>>11649252
Because at the end of the day he's still an atheist, but he doesn't want to be associated with other famous atheists and perhaps lose some theist backing he has.

In the Q and A of his debate with Matt Dillahunty, some guy asks something like "If every human being dies, does God still exists" and he's literally silent for almost 10 seconds.

>> No.11649334

>>11649292
Beware of unearned wisdom. You can only understand God when you go beyond thought. If I told you God was everything that wouldn’t help you because you don’t know what everything is. That’s all just word games. To discover the truth you have to self inquire.

>> No.11649378

>>11648538
Gordon Freemason

>> No.11649428
File: 65 KB, 693x534, 2016_01_08_c4_RoyBatty.47308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649428

>>11649378
>Half Life 3 never

>> No.11649476

>>11649310
human's have the capacity for deference to authority, which manifests as religion

>> No.11649486

>>11649334
and you should totally buy this snake oil too, it's on sale and everything!

>> No.11649533

>Dostoevsky in my top 3 writers
>still atheist

>> No.11649550

>>11649486
I ain’t selling shit, stupid

>> No.11649599

>>11649280
well I'm convinced

>> No.11649615

>>11649533
Are you dumb ?

>> No.11649628
File: 8 KB, 250x229, 1533510338897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649628

>>11648724
>thinks consciousness and meaning are illusions
>continues to use consciousness and find things meaningful as though they were real

Really makes you think...

>> No.11649641

>>11648862
What does this mean?

>> No.11649651

>>11649290
>assumes that materialism is the case
>invokes anthropological theory to account for morality given materialism
>LOL THEISTS WITH THEIR BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS FUCKING RETARDS XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>> No.11649664

>>11649323
>some guy asks something like "If every human being dies, does God still exists" and he's literally silent for almost 10 seconds

This kills the Jungian

>> No.11649700

>>11649641
By implying God is a mode of being he’s completely denying the supernatural, which leads me to believe that Peterson is actually an atheist, but he’s too afraid to admit it so he avoids the question by changing the definitions of words to suit his personal agenda, which by the way is what he accuses the postmodernists of doing

>> No.11649706

>>11649486
very based post

>> No.11649732

>>11649615
>brainlet christian
Are you? What gives your jewish folklore any more credibility than literally any other holy book?

>> No.11649757

>>11649651
>Me: Coherent theory of evolution which explains the development of all human traits
>You: There is more than the material, but I'm not in any way going to demonstrate it

>> No.11649798

>>11648538
Jesus Christerson

>> No.11649803

>>11649757
it is the same thing literally everytime anything about evolutionary psychology is brought up. it's 100% except I guess for the benefit of lurkers who are exposed to actual non-gibberish about the origins of things like morality

>> No.11649805

It blows my mind that someone can get a PhD and fully believe in horoscope level symbolism, archetypes and "mysticism".

How the fuck did the field of psychology go so wrong and is there a way to save it?

>> No.11649818

>>11649805
JBP is a special case. the dude is haunted and he needs to try to make the world a certain way so that he can feel comfortable in it.

>> No.11649896
File: 106 KB, 768x1024, 1488.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649896

>>11648724
Have you read his book maps of meaning?

Seems like 95% of the people criticizing peterson don't actually understand what he is even talking about.
Not calling you stupid or anything like that either because its an easy thing to do especially if you have only seen a few limited discussions.

>> No.11649904

>>11649757
>Coherent theory of evolution which explains the development of all human traits
Except for why every human impulse points beyond this world...

>> No.11649946

>>11649805
Was there a time when psychology (any form of psychology other than neuro-psychology) was "right"?

As far as I'm aware of, psychology, while it may have had good intentions of studying and helping troubled or troubling people, never accomplished anything positive in a slightest.

>> No.11649956
File: 23 KB, 479x317, 1482510748902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11649956

>>11649946
>Asides from bettering societies understanding of the nature of suffering and the complex ways in which humans can experience it, what has psychology ever really done?
High standards there, buddy.

>> No.11649960

>>11649904
but our impulses mostly point to very obvious shit, getting food, getting social status, sex, raising children, etc.

there are a few weird things like art and relgiion, but you can chalk them up to 'maintaining group cohesion' or 'psychological outlets for blah blah'

the evopsych thesis is honestly very strong, and you have to really think outside the box metaphysically to find a way in which literally everythinig about humans is not just down to natural selection, everything except consciousness which remains weird.

>> No.11650059

>>11648724
>religious scripture or great works of fiction - are just false stories. There can be no truth in them.

That's not true

>> No.11650075

>>11649956
Is emotional suffering really that difficult to understand?
From what I understand, unless culture is being hijacked by people with ill intent, people can pretty well understand suffering and causes.

>> No.11650094

>>11648538
Palmerson Anderson

>> No.11650103

>>11649308
Thanks, no one has expressed this notion before. I'll make a note of it in my diary.

Desu.

>> No.11650134

>>11649896
MoM is applied psychology, not philosophy

>> No.11650191

>>11648463
Yes i can.
>How?
I'm the proof nigger faggot go back to /pol/!

>> No.11650208

>>11649960
>but our impulses mostly point to very obvious shit, getting food, getting social status, sex, raising children, etc.
>there are a few weird things like art and relgiion, but you can chalk them up to 'maintaining group cohesion' or 'psychological outlets for blah blah'
This results in a terribly deprived existence, does it not? That "meaning" is nothing but some momentary illusion created by the make up of our psychology, and that ultimately we're nothing more than animals. The big problem then is why not just embrace our animalistic nature? This is a line of thinking that makes humans little more than self-aware cattle, and can easily be used to justify all sorts of eugenic schemes. If humans are only animals, they have no value beyond the extent to which they contribute to the "community". This line of thinking will result in nothing but eugenic and transhumanist nightmares. Remove the God that loves us and people will start deleting each other forever.

>> No.11650224

>>11649757
>But that's just a (game) theory!

>> No.11650232

>>11650224
alfsvoid pls go

>> No.11650718

>>11648862
yikes

>> No.11650726

>>11648862
Cringed and badpilled