Why do atheists want there to be no God? Any books on the atheist mindset?

File: 24 KB, 561x421, screen shot 2017-07-30 at 140146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:11:50 2018 No.12108877 [Reply] [Original]

Why do atheists want there to be no God? Any books on the atheist mindset?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:15:42 2018 No.12108891 >>12108877 It's not like we don't want that, it's the fact that we don't see any indicator of his existence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:16:14 2018 No.12108892 >>12108877 read any dawkings book is shit tho.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:18:39 2018 No.12108900 >>12108891 >we don't see any indicator of his existence. have you tried looking around? open your eyes. God's presence is everywhere.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:19:02 2018 No.12108902

>>12108877
The likely scenario to an empiricist, given what we know of ourselves and the others around us, is that man came first, and then God. If we're not inclined to reject our senses, we must ask: if man has the power and the will to create God, where is the real god behind the fabrication?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:19:04 2018 No.12108903 >>12108877 >Why do atheists want there to be no God? its comforting. they like not being held accountable for the numerous moral obligations they spectacularly defy. if they were to confront their own evil, it would destroy them, and they know that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:22:35 2018 No.12108919 >>12108891 So the universe created itself out of nothing and created everything itself for no reason?

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:25:41 2018 No.12108927

>>12108919
I don't see how this is somehow improbable compared to "a being of intelligence that exists outside of the universe designed and spawned the entirety of existence as we know it".
We know absolutely nothing about the start of the universe. The only thing we know is that eventually the universe happened - wouldn't it follow that before the universe there wasn't a universe?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:27:32 2018 No.12108934 Desire has nothing to do with whether he exists or not. Though the idea that a sociopath like YHVH/Allah is real sure is the opposite of comforting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:28:06 2018 No.12108938 >>12108927 How can something that doesn't exist create itself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:29:22 2018 No.12108943 So they arent accountable to anyone but themselves, duh Thats a hell of a lot of freedom

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:29:37 2018 No.12108945 >>12108938 I don't see any other way nothing can emerge into something. Maybe it's not possible anymore or maybe it happens constantly, every day and we just have another name for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:33:41 2018 No.12108968 >>12108900 I agree, look at any tree, that's Amaterasu doing her work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:33:55 2018 No.12108969 File: 23 KB, 601x601, 1539178752302.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12108938 >no one understand or know what happened before the existence of the universe. >so the god made everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:34:22 2018 No.12108972 The single greatest atheistic argument against religious institutions/dogma is the "The Grand Inquisitor" chapter from The Brothers Karamazov.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:39:08 2018 No.12108990 >>12108900 >>12108968 God and the creator of the universe aren't the same, the god is what do you believe, the creator he's who made the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:44:57 2018 No.12109011 >>12108969 We do understand. God set the cosmic egg into motion. This explanation is far more plausible than something creating itself out of nothing.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:48:56 2018 No.12109029

Well, as something of an atheist myself I primarily don't want there to be a "god" due to the problem of evil. Now we can no doubt debate the validity of the argument for the rest of the day, but assuming it *is* valid, it really leaves only cruel or morally ambiguous gods as possibilities. Given that, It'd be much more preferable for there to be no god at all.

Actually I lied I'm more of a pantheist. Any god that is separate from its creation is limited in comparison to the totality of existence, including that god. Therefore we might as well consider the whole deal god. And if you think that it's still a god if it has total and utter control over its creation, then how is that any different from its creation just being another part of itself, in analogy to how we have agency over our (conscious) minds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:51:24 2018 No.12109039 >>12109011 A logical conclusion, yet one never applied to god himself. Nope, he always just was. Universe can't always just be, but he can.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:52:23 2018 No.12109044

>>12109029
See
>>12108972

Ivan Karamazov rejects a God who could build peace through the suffering of a single child.
The whole chapter is concerning the problem of Evil. Stop writing journalistically, do the fucking homework and start reading you dipshit.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:55:35 2018 No.12109051

>>12109011
The universe didn't create itself "out of" anything or nothing, time and space didn't exist before the beginning of the universe - there wasn't a "before." You're trying to extend your intuitive understanding of time and causality to a place where intuition fails.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 21:56:50 2018 No.12109058 >>12108877 I don't believe in god or the afterlife but I see ghosts every now and then. Am I crazy or in denial?

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:01:16 2018 No.12109078

>>12109011
Not the guy you were talking with
Here's the thing - you have all these philosophical proofs of God, very nice, ok, let's say your word games are correct here. The problem with this God is that he's only a metaphysical entity, completely unrelated to any practical thing, ethics, the Bible, Jesus, the Church, and so on. I could very much accept that sort of God, because his (non)existence doesn't really affect my thinking or acting (beyond highly abstract matters). A Muslim could also use the same arguments as you do to prove Allah. And then bomb some people in his name. That's how vague this philosophical/theological wankery is.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:01:48 2018 No.12109080

>>12109058
Even "normal" people can and do experience hallucinations, a mild form is hearing a phone ringing when it isn't. Our expectations and beliefs about reality colors our perception of reality, here's just one example: https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/uoca-pcb111318.php

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:06:48 2018 No.12109094 >>12109078 t. Brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:12:17 2018 No.12109112 >>12109094 Vatican here, we need your theological services. Virgin Mary will visit you in your sleep this night and give you further directions.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:20:44 2018 No.12109140

>>12109078
But no one has ever said these arguments, such as Aquinas' five ways argue specifically for the Christian God, or Allah etc. The arguments only serve the purpose of establishing that the universe was indeed created by a being exterior to the universe who's existence is necessary and not contingent on other things.
This is merely the first brick of the larger building of the Christian faith. From there arguments around the resurrection and historicity of Jesus Christ are what establish the faith of the Christians.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:30:27 2018 No.12109172

>>12109140
>This is merely the first brick
Then why the fuck do I basically never see any further bricks built upon this one?
>From there arguments around the resurrection and historicity of Jesus Christ are what establish the faith of the Christians
Yeah, saying that one not very well documented miracle absolutely certainly happened sometime 2000 years ago, but, for example, the miracle of Muhammed's ascension to Heaven absolutely certainly did not, is much less convincing than the philosophical arguments.

Anonymous Mon Nov 19 22:31:52 2018 No.12109177

>>12109044
I wish I could... somehow discussing things with people who can respond is far more engaging than simply reading a static wall of text. I wish I spent more of the time I spend engaged in philosophical thought reading philosophical texts. Any suggestions would be well received.

However, I think you got quite lucky calling me out on this. Do you really expect me to read every text mentioned in a lit thread before responding to OP? Especially when there isn't a separate philosophy board. If you do, bite me, I'll use this board as I like.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:08:48 2018 No.12109480

>>12109177
I do expect it when you make absurd statements proclaiming to be a pantheist, that a God outside of creation is less than a God confined to it (be Spinoza what he may [i.e. a dumb shit]) and waxing lyrical about agency when any Christian Church (except for fundamentalists and puritans) espouse free-will i.e. liberty of agency.
If you are making claims like these you have
a.) either made unqualified claims for the sake of baiting (shame on you)
b.) purposefully ignored 2000 years of literature literally discussing everything you have just claimed and practically BTFOing it
c.) are just intellectually dishonest/lazy.

If you are serious about wanting to read these things, well, again, read The Grand Inquisitor chapter (however taken out of the context of the entire novel it is kind of unfair)
Read Augustine and, most importantly, go to the source and read the Gospels.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:15:54 2018 No.12109501

No God, no Accountability.
No Accountability, no Consequences.
No Consequences, no reason to do right.

Folks who claim no God and claim proof are lying. You can no more prove God is FALSE than I can prove to you that He is REAL.

But, that's like not being proud or arrogant, and as humans, there's plenty to go around.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:17:47 2018 No.12109513 >>12109501 >No God, no Accountability. How do christkeks come up with this shit. How about you try holding yourself accoutable to your fellow man, you fucking sociopath?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:25:05 2018 No.12109545

>>12109172
I don't think atheists appreciate how difficult it would be to document a miracle and prove it a year after it happened, what possible miracle couldn't be explained away even if it was caught on film? Even if the evidence was irrefutable how likely is it that they would dismiss a singular irregularity in our scientific understanding as a mundane phenomenon we just can't quite explain yet?. And atheists forget that the Bible explicitly recognizes that humans are such vain forgetful creatures that they would erect a false idol and doubt god even if they watched his prophet bring an empire to its news and part the Red Sea.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:34:59 2018 No.12109578 >>12108877 God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great It's not that athiests don't want a god, there is no god. Religions are a parasite on humanity and progress.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:43:40 2018 No.12109609 >>12108900 >Why do theists want there to be a god? People tend to get an idea about the way things are and then just see what they need to in order to be correct. It’s pretty hard to call anything “true” when being looked at with human eyes

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:47:08 2018 No.12109630

>>12108877
Most atheists are just skeptics. They don't reject God in a heated way like the New Atheist authors cartoonishly display in their pretentious marketing campaigns.

I recommend Nietzsche's Will to Power, as he covers various stages of nihilism and how it comes about and affects us. He is the one after all who first observed the full breadth of the death of God in Western society.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:49:28 2018 No.12109638 Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Rime Of The Ancient Mariner" indirectly explores atheism

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:55:14 2018 No.12109664 >>12109578 What are we progressing towards?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 00:58:58 2018 No.12109673 >>12109664 To the abyss.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:01:53 2018 No.12109682 >>12109664 Galactic conquest.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:04:37 2018 No.12109689 >>12109664 Progressing past needing religions is the imporant part, to where, who knows.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:06:17 2018 No.12109693 >>12109689 progress became the new religion.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:08:14 2018 No.12109700

>>12109682
Then what?
>>12109689
At least religious people have something to look forward to. There isn’t anything greater to strive for than eternal Heaven. People talk about the future as if it’s gonna be so great, but we will always have the same problems. Compare modern society with those thousands, or even hundreds of years ago. We’ve come a long way, but people are still depressed. It might actually be worse as life seems more meaningless now than ever.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:13:10 2018 No.12109709

>>12109545
>I don't think atheists appreciate how difficult it would be to document a miracle and prove it a year after it happened, what possible miracle couldn't be explained away even if it was caught on film? Even if the evidence was irrefutable how likely is it that they would dismiss a singular irregularity in our scientific understanding as a mundane phenomenon we just can't quite explain yet?
Well maybe you should find some better proof then? There has indeed been a ton of vague, strange phenomena that wasn't explained on a material level satisfyingly, and they could indicate a million different things, religions, aliens, etc. I can't accept one such supernatural story but disregard all the others.
>And atheists forget that the Bible explicitly recognizes that humans are such vain forgetful creatures that they would erect a false idol and doubt god even if they watched his prophet bring an empire to its news and part the Red Sea.
Yeah, and? Am I supposed to accept what a religious text is saying as a fact without believing in the religion in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:13:21 2018 No.12109711 >>12108877 Vox Day - The irrational atheist Atheist BTFO and never recovered

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:14:05 2018 No.12109714 >>12109172 >Then why the fuck do I basically never see any further bricks built upon this one? Because you're not seeking them, if you want to know go to church and read a fucking bible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:15:58 2018 No.12109719 >>12109709 Just read Pascal

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:16:52 2018 No.12109726 >>12108945 Its...like an incorporeal being can...fabricate...new things...

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:17:09 2018 No.12109728

>>12109693
Well, as per the God is Not Great wiki:

"religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children"

I'll take progress any day instead of primitive stories and childlike nonsense such as religion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:17:23 2018 No.12109729 >>12109630 >nihilism >nothing matters >therefore nihilism doesn't matter >btfo

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:18:12 2018 No.12109732 >>12109700 YOU make meaning in your life, religion does not. If you can't make meaning for yourself, please seek help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:19:06 2018 No.12109738 >>12109732 RELIGION IS A SECULAR IDEA

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:19:38 2018 No.12109739 >>12109728 >progress You keep using that word, but are we really progressing? What’s our end goal, anyway?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:20:20 2018 No.12109746 >>12109728 progress on the other hand is peaceful, and will give us a free unicorn.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:20:39 2018 No.12109748 >>12109732 Well, technically he already is, hence his faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:20:46 2018 No.12109749 File: 8 KB, 224x224, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12109732 >you are making meaning >if you can't make meaning

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:21:35 2018 No.12109752

>>12109732
Even if that’s true, some people choose religion to give their life meaning. I’ve tried to make meaning for myself but I always end up doubting it in a week. This happens with philosophy, too. I have not had the same experience with religion, but am always faithful

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:22:31 2018 No.12109753 >>12109700 >Then what? Intergalactic conquest, obviously. And then even more conquest after that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:22:56 2018 No.12109755 >>12108938 what the fuck does "create itself if it doesn't exist" even mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:24:05 2018 No.12109758 >>12108877 I'm an atheist because fuck living my life in perpetual fear from one of the greatest and most amoral asshole to ever have been conceptualized.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:26:20 2018 No.12109763 >>12109753 Sounds boring, actually. Most people will just waste away on large ships doing various surrogate activities to keep themselves entertained so they might forget how hollow their lives really are

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:26:27 2018 No.12109764 >>12109758 Do you seriously think Christians live in a fear? We fear God, but we do not live "in" fear.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:29:42 2018 No.12109771 >>12108903 Ironic. Theists live a life of degeneracy and fuck ups, justifying it because of "muh paradise."

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:30:21 2018 No.12109773 >>12109763 What is the alternative? Attend service every Sunday, moderate your passions to a lull, and die old and simple minded?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:31:21 2018 No.12109779

>>12109714
I've read some parts of the Bible, will certainly read the rest, but I don't see how it is supposed to convince me of its truthfulness any more than reading the Vedas or Talmund or Qur'an would of their truthfulness.
The Church in my country is corrupt and in bed with politics. Can't say I'd want to visit it.

>>12109719
I flipped through his Thoughts. Highly entertaining sophistry.

>>12109771
It's a known fact that mafia is extremely religious and conservative in countless regards.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:31:52 2018 No.12109783 >>12109051 This

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:34:33 2018 No.12109795 >>12109773 what is simple minded is this vision you have about religion and religious people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:35:29 2018 No.12109801 >>12109771 Whay degeneracy do you suppose we live in? It is but the filth that you give us, we take it in humble nature, but do not suppose for a second you have any sort of meaning in your life.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:38:30 2018 No.12109813

>>12109795
And your take on what galactic conquest entails isn't? But the best part is that you fail to realize that Western civilization was born out of the worship of power, and that Christianity was a continuation of this practice, and that we moved on from it due to this practice. Nothing has actually changed. Conquest has always been the goal. The planet now bores us, which is why we have started heading into space.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:43:38 2018 No.12109826

>>12109813
>And your take on what galactic conquest entails isn't?
what do you mean by this?

>But the best part is that you fail to realize that Western civilization was born out of the worship of power
No, Christians understand western civilization has always been propagated by the state, it's not an attribute to religion other than ideals.

> and that Christianity was a continuation of this practice,
no, it's actually Jewish origin, a fulfillment of God's promise to man.
>and that we moved on from it due to this practice
That "we" that you have just superimpose is the pagan element that Christianity has been against from the get go. Don't imply you'd be Christian 900 years ago. You wouldn't be.

> Nothing has actually changed. Conquest has always been the goal. The planet now bores us, which is why we have started heading into space.
So...you here are saying that there is no progress of anything? Boredom (entropy of experience) is the fatal result of all life?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:44:18 2018 No.12109829

>>12109813
>Western civilization was born out of the worship of power

indeed.

>Christianity was a continuation of this practice

how?

>The planet now bores us, which is why we have started heading into space.

or maybe is because they lost in syria.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:57:34 2018 No.12109867

>>12109826
>what do you mean by this?
Are you the guy who said it would be boring just sitting on a ship all day? Because that is a simple minded depiction of a future that involves free travel in space.

>No, Christians understand western civilization has always been propagated by the state
"The state" is not an alien entity. It is a body of people. Civilization is made up of people, and people have the inborn desire to seek power. Civilization began out of this thirst.

>no, it's actually Jewish origin, a fulfillment of God's promise to man.
What is God but the reflection of our worship of power manifested in a word?

>Don't imply you'd be Christian 900 years ago. You wouldn't be.
My ancestors certainly were then. I'm of Scottish and German descent.

>So...you here are saying that there is no progress of anything? Boredom (entropy of experience) is the fatal result of all life?
No to the first question - our understanding of ourselves and the world around us has certainly progressed. Yes to the second question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 01:58:00 2018 No.12109868 >>12109813 It’s more reasonable to believe in God than to believe that humanity will explore space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:06:48 2018 No.12109889 >>12109868 It's easier to believe in God. It's not more reasonable.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:07:02 2018 No.12109890

>>12109867
>Are you the guy who said it would be boring just sitting on a ship all day?
No.

>"The state" is not an alien entity. It is a body of people. Civilization is made up of people, and people have the inborn desire to seek power. Civilization began out of this thirst.
We don't disagree here. It was founded by pagans, and ran by pagans. Christianity had some it's virtues ingrained into the society after period of time, but it never truly became Christian in full regard. Read Kierkegaard.

>What is God but the reflection of our worship of power manifested in a word?
It's actually a very personal relationship, as father and son hold their relationship. I'm being unironic here and very literal. God is the cornerstone of all morals in Christian life, without him we would have no basis for our personal growth.

>My ancestors certainly were then. I'm of Scottish and German descent.
Doubtful in the highest sense, pagan life has never ceased, being Christian isn't merely following doctrine. It's an actual inner experience. Also, I beg the question here.
If you were transported 1000 years into the past, would you convert? Or would you have the same answer and say you have personally "moved past", I'm honestly asking.
>our understanding of ourselves and the world around us has certainly progressed.
Really? Because I find the Greek idea of the muses and humor with their forms of absolutes holding much deeper depths than any analysis we can pertain to now, on the topic of art or even psychology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:07:42 2018 No.12109893 >>12109889 It's easier? How so? You realize Christianity isn't simple deism?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:16:11 2018 No.12109909

>>12109890
>God is the cornerstone of all morals in Christian life, without him we would have no basis for our personal growth.
The word and idea God precedes Christianity. My assessment of God as a reflection of our worship of power extends beyond its role in Christianity. It includes that role and its roles in other religions and philosophies.

>Doubtful in the highest sense, pagan life has never ceased, being Christian isn't merely following doctrine. It's an actual inner experience.
In that sense, then yes, I doubt it as well. And your hypothetical can't really be answered. At best I can say that I would superficially convert in order not to be killed or outcasted.

>Really? Because I find the Greek idea of the muses and humor with their forms of absolutes holding much deeper depths than any analysis we can pertain to now, on the topic of art or even psychology.
I find Nietzsche a genuine evolution from the Greeks whose philosophy is inseparably tied to Christianity. There is no concept of the Overman without the concept of the Christian God.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:24:53 2018 No.12109931

>>12109909
>The word and idea God precedes Christianity. My assessment of God as a reflection of our worship of power extends beyond its role in Christianity. It includes that role and its roles in other religions and philosophies.
Okay, but we're discussing Christianity, when I said "God is the cornerstone of all morals in Christian life, without him we would have no basis for our personal growth." I'm being exclusive to Christian faith.

Christianity is the continuation of the Jewish faith, it is the New Way (Was back than at least).

>I find Nietzsche a genuine evolution from the Greeks whose philosophy is inseparably tied to Christianity. There is no concept of the Overman without the concept of the Christian God.
I agree, but listen here, you said we have made progress but even Nietzsche him self was a revolving gun of smoke, constantly changing his sights while spinning his barrel of a mind. He could never land on a solid hit, he realized this and this is why in his maturity started to rely on pure allusion of the beyond, because he realize that the forms do hold absolutes of the past, present and future he'd be constantly burning his old ideas and then grasping at the smoke of his new.
His overman idea is completely and utterly true, he found a form of man outside our corporal time, and he saw the fall of man come along with it. He couldn't tear the overman from God, just like he couldn't suppress the comparison of Jesus to the overman.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:52:11 2018 No.12110008

>>12109893
Belief in God presupposes belief in our ability to make the progress in science necessary to travel freely in space. It's an earlier stage in the process of belief.

>>12109931
>Christianity is the continuation of the Jewish faith, it is the New Way (Was back than at least).
It still retained the pagan deist principle of power worship. God here is regarded as omnipotent, his omnipotency is central to Christianity. Where Judaism and consequently Christianity differed from pagan religions is that it moved the center of gravity or the center of force outside of the known universe and into the unknown. It is still felt as a center of gravity or force among its believers, though.

>He could never land on a solid hit, he realized this and this is why in his maturity started to rely on pure allusion of the beyond, because he realize that the forms do hold absolutes of the past, present and future he'd be constantly burning his old ideas and then grasping at the smoke of his new.
This is something he didn't just realize in his later years but what he perhaps started taking more seriously then. He remained in full denial of Platonism to the very end, but understood its vital role in the process of reaching a higher ideal. He notes interestingly in Will to Power,

>To impose upon becoming the character of being — that is the supreme will to power. Twofold falsification, on the part of the senses and of the spirit, to preserve a world of that which is, which abides, which is equivalent, etc.

Nietzsche was really on to something clever, but which wasn't of Plato. Plato is a necessary stepping stone to Nietzsche but Nietzsche takes it a step further in a direction where Plato doesn't survive.

As for Jesus, Nietzsche said that if Jesus had lived longer he would have reached Nietzsche's understanding. He doesn't regard him as the Overman though, for this reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 02:57:25 2018 No.12110019 >>12108891 Basically this. Plus most Gods sound horrible either way, so even if there was any proof for their existence, I wouldn't worship them any more than I'd worship a dictator.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:01:54 2018 No.12110026 >>12108877 I think if they wish it, it come true.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:17:27 2018 No.12110079
File: 24 KB, 446x432, 1542259140129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's disorienting the way within a span of a decade we have gone from nu-atheists being the obnoxious delusional ones to neochristfags covering their ears and screeching whenever someone makes a longstanding reasonable point about how maybe "I have an idea of God so he exists" and "the universe needs to have a cause but the cause of the universe doesnt need a cause" aren't actually foolproof arguments for the existence of God.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:18:02 2018 No.12110082

>>12110008
>Belief in God presupposes belief in our ability to make the progress in science necessary to travel freely in space. It's an earlier stage in the process of belief.
Do you remove a number from math because you know longer know how to use it? (this is subjective to your perspective).

>It still retained the pagan deist principle of power worship
I don't understand what you're saying here, you are going to have to elaborate.
> Where Judaism and consequently Christianity differed from pagan religions is that it moved the center of gravity or the center of force outside of the known universe and into the unknown. It is still felt as a center of gravity or force among its believers, though.
No, it's still very known, it is just understood that our understanding of God is but a form of the true essence of his being. We can never know the true form of anything, even a chair.

>This is something he didn't just realize in his later years but what he perhaps started taking more seriously then. He remained in full denial of Platonism to the very end, but understood its vital role in the process of reaching a higher ideal. He notes interestingly in Will to Power,
I'll be honest and say I'm not familiar with his growth, just his general ideas. Thank you.

>As for Jesus, Nietzsche said that if Jesus had lived longer he would have reached Nietzsche's understanding. He doesn't regard him as the Overman though, for this reason.
More accurately he doesn't regard him as the Overman because he wasn't Christian.
There is literally no difference between Christ, and the Overman, none. Absolute none.
Christ in the book of the New Testaments is God, so by the Laws of man at that time was first determined by God through Moses. Jesus upheld these commands, as His Will was the commands. By the this very nature his Will to Power, is the completion of his promise.
Jesus, fully man followed and obeyed his will to his very death.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:18:40 2018 No.12110084 >>12110079 >we as society cognitively behave as a singular organism cringe

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:20:57 2018 No.12110088 File: 45 KB, 944x929, 1542127280922.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12110084 lol i am referring to internet counterculture in particular you faggot but i think you know that

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:21:25 2018 No.12110091 >>12110082 Also Sorry, I'm dyslexic; some of my words tend to get jumbled up. I do hope you can parse through

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:22:11 2018 No.12110093 >>12110088 >the internet isn't a reflection of the society yeah, they're totally not related and the ethos of one isn't the shadow of the other.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:22:55 2018 No.12110095 >>12108877 Dostoievsky wrote plenty on this

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:27:34 2018 No.12110109 >>12110082 >There is literally no difference between Christ, and the Overman, none. Absolute none. The Overman plays on a different field than Christ. They aren't exactly the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:31:41 2018 No.12110124 >>12110109 Explain this field.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:33:46 2018 No.12110127
File: 46 KB, 495x638, 1542658291016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12110093
i never said that wasnt the case you absolute dense retard. the internet being a reflection or shadow of society as a whole doesnt mean that making broad statements about the direction of internet cultures is the same as saying society is a single fucking organism

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:35:06 2018 No.12110132 >>12110127 >we as a society behave cognitively differently on the internet

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:36:46 2018 No.12110136 >>12110124 The Overman isn't purely Platonic. He's a physical person, and before you mention the historical person Jesus, it's power, not love, at the center of his philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:36:55 2018 No.12110137 >>12110019 Why does the universe need a God to create it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:40:19 2018 No.12110145 >>12110132 Different demographics use different parts of the internet. The peculiar infrastructure of those parts of the internet facilitates different trends within particular demographic subsets. Are you pretending to be retarded?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:40:39 2018 No.12110146

>>12110136
>The Overman isn't purely Platonic.
Neither is Jesus, and actually Platonic thinking ( philosophy in it self) is just a tool to mark out the landscape of the metaphysical, and unsurprisingly it found the figure of God hiding behind a veil, but the veil was unmovable until Christ's truth was revealed (Revelation).
Now, you may say the center of Christ is power, but that's just being objectively dishonest if we are to discus the figure in the Bible, which is the Truth of the figure of Christ.
And it absolutely is Love at the center of his philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:41:48 2018 No.12110148 File: 576 KB, 900x651, c4cbbef5d4d4b4ece0bf2a5c5564ad4dae3ab9bc364e5db45915f4db151ce82b.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12110145 >the functions of society behave differently on the internet

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:45:17 2018 No.12110151 >>12110146 I meant that the Overman's philosophy is of power. That's where he differs from Jesus. And in the realm of power, truth plays a secondary role. Truth is just a useful word.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:47:15 2018 No.12110157 >>12108877 >Why do atheists want there to be no God? Daddy issues. They can't really stick it to daddy for financial reasons, but they can tell Sky Dad to sod off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:47:56 2018 No.12110159 >>12110148 >>different methods of organization and communication lead to different behavior Yes, how could they possibly not? Are you an assblasted christfag mad I called you guys the new fedoras or just incredibly autistic?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:48:06 2018 No.12110161

>>12110151
No, that's just where Nietzsche gets it wrong. Overman is a form that Neitzche could never fully grasp, for this reason.

We're not talking about the realm of power tho, in Truth, we are talking about the realm of God and Man. Power comes from God in a Christian sense, which is graced by his Love. So yes, Love is the center of this discussion. Power is also a tool, but Love is something higher than power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:48:57 2018 No.12110163 >>12110159 >The hive mind function of communities doesn't take place in real societies

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:50:15 2018 No.12110165 >>12110161 Nietzsche got wrong the model of a person that he created? That's a new one. The Overman isn't Christ. Nietzsche writes "Dionysus vs the Crucified" for this reason. You very obviously don't know anything about Nietzsche's will to power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:51:11 2018 No.12110168 >>12110137 You're actually retarded, aren't you? Do you have experience of anything happening without someone behind it?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:53:01 2018 No.12110170

>>12108877
What gave you the idea that we don't want there to be a God? I'm an atheist who wishes God existed. It's not like I have a choice in the matter. Nothing has been able to convince me. I know I'd be so much happier and at peace if I thought there was a God.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:53:57 2018 No.12110171

>>12110165
I do not care about Nietzsche's will to power, it is flawed in his sense of hierarchy, his hedgemon of the soul relies on the self, which is dead in Christian philosophy.
This would imply that everything that wills itself to achieve power with it's own means, is doomed to failure, unless it is graced by God who allows this to happen.

Being an Ubermensch is only possible if you're Christian.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 03:57:01 2018 No.12110180

>>12110171
To expand on this last point of mine;
Answer this.

Does the Overman have absolutes?

Does the Overman have the highest ideals?

If yes to both of these, would these not line up with God's? Who also has absolutes, who also has the highest ideals?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:01:07 2018 No.12110188

>>12110170
You're gonna make it, anon. Just understand there are no coincidences. Things don't move by themselves. There has to be a force behind movement, and there has to be intelligence to direct such force. Like your body wouldn't move without your soul. Or a car wouldn't move without a pilot (intelligence), even if it had gasoline (force). Those two things are always neccessary. So, at least understand God as an intelligent force.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:02:26 2018 No.12110191 >>12110188 Is there a book you could recommend that elaborates on this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:03:51 2018 No.12110194 >>12110171 If you're going to say things like the Overman and Christ are the same then you need to care about what Nietzsche's philosophy actually entails. You can't grasp his Overman without it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:05:29 2018 No.12110198 >>12110191 Aristotle's Metaphysics says some things like it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:06:06 2018 No.12110200 >>12110194 Look, Nietzsche's philosophy will never reach to this conclusion because he's inherently wrong. Stop thinking men hold Truths. >>12110180

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:10:22 2018 No.12110208 >>12110200 At one point we were having a decent conversation but then you went off the rails into a tirade for whatever reason. Guess I'm leaving the thread for now.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:12:57 2018 No.12110214

>>12110208
I've held God as my truth since the first response, and this discourse has been very enjoyable. I'm serious about my questions.

Does the Overman have absolutes?

Does the Overman have the highest ideals?

If yes to both of these, would these not line up with God's? Who also has absolutes, who also has the highest ideals?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 04:39:21 2018 No.12110256 >>12110214 Your head is up your own ass

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:22:39 2018 No.12110612 File: 13 KB, 480x368, my soul laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12110188 >everything that occurs is Willed by a sentient being

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:26:33 2018 No.12110620 File: 24 KB, 460x276, Gottfried-Wilhelm-von-Lei-010[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12109029 >problem of evil Already scientifically solved and also optimized.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:26:50 2018 No.12110622

>>12108903
>telling yourself that there’s nothing after death and that only eternal oblivion awaits is comforting
>telling yourself that you’re gonna spend eternity in paradise if you just pray to God once before you die isn’t comforting
Nice projection.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:32:01 2018 No.12110636 File: 496 KB, 1680x1080, time-100-influential-photos-kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture-87.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12108900

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:35:37 2018 No.12110643 >>12110088 >internet counterculture there is no such thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:45:30 2018 No.12110662 File: 74 KB, 211x244, 1540194259285.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12110636 >a starving African child disproves god's immanence

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:47:10 2018 No.12110666 >>12109764 I thought God is all powerful and some bullshit. How do you escape the fear of God? Isn't that living in FEAR?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:47:21 2018 No.12110668 >>12110662 There is no proof of god, has never been and never will be. Because it doesn't exist.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 07:57:35 2018 No.12110697
File: 18 KB, 400x430, Here.Idon'tlikeyou.butyourestillok.actuallyIloveyou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12108877
God wants there to be no God, friend. your institutions are corrupt, your politicians are cowards or nihilists or both, your followers are consumer ceremonialists and ignorant, or fickle enthusiasts and shallow. your language has no baring on common reality, only the celebrity gods remain in ruined statues, polished and disinfected, glaring conscience like a flashing light at a toll booth where a bored operator collects your fares and lets you pass.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 09:02:08 2018 No.12110916
File: 196 KB, 1300x797, religioushats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12110188
These kinds of ridiculous arguments are seriously the best that churchstains can come up with. They've spent years demonizing criticism of their beliefs on the internet because they have no real evidence or argument to support their positions.

Fedora fedora fedora, pay no attention to our silly hat fetish.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:22:31 2018 No.12111254 >>12110668 There's also no proof that God doesn't exist. Your statement that God doesn't exist is just as silly as the statement that he does. Neither can be proven and rely entirely on opinion/faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:46:11 2018 No.12111379 >>12110137 It doesn't, especially considering that physicists are starting to theorize that the universe never "began" in the way that we understand beginnings, which means the idea of its "creation" is also faulty.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:49:06 2018 No.12111392 >>12108877 They just don’t have the “mystical sense” or whatever you want to call it. I wonder how atheists and skeptics respond to synchronicities if they ever experience them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:49:20 2018 No.12111394 >Jordan Peterson gets big >/lit/ flooded with dostoyevsky and God fearing frog posters >i'm not yet dead... >...i'm not yet dead

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:52:39 2018 No.12111406

>>12111394
I’m fucking sick of newfags attributing everything to Jordan Peterson. Still in high school buddy? Just started coming here a year ago? We’ve had threads on Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Christian /lit/ in general, not to mention Jung, long before JBP. Why? There’s been a Christian faction on here a long time, and Jung is a pretty fucking big figure in the history of literature and psychoanalysis and their connection. When you attribute these phenomena to JBP, you’re just showing how new you are. In the 6-7ish years I’ve been here, I’ve been seeing what you’ve said consistently.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:56:16 2018 No.12111417 >>12111406 I've been here since 2005. Discussions existed but not nearly in this volume or such shallow determinism. Take it from another oldfag, bragging about being an oldfag is super gay.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:57:00 2018 No.12111422 >>12111406 >found the jbp incel

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:57:08 2018 No.12111424 >>12111379 >considering that physicists are starting to theorize that the universe never "began" in the way that we understand beginning go on

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 10:59:00 2018 No.12111433 >>12111424 Not that anon but the concept of a beginning is a construct of humanity with which to observe the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:00:22 2018 No.12111439 >>12111433 Yeah I know that, but how did it actually "begin"?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:00:48 2018 No.12111442

>>12108938
>the atom is the smallest thing in the universe.
>oh shit we just split it and there's smaller shit inside
just because you think something is absolute doesn't mean it is, which means just because the universe happened doesn't mean there wasn't a reason that humanity just doesn't understand yet. doesn't mean divine intervention is the only explanation

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:02:53 2018 No.12111455 >>12111424 http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:04:28 2018 No.12111461

>>12111439
I get what you're saying but you're asking a poor question.

'Begin' is a tool we use to make sense of things. However, that tool is not applicable. Chasing the question of "how did the universe begin" is a flaw in the observational powers of humanity.

We need there to be one for us to understand but there may not have been one at all.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:06:14 2018 No.12111471

>>12111461
>We need there to be one for us to understand but there may not have been one at all.
I am perfectly capable of entertaining that thought, but explanation is then left? That's the whole purpose of science, the explanation of cause and effect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:07:17 2018 No.12111474 >>12111471 but what**

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:09:57 2018 No.12111485

>>12111455
That leaves the question of why did an infinitesmally small cluster of matter, which expanded with the big bang, exist in the first place. It doesn't change the meat and potatoes of the question, it just changes the words to avoid answering it. If anything it shows that science does not have the capability of answering the deepest questions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:11:00 2018 No.12111493 >>12111485 >infinitesmally small cluster of matter, heat and energy**

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:11:21 2018 No.12111495 >>12111471 Science contains the ability to say it doesn't know. And saying you don't know is not proof positive of opposite assertions aka "science doesnt know so it's god." Not that that's you're argument, just trying to inb4 others in this thread.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:11:23 2018 No.12111496

>>12111471
From >>12111455

>The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.

>According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

>Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others. Eventually, they would have stopped expanding, and would have collapsed in on themselves, to form stars and galaxies. Thus the no boundary proposal can explain all the rich and varied structure, of the world we live in. What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:11:52 2018 No.12111501 >>12111495 >you're your

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:13:28 2018 No.12111511

>>12111495
>Science contains the ability to say it doesn't know.
>
>And saying you don't know is not proof positive of opposite assertions aka "science doesnt know so it's god."
And it can never know, as Hawkins admit. So we are only left with two choices, a creator being or hiding from the question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:16:29 2018 No.12111526 >>12111511 False dichotomy

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:18:23 2018 No.12111536

>>12111485
Theoretical quantum physicists currently consider that the universe does not expand infinitely but with the observer. What this means is that that "infinitesimally small cluster of matter" did not exist as we understand it to exist prior to the universe's "beginning," which is itself something that does not exist as we understand it to. Outside of our observational power existence becomes meaningless and incomprehensible to us. The idea of a creator does not genuinely enter a status of possibility in any stage of the theory at any point. What quantum theory presents, rather, is that creator and creation are eternally locked together, regardless of the direction in time they move in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:19:34 2018 No.12111541 >>12111526 What's the other choice? Science can never test that question, as Hawkins admits in the article you or the other anon linked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:20:41 2018 No.12111546 >>12109739 "progress" as they use it is not teleological, merely quantitative

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:24:27 2018 No.12111561 File: 37 KB, 720x708, 1541807412548.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12109771 Theits give more to charity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:28:58 2018 No.12111586 File: 91 KB, 400x333, 1542054184537.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12109513 What was the last charitable act you've done?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:45:27 2018 No.12111667 >>12111541 Again, admitting science doesn't know isn't proof that it's some opposing assertion. It could be many things outside of the only options you're allowing yourself to consider.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:46:22 2018 No.12111671 >>12111667 Name some. I'm not trolling or being disengenous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 11:54:33 2018 No.12111724 File: 782 KB, 620x1999, big-bang-alternatives-130421b-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12111671

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:01:16 2018 No.12111761 >>12109779 Pascal doesn't have fallacious arguments, what are you gonna say he didn't consider other religions?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:03:29 2018 No.12111777

>>12108877
Would be great if there was a God who gives me life after death, but there is no good reason to assume that there is such a thing. The mindset is called rationality. At this point I am sure I have heard basically all arguments for the existence of God and they were all logical fallacies, hypothesis that were weaker than alternative scientific explanations or simply wishful thinking. There is also some game theory arguments like Pascal's Wager, but those are not really arguments for the existence of God, but arguments for believing in one despite there being no real evidence for its existence.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:09:14 2018 No.12111813

>>12108919
Can someone explain this, PLEASE? The whole desire for meaning and reason just doesn't make any sense to me; even if we go to something of smaller scale like a story, hell even a fucking movie; it just fucks with my brain.

I do totally get that when things are weird and confusing, knowing that it will all make sense is a better feeling than not knowing anything but at the same time, I don't think it explains the (pathological seeming) search for meaning/reason/purpose. Why would you care about muh meaning or reason if the experience by itself was enjoyable?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:10:10 2018 No.12111816 >>12108919 Yes. Is it that hard to grasp?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:20:44 2018 No.12111881

>>12111813
Lack of a thing presupposes desire of it. People who are "searching" for meaning in the world are just people who don't yet (and may never) understand that they themselves are the meaning in the world and whatever they are, the world is too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:22:40 2018 No.12111896 File: 178 KB, 576x1152, 1542049840215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12108877 I've got no beef with God, it's his fan club that I'm not crazy about. I want his existence to be disproven so all the predatory shit can stop.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:30:14 2018 No.12111940 >>12111881 This does makes sense, although it's kinda sad, especially if we consider how many people are like this, even beyond religious-fags. S-surely there has to be more?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:32:53 2018 No.12111953 >>12111724 Jesus fuck, what is this pesudoscience

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:37:11 2018 No.12111974 >>12111940 >S-surely there has to be more? You've already done everything there is to do here? Learned everything there is to learn? There's no need for "more" than this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:39:26 2018 No.12111986 >>12110666 Lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:42:18 2018 No.12111999 >>12109513 How will you hold yourself accountable for, say, sexual vices?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:45:29 2018 No.12112010 >>12111724 But that doesn't change the fact that each of those things still need a cause, at the very least for human comprehensibility.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:48:03 2018 No.12112020 >>12111974 I am not on the "I need meaning" side, mate. I just fail to get why it seems so important for many people.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:49:00 2018 No.12112023

>>12111511
>So we are only left with two choices, a creator being or hiding from the question.
It's not "hiding from the question" to admit that we can't answer the question. Also you are wrong in assuming the only explanation is a creator being, there are endless possible explanations, they are just all not testable.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:54:16 2018 No.12112047
File: 126 KB, 460x410, 1540905198329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12108877
Look up "How Dawkins Got Pwned" by Moldbug.

The simpler answer that, in cultural meme terms, Western atheists are Christians who believe themselves holy enough to have transcended God and Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:58:33 2018 No.12112058 Literally nobody on 4chan is a real Christian, otherwise they wouldn't be on 4chan. They're atheists in everything but name, because they don't want to be called "fedoras."

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:58:58 2018 No.12112060

>>12112023
>It's not "hiding from the question" to admit that we can't answer the question. Also you are wrong in assuming the only explanation is a creator being, there are endless possible explanations, they are just all not testable.

I think his point is that there are other ways to determine knowledge or probability besides testing. Such as, you can rationality get to an understanding of the concept.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 12:59:59 2018 No.12112065 >>12112058 >projecting I think most 4 chan peeps are agnostics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:01:35 2018 No.12112070 >>12112060 >there are other ways to determine knowledge or probability besides testing Got an example?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:02:40 2018 No.12112075 >>12112070 2+2=4

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:02:41 2018 No.12112076 >>12108919 So God created himself out of nothing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:03:14 2018 No.12112077 >>12112075 That knowledge is based on observation/testing though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:03:22 2018 No.12112078 >>12112065 Agnostics, atheists, ignosticists, etc. Basically non-religious people who circle jerk Christianity to avoid being called a fedora and to be contrarian.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:03:54 2018 No.12112083 >>12112075 >>12112070 Basically all of math, and even how we get to an understanding of empiricism itself.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:08:10 2018 No.12112098

>>12112077
If mathematics is just as empirical as the other sciences, then this suggests that its results are just as fallible as theirs, and just as contingent. In Mill's case the empirical justification comes directly, while in Quine's case it comes indirectly, through the coherence of our scientific theory as a whole, i.e. consilience after E.O. Wilson. Mathematics seems completely certain because the role it plays in our web of belief is extraordinarily central, and that it would be extremely difficult for us to revise it, though not impossible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:09:08 2018 No.12112100 >>12112010 The universe beyond our observational power is incomprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:21:09 2018 No.12112145 >>12108877 Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason He is technically a deist, but he captures the atheist mindset

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:21:43 2018 No.12112147

>>12112098
We continuously observe that predictions done with mathematics hold to be true. Mathematics is a language that describes ideas formally though, it is not a science. So you are confusing apples with oranges here.

But it is true that there are basic assumptions at the root of our empiricism that are not testable. But the fact that the logical constructs that are build upon them hold consistent predictive power indicate that they are most likely correct or they are at least a partial view on a correct thing.

This is not the case for the idea that the universe was created by any kind of "god", which is ill defined in the first place. Let's assume the universe was created by
(I) a conscious being rather than some mindless process
(II) that conscious being did it on purpose
Now what? Nothing follows from that. Why would that consciousness have any relation to any relevant religious deity? This assumption does not even give us any predictive power, i.e. it's useless.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:25:13 2018 No.12112160

>>12108903
>believe in a god that will forgive as long as you repent on your death bed
>meaning you can commit all kinds of atrocities but as long as you get a last minute conversion you get paradise anyway
yep, sounds way better than honestly recognizing that we are the only real moral judges and should take that responsibility seriously

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:27:41 2018 No.12112173 >>12112100 So the universe becomes synonymous with God at this point, anon.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:29:10 2018 No.12112182

>>12108892
dawkins doesn't understand concepts of randomness and probability. Multiple times slips from science to scientism because he doesn't quite get the boundary. Also doesn't really understand what is religion and what isn't
Because of this, and mainly the first point I dismiss dawkins's core ideas as currently presented by himself

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:30:42 2018 No.12112188 >>12112173 "God" is a concept you have in your head, therefore it is comprehensible. Therefore "God" is not synonymous with "incomprehensible".

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:32:15 2018 No.12112192 >>12112173 If God is incomprehensible, I see no reason to bother with him. If you meant that in a pantheistic sense though, then I'm fine with it. I see no problem with pantheism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:32:38 2018 No.12112194 >>12112188 "Universe" is a concept you have in your head, therefore it is also comprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:37:09 2018 No.12112225 >>12112194 The universe is observable, so yes it is comprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:41:00 2018 No.12112244 >>12112225 God is not observable

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 13:46:05 2018 No.12112270 >>12112244 So he never interacts with the universe?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:08:33 2018 No.12112374

I find the plight of humans defining their own philosophy in the face of an empty void more compelling than humans submitting to the plan omniscient deity. You would not be wrong to call it shallow rebelliousness, none the less if I'm being honest it's the emotional impetus for my atheism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:13:18 2018 No.12112397 >>12110612 Yes. That's what i said. You mad at God because he hasn't given you a gf? :(

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:14:25 2018 No.12112405 >>12110916 You're pathetic

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:18:55 2018 No.12112425 >>12112405 tips kippah

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:21:05 2018 No.12112437

Actually, it's the opposite. Atheists are dead afraid of there not being a God, or of the least proof of there not being one, because then they would have nothing to hate on so to fulfil their vapid lives.

Atheists are basically angry, hysterical people. They need something to spite, as to why they constantly talk about something they don't believe in, like throwing stones at smoke. Take that away from them, and what's left is an empty cask.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:22:44 2018 No.12112445 >>12112437 This is perhaps true for the New Atheists. This is not true for Nietzsche, Nietzschean anti-Christians, and the early skeptics who emerged around and shortly after his time.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:25:07 2018 No.12112456

>>12112437
>Atheists are dead afraid of there not being a God, or of the least proof of there not being one, because then they would have nothing to hate on so to fulfil their vapid lives.
People are often not as petty as you might think. More likely they're simply afraid of death with no afterlife.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:25:58 2018 No.12112462 >>12112437 >>12112445 New Atheists hate Christians, not god. They shit on god because it pisses of Christians.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:26:33 2018 No.12112467 >>12112147 Your're confusing what empiricism is. Showing that math models the world well doesn't make it emprically correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:27:50 2018 No.12112474 >>12112462 New Atheists are the only atheists who are driven by hatred, period.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:35:19 2018 No.12112525

>>12112467
Read what I wrote again. Math is a language. It is used to create models, but it is a tool, not a science. Science is about creating models of the world. You could create models of the world without math, but it would be flawed since most languages are too ambiguous.

Those models can be tested empirically. And models that have been confirmed by empirical testing are then used to create new models. But at the start of the whole process are basic assumptions. Do you understand now?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:38:56 2018 No.12112539 >>12112225 You just stated the universe is incomprehensible before a certain point.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:45:43 2018 No.12112571

>>12112539
Okay, the Universe is all of space and time and their contents. The laws of the universe are a function of the universe. So far as the universe is observable, it is comprehensible. Things that lie outside of the universe are not observable and therefore not comprehensible.

We can only comprehend what we can observe. We can only observe what is in the universe. Things that happened before the universe got created happened outside of the universe and are therefore not comprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:46:25 2018 No.12112575 >>12112525 But math is not a language, it's an actual thing. I'm a mathematical realist, read some Godel or Quine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:47:09 2018 No.12112580 >>12112078 I don't know how can you believe this, do you think people with other views don't exist? Do you think being Christian is that rare?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:48:19 2018 No.12112588 >>12112575 Math is a language of forms. This isn't refutable.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:49:04 2018 No.12112590

>>12108877
You really think that given the choice between eternal life and ceasing to exist when I die that I'd choose the latter? Of course I want there to be a God. Problem is, I haven't been given that choice. I can only believe what I actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:52:09 2018 No.12112605 >>12112590 To an atheist, the choice is between wasting the one life you have dedicating it to something that won't happen to placing the meaning of everything on this life and what we do in it while we're here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:52:29 2018 No.12112606 >>12112437 I've never met an atheist who fits this description. Most of them are better people than the Christians I know, who tend to be very judgmental.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:52:36 2018 No.12112607

>>12112575
Correct me if I am wrong, but mathematical realists think that mathematical objects exist regardless of the human mind?

I disagree with that. Mathematical objects are abstractions of shapes that occur in reality, but they don't exist literally. For instance a triangle does not exist. The number two does not really exist, it is just the human mind that separates space into object with common properties. Logic that follows from those abstractions are useful in creating models of reality, but they are still just abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:52:37 2018 No.12112608 >>12112590 That actually is your choice tho, have you even tried understanding the metaphysical?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:53:24 2018 No.12112615 >>12112590 Why would there being a god necessitate an additional existence built upon your current one?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:58:24 2018 No.12112642 >>12112608 I have. That's how I lost my faith in God. It was absolutely not my choice to do so. I still miss him, in fact.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 14:59:55 2018 No.12112652 >>12112590 You've existed for insert anon's age here, while there are untold eons that came before you. In all that time you weren't around, you didn't suffer a wink for it. Why is the idea of nonexistence so horrible?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:04:35 2018 No.12112682 >>12112615 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The God I was taught explicitly promised eternal existence. >>12112652 I think you raise a good point, but would you not choose existence over non-existence given the choice?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:04:39 2018 No.12112683
File: 152 KB, 960x714, MyQki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12109513
Opportunistic morality (aka. virtue signaling, predation and herd instincts) are contemporary vices and direct consequences of a secular society. The fact that you were pavlovized to be half social (I doubt you are more - it's 4chin after all) and fear others or are too pussy to do evil doesn't make you moral.
Morality of 'muh feels' - lacking metaphysical grounding - is arbitrary. Your programming is no more valid or meaningful than the sociopath's joy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:05:28 2018 No.12112685 >>12112652 >You've existed for insert anon's age here, while there are untold eons that came before you >before you Those endless eons ended with my existance., the eons after won't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:06:11 2018 No.12112689 >>12112652 >In all that time you weren't around, you didn't suffer a wink for it. Not true if we assume a naturalistic position, such as the multiverse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:06:30 2018 No.12112691 >>12112607 If mathematical objects don't exist, why are they so great at modeling the natural world? Also why aren't there many disagreements about the fundamentals of maths, you would expect much more disagreements with totally abstract things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:07:17 2018 No.12112701 >>12112642 So, did you fail to see that all phenomenon, metaphysical or literal have a source? And the same source gives rise to both? Do you fail to see how this would be God?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:08:28 2018 No.12112704

>>12112682
I was speaking in more of a general sense. When discussions of a generic 'god' come up it always goes back to the christian idea of an afterlife. Why is an everlasting soul required? Why can we not exist as we are? I'm a brainlet so maybe someone can answer this for me.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:09:59 2018 No.12112720

>>12111254
It's one thing to believe in an abstract concept of God, it's another to specifically claim you know the exact nature (and way to worship, or NOT to worship) of that God (if he indeed is only one).
That's the thing about organized religion, you're fucking presumptuous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:11:10 2018 No.12112729 >>12112720 Isn't the point of these religions are based on a divine revelation? That would be some evidence on the nature of it. I'm a double D iest so it doesn't apply me.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:14:16 2018 No.12112741

>>12109501
>>12112683
Without God, there is no accountability, which means no consequences, which means no reason to do right. However, in the proper atheist worldview, we are each our own god, in our own right, of our own space, within this universe. "To do right" ultimately means to do right by yourself then (which we all do anyway, even Christians).

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:21:49 2018 No.12112773

>>12112691
Because they are simplified versions of shapes that occur in reality. By the way, I forgot to explain why triangles don't exist. Triangles are 2D objects, but reality has at least 3 dimensions. 2D objects are in fact a representation of a single perspective onto higher dimensional space (lets go with 3D space). A pyramid looks like a triangle from one perspective, but in reality it's not a triangle. You can use that perspective to make predictions about the properties of the real life pyramid that will hold generally true as long as you stay in that perspective, but if you leave that perspective you see that it was only one small part of a bigger picture.

And as it turns out the mathematical "pyramid" shape does not exist either in reality. If you look at a pyramid in reality and you look closer then you will see the sides of the pyramid are not made up of straight lines. If you zoom in you see they are jagged and the length of the lines and the total surface of the sides is way bigger than what you predicted mathematically. And if you zoom in even further you see the shape is made out of atoms that form incredibly complex landscapes that are nowhere near what you predicted and if you zoom in even further you see the atoms are made up of whole universes of particles. As it turns out your mathematical model of reality is only a small part of a bigger picture seen from one perspective. They only become useful because of human perspective in fact.

>Also why aren't there many disagreements about the fundamentals of maths, you would expect much more disagreements with totally abstract things.
There actually are some disagreements about the fundamentals of math. But math doesn't work if you disagree with some basic assumptions, so people who disagree about the most basic definitions of mathematics are not "mathematicians" in the first place. Therefore most mathematicians agree that Nothing is 0 and Something is 1.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:26:25 2018 No.12112794

>>12112741
Your actions have consequences regardless of there being a god or not. If you mistreat your fellow humans then, they will dislike that and that will have negative consequences for you. You will try to avoid those negative consequences. Everyone does that, so you end up with a moral system. Nowhere in this equation was a god necessary.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:27:53 2018 No.12112800

>>12112701
>So, did you fail to see that all phenomenon, metaphysical or literal have a source? And the same source gives rise to both?
Right. The source of the universe is the universe because matter can't be created or destroyed, but only change form.
>Do you fail to see how this would be God?
Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:28:16 2018 No.12112803 >>12112794 Unless you are a good liar, have powerful friends and so forth.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:28:41 2018 No.12112809

>>12112794
>If you mistreat your fellow humans then, they will dislike that and that will have negative consequences for you.
There is no reason to care if they dislike you or not if you hold power over them. But when they have some power as well, that's when you start to care. Having power, regardless of the amount of it, is being a god in some sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:30:22 2018 No.12112818 >>12112803 And has religion ever prevented these people from succeeding?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:34:54 2018 No.12112840

>>12112818
>religion
We were talking about God. You know Machiavelli was not the only ruleset. There were rulers who changed their behavior because of their religion. Banning usury, jews, much degeneracy, changing traditions such as blood vengeance...
But God is still a separate subject. Mammon is a god, cartoon frog is a god, Christianity states that satan is the god of this world (not hell where he and his followers lose).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:37:29 2018 No.12112848 >>12112840 Oh yeah - and the machiavellian rulers have to take religions into account. Hence why they want religion out of the world. Why ban symbols?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:37:43 2018 No.12112850

>>12112809
>>12112803
Other humans always have power over you as long as you live in a society. You rely on other humans to do things for you, interact with you, entertain you and help you when you are in need. Even rich and powerful people care about the feelings and well being of those who are close to them and serve them directly, even if they have no love for their fellow humans. And in the end they can't be complete tyrants or they will be overthrown by those who enable their wealth and power. Also most people are not psychopaths and have at least some kind of love for their fellow man and help out others, even if it is not in their opportunistic interest.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:40:13 2018 No.12112860 >>12112850 >Other humans always have power over you as long as you live in a society. Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot and Jimmy Savile, Catholic pedos... In hell, they get their karma. In here?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:41:18 2018 No.12112863 >>12112850 >Also most people are not psychopaths and have at least some kind of love for their fellow man and help out others Are Chinese not people?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:43:12 2018 No.12112871 >>12112800 The Universe that you are talking about is the physical manifestation, but remember there are """two""" universes, the metaphysical and the literal. Yet these two come from being that is both.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:43:49 2018 No.12112872 >>12108877 The one where you don't belive anything and try to understand reality, there are many, STEM books mostly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:44:56 2018 No.12112873 >>12112863 this https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/disturbing-stories-from-chinas-roads/news-story/9cdb5a1db6620d454a0ca96128f8cd6e

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:47:01 2018 No.12112888

>>12112860
People believed in them, considered them good and useful. They couldn't have done what they did if they didn't have followers and friends. A tyrant without friends does not stay a tyrant for long.

Also justice is a completely different issue all together. I only said moral systems always exist as long as societies of humans exist, even without god, but they don't necessarily create just societies. Some moral systems are better at it than others.

>>12112863
The Chinese have been conditioned to abandon their natural instincts by a regime that actively punishes people for helping out others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:47:40 2018 No.12112891 >>12112850 >Other humans always have power over you There's someone at the end of that line, pal.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:49:10 2018 No.12112900

>>12112682
But see, I don't have a choice if god or an afterlife exists. Either they do exist, or they don't. My belief probably doesn't factor in to it, and following a falsehood to death sounds miserable. At least now, I can explore possibilities and make the best judgement my limited faculties can.

I will say that would rather have non-existence over living with the god in charge of THIS shit for all eternity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:53:23 2018 No.12112923 Nice spooks nerd.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:53:52 2018 No.12112930

>>12112888
>The Chinese have been conditioned to abandon their natural instincts by a regime that actively punishes people for helping out others
Seems to work in this world, no? But even if it didn't, it would be equal to any and every other approach to morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:54:03 2018 No.12112932 >>12112891 Unless it's a closed circle based on will of the masses, leverage, and a desire for money over destruction. There are VERY powerful individuals in the world, but they still have to play ball, or they quickly lose that power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:56:31 2018 No.12112952 File: 198 KB, 781x1059, SorenKierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12112580 yes

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 15:59:21 2018 No.12112966

>>12112932
>but they still have to play ball, or they quickly lose that power.
Sure, but it's not morality - it's hiding behimd proxies and utilizing the reactionary morality of others, conditioning moral understanding for others according to your needs
>this moral paradigm of sanctity prevents landgrab, estate sell (Cathedral), pushes worker to demand more money (hetero family +kids) or efficient protocols (say, cloning for organ farms)...
Read six purposes of schooling by Inglis.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:00:32 2018 No.12112973

>>12112930
It works because there is a central authority that controls how people interact with one another. Which is also a moral system. Not one I would like to live in, but it works at creating a somewhat stable society (for now).

You have to remember that a good moral system creates societies that survive and evolve over a long period of time. The western morality system (which is a mix of Christian values, classical liberal values and enlightenment values) served to create an extremely successful society up to this point over the course of thousands of years. The Chinese model is only a few dozen years old and I am skeptical towards it being stable and able to compete with other systems on the long run.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:02:03 2018 No.12112981 The clearest evidence for God's existence is his voice. Open yourself to it and you can hear Him quite clearly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:02:21 2018 No.12112984 >>12112932 Power is not distributed evenly, so someone's got a bigger pull on the rope, regardless if they don't have a grip on the whole rope. The tug-of-war that ensues is where our morality springs forth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:02:26 2018 No.12112988 >>12112952 I've also read some Kierkegaard. But I do still believe you are wrong. Do you still believe the vehicle of the state is a Christian propietor, as in the same vain that Kierkegaard delt with?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:07:10 2018 No.12113016

>>12112973
The western morality is already falling on once simple principle: the hatred of authority. Moral paradigms or lack thereof are all equal. All replaceable, all redundant. Same as with leaders -
>just pick another one!
The contemporary answer to all problems. Marriage having a problem? Friend being weird? Tech having issues? People having the wrong ideals? Egalitarianism, the replacement of everything, will replace your particular arbitrary morality as well as you yourself. This is the outcome of enlightenment - the replacement of subject and consciousness as a participant in causality with *nothing*, the replacement of God with *nothing*...

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:09:33 2018 No.12113029

>>12112973
>It works because there is a central authority that controls how people interact with one another.
I would say that the media being able to pit people for or against any subject matter means that we aren't all that different. It simply inherited less cruel methods - a consequence of horror-propaganda, such as the holocaust.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:10:29 2018 No.12113032 >>12113016 >The western morality is already falling on once simple principle: the hatred of authority. Moral paradigms or lack thereof are all equal Note in this context Western =/= Christian

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:16:16 2018 No.12113066

>>12112773
The second and first dimension exist in reality though senpai. Same as with a fifth and up. This is assuming string theory is true though.

>There actually are some disagreements about the fundamentals of math. But math doesn't work if you disagree with some basic assumptions, so people who disagree about the most basic definitions of mathematics are not "mathematicians" in the first place. Therefore most mathematicians agree that Nothing is 0 and Something is 1.

Yes but those basic assumptions don't make a it abstract, in the same way the assumptions about empiricism don't make it abstract.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:16:53 2018 No.12113071 >>12112981 That's your mind.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:17:01 2018 No.12113072

>>12113016
Our moral system is being undermined actively by people who wish to replace it something more similar to the Chinese model and people who financially support these endeavors because they benefit from us weakening ourselves. People are being told they don't even have a common culture or that their common culture is oppressive, tyrannical and some other synonyms for "bad". The problem isn't the lack of God per se, but the lack of a unifying narrative. The solution is to make a pragmatic case for the utility of the western moral system, rather than to harp on about God being necessary and atheists being morally deficient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:17:36 2018 No.12113077 >>12113071 What's my mind?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:19:48 2018 No.12113096

>>12113032
Of course. Christian moral paradigm is dogma based, and irreplaceable. It believes humans are aligning with eternal consequences with their moral choices. In fact, most religions justify moral senses and guide them in particular fashion.
Considering their Universal nature, the Golden Rule and the perspective of the tree and its fruits seems vague enough to fill the role.

>>12113072
>The problem
You are ranking these moral systems. What's your hierarchy like, and why is it better than alternatives?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:19:53 2018 No.12113097 >>12112704 Cause no one cares if there’s a God if there’s no eternal soul anyway. That kind of God is just as good as there not being one as far as huamns are concerned.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:21:14 2018 No.12113102 >>12113077 The voice of your God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:22:00 2018 No.12113104 >>12113102 You do know that you haven't actually ever thought about something not your mind?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:23:55 2018 No.12113117 >>12113077 If you desperately want to hear something, your mind can make you hear it. Or see it, or taste it. Brains are weird like that. >see also: tulpa

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:25:15 2018 No.12113124 >>12113102 >>12113117 So what's making it happen? Mind or brain?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:25:26 2018 No.12113126 >>12113096 I'm Christian, I was just clarifying for the lay secularist.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:27:06 2018 No.12113135

>>12113066
>assuming string theory is true
Is it though?

>Yes but those basic assumptions don't make a it abstract
"Nothing" is already an abstract concept. You would be hard pressed to find any "nothing" in reality. Even empty space is not empty. And "something" is the most abstract thing I can think of.
Same for the number 2. Like I said, the idea of there being "two objects with common properties" is a human perspective by itself. It is only us who takes space and separates it into separate entities. There is no natural reason why your left sock is any different from the rest of space and why your right sock together with your left sock make two socks. They are only similar in our perception. It is an abstraction. And the rest of mathematics follows logically from those abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:27:34 2018 No.12113139 >>12113117 >If you desperately want to hear something, your mind can make you hear it. Belief has power. Christians are taught they can move mountains with faith. Egregore, Golden Rule and placebo aren't all that different, you know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:27:34 2018 No.12113140 >>12113104 Unfortunately, yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:28:45 2018 No.12113148 >>12113140 Your mind is like the burning bush when God visits it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:30:06 2018 No.12113153 >>12113124 Two different people. I said mind. He said brain. It's both though. If he's literally hearing God then it's a hallucination from his brain. If he's communicating with him through prayer then it's in his mind.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:30:26 2018 No.12113155

>>12113135
>They are only similar in our perception.
Our perception is not separate from reality. Reality extends the more things there are, and every abstract concept interacts with reality so much you can even abstract the abstractions into an evolutionary model; memes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:33:18 2018 No.12113166 >>12113153 So the mind is separate from the brain?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:34:02 2018 No.12113170 File: 138 KB, 600x518, 1310568248851.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12112981

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:36:33 2018 No.12113179

>>12113096
>You are ranking these moral systems. What's your hierarchy like, and why is it better than alternatives?
My hierarchy is subjective. But I order moral systems by the ability to create stable societies over a long period of time while competing with other moral systems. Generally moral systems that evolved naturally over time like our western tradition are more valuable than artificial moral systems like the horseshit the social planers of the marxist tradition are trying to produce. Simply because an evolved system has already demonstrated that it can handle changing environmental requirements and doesn't fall apart at the slightest collapse of a central authority. For that it is useful if every member of society is a moral actor. I.e. Individualism. Because it decentralizes the moral decision making process and doesn't rely on a few people at the top being infallible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:40:50 2018 No.12113204 >>12113166 Your brain is an organ. You're mind is your conscienceness. Sentience. Awareness. Thoughts and rationality. All that weird stuff. Your everything is pretty much one unseparated piece though.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:41:20 2018 No.12113205

>>12113155
Sure, but that process requires humans minds. Which means the mathematical realist perspective is wrong. Mathematical shapes are only real if humans treat them like they are real and apply them to reality. We are the intermediaries between the abstractions and reality.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:41:39 2018 No.12113208

>>12113139
If belief was all it took to move anything but the self, the mountains would dance all day long.

And yes, there are MASSIVE differences between those 3.
The first, egregore, is bullshit. People do what other people do. Pheromones spread our feelings subconsciously all day long. You don't need "psychic resonance" nonsense to explain the phenomenon of a social creature.
The second is a moral rule of thumb, and has no relation to the others. "Hey, maybe if you weren't such a dick, people would treat you better?" Thanks for the tip, ancient sages. Really needed help on that one.
Placebo isn't magic mumbo-jumbo, it's the idea that a human has more control over their body than they think. Again, NOT with magic, but by overriding commands from the subconscious brain.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:44:06 2018 No.12113217

>>12113148
What, like lit up with purpose, drive, and meaning? You got that peace of mind? You sleep well at night? I know. I've been there too. Don't think too much or you'll realize that he was never real, you created him, and you can never have him back because of that realization.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:49:58 2018 No.12113251

>>12113205
>Sure, but that process requires humans minds.
Or particular animal minds. Which in turn require particular nutrients, which require physical and chemical particularities... Experience itself has a tremendous impact on the physical world, as beings who feel actual hunger, eat. It's not the cold abstraction that makes humans or even mold eat; it is the actual hunger. Feeling hunger, or being vulnerable to the memetic entity of hunger has been a successful symbiotic meta-organism for all organisms.
The world is an outgrowth.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:53:49 2018 No.12113274

>>12113217
>What, like lit up with purpose, drive, and meaning? You got that peace of mind? You sleep well at night? I know. I've been there too. Don't think too much or you'll realize that he was never real, you created him, and you can never have him back because of that realization.
God isn't a being among beings. To experience the mystery of God through your mind is a change. Likewise, so is God's apparent death, which you have created in your mind...
One produces life, one takes it. In the distant future, atheism will not exist; God the meme lives as the minimal reminder, but God is eternal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:53:59 2018 No.12113278 >>12113251 I guess those are are accurate abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:55:40 2018 No.12113286 >>12113278 I would hope so. My abstraction breaks the 4th wall, however, and demands that you take your eyes off the map for a change. So to speak.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:56:59 2018 No.12113291 >>12109758 We need more amorality! Go read Beyond Good and Evil

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 16:58:30 2018 No.12113302 >>12109773 Aren’t you just as simple minded wanting nothing else but conquest? I’m sure tons of people will find all that needless violence pretty wasteful. Worse still, you’re only creating more suffering through conquest

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:02:54 2018 No.12113321 >>12113208 >Egregore is bullshit If you say so, and believe so, it might just be. At least for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:04:14 2018 No.12113327 >>12110019 >most Gods sound horrible either way This is basically a red flag indicating you have daddy issues.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:04:52 2018 No.12113332

>>12113286
That's not what breaking the 4th wall means though. And my eyes are still firmly on the map. If we consider things that are simulated to be real just because they were created by us who are part of reality and because we interact with those simulations, then meaning of "real" has been blurred so far as to become meaningless. Because then anything that can be imagined to be real is real.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:07:00 2018 No.12113347

>>12113332
>they were created by us
That's not how it goes. They (memes) molded us through their interactions with our ancestors and our different developmental phases.
It would not surprise me to find that memes have potentially more qualities than we do, and that includes experience and consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:07:36 2018 No.12113354 >>12110079 I’m glad I’m not the only one weirded out by the weird catholic-phones on this board

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:10:43 2018 No.12113383 >>12110079 >a longstanding reasonable point What would that be, and why would it rank higher (be prioritized more) than alternative takes on the subject?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:15:07 2018 No.12113400

>>12110079
As a collective, humans became nihilistic - that is to say, atheistic. The egalitarianism taken as holy, coupled with this nihilism produces people who play the lottery in hopes of winning - not being nihilists. People actually take Pascal's wager.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:17:04 2018 No.12113412 >>12113400 That's implying people changed, too bad you are a dirty philistine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:20:24 2018 No.12113431 >>12113412 >That's implying people changed The drowning grasp at straws, dear friend. Though I think that theology has decent enough justifications for itself, as opposed to the state sanctioned secularism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:27:38 2018 No.12113472 here’s a pro tip for you retards. “not being a sociopath and caring about your fellow man” is the exact same thing as believing in God

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:30:44 2018 No.12113493
File: 679 KB, 2400x2400, friedrich-nietzsche-philosopher-there-is-not-enough-love-and-goodness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12113274
>In the distant future, atheism will not exist
Correct. Christian theism will not replace it though; the time for that is over. What we will have instead is a religion devoted to a class of beings so elevated over the masses that they will appear indistinguishable from living gods to them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:30:57 2018 No.12113494 >>12113431 spooks

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:34:16 2018 No.12113514 >>12113493 Like celebrities?

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:35:07 2018 No.12113517

>>12113494
Spooks live longer than you will, but they can help you live longer than you would without.
>Christian theism will not replace it though
Well, we were promised a child from the consummation of the Bride (the church) and Christ (Logos)... Christianity is surprisingly cyclical.

>that quote
Neet, pls. It's not a zero sum game. More is more. Love is not finite.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:36:11 2018 No.12113520

>>12113494
>Spooks live longer than you will, but they can help you live longer than you would without.

>>12113493
>Christian theism will not replace it though
Well, we were promised a child from the consummation of the Bride (the church) and Christ (Logos)... Christianity is surprisingly cyclical.

>that quote
Neet, pls. It's not a zero sum game. More is more. Love is not finite.

>>12113517
fix'd

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:36:20 2018 No.12113523 >>12113517 Imagine the size of this anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:38:32 2018 No.12113533 >>12113523 I'm 180cm and 60kg. In my nihilistic phase I started seeing memes as parasites, and only ate from spite or the tyranny of pain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:41:46 2018 No.12113549 >>12113533 Pöst collarbones while we are at it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:43:37 2018 No.12113557 File: 54 KB, 300x300, skele300.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12113533 That is to say, I am the spook.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:44:11 2018 No.12113559
File: 312 KB, 1848x1297, thomas-du-crest-leader-horatio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12113514
Celebrities are a ridiculous absurdity because they are just glorified people with above-average looks made to appear even better with good makeup, lighting, and camera angles, but yes, the experience will be sort of like that overall. Instead of such frauds, however, it will be for individuals who are truly elevated above the masses; their intellects will be so vastly superior to them that what they are capable of will appear like magic to them. We already have these caricatures everywhere in our art, because the culture is already foreseeing the arrival of such beings.

>>12113520
>Well, we were promised a child from the consummation of the Bride (the church) and Christ (Logos)... Christianity is surprisingly cyclical.
The masses will continue worshiping God as they have always done, but God will now be an individual being in this world with us. Same experience, same principles involved. Those who reject him will have Hell to pay for it all the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 17:47:05 2018 No.12113572 File: 947 KB, 2560x1440, DSC_0003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12113549 My phone camera is garbage but this should do.

Anonymous Tue Nov 20 18:08:50 2018 No.12113687

>>12113135
>Is it though?
It looks like it, however to test it we'd need more energy that is produced in the entire world be an order of magnitude so.
>Same for the number 2. Like I said, the idea of there being "two objects with common properties" is a human perspective by itself. It is only us who takes space and separates it into separate entities. There is no natural reason why your left sock is any different from the rest of space and why your right sock together with your left sock make two socks. They are only similar in our perception. It is an abstraction. And the rest of mathematics follows logically from those abstractions.

I'm trying to say that two exists beyond our perception, and we are just discovering it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 18:11:20 2018 No.12113702 >>12111379 Any links for the physics questioning how the universe began. I don’t doubt you, it sounds like a cool read

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 18:26:29 2018 No.12113788 >>12113702 See >>12111455 also: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07702.pdf https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 19:10:02 2018 No.12113993 >>12113533 >In my nihilistic phase I started seeing memes as parasites, and only ate from spite or the tyranny of pain. boards.4chan.org/lit/thread/12097889#p12108953

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 19:38:11 2018 No.12114131 >>12112070 Kant

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 19:38:40 2018 No.12114136 >>12112270 how would you determine if he had or not?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 19:42:53 2018 No.12114157 >>12112571 We cant observe God so that makes him incomprehensible

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 19:58:18 2018 No.12114227 >>12112571 We can't observe thoughts, therefore they are incomprehensible by your standards, and thus comprehensibility itself is incomprehensible. Your argument self-refutes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 20 23:47:31 2018 No.12115179 >>12114157 Again, just because we can't obverse something doesn't mean we can't comprehend it.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature