Are skeptics (morons) the most intellectually dishonest people?

File: 319 KB, 1600x1200, 34534237.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Are skeptics (morons) the most intellectually dishonest people? Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:31:30 2017 No.9825406 [Reply] [Original]

Nu-atheists, skeptics and people like Sam Harris are literally the dumbest faggots of the "intelligentsia".
>DUDE IM RATIONAL AND FREE OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA. DUDE IM 100% SURE GOD DOESN'T EXIST EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T PROVE IT.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:36:01 2017 No.9825419 yes, see how their entire "thought" is build upon the premise that you can't prove a negative, so they don't have an obligation to make arguments against theism

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:39:39 2017 No.9825433

the freemasons have the population in a mental cuckshed, it's pretty funny. the retards are given the religious dogma ("christianity", "islam", and "judaism"), the psueds become fedora tippers, or even pagans (lol?) while the masons sit back and practice true religion using kaballistic texts and they get to vamp energy from adolescent buttholes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:40:13 2017 No.9825435 >>9825406 > Skeptics = atheist Crying smile emoji.jpg Le ok hand.png Red underscored 100.gif

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:41:04 2017 No.9825440 >the only truths are those that which can be verified scientifically. . .except you can't actually prove the foregoing statement with the scientific method. . .oh well haha praise Darwin

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:41:55 2017 No.9825441 >>9825433 Dogma isn't blind law. Post-Victorian Christianity certainly sounds like it, but that is a meme. It's about who gets to the headlines (owned by ?), not about what the movement, or the dogma, or the laws themselves are about.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:43:12 2017 No.9825443

>>9825419
conversely, how might one prove god exists when the foundational aspect of say, the christian religion, is faith? flicking axioms around like marbles. that's all the arguments amount to. the amount of proof of god's existence necessary to make an atheist believe is equal to the amount of proof necessary for a theist to stop believing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:43:24 2017 No.9825446 >>9825435 >Nu-atheists, skeptics and people like Sam Harris Did you come here to whine or did you not? Be skeptic about that, will you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:45:43 2017 No.9825455 >>9825446 >DUDE IM RATIONAL AND FREE OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA. DUDE IM 100% SURE GOD DOESN'T EXIST EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T PROVE IT. > skeptics Le thinking emoji XD >Op being able to construct sound arguments :')

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:46:20 2017 No.9825456

>>9825443
Faith is like psychedelics. You can hate it, you can be against it, you can have all sorts of mental games about the subject. Until you try.

Of course, comparing DMT, psilocybine/psilocin (Christianity and high religions/civilizations) and cocaine (Islam) or crocodil (Aztec religion) is counterproductive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:47:16 2017 No.9825459 >universe might be intelligently designed >God might torture me if I disobey him >God never proved himself besides maybe miracles long ago >what could go wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:50:09 2017 No.9825465 >>9825443 >he foundational aspect of say, the christian religion, is faith fideism is a heresy in orthodox christianity

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:52:49 2017 No.9825471 >>9825465 so it forces gnosticism? poor russians.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 02:54:26 2017 No.9825475 >>9825471 >so it forces gnosticism? no? >poor russians. orthodoxy != eastern orthodox

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 03:07:25 2017 No.9825514 File: 212 KB, 1600x1200, 34534238 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 03:11:14 2017 No.9825527 >>9825456 what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 03:26:00 2017 No.9825565 >>9825527 Food analogies don't really cut it. World views can actually be compared to different sorts of drugs, since the world is what you see, can see, have seen or will see.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 03:35:52 2017 No.9825595 if ure reading this ure gay

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 03:36:06 2017 No.9825596 Atheism reduces the evolutionary fitness of any group that adopts it and so is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:07:39 2017 No.9825664

>>9825596
>and so is incompatible

>atheism
>theory of evolution
>incompatible

Retard detected

>inb4 anon tries to explain that a product of the theory of evolution somehow is incompatible with the theory which produced it

>>9825596
>Atheism reduces the evolutionary fitness of any group
Citation needed

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:11:27 2017 No.9825680 >>9825435 >>9825664 lol at this guy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:28:28 2017 No.9825710 >>9825664 Atheism is older than evolutionary theory. Also its self evident that secular atheism destroys any society that adopts it. Look at Sweden.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:36:52 2017 No.9825730

>>9825595
Well shit, I guess I am gay now.
Put it in my bum?

>>9825406
>If a man, said Epictetus, opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument?

>Now there are two kinds of hardening, one of the understanding, the other of the sense of shame, when a man is resolved not to assent to what is manifest nor to desist from contradictions. Most of us are afraid of mortification of the body, and would contrive all means to avoid such a thing, but we care not about the soul's mortification. And indeed with regard to the soul, if a man be in such a state as not to apprehend anything, or understand at all, we think that he is in a bad condition: but if the sense of shame and modesty are deadened, this we call even power.

>Do you comprehend that you are awake? "I do not," the man replies, "for I do not even comprehend when in my sleep I imagine that I am awake." Does this appearance then not differ from the other? "Not at all," he replies. Shall I still argue with this man? And what fire or what iron shall I apply to him to make him feel that he is deadened? He does perceive, but he pretends that he does not. He's even worse than a dead man. He does not see the contradiction: he is in a bad condition. Another does see it, but he is not moved, and makes no improvement: he is even in a worse condition. His modesty is extirpated, and his sense of shame; and the rational faculty has not been cut off from him, but it is brutalized. Shall I name this strength of mind? Certainly not, unless we also name it such in catamites, through which they do and say in public whatever comes into their head.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:42:51 2017 No.9825741
File: 22 KB, 409x480, f5d3a09ac384e632e2651ef6e481f2d5.0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mfw there are people who unironically believe wars are caused by religious differences
Harris's geopolitics understanding is no better than that of a 5 year-old

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:49:04 2017 No.9825752 >>9825406 Please leave and come back when you have a thread to make about literature.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:52:34 2017 No.9825761 >>9825741 What else is the sunni-shia conflict through the ages caused by?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 04:58:45 2017 No.9825775 >>9825761 Literally no one gives a shit about Sunni-Shia conflict in my country, Iran-Saudi Arabia conflict is about regional control

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:11:25 2017 No.9825795 >>9825406 DUDE IM A BELIEVER AND SLAVE OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA. DUDE I'M 100% SURE GOD EXISTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A SINGLE GOD

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:13:56 2017 No.9825800 >>9825406 >Try to prove that something doesn't exist. Wew ... lad! We better start taking into consideration every religion, because, who knows!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:15:13 2017 No.9825801 >>9825752 >Not knowing what epistemology is. This board is for the discussion of literature and philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:18:54 2017 No.9825808 >>9825775 Nice job dodging the question.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:22:05 2017 No.9825813

>>9825406
It doesn't matter your beliefs, if your motivation is to be "better" than anybody else, then you're intellectually dishonest. Atheists, theists, philosophers, poets, genre fags, classicists, pop... people.

A prerequisite for being honest is being true to yourself. You learn because you want to learn, not because you want to be smarter than your neighbors so you can be smug about it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:23:25 2017 No.9825816

>>9825808
I did not, Shia-Sunni conflict is simply because there were people who wanted the succesor to be blood related to Muhammed, and others wanted the democratically elected one to rule, it's literally no different from western autist monarchists and republicans in the french revolution, all about power struggle yet nothing religious or spiritual about it whatsoever, religion among other things is the justification for conflict, but it's never the cause

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:28:05 2017 No.9825822

>>9825795
>slave of religious dogma
You know, Turks renamed wine to continue drinking it. The Quran has guidelines for how to behave whilst drunk, Christ made wine for recreational purposes, banished usurers and jews from the temple of God (Your body is the temple of God)...
So what are these religious dogmas that people are enslaved by?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:38:23 2017 No.9825835

>>9825822
>So what are these religious dogmas that people are enslaved by?
They are going to hell (or their version of hell) for doing that, in a way a slave would receive lashings. There might be rules that are bypassed, but not every rule suffers the same fate.

Consider for example a muslim that wants to marry a christian who won't reject its religion. Both are slaved by their dogmas

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:40:29 2017 No.9825838 >>9825835 >muh dogma your reasoning of religion is r/atheism tier

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:42:09 2017 No.9825844

>>9825406
Consider a world where there are 100 religions.

- Believer: "I believe in one of them. My religion says the 99 remaining at not real".
- Atheism: "I don't believe in anything, but i don't have reason to believe in any of the 100 religions that exists.

-99 - 1: "Dishonest atheism! you cannot prove no God exists."
-100: "You can't prove 99 don't exist, yet your dogma forces you to reject them. I don't reject any of them for dogmas, but because i don't really have proofs that they exists".

So, in the end, you have some that don' really have arguments to be a believer, and some whose argument is "my dogma says it", and they believe that dogma because "my dogma says it".

Guess who is the dishonest here *tips fedora* *smiles at the camera*

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:49:42 2017 No.9825857

>>9825835
>They are going to hell (or their version of hell) for doing that, in a way a slave would receive lashings.
You silly fool. Hell is a very, very abstract thing. You should read what Christ says of hell. Gehenna/Jerusalem by itself is eerie and makes me see problems with my own life. Especially regarding my sins and how to handle them.
It's a question of 'where do I want to be'.
The 'rich man' and Lazarus is another striking parable. The rich man obeyed the laws of the Bible. The rich man is anonymous in hell. Why? You should study the theology of hell. Don't listen to Simpsons and its theology.

It's not about dogma. It's about being fruitful to God, bringing forth God's kingdom.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:52:35 2017 No.9825863 >>9825857 >It is about taking what someone else said and hope my interpretation is the real one. Yeah, dogma.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:54:49 2017 No.9825875

>>9825844
>- Believer: "I believe in one of them. My religion says the 99 remaining at not real".
There's your error. All of the religions are somewhat true, but not true enough. Not for man, not for God. You see, simple errors carve themselves out from the realm of truth and what can be spoken about. Like atheists do with their genepool. They are like switches, temporarily true - perhaps briefly. The others, however, march onwards. Their claims are always true. If it changes, it is evolution, and their flags are in their blood, in their history. I hope that history is not something that changes permanently.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 05:56:24 2017 No.9825884 >>9825863 Is math a dogma? Does it enslave people? >my interpretation Your interpretation of interpretations is poorly constructed and relies on a knee-jerk reflex; denial. How is that freedom?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:01:58 2017 No.9825896

>>9825875
>All of the religions are somewhat true
A christian won't accept the idea muslim idea of Christ, so no. And it is not whether the errors are small or big, but who decides who is in the wrong or in the right. Not too honest to tell everyone 'you are in a error' base on your own interpretations.

>>9825884
You can prove math is wrong, and that's how the field has evolved. No one had to die for thinking the opposite.
>Your interpretation of interpretations is poorly constructed and relies on a knee-jerk reflex; denial. How is that freedom?
This doesnt mean anything. If this is the best you can do to treat atheists as dishonest ...

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:06:09 2017 No.9825906

>>9825896
>A christian won't accept the idea muslim idea of Christ
Correct. A Christian will instead note the truthful portions of Islam. Likewise, Christians fulfilled the pagan religions of Europe and we are to do so to other religions. We are to cut out their bad fruit and garden them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:07:40 2017 No.9825913 >>9825896 >You can prove math is wrong Prove math itself. > and that's how the field has evolved. I'd say it has evolved by being right. >No one had to die for thinking the opposite. Square root of two has killed people.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:10:36 2017 No.9825922

>>9825896
>This doesnt mean anything.
You refuse to listen because 'it's an interpretation lol'.
>You
An actual thing.
>refuse
An act. A conscious or subconscious act.
>to listen.
Another act.
Take a look in the mirror. You have an interpretation of reality too. It is a genetic dead end, so all those claims of yours will disappear from the world.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:15:43 2017 No.9825927

>>9825906
>A Christian will instead note the truthful portions of Islam.
That's not real https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Reconquista#/Conversions_and_expulsions but really, it is not about what some christians do or not. It is whether the atheism is dishonest or not for thinking God doesn't exist, which coming from someone who tells who is wrong or righ (dogmatically speaking) sounds funny

>>9825913
>Prove math itself.
You can try to prove math is wrong. Only happens that it isn't, and that's why everyone has faith in computers, no one says "I don't believe computers doesn't exist".

>I'd say it has evolved by being right.
Exactly, and you can try to prove it isn't. There is no "rule nº1: think math is always right even when you can't see that rationally "
>Square root of two has killed people.
;)

>>9825922
Me: Dogmas forces people to act in a way, they cannot reject it, some they are slaves.
You: Not because look what i think about this thing that was written by mister who
Me: So what, that's what you think
You: Haha, silly atheist who can get into my brain

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:21:47 2017 No.9825936

>>9825927
I'm not OP.
>Reconquista
The 800 year period where Christians finally took reins from Jews and Muslims? Oh my, how could they?!
You probably should study the historical context more. Heck, the inquisition was far more merciful than the state or the people. You see, for them it was personal and it was about revenge.
>You can try to prove math is wrong.
Positive claim needs to be proven :^)
>Only happens that it isn't
We act as if it were true and it works. That's how it gets tested.
>Exactly, and you can try to prove it isn't. There is no "rule nº1: think math is always right even when you can't see that rationally "
You know, God is an axiom.
>Dogmas forces people to act in a way
In what way does it force people? The hypocrisy of people seems to indicate the innate freedom we have.
>they cannot reject it
But they can, will and do.
>, some they are slaves.
Name one.

> Not because look what i think about this thing that was written by mister who
The theology of hell isn't your interpretation of it. Theologians have studied the scriptures for millenia. You cast those aside for your own view on the things.
>Haha, silly atheist who can get into my brain
Only if you were baiting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:25:41 2017 No.9825947 lmao what about the nu-christians who "believe" in God because it's edgy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:29:35 2017 No.9825956 >>9825947 The fathers of your children? What about them?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:34:20 2017 No.9825966 >>9825956 >implying you're not a virgin

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:36:16 2017 No.9825968 >>9825966 But I'm not.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:37:37 2017 No.9825969

>>9825936
>Oh my, how could they?!
I'm not complaining, i just showing you an instance in which 'acknowledging' is not enough
>Positive claim needs to be proven :^)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52165/newtonian-gravity-vs-general-relativity-exactly-how-wrong-is-newton
>We act as if it were true and it works. That's how it gets tested.
Let's advert the advantage that it brings over "we act as if it were true and act as if it works"
>You know, God is an axiom.
Except for:
-The millions who don't think the same
-God is not an axiom, your very instance of God is. The way you think God is, and what God wants from you. Let's test this: Are, for you, the spirits axioms too? For some Totemism, it is. Does 'God' contain the definition of 'Gods' too?
>In what way does it force people? The hypocrisy of people seems to indicate the innate freedom we have.
In the sense that they represent outdated values that only when the old guard completly dissapears they get upgraded, whereas in the meanwhile everybody has to pretend they are real. The Christian of today is the heretic of yesterday.
>But they can, will and do.
For some, not for everyone. Is the religion for everyone, but God only for some of them?
>Name one.
http://kuow.org/post/gay-former-nun-reflects-homosexuality-and-church Can i act freely as a homosexual inside the Church?
>The theology of hell isn't your interpretation of it. Theologians have studied the scriptures for millenia. You cast those aside for your own view on the things.
Look, am i supposed to believe in x when not even the people that has put more thought into it can understand it? I would say that's dishonest.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:47:35 2017 No.9825981

>>9825906
like when christianity burned pagans for their old ways of purifying water with copper, then as a countermeasure for water poisonings started pushing alcohol on to people? the alcoholism in west today is directly related to retarded christians thinking sound pagan practices were the work of the devil.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:50:26 2017 No.9825983

>>9825969
>I'm not complaining, i just showing you an instance in which 'acknowledging' is not enough
Enough for what? It started the Spanish golden age, kickstarted the Renaissance and ventures into the New World, it kicked Muslims from West and established European supremacy over North Africa. It was enough for plenty.
>Let's advert the advantage that it brings over "we act as if it were true and act as if it works"
Let's start with genes. They continue. History? Same thing. Civilization? Same thing. Many laws have been made with Christian memes. Granted there is a satanic notion of equality on the move, and it devours nations like it was Armageddon, but there is quite a bit of religion in our systems.
>-The millions who don't think the same
Well, those are a temporary thing. They even claim to be environment, so why care about them?
>God is not an axiom
God is the highest axiom. Once you accept God, Logos makes sense.
>Are, for you, the spirits axioms too?
I haven't messed with them too much so I wouldn't know for sure.
>For some Totemism, it is.
Totemists kind of lost. They're not a relevant player any more, nor will they be.
>Does 'God' contain the definition of 'Gods' too?
'gods' tends to imitate and cut out pieces of God and/or Satan.
>In the sense that they represent outdated values
>outdated values
>The Christian of today is the heretic of yesterday.
We were told to garden the world. However, there are heresies on the move, make no mistake about it. For example, USA is full of them, Judea worshipers, masons etc. Fedoras are a cult of heretic Christians, resembling Sadducees.
>For some, not for everyone.
Not everyone sins? Once again, read what Christ taught of sin and of hell.
>Can i act freely as a homosexual inside the Church?
Sin is slavery. Truth shall set you free. Once you acknowledge the purpose of sexuality, you'll see through the modern day ideologies.
>Look, am i supposed to believe in x when not even the people that has put more thought into it can understand it?
Take a glance at the night sky somewhere where the light pollution ('enlightenment') does not prevent you from seeing it. You won't understand it, but you will see it. You can piece out some things.

What Christ taught, of Lazarus and the rich man (who obeyed the laws/dogma), it's central to Christianity. If you miss it, you will get memed by Hollywood.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:52:14 2017 No.9825984 >>9825981 >alcoholism in the west It's more of an eastern thing and a post-prohibition thing. Granted, the Jews have used alcohol to control lower class Poles and Russians for a few centuries.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 06:53:13 2017 No.9825986

>be poorly socialized with slightly above avg. intelligence
>don't feel accepted or well liked in my youth
>instead of recognizing my poor socialization as the problem assume it is the others' lack of intelligence or compassion
>develop a delusional US vs THEM complex and come to hate the 'normies'
>see normies living a life i don't have, but instead of being sad my slightly above avg. intelligence tricks me into thinking i don't want this life
>come to associate the normies with popular culture and the liberal political establishment
>grow up to be an alt right christianity larper because Becky and Chad didn't invite me to parties

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:01:36 2017 No.9826005 >>9825984 you are a retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:03:02 2017 No.9826011 File: 8 KB, 229x220, unamused.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >skeptic it's sceptic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:07:06 2017 No.9826015 >>9826005 Coming from your perspective, there's nothing to criticize.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:10:22 2017 No.9826021
File: 41 KB, 640x480, 1501321795207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9825947
>tfw lived through the internet's edgy atheist phase to see all these ironic Christians crop up

I will say the latter are more tolerable though. You get to discuss kino Bible verses instead of meme gods like Dawkins

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:11:01 2017 No.9826023

>>9825983
>Enough for what?
If we are strictly speaking on whether different believers accept among themselves, not enough. Not trying to force your views (the ones with no backup at all) to everyone is still a thing.
>Let's start with genes. They continue. History? Same thing. Civilization? Same thing.
I don't understand what you get here.
>Many laws have been made with Christian memes. Granted there is a satanic notion of equality on the move, and it devours nations like it was Armageddon, but there is quite a bit of religion in our systems.
Yes, but not in a religious way, but in spite of it. We can take advantage of what the past bring to us and, at the same time, reject the bad parts. That's why we could pretend is not true and still work, because truth doesn't care if we pretend or not. If i were a believer, i'd like to think my believes are true and not just pretend. Whoever doesn't feel the need to validate its worldview has never felt challenged.
>Well, those are a temporary thing.
No, they aren't a temporal thing. Religions have its days counted. Cannot be a thing when there are countries with as many atheists as religious people.
>God is the highest axiom. Once you accept God, Logos makes sense.
Well, this is getting bored. I will ignore every comment in which i'm forced to believe because that's not for me.
>Totemists kind of lost. They're not a relevant player any more, nor will they be.
They are still alive. So it cannot be said God is an axiom. "If i aboid every opposition to my ideas them i'm right" is not an idea with much projection.
>'gods' tends to imitate and cut out pieces of God and/or Satan.
God/Satan tends to imitate and cut out pieces of religions that existed before, so it is not a surprise. But if Satan is not a God, them your idea of God as a higher axiom is not valid anymore for those who believes in Gods (Yes, i know you will arbitrarily ignore them, very honest.)
>not outdated values
I'm sure you'd avoid sex before marriage ;)
>We were told to garden the world. However, there are heresies on the move, make no mistake about it
I'm not a paranoid so i don't follow you. But my claim is not only valid if we compare the christian of 2017 with the one of 1940. Compare the one from 1700 with the one from 1100. The one from 400 with the one from 70.
>Once you share my idea of what sins is and is not
Again.
>Take a glance at the night sky somewhere where the light pollution ('enlightenment') does not prevent you from seeing it
Enlightment: Think for youself
Religion: "Once you acknowledge the purpose of sexuality"

>What Christ taught
I don't have a reason to take someoe who was born 2000 years ago seriously, and i fear your memes are not strong enough to reconsider it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:13:15 2017 No.9826027

>>9826023
>If we are strictly speaking on whether different believers accept among themselves, not enough.
Where does your pacifism come from?
> Not trying to force your views (the ones with no backup at all) to everyone is still a thing.
Not a thing to Moslems or Hollywood. You've been memed too hard. Your dogma is in the news and comments sections.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 07:52:21 2017 No.9826123 >>9825446 Try the image next time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:15:43 2017 No.9826178 >>9826023 >>9825983 >>9825969 >>9825936 >>9825927 >>9825896 Greentext retards fuck off

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 08:24:28 2017 No.9826210 [DELETED]

File: 23 KB, 284x284, 1494303584135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Atheist here. let me explain my own logic as to why God does not exist.

First of all, let's answer this simple question: what is the difference between true and false? well, claiming that a statement is false means that according to the information you have, that statement cannot exist without violating the rules of logic. but there is always an impossible to calculate chance that you are wrong - this is what's called the "unknown unknowns". to simply put it, if you consider unknown unknowns, there is no difference between true or false - because anything is equally likely to be true or false because of all the things you do not know. that's why you should never consider unknown unknowns when you are trying to separate truth from falsehoods.

Now based on this logic, i can tell you that "God exists" is a false statement. based on everything we know and everything we know a deity cannot exist without violating the rules of logic. things that you don't know that you don't know should not be considered because taking them into consideration makes everything equally true and false.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 08:27:12 2017 No.9826222
File: 23 KB, 284x284, 1494303584135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Atheist here. let me explain my own logic as to why God does not exist.

First of all, let's answer this simple question: what is the difference between true and false? well, claiming that a statement is false means that according to the information you have, that statement cannot exist without violating the rules of logic. but there is always an impossible to calculate chance that you are wrong - this is what's called the "unknown unknowns". to simply put it, if you consider unknown unknowns, there is no difference between true or false - because anything is equally likely to be true or false because of all the things you do not know. that's why you should never consider unknown unknowns when you are trying to separate truth from falsehoods.

Now based on this logic, i can tell you that "God exists" is a false statement, because based on everything we know a deity cannot exist without violating the rules of logic. things that you don't know that you don't know should not be considered because taking them into consideration makes everything equally true and false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:27:52 2017 No.9826225 >>9825419 Not that you can't prove a negative, but they are correct in demanding evidence if you make knowledge claims. Theist by definition make knowledge claim that god exists, therefore burden of proff is on their side of the argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:28:36 2017 No.9826229 >>9826210 Paradoxes exist. A physical example would be for a particle to have two (or more) locations at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:29:32 2017 No.9826233 >>9826210 Truth - > The actuality of phenomena. Logic -> The internal coherence of ideas or information. If something exists, it must have a truth, and be logical. As for ignorance, we often based our perception of truth on inductive reasoning.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:31:56 2017 No.9826243

Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God. Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience. Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: (1) from something less than me (nature); (2) from me (individual); (3) from others equal to me (society); or (4) from something above me (God).

Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.

1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
3. How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:32:58 2017 No.9826247

>>9826243

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the “religious” one is.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the “religious” view of reality is correct.

We need to be clear about what the first premise is claiming. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things (like clothing the naked) and to avoid doing others (like committing adultery). The first premise is claiming something more: namely, that we human beings really are obligated, that our duties arise from the way things really are and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves—and not merely the belief in moral value —are objective facts. Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter, a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask, Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.

Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source—purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:33:37 2017 No.9826249

>>9826222
I'd approach it from somewhere else.
>What is the extrapolation of the things that you bring forth into this world?
"Your body is the temple of God.", "The kingdom of God is within you.", "From their fruits you shall know them."
God might be questioned, but Jews are proof of Satan.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 08:34:31 2017 No.9826254

>>9826229
That was proven using the rules of logic, which means this is a logical phenomenon.

A true paradox is something which objectively cannot exist.

>>9826233
But you cannot know what is true or false if you count all the things that you don't know that you don't know. anything is equally likely to be true or false. which is why you should never consider it when trying to separate true statements from false statements.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:39:25 2017 No.9826275

>>9826254
>That was proven using the rules of logic
Logic is circular reasoning. It can prove nothing. Unless you are willing to make a positive claim and prove it (logic).
>A true paradox is something which objectively cannot exist.
Hence God is necessary for 'objective' truth. We are subjective beings with many filters. The only logical things we can produce are carefully limited parts of this world. Very small parts. Like an equation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:41:25 2017 No.9826286 >>9826275 Prove that logic can't prove anything without using logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:41:27 2017 No.9826287 agnosticism is the only true patrician religious view

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:42:34 2017 No.9826290 >>9826287 To be openminded interminably, or to be locked open, is not a virtue. It is a failure to think, a failure to learn, a failure to decide and perhaps a failure of nerve.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:44:37 2017 No.9826294 >>9826286 I did. It's a joke. Don't be an American about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 08:46:50 2017 No.9826301 >>9826287 Its alright, but at some point you have to pick a hill to die on.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 09:02:43 2017 No.9826342
File: 63 KB, 500x500, 1461915918425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9826275
>Hence God is necessary for 'objective' truth
How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?

Oh wait, earlier in the same post you said logic is worthless. nevermind anon keep being stupid and not seeing the obvious flaws of your arguments

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 09:04:10 2017 No.9826346

>>9826342
>How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?
Who else can observe all the facts without missing a single piece or perspective?
Without God to do that, it can be argued that out there is chaos and that we inherently change the world with our knowledge. The next era will be in a wholly different world if it isn't God maintaining the continuity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 09:05:58 2017 No.9826356 >>9826342 >Oh wait, earlier in the same post you said logic is worthless God is similar in status to Logos and Logic. Well, higher than Logic. However, your response to any doubt regarding logic gets a syntax error. You haven't doubted enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 09:32:01 2017 No.9826451 >>9825433 >separating qabalah from paganism >knowing this little about anything

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 09:37:06 2017 No.9826467 >>9825406 You're being skeptical of skeptics. Moron.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:17:02 2017 No.9826787

In the atheistic worldview, the concept of a moral wrong only means "something I don't like," because if it meant "something that ought to not be," that would imply there is a way that our actions "ought to be." But if our actions, or even the universe itself "ought to be" a certain way, that further implies that there is a cosmic plan for human beings, their moral behavior, and even the universe itself. And if there is a cosmic plan then that implies the existence of a cosmic planner, or what we call God.

Evolution may explain why we act a certain way but it doesn't explain why we should or should not act a certain way. If moral truths are the product of evolution, they are not commandments we are bound to obey but merely helpful suggestions that can assist our "herd" in survival. Science has no way to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought." In other words, science can show us what helps us but it can't tell us why we should.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:29:02 2017 No.9826824

Can any intelligent theist answer my question please?

How does Christianity explain the existence of other religions like Hinduism or indigenous religions? I think God says once Adam and Eve eat the apple that he has "become like one of US" and that you should have "no other gods before me". So does this prove that there are other gods? Why should we accept Christianity above other religions?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:31:41 2017 No.9826827 >>9826824 Oh shit Genesis says there are other gods. MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:33:46 2017 No.9826838 >>9826827 I dont think it explicitly states that nigga. I believe that when God says 'us' he is talking about Jesus and the holy ghost

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:37:54 2017 No.9826851

>>9826824
>How does Christianity explain the existence of other religions like Hinduism or indigenous religions?
Read Genesis.

>I think God says once Adam and Eve eat the apple that he has "become like one of US"
God was talking about the Tree of Life not the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life. Satan lied to Adam and Eve. "The serpent decieved me."

>and that you should have "no other gods before me". So does this prove that there are other gods? Why should we accept Christianity above other religions?
Obviously He was talking about idols. "Before" has a double meaning of both "in pride of place" and "in my sight." Figure it out.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:44:10 2017 No.9826867

>>9826838
Elohim are a class of spiritual beings that include God (the entire Godhead) as well as the celestial creatures that He created which we call angels. Angels are immortal like God. When God said He was removing Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to stop them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life so that they would not become "like one of us," He was speaking to the other Elohim. Fallen angels would later be idolized by fallen humans and worshiped as false gods, but they are still just creatures, and not real gods in the sense that God is. This is Sunday school stuff.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:51:12 2017 No.9826884

>>9826824

You have to recognize the difference between capital-g God and lower case-g god. God is the monotheistic creator or cause of all being while god or gods are created beings or creatures. They're false idols so when it says "take no other gods before me" what it's saying essentially in modern language is don't worship creatures, instead worship the real God. This was a problem all throughout Jewish history because they were surrounded by polytheists.

As far as why be Christian as opposed to other religions is that the Christian God most closely resembles the God we can know through philosophy. If you consider the argument from motion and what it means to be "pure actual" then you can start to infer some interesting attributes of this "causer"

-Pure actual must be omnipotent because to not be able to do something would be unrealized potential
-Pure actual couldn't pop in or out of existence because that would imply unrealized potential, so pure actuality must be eternal.
-Pure actual must be non-physical because physical beings or substances can change forms or locations, both of which are unrealized potential
-An imperfection of any kind would be an unrealized potential, so pure actual must be perfect.
-There can only be one pure actual because the only way to tell the difference between two purely actual things is if one of them had something the other didn't. Pure actuality can't lack anything.

Pure actual must be omnipotent, eternal, non-physical, and perfect. This doesn't like Vishnu or Zeus to me. When you combine that with the historical evidence to support that Jesus is who he said he was then it makes Christianity more likely than not.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 11:52:47 2017 No.9826889

>>9825406
Proving god doesn't exist is a shift in the burden of proof. He doesn't exist until it's proven otherwise. Unicorns similarly "don't exist". Also, and although new atheists fail to use this line of argumentation, there is an issue with meaning and description in relation to things like unicorns, Santa, god, etc., that is just as important as the distinction between burden of proof.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 12:01:36 2017 No.9826913

>>9826889

You may not be doing it intentionally but this is an obfuscation. It's very common in modern atheist apologetics to conflate agnosticism which is a neutral position that doesn't affirm anything with atheism in an effort to avoid shouldering any burden. An atheist is defined as somebody who affirms that God does not exist, and with any affirmation there's a burden to provide reasons for believing it's true. If you hold the position of an atheist you need to provide reasons to believe atheism is true because it's not just a simple negation.

Additionally the reason we don't necessarily need to prove that unicorns don't exist is because if they did we would probably find physical evidence of them. This is not possible with God because God is posited to be the creator of all space and matter. The creator of space and matter cannot be bound by space and matter so we could never find direct evidence of the creator by looking at space and matter so the debate cannot be held to the same standard.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 13:32:43 2017 No.9827339 [DELETED]

>>9826342

>How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?

I'm not him but I'll give it a shot. Any attempt to find truth about the universe requires the presupposition that the universe is consistent and rational. In a universe that wasn't by God we have no reason to actually believe this is true, we can't know that reality isn't just an illusion with an appearance of age and we can't know that the laws of physics aren't imperceptibly changing from one moment to the next. In an atheistic universe we can only assume, but we have no reason to believe it's true. Contrast that with a theistic universe and we can make an argument that the universe is rational and consistent because it reflects the nature of its creator. We have a reason to believe the universe is rational and consistent. This is why God is necessary to know true truth.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 13:34:16 2017 No.9827345

>>9826342

>How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?

I'm not him but I'll give it a shot. Any attempt to find truth about the universe requires the presupposition that the universe is consistent and rational. In a universe that wasn't created by God we have no reason to actually believe this is true, we can't know that reality isn't just an illusion with an appearance of age and we can't know that the laws of physics aren't imperceptibly changing from one moment to the next. In an atheistic universe we can only assume, but we have no reason to believe it's true. Contrast that with a theistic universe and we can make an argument that the universe is rational and consistent because it reflects the nature of its creator. We have a reason to believe the universe is rational and consistent. This is why God is necessary to know true truth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 14:15:05 2017 No.9827535 >>9826222 Take a few basic philosophy classes then read Feser or someone like that.

>>	girardfag Sun Jul 30 14:16:23 2017 No.9827541 >>9825595 fuck when does it wear off

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 15:01:40 2017 No.9827738 Where do atheists get this idea that there's no reason to believe in God? There are reasons to believe and you can disagree with them and still be an atheist so they're either being dishonest or ignorant when they make this claim.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:21:48 2017 No.9828094 >>9826287 Agnosticism is the cowards religion

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 16:22:49 2017 No.9828099

>>9827345
Your argument literally makes zero sense.

1. You do not need a deity for the universe to operate in a logical way.

2. Even in a universe that was created by a deity, it doesn't mean this would have made the universe more rational and consistent.

>>9827738
There is no rational reason to believe in god. that's a fact.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:27:02 2017 No.9828121

>>9828099

>Your argument literally makes zero sense.

That's you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the universe needs a God in order to be rational or consistent. I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that the universe actually is rational and consistent in a universe without a God. Do you see the difference? The theist has a reason to believe that the universe is consistent while the atheist doesn't.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 16:30:20 2017 No.9828144

>>9828121
I understood your argument, i think you are the one who doesn't understand my response.

Your assumption that the universe must make more sense if it was made by a deity is based on absolutely nothing. and btw, wouldn't the very existence of a deity be a logical inconsistency?

Aniway, let me say this:
Honestly i'm kind of disappointed with /lit/. you guys come up with way too much bad and poorly thought-out arguments

/sci/ is probably better for this kind of conversations

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:35:47 2017 No.9828169

>>9828144

No you really don't understand me at all. I'm not assuming that the universe was created or not, I'm merely comparing the theistic world view to the atheistic one. If the theistic universe is true then there's a rational reason to believe the universe is consistent. If atheism is true there isn't. This is not an argument for the existence of God, if you're actually interested in that I can share a few on top of this one

>>9826243
>>9826247

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 16:38:28 2017 No.9828188

>>9828169
In a theistic universe, things can pop in and out of existence without requiring any physical explanation

There isn't a rational reason to believe a deity would make a more consistent universe. you making way too many assumptions to jump to that conclusion, such as the assumption that a deity must operate in a way that makes sense

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:41:37 2017 No.9828206 >>9828188 I believe in a rational, knowable, and consistent (eternal) God and I believe creation reflects its creator. In this universe how could something pop in and out of existence at random?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:52:46 2017 No.9828262

Faith is okay but the drawn-out mental gymnastic flipping, going on and on, forever and ever in order to bring logical purpose to faith itself is tiresome and sort of psychotic. Stop obsessing so much over why you believe and just give eye to the effects religion has on people. It's highly irrational by way of extension alone.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 16:55:39 2017 No.9828275 >>9828262 >Believing in things is fine so long as you don't think about it. This explains atheism quite well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 17:10:50 2017 No.9828342 >>9828144 Anon, that's because nobody has seriously engaged with you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 17:17:53 2017 No.9828374 >>9828342 How could anyone engage with him, really? He declares that there is no rational reason to believe in God. It's a done deal, the debate is over. The existence of God is a "logical inconsistency." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 17:28:54 2017 No.9828429

>>9826824
>How does Christianity explain the existence of other religions like Hinduism or indigenous religions?

Read how the Catholic Church explained it at Vatican II. It's not an especially long document, less than 10 pages. Section 2 is especially pertinent wrt your question.

Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) | Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
>From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense...

>Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language.

>Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.

>Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

>Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

>The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 17:53:24 2017 No.9828521

>>9828121
>The theist has a reason to believe that the universe is consistent and rational
I would dispute this. The universe probably appears to be consistent to a theist but it being rational is disputable. In order for something to be rational, it has to be explainable through rationality that humans can potentially understand. My understanding of various different religions was that many of them interpret their God or gods or spirituality in general as being beyond the scope of human understanding. This would mean that rationality simply does not apply to the divine. So I don't think theists have any particular reason to believe that the universe behaves in a rational (understandable) way. It could still be consistent though.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:04:51 2017 No.9828552

>>9828521

I would agree that in the case of most religions they can't have a reason to believe the universe is rational or consistent. For example, Hindus believe that the world is an illusion and Asharite Muslims believe that God is "irrational" in the sense the he can and does change the laws of physics at will. This is actually the reason many terrorists don't even bother with gun training, they believe that if it's God's will for somebody to die then God will just cause the bullet to change flight in mid-air to hit the target. To them the only way to know true knowledge is through revelation, so God isn't "knowable" through reason.

Contrast this with the Aristotle/Aquinas God that is rational, knowable, and consistent. This God cannot act against or violate his own nature so it follows that the creation will reflect the creator. The laws of logic are as unchangeable as God. Not every Christian actually believes in this God but that's beside the point. In a universe that was created by this God we have a reason to believe the universe is rational and consistent.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:13:13 2017 No.9828570

>>9828552
Okay. I guess the question then becomes, is this rational, knowable, and consistent God necessarily the christian God as described by the Bible and its surrounding tradition? Is it even necessarily any kind of God which has taken action to show itself to mankind? To me, it seems like this form of God is no different than axiomatically stating that the universe itself is rational, knowable, and consistent.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:25:44 2017 No.9828614

>>9828570

I can't speak for every Christian but I do believe that this God closely resembles the God of Catholicism. You could treat this consistency and rationality of the universe as an axiom but it only becomes interesting when you tie it to the creator or cause of the universe. Without a creator we have no reason to believe it's actually true, we can only presuppose it, and I think that's the weakness of the atheists position.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:49:00 2017 No.9828715 Can someone explain to me how there still are unironically religious 20-something white males in first world countries? Especially ones which frequent image boards and ruin them in the process.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:51:59 2017 No.9828730 >>9825433 wtf I love freemasons now

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 18:57:36 2017 No.9828757

>>9828715

Are you asking why people believe that theism is true? They're the only ones making arguments and providing reasons. Atheists refuse to provide reasons to believe their view is correct, preferring to obfuscate the debate (see >>9826913) and discourage dialogue like you're doing now. People with different convictions would not bother you if you were actually secure in your own.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:05:02 2017 No.9828783

Skeptics are in the unfortunate position of being among the most assured of their own positions while knowing relatively the least. Something which I blame their community for encouraging, which is way more concerned about public activism and fighting for muh atheist rights, than they are about thinking and study. They already have the answer, they're following what science says, so what's the need for more questioning?

That being said, they're the only people autistic enough to argue against a relentless tide of "BUT THE BIBLE SAYS" fundies and hippies pushing some woo health product. They seriously need to shut the fuck up and read more though.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 19:05:24 2017 No.9828784
File: 30 KB, 500x331, Extremely-cute-kitten_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9828206
Let me summarize the logic behind your argument:

>The universe operates in a logical way
>Therefore a being whose existence violates all rules of logic must exist :D

Your argument is dumb, nonsensical, and self contradicting. and listen, i have nothing in personal against you, i don't want to insult you or make you feel bad, but next time try to think more before you are posting an argument.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:10:25 2017 No.9828805

>>9828784

God is not "a being," and he doesn't violate the laws of logic because he is the source of logic. This is the point that you're missing. There's no reason to trust the laws of logic in an atheistic universe, you can only assume that they're consistent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:10:30 2017 No.9828807 Why are atheists so indignant?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:14:31 2017 No.9828822

>>9828614
Well alright, but now you have the problem of providing evidence for the existence of God as described by the Bible. I don't know what reason you have for believing in him, but I personally have not seen any convincing proof yet. This evidence would need to be based on empirical knowledge about the world derived from our experience of it. Since we're presupposing a rational, knowable, and consistent universe, it is somehow possible to use empirical evidence to arrive at some form of completely certain conclusions. Do you have such a proof?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:15:06 2017 No.9828823 [DELETED]

>>9828805
1. If god exists reality inherently doesn't follow the rules of logic. if an omnipotent can exist out of nowhere, anything can exist out of nowhere.

2. There is a great reason to trust the laws of logic in an atheistic universe, and the reason is that according to our observation they do not fail. in fact, there is a better reason to trust logic in an atheistic universe because a reality which contains a deity is inherently defying logic

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 19:16:09 2017 No.9828825
File: 42 KB, 480x480, FdzSOzFL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9828805
1. If god exists reality inherently doesn't follow the rules of logic. if an omnipotent being can exist out of nowhere, anything can exist out of nowhere.

2. There is a great reason to trust the laws of logic in an atheistic universe, and the reason is that according to our observation they do not fail. in fact, there is a better reason to trust logic in an atheistic universe because a reality which contains a deity is inherently defying logic

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:26:44 2017 No.9828859

>>9828822

I can't give you empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the reason for this is because creator or cause of the material universe cannot be bound by the material universe. This means the cause of the universes existence is outside of the material realm.

I think you should reconsider your belief that the only way to know true beliefs is through empirical evidence because this is a self-refuting claim. There is no empirical evidence or scientific experiment that can show that all true beliefs must be verified with empirical evidence. We can only "prove" whether or not God to a certain degree, as in "the existence of God is more likely than not." If you're not willing to accept immaterial evidence (i.e. philosophical argument) for the existence of an immaterial cause of the universe then you're permanently locked in your atheism. Even if God is real you could never come to believe in him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:40:44 2017 No.9828895 >>9828094 >cowardice What will that courage do for you when you're burning in hell?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:53:30 2017 No.9828930

>>9826884
>When you combine that with the historical evidence to support that Jesus is who he said he was then it makes Christianity more likely than not.
You're going way too far with this if you meant to say that Christianity is more likely right than it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:53:45 2017 No.9828933 >>9828807 >Why are atheists so indignant? >>9825406 >Are skeptics (morons) the most intellectually dishonest people? Nu-atheists, skeptics and people like Sam Harris are literally the dumbest faggots of the "intelligentsia". gee, I wonder.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 19:59:01 2017 No.9828952 >>9825406 >caring about proof Not a true skeptic Kys

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 19:59:33 2017 No.9828955
File: 20 KB, 500x465, anime-cute-anime-girl-art-colorful-Favim.com-3241816.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9828859
>I can't give you empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the reason for this is because creator or cause of the material universe cannot be bound by the material universe.

I can't give you empirical evidence for the existence of undetectable unicorns, and the reason for this is because they are inherently immune to any detection tools and cannot be observed scientifically

>I think you should reconsider your belief that the only way to know true beliefs is through empirical evidence because this is a self-refuting claim. There is no empirical evidence or scientific experiment that can show that all true beliefs must be verified with empirical evidence.
The reason science relies on empirical evidence and math is because philosophically, empirical evidence and math are the only way to prove anything.

If you are willing to accept the logic behind philosophy, you must also accept that empirical evidence and math are the only evidence that you can rely on when trying to determine how the reality around you works.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:07:28 2017 No.9828976

I would agree that you couldn't give me empirical evidence of the unicorn that you described. If you wish to prove such a thing existed to me then I would require compelling philosophical argument to believe its true.

Science by definition excludes the non-natural from the scientific method so as a tool it is completely inadequate to investigate a non-natural hypothesis. What scientific evidence or experiment do you have to prove the assertion that the only way to know truth is through science and math? Do you understand why this is a self-refuting position? If it were true that science and math was the only way to know truth then history would have no value--we couldn't know that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon because there's no scientific evidence or experiment to demonstrate it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:08:31 2017 No.9828982 >>9828976 meant for >>9828955

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:09:17 2017 No.9828986 >>9828955 >when trying to determine how the reality around you works. Which isn't the topic at hand. The other anon states that god wouldn't be bound by this material universe i.e. the reality around us. Something unaffected by empirical evidence.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 20:15:45 2017 No.9829002

>>9828976
History has a value but many claims in historical books are unverified, and there are even plenty of contradicting historical accounts.

Aniway, back to the core discussion:
The reason we rely on the scientific method to discover how reality works is because empirical evidence and math are the only things we can rely on to determine how reality works.

Of course you can make philosophical arguments that rely on logic to explain certain things, for example philosophy explains why good and evil are subjective. but philosophy can only be used to explain things within the realm of abstract concepts, you cannot use philosophy to explain physical things about reality itself, you must rely on math and empirical evidence.

If you claim god is real, that's not an abstract concept. you claim it's a part of reality. which is why it requires a scientific proof.

>>	crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 20:17:24 2017 No.9829006 >>9828986 The term reality refers to everything that exists. If god exists, he is within reality because that's what the term exist means.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:20:38 2017 No.9829010 >>9829006 Empirical evidence relies on the senses, yes? It's not unreasonable to think God's existence lies outside the scope of sensory observation. To rely solely on empirical evidence and "math" is narrow-minded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:21:00 2017 No.9829013 >>9825406 I feel as though being skeptical is the most /lit/ thing to be. Question everything. Doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag atheist.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:21:17 2017 No.9829015

>>9829002

Let's take this one step at a time. Would you agree that a cause or creator of the universe would have to be outside of the universe? That the creator of space, time, matter, and energy could not made of space, time, matter, and energy, because if it were, it would just be "more universe" and not the actual creator?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:22:04 2017 No.9829019 >>9825433 You know Kabbalism came from paganism right? Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tantric practices, ancient egyptian religion, all of these are more or less equivalent to Kabbalah, just a different tradition.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 20:24:45 2017 No.9829027

>>9829010
It relies on senses and the tools which humans can develop. and it is true our ability to prove things is limited to the tools we can use.

But the fact our ability to prove things empirically is limited does not contradict the fact empirical evidence are essential to determine things about reality.

> To rely solely on empirical evidence and "math" is narrow-minded.
"Do Not Be So Open-Minded That Your Brains Fall Out".

Being open minded in the sense of accepting different ideas when you are proven to be wrong is a good thing. being open minded in the sense that you are willing to throw away logic is a bad thing.

We rely on empirical evidence and math because that's the logical thing to do

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 20:26:55 2017 No.9829034
File: 21 KB, 655x402, definition.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9829015
Even if he existed outside of spacetime, saying "god exists" still implies he is a part of reality

Look at pic related, which is the definition of reality.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:29:05 2017 No.9829039

>>9829027
>and it is true our ability to prove things is limited to the tools we can use.
You have no reason to believe these tools are anywhere near to "truth". Your only evidence is that they've produced science in the past and are producing science now.

I'm not well-read but didn't Descartes debunk this shit already?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:29:46 2017 No.9829041

>>9829034

Could you answer the question please? Would you agree that a cause or creator of the universe would have to be outside of the universe? By universe I mean space, time, matter, and energy. I'm not trying to trick you but I'm going somewhere with this.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 20:36:34 2017 No.9829062

>>9829041
I do not agree because of the following scenerio:
A deity could exist within a universe which was created naturally and then create another parallel universe.

>I'm not trying to trick you but I'm going somewhere with this.
Then Just go there.

>>9829039
You are right now using a sophisticated machine to communicate with me which exists because of discoveries made using purely the scientific method.

If this kind of strong, direct empirical evidence is not a reason to believe the scientific method, then there is no reason to believe in anything.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:45:22 2017 No.9829079

>>9829062

You don't have to actually believe that God is real to suppose that IF God was he would have to be outside of the universe. Fuck it, I gotta go so I'll just write a dialogue as if you were being cooperative and willing to learn. I've also been reading a lot of Plato so now it's my thing:

Theist: Would you agree that a cause or creator of the universe would have to be outside of the universe? That the creator of space, time, matter, and energy could not made of space, time, matter, and energy, because if it were, it would just be "more universe" and not the actual creator?
Atheist: Well I can't deny that, good sir. I agree!
Theist: Would you agree that science can only investigate space, time, matter, and energy?
Atheist: That can't be denied
Theist: Now my atheist friend, do you see why it is folly to believe that science can investigate the question of whether or not God exists, since God is posited to be the creator of space, time matter, and energy?
Atheist: I do, by the flying spaghetti monster, I actually do! I have seen the error of my ways and I repent of my folly. I will now become more accepting of other avenues of truth seeking, at least in questions of the non material.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:47:13 2017 No.9829085

>>9828859
M8, I personally don't believe that empirical evidence is the only way to true belief. However, if you are under the assumption that the universe is rational, knowable, and consistent, then there are a few things that necessarily follow from that, such as it being possible to obtain true knowledge about the world through observation. If a christian God as you so defined is to exist in a knowable way, there needs to be empirical evidence of his existence. Otherwise, there's no particular reason to believe or not believe in him. If you don't have any such evidence, then we are brought back around to faith rather than rationality as our reason for believing in God. Note that I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just that you need to be aware of what you are saying or are not saying here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:49:18 2017 No.9829092 >>9829085 >If a christian God as you so defined is to exist in a knowable way, there needs to be empirical evidence of his existence. Why does this God have to be knowable with empirical evidence as opposed to philosophical reasoning?

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 20:58:45 2017 No.9829114

>>9829092
Because philosophical reasoning can develop multiple different yet logically consistent systems of belief which are non-contradictory within themselves but also contradictory with each other. Without referring those systems back to reality, we can't determine which of those systems actually references the reality we live in. Now, personally, I believe that even when referencing these systems back to reality, there remain multiple internally consistent belief systems that contradict one another, however, if we assume a rational, knowable and consistent universe, there should necessarily be only one such belief system that actually references the reality we live in. Thus we need observation (empirical evidence) to determine which one that is.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 21:02:14 2017 No.9829128

>>9825406
You know greek scepticism had a lot of influence over the modern philosophy, so that's kind of a broad statement. Are some people still saying that they are from an absolute skeptical way of thinking ? I think that Descartes' Cogito had led skeptics to the conclusion that it was a more useful tool when it was a "moderate" skepticism.

Also I don't understand why you're comparing skepticals to atheists (what is a "nu-atheist" BTW ?), since both things are quite independant to my knowledge, though I really wonder what you did learn from skeptics thinkers for arriving to such a conclusion.

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 21:27:22 2017 No.9829224 [DELETED]

>>9829079
> Fuck it, I gotta go so I'll just write a dialogue as if you were being cooperative and willing to learn.

The only thing i learned from your dialogue is that you make dumb arguments. you are the one who can't see the error in your own ways. so let me dissect them.

1. The creator of specetime did not have to exist outside of spacetime. it could be that the existence of a creator and the existence of space-time are dependent on one another.

2. If something cannot be detected with science it means that from our perspective any claim of it's existence is completely worthless. its just like claiming there are undetectable unicorns roaming the earth

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 21:29:03 2017 No.9829232

>>9829079
> Fuck it, I gotta go so I'll just write a dialogue as if you were being cooperative and willing to learn.

The only thing i learned from your dialogue is that you make dumb arguments. you are the one who can't see the errors in your own ways. so let me dissect them.

1. The creator of specetime did not have to exist outside of spacetime. it could be that the existence of a creator and the existence of space-time are dependent on one another.
2. If something cannot be detected with science it means that from our perspective any claim of it's existence is completely worthless. its just like claiming there are undetectable unicorns roaming the earth

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 21:35:36 2017 No.9829254 >>9829232 1. existence of a Creator isn't dependent on anything, as suddenly the Creator is no longer pure actual 2. Love cannot be detected by science, does it not exist?

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Sun Jul 30 21:39:05 2017 No.9829266

>>9829254
>existence of a Creator isn't dependent on anything, as suddenly the Creator is no longer pure actual
Conceptually speaking, it could be dependent and it could be not dependent.

>Love cannot be detected by science, does it not exist?
The feeling of love is detected through the senses of your body - that's empirical evidence, you fucking genius.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 21:40:58 2017 No.9829273 Even though I know you're using it ironically, your graph is correct. The unbelief in an unsubstantiated claim does not require faith

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:04:38 2017 No.9829353 >>9825406 Why do they have to prove that god does not exist? they are annoying but correct

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:12:53 2017 No.9829377

People in this thread are unironically taking the position of scientism. I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to be a reasonable atheist because it seems like every one that I interact with is philosophically illiterate fool. Maybe that explains why they're atheists to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:21:43 2017 No.9829401 >>9825947 >>9826021 The only place I see this shit mentioned is on this board

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:25:19 2017 No.9829406 i'm amazed at how poorly christians understand the atheist position, while still having the confidence to proclaim to understand it. it's almost as if they willingly deceive themselves.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:26:00 2017 No.9829410

Alright, if nobody has anything further to say in regards to my post here >>9829114, then I'll lay this all out in plain terms for you all. "Nu-atheists" are being used as both scapegoat and strawman. Nobody sensible really believes that it is impossible for any god to exist. There always remains that possibility. Atheists in many cases are being conflated with agnostics or people who choose to believe in the absence of the christian God (or many other specific Gods invented by mankind), given findings in the sciences that directly contradict claims about the universe that various religions have made. No, this kind of "atheism" is not self-contradictory, and no, nobody has found conclusive evidence for the existence of any God yet. Note that this does not mean that the ethical teachings of religion are unimportant or bad. There are many things religion can teach us which are still valuable. But ultimately religious belief falls under the purview of faith.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:28:18 2017 No.9829419 >>9826913 >An atheist is defined as somebody who affirms that God does not exist yeah, by stawmanning theists. >no you don't understand your own definitions yes we do, fuck off, the only obfuscation taking place is by memers of your kind.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:30:24 2017 No.9829424
File: 233 KB, 500x750, 1498105264242.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9825406
>he thinks not believing something is the same as believing something
retard alert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

educate yourself before throwing around the world moron, moron

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:30:55 2017 No.9829425 >>9826243 >>9826247 I just want to point out that nobody even attempted to touch this inb4 some dumb shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:32:49 2017 No.9829431 Some of the Atheists really ought to read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cph4498/?context=3&st=j5rjgyad&sh=3ed30f2c

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:35:17 2017 No.9829440

>>9829431
>lel let me define my opponent's terms so that i can a priodi win by definition
i remember many years ago a culture where strawmanning was looked down upon, and allowing your opponent to define their own terms was considered good philosophical etiquette

atheism has always been defined as a lack of belief

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:36:02 2017 No.9829443 >>9829424 You can't not believe something. The most hardcore sceptic would believe in the value of scepticism. You LITERALLY can't have a time where your belief system is negative, it is always made of positive claims.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:37:26 2017 No.9829447 >>9829440 The guy that wrote that is an atheist by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:39:00 2017 No.9829454 >>9829443 >implying anyone in the last 100 years has ever spent a single second seriously concerned or thinking if say Zeus exists that's retarded beyond belief

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:40:10 2017 No.9829464 >>9829447 good thing that identities are irrelevant ever since the theism debates on youtube channels started last decade, the definition of atheism as lack of belief has been pretty much the reigning convention

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:45:11 2017 No.9829476

>>9829454
You would have a firm belief that he does not exist, not just the negation of a belief there, not just a blank space.

Like, thus fucker is wrong >>9829464
It's not just the absence of belief that's not how cognition works. You don't just have NOTHING there, you'd have a concept of God, tagged with a qualifier about it not being actually real. The same qualifier as the Easter bunny, for example. But you don't just have no belief there. It's a positive cognitive presence.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:46:42 2017 No.9829485

>>9825406
People are all atheists deep down. Just think about it, the second anyone does something serious because god told them to, we lock them up in a lunatic asylum. You'll never hear an elected official say god told him to go to war. We all know deep down the truth, that religion is like unlike a mental illness.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:47:52 2017 No.9829491

>>9829476
>You would have a firm belief that he does not exist, not just the negation of a belief there, not just a blank space.
No, it would never even occur to me to consider his existence. This is what it's like for a rational person as regards the Christian god too. It's just Christians are so overly sensitized and familiar with the idea of their god they can't even comprehend this equivalency.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:48:45 2017 No.9829496

>>9829476
you need to have a severe lack of education in very basic philosophy to think that a lack of belief in something is impossible.

if proposition p means "god necessarily exists", not-p doesn't mean "god by necessity doesn't exist", it only means that you don't believe that god necessarily exists, he can still potentially exist.
atheists are open to the idea of god, the main objection is that having positive belief in god is epistemologically unjustifiable

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:49:17 2017 No.9829498 >>9829485 Atheism is literally a symptom of autistim.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:50:10 2017 No.9829503 >>9829496 The belief that something doesn't exist is not a lack of belief. It is the belief that something doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:50:26 2017 No.9829505 >>9829491 This, so hard. It's not a question of belief, it's one of fundamental logic -- rationality only observes evidence, no evidence, no consideration.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:51:31 2017 No.9829509

>>9829491
>it would never occur to me to consider his existence
If that were true you could not be having this conversation. But regardless, I'm not saying this process is always conscious.
>>9829496
I'm not talking about this as a philosophical position, I'm talking about it as a psychological impossibility. Read Spinoza he deals with it well. You come across a concept and then negate it, but the concept is there for you in your mind forever, you've just catalogued it as NOT TRUE. But you now must live in a world where this concept exists and you take a position on it. You can't have no position.

This anon is right. >>9829503

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:51:58 2017 No.9829512

>>9829503
it's almost as if you didn't read my post.

if proposition p means "x is necessarily true", then not-p doesn't mean "x is necessarily untrue".

not-p allows for an infinite set of propositions including "x is true if it's sunday" or "x is sometimes true"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:54:26 2017 No.9829519 >>9829512 Yes but you MUST have one of those positions. You must have a p or not-p of some form. You can't just not take a position on p and say that that responsibility belongs to someone else. Your mind demands a position on p.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:55:10 2017 No.9829523

>>9829509
>I'm not talking about this as a philosophical position
then you're posting off topic because this is only about atheism as a philosophical position, not feels atheism, whatever that even means.

negating the positive belief in god doesn't necessitate a positive belief in the nonexistence of god

do you know what the difference is between polar opposite and logical opposites?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:56:03 2017 No.9829526 >>9829523 Here, we're talking across each other, this is me as well and it addresses your point >>9829519

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:57:18 2017 No.9829534

Nobody can prove to me that gravity is real because I reject science as a valid method for finding truth. I don't need to provide my reasons for believing gravity is not real because I'm not really taking a position despite being part of a "gravity is not real" club at school. Checkmate scientists.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:58:43 2017 No.9829538

>>9829519
>>9829526
i think i adequately addressed both quoted posts in your quoted post. i do feel like we're talking past each other. the main point is that it's a false dichotomy to assert that you have to prove god doesn't exist in order to negate the positive belief in god. not-theism is not the same as anti-theism, logical opposite is not polar opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:58:47 2017 No.9829539 >>9829523 >off topic As if. >not feels atheism, whatever that eve means Kek, talk about strawman. Don't get your panties in a knot, anon, just because my argument isn't what you want to be arguing against.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 22:59:36 2017 No.9829544 >>9829019 >comparing buddhism, gnosticism, tantric practices, and ancient egyptian 'religion' >saying jewish traditions came from them

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:00:16 2017 No.9829549 >>9829539 i'm sorry you disliked my response, it's just that saying "we're not talking about philosophy" in a philosophical discussion is really fucking stupid

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:02:26 2017 No.9829561

>>9829549
Fair enough, it's just that I'm not making the point about any specific philosophical positions, I'm saying that not having ANY position is impossible once you are introduced to the concept.

>>9829538
I'm not talking about proofs, I'm talking about the psychological impossibility of having no position regarding God. I'm strictly arguing against people who say that atheism is not a claim. It is.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:08:20 2017 No.9829580

>>9829561
of course once you're introduced to a concept you have to do something with it, you can accept it, entertain it, negate it, even if you're deliberately suspending your judgment and trying to not thing about it, you're still doing something. at the same time, mere negation doesn't require justification, it's not proof. if the arguments put forth by theists are not compelling, then they're just not compelling, the weak atheist doesn't have a burden of proof because he didn't become convinced that god exists. only when you say that you've ruled out the possibility of god existing have you stepped into positive claim territory.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:13:42 2017 No.9829602

>>9829580
>only when you say that you've ruled out the possibility of god existing have you stepped into positive claim territory.
Yes, and I keep seeing a trend lately with atheists wanting to say they are atheists but not accept this point at all. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too. As if atheism involved no claims whatsoever, it's ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:15:04 2017 No.9829610 >>9825406 What is "Pragmatism?" with a $500 bet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:15:13 2017 No.9829612 >>9829602 well you can call yourself an atheist while still being open to the possibility of god existing, maybe all those atheists you keep seeing are actually weak atheists.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:19:16 2017 No.9829623

>>9829612
Is that not weak agnosticism? Just seems like they're scared to actually say their agnostic because some fedora higher in the pecking order will bully them for it.

All this nuatheism-spectrum just seems even more like wriggly fence sitting nonsense that agnosticism to me. If your position is you don't know because there's not enough evidence either way then just call it what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:19:29 2017 No.9829624 >>9825761 Persians are butthurt that the Arabs stole their empire Duh

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:22:37 2017 No.9829639 >>9825800 Those with faith are honest. Agnostics are those without faith who are also rational. Atheists are those with faith who insist that they are without it and therefore rational and more intelligent than those with faiths contrary to theirs.

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:26:34 2017 No.9829650

>>9829623
usually fence sitters self report to being agnostic or apathetic or something along these lines, but a weak atheist can have firm convictions despite being open to the idea of god.

while strong atheists use arguments such as problem of evil or problem of divine hiddenness to rule out the possibility of the christian god specifically, weak atheism is less a position on god and more a position on atheists. the main criticism levied by weak atheists isn't necessarily that god doesn't exist, but that believing in god for no reason is stupid, so the weak atheist will try to prove that theism is stupid by subjecting it to an epistemological framework which has some citerons for "reasonable belief" or "justified belief", basically the argument is that faith is stupid, so even though you don't know if god exists, you know for a fact that believing in something for no good reason is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:27:36 2017 No.9829651 >>9829650 >more a position on atheists a position on theists*

Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:32:01 2017 No.9829664

My problem with /r/eddit atheists is that they are beginning to claim that even the possibility of God requires the burden of proof. NO! That's not how this works.
It denies common sense first off, which isn't very pragmatic, and secondly that's not how deductive reasoning works. "I see no evidence of God." "He could be hidden." Deductive reasoning often extrapolates counter-point potentialities to prove a point. If we require even possibilities of existence to require evidence for belief, we deny how our minds are meant to function.

I like the old spaghetti monster atheists better. "If God is possible so is the spaghetti monster." Sure I can give you that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:34:32 2017 No.9829671 >>9829664 yeah asking for proof that can potentially exist is straight up retarded, everything can exist unless you've ruled out that possibility such as by proving that it would be a contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:45:31 2017 No.9829709 >>9829650 > believing in something for no good reason is retarded. Yeah, including presuppositions about materialism and empiricism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:53:03 2017 No.9829736 >>9825406 Hating atheism with no valid argument is the new atheism

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 30 23:54:15 2017 No.9829737 >>9829509 >If that were true you could not be having this conversation. This is some low grade sophistry. Someone can't discuss Harry Potter without seriously believing Hogwarts exists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 00:02:37 2017 No.9829769 >>9825710 Netherlands France Iceland Australia

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 00:06:21 2017 No.9829778 >>9829737 Jesus christ, is this b8? You can't discuss harry Potter while also not giving Harry Potter any consideration. Read the fucking posts properly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 00:15:32 2017 No.9829817 >>9825406 Skepticism without curiosity is moronic. Skepticism with curiosity is God tier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 02:03:02 2017 No.9830078 File: 41 KB, 420x294, 1500908118830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9825406 you sound very, very triggered, calm down a little bit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 02:14:55 2017 No.9830102 >>9825406 This post would be mildly interesting if it were made in 2014. But i'd bet that OP is a fucking faggot who likes jordan peterson.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 02:21:19 2017 No.9830116

>>9825761
Ethnicity. Persians and Arabs have hated each other since time immemorial. Even when the Persians were Zoroastrian and the Arabs were Pagan.

You'll notice that the Sunni-Shia fault splits near perfectly between ethnic lines (Syria being the outlier, it's like the Switzerland of the Middle East: Three cultures and in one region (Christians, Alawites/Shia, Sunnis))

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 02:56:24 2017 No.9830201 >>9829709 put your trip back on fag

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 03:02:21 2017 No.9830210 >>9825433 Bullshit dude masons are pragmatists why the fuck would they larp around with Neo-Platonic mysticism? Its not the 17th century anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 03:05:18 2017 No.9830217 >>9825565 Drugs are literally the most brainlet thing in the world. Especially psychedelics. I've tried them

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Mon Jul 31 03:07:53 2017 No.9830219 [DELETED]

>>9829498
Atheism is a symbol of using logic properly

>>9829664
You are right now talking with a Zebra that learned how to write English.

Are you going to tell me: "Holy gee i can't tell if you are telling the truth or if you are lying. i guess we will never know if you are a Zebra or not!"

Or are you going to tell me: "You are not a Zebra because that would not possible"

crazyaga !!gDYZXg02vsZ Mon Jul 31 03:09:13 2017 No.9830223

>>9829498
Atheism is a symbol of using logic properly

>>9829664
You are right now talking with a Zebra that learned how to write English.

Are you going to tell me: "Holy gee i can't tell if you are telling the truth or if you are lying. i guess we will never know if you are a Zebra or not!"
Or are you going to tell me: "You are not a Zebra because that would not be possible"

This scenario is analogous to the discussion about god. claiming that god exists is just as ridiculously insane as me claiming i'm a Zebra

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 03:09:34 2017 No.9830224 Everytime I comment in a thread it dies >tfw ruin everything

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 03:24:27 2017 No.9830250 >tfw did it again sorry lit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 03:28:44 2017 No.9830264 >>9826913 >An atheist is defined as somebody who affirms that God does not exist, and with any affirmation there's a burden to provide reasons for believing it's true ONLY liberals think like this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 05:25:20 2017 No.9830457 ugly people are wrong, i'm beautiful and correct always

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 05:31:06 2017 No.9830464 >>9825406 What if you're agnostic OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 05:44:59 2017 No.9830484 File: 18 KB, 252x233, 1487935891359.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9829498 >autistim

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 07:30:48 2017 No.9830658

>>9830223
>Atheism is a symbol of using logic properly
For honesty's sake, you should avoid words like 'proper' in these situations. It's an affirmation of status, and as such it paints quite clearly your desires and as such, your goals.

So atheism is, in fact, a symbol for using logic to 1-up others. On the other hand, taking distance from atheism will have you see it as a whole. Yes, the dangerous concept of 'whole'. Things are no longer in the vacuum of theories or claims. They are seen for what they are; the full aesthetic. The use of individual facts and presenting oneself as the authority, be it scientific, religious, or reason itself.

Empiricism is not logic, nor is it the end of logic. Neither is the scientific method. How logical is it to rely on the certain in a world of uncertainty?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 07:32:00 2017 No.9830659 >>9830217 I do not believe your claims.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 07:34:20 2017 No.9830662

>>9830658
>How logical is it to rely on the certain in a world of uncertainty?
I was missing a key word here; only. Schrödinger's cat is something most people do not even dare approach. Yet we have to, when we open the door, or the mail, or respond to comments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 07:36:31 2017 No.9830665 Religion strikes me as a waste of time and posts like this >>9826243 as desperation of people too stupid to control their own lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:00:33 2017 No.9830698 >>9830665 >as desperation of people too stupid to control their own lives It's more about having a destination so that you can justify any action of yours. There's nothing stupid about shitting in other people's carpet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:06:14 2017 No.9830702 >>9830698 >It's more about having a destination so that you can justify any action of yours. Sounds extremely dangerous. The same kind of thinking breeds Muslims.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:08:28 2017 No.9830706 >>9825433 what the fuck are you on about?

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:10:15 2017 No.9830711

>>9826247
>Real moral obligation is a fact

Can you expand on this? I'm interested to see how we are morally obligated to do good or at least how we can define what good is.

I'm not saying you're wrong just that I can't understand the statement entirely.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:13:53 2017 No.9830715
File: 84 KB, 720x780, some-people-dont-want-to-hear-truth-friedrich-nietzche-daily-quotes-sayings-pictures.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The issue with Christians and other forms of theism is that essentially, unless you have an IQ in the double digits, deep down you realise you're just deluding yourself.

I think the majority of the smart ones realise that there's no special being who gives a shit about you, but when this devilish thought surfaces you are frightened of the thought that you're alone and there's no paradise awaiting you. And you bury it with more "faith", which is essentially just more and more lies to make yourself feel better.

The choice is up to you, do you want to be ignorant or happy? (Bear in mind you can still be both, like Optimistic Nihilism) Either are valid choices that I would understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:14:37 2017 No.9830716 >>9830702 >sounds dangerous Life is. >The same kind of thinking breeds Muslims. The same kind of thinking breeds humans. Every alternative model has failed in that aspect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:17:04 2017 No.9830720 >>9825406 >dude lmao just believe everything without any critical thought Americans really need to have mandatory philosophy classes in school.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:17:53 2017 No.9830722 >>9830715 *Ignorant and happy or Realistic

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:19:50 2017 No.9830724

>>9830715
>unless you have an IQ in the double digits, deep down you realiZe you're just deluding yourself.
95IQ is the point where atheism makes the most sense. Below that theism starts to win, and above it there is no clear line between atheism or theism and IQ.
>I think the majority of the smart ones realize that there's no special being who gives a shit about you
Start with Descartes. Once you are a solipsist, you should see the jester.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:22:30 2017 No.9830728 intelligence without skepticism is pointless advancement doesn't exist without skepticism only sustainability

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:22:51 2017 No.9830730 >>9830724 Thanks, hadn't heard of Soliphsism, sounds quite interesting actually. I'm not sure, I definitely think there's a strong correlation between high IQ and atheism, wouldn't you agree?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:23:36 2017 No.9830732 >>9830728 I don't think OP is against skepticism. I think he is against people who don the name.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:25:27 2017 No.9830738

>>9830730
>I'm not sure, I definitely think there's a strong correlation between high IQ and atheism, wouldn't you agree?
On national level the correlation ends abruptly at 95. It's all zigzag after that. Besides, we would only find out the nations where atheism (manufactured value system) is being promoted by the state and education systems or their subcultures, and where it isn't.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:30:13 2017 No.9830747

>>9830738
Ah I see, but I honestly still hold the belief that those with a high IQ and believe in their personal omnipotent best friend only do so (mainly in the U.S) because they have had that belief scarred into them by their most likely conservative christian upbringings, and now in adulthood their neural pathways have been indented to follow their childhood preachings and so may be more reluctant to break from their norm.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:32:03 2017 No.9830750

>>9830747
>Ah I see, but I honestly still hold the belief that those with a high IQ and believe in their personal omnipotent best friend
Now if you took theistic claims seriously rather than your own laughable straw god (which you then reject), you could achieve honesty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:36:51 2017 No.9830759 >>9830750 Agreed, apologies, poor choice of vocabulary I can't help my personal bias sometimes, that was a straw argument. I still maintain what I said in the rest of my argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:38:16 2017 No.9830766 >>9830747 You've never heard the fine-tuning argument or bought into clever atheist rhetoric.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:42:33 2017 No.9830779

>>9830766
I have indeed heard of the argument, and because of it I must admit I am a theist because that's the one logical obstacle I can't see around. After all chance is on the side of a conscious engineer designing our universe (Bearing in mind this could be the creator of a simulation that our universe could be or a supernatural god).

I however dislike the ego and bias that Christians assign to this creator, I find it unlikely that he really gives a shit about any of us, we'd be like ants to him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:46:10 2017 No.9830785 >>9830766 Anyway, have to run now but thank you for the conversation, it's been enlightening. I will definitely read up on Soliphsism, seems to be right up my alley.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:49:21 2017 No.9830790 >>9825406 Not /lit Fuck off back to /pol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:50:09 2017 No.9830793 >>9830766 The fine tuning argument has never convinced anyone in the history of humanity to believe in god, it only serves as a defensible ("""""""""") position for those who are already theists and seek to intellectually protect their faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:50:15 2017 No.9830794 >>9830790 This is 100% /lit/ these days

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:50:32 2017 No.9830795 >>9830790 Intellectual dishonesty is very /lit/.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:53:28 2017 No.9830804

>>9826243
This is perhaps one of the worst arguments for the existence of God that I ever came upon, it assumed that preference is indistinguishable from obligation. I also find this line > (1) from something less than me (nature)
particularly offensive to the intellect, how is a person's nature less than them? You have no choice but to abide by your nature.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:53:44 2017 No.9830805

>>9825406
The real and quite intense stupidity of "skeptics" is that they insist on reducing symbols to corresponding empirical objects, which are divested of their significance and thus not so much interpreted as brushed aside. The more radically "skeptics" are even so witless they see nothing peculiar about using systems of signification to relate meaning that they see ambiguity as morally dubious. When the Christians talk of a father and a son, the "skeptics" take hold of these as observable and testable stuff, and go out looking for them and appear crestfallen--or more to the point, quite stupidly happy--that no such things appear.

They sit seated, symbols of the page sounding in their heads, and instead of asking themselves, why, or what--and when they see f a t h e r, they do not see symbols, but in their place the object appears and obscures the truth. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. To fail to see that words are always read, and if not then not words, is to fail to see the point at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:56:17 2017 No.9830809 >>9830804 >You have no choice but to abide by your nature. Why do you believe that? I'm naturally inclined to have gay sex, but I choose to rise above this natural instinct and not engage. I'm not obligated by my instincts.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 08:57:48 2017 No.9830813

>>9830809
Remove obligation spooks from your system; when I say that you have no choice but to abide by your nature I don't mean you have an obligation to nurture your desires, you can be ascetic and self denying all you want, but you will still be human.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:09:11 2017 No.9830838

If you have to declare that the argument your responding is the worst ever then you've already lost because your being emotional. This also indicates your likely experiencing cognitive dissonance, meaning you're literally hallucinating and not understanding the argument correctly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:11:16 2017 No.9830846 >>9830838 That's not what cognitive dissonance means but yeah OP probably got BTFO in some other thread and is crying about it here.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:15:05 2017 No.9830856

>>9830846

I didn't define cognitive dissonance so I don't know how you could say "that's not what it means." I was referring specifically too guys like this >>9830804 because he's responding to an actual argument as opposed to the OP who is just talking shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:18:02 2017 No.9830864 >>9830856 >hating retarded arguments means cognitive dissonance and hallucinations Well memed, also not an argument, so you must be a fellow hallucinator. Some people just philosophize with a hammer ;^)

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:23:24 2017 No.9830879

>>9830864

>hating retarded arguments means cognitive dissonance and hallucinations

That's not what I'm saying in any way. I'm saying that if you read an argument that contradicts some deeply held beliefs and get irrationally angry at it, this could be a trigger for cognitive dissonance which causes people to read things that aren't actually being said, like you are right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:24:22 2017 No.9830882 >>9830879 >calling shit shit is getting angry Are you just meming me or this genuinely what you believe? I think the only one mad here is you.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:25:42 2017 No.9830885

>>9830879
Also, congnitive dissonance is the displeasure caused by simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs, if an other's belief contradicts yours it's not cognitive dissonance nor is it cause for getting angry, that happens all the time unless you live in a hugbux.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:25:47 2017 No.9830887 >>9830882 >calling shit shit is getting angry Again, that's not what I'm saying at all. This is pointless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:27:06 2017 No.9830891 >>9830887 Yeah you don't know what you mean, you just want to express your displeasure of having heard me bash an argument you have an emotional attachment.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:28:49 2017 No.9830899

>>9830885

Yes, if you're reading an argument that causes this, you can begin experiencing cognitive dissonance which causes you to begin hallucinating and reading things that aren't being said. The person experiencing this is incapable to actually responding to your argument. I think this is an example >>9830804

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:31:10 2017 No.9830903

>>9830899
But I actually responded to the meat of the argument in the second sentence, perhaps the provocative first sentence caused you to get angry and experience cognitive dissonance, which caused you to begin hallucinating and fail to read the second sentence, so you're incapable of actually responding to my argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:32:14 2017 No.9830907 >>9830899 You also ignored the part where I point out your definition of cognitive dissonance is incompatible with conventional usage, but I guess that's even more tunnelvision hallucinations on your part.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:34:43 2017 No.9830910

>>9830907

I never said it causes people to get angry. I said it can indicate that you're experiencing it.

>>9830903

I know that you sincerely believe you're to the argument you didn't. You misunderstood the word nature and got offended over it and made the assertion that we're ruled by nature without any reason to support it. This is why I didn't respond to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:35:15 2017 No.9830911 >not being a sub 120 IQ skeptifriend with a healthy worldview LOL, do you even have a girlfriend?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:39:44 2017 No.9830926 File: 808 KB, 596x595, 1489141256801.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Peterson killed nu-atheism, which is why none of the nu-male atheists like Sargon and his band of sceptics never talk about it anymore

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:40:02 2017 No.9830927

>>9830910
>I never said it causes people to get angry.
You did say that you can get cognitive dissonance, which is wrong because cognitive dissonance is usually defined as the frustration once feels from simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs. If you already have belief A and someone informs you he has belief not-A, you will just negate his belief in your mind and it won't cause you any dissonance.

> You misunderstood the word nature
Yet that's not even my main response, it's an aside. Even more indications that you're in tunnelvision mode right now. You didn't respond because you lack the ability to articulate your displeasure, not because of any other way. In fact it doesn't matter if you're cool as ice or mad as fuck, even if you are really mad at me, the most efficient way to express that would be to btfo me with a beautifully written post, you just couldn't do that. Why even post your opinions online if you can't handle anything even remotely resembling adversary? Aren't you the one who posted. >>9829425?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:42:22 2017 No.9830930 >>9830926 Peterson is an atheist in denial. Did you watch the youtube vid where an interviewer asked him if he really believes in God?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:56:54 2017 No.9830951 >>9830930 Isn't he a theist in denial?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 09:57:55 2017 No.9830952 >>9830951 He's right on that line, I think the question causes him to experience duality, you can tell he really doesn't like it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:01:10 2017 No.9830961 >>9830766 God doesn't need to fine tune anything, he can create whatever combination of physical and mental laws and our universe is too much of a shitshow to be the result of deliberation anyway.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:04:30 2017 No.9830970

>>9830961
The greater problem with the fine tuning argument is that the universe precedes life, so rather than it turning itself for life, life tuned itself to that it may exist in the universe. Perhaps in a different possible world with different laws, there is different life capable of existing under those laws.

In the first place, we are already alive, the probability that past events happened is always 1, so it makes no sense to say how improbable it was that life came to be. We would never be having this conversation in a world where life didn't came to be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:14:58 2017 No.9830998 >>9830970 That reasoning process is a bit misleading. If a human is struck by lightning, it doesn't mean the chances of a human being struck by lightning is 100%

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:16:15 2017 No.9831001 >>9830998 Sure does. Prior probabilities are approximations for lack of better knowledge. Laplace's demon and superdeterminism and all that.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:17:41 2017 No.9831004

>>9830970
>In the first place, we are already alive, the probability that past events happened is always 1
Quantum computing indicates the possibility of us being in a simulation. We know of dementia and other memory related diseases and damages, we know of preferences and how it affects us and what we prefer to remember.

The past is not clear. The world is not 3D.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:28:06 2017 No.9831028 >>9830217 This only proves that you weren't ready for a psychedelic experience. It's all about the environment and your intentions for embarking on the journey. If all you're trying to do is trip or "get high" then you're doing it wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:30:39 2017 No.9831038

>>9831001
No dude, even if we knew everything, the odds of a random person being struck by lightning in their lifetime are still 1 in 3,000. It seems like you are arguing for determinism, which wouldn't really matter if we were trying to form a probability for the existence of life out of a group of potential universes with or without life.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 10:34:27 2017 No.9831051
File: 420 KB, 459x559, 1451615535785.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Once again /lit/ delivers another religion versus atheism thread filled to the brim with atrocious shitposting and absolute retards fervently bickering about the bullshit they believe constitutes an argument. On the one hard, there's atheists arrogantly proselytising with a warped, reductive version of the logic they claim to be using, and, on the other, religious nutjobs spouting nonsensical metaphysical sophistry on a scale I rarely seen before on this board.

Congratulations, /lit/, you've outdone yourself again. Keep up the great literature related content!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 11:47:16 2017 No.9831263 >>9825459 >2017 >not believing in miracles

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 11:53:09 2017 No.9831280 >>9825459 >God might torture me if I disobey him https://youtu.be/kMRCjvUXVEo

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 11:57:15 2017 No.9831294

What amazes me is how people can still entertain the narrative of fedoraposting, mocking the supposed narcicism and inflated sense of intelligence of the atheist, all the while posting like this
>>9825406
>>9825419
>>9825440
How can you live with yourself when you're quite literally a mirror image of the people you spend your life mocking on the internet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 12:17:43 2017 No.9831340

>>9831294
>How can you live with yourself when you're quite literally a mirror image of the people you spend your life mocking on the internet.
Do you really believe that this is true? The contemporary and suicidal ideology of militant and arrogant atheism is not comparable to ancient perspectives.

>The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 12:35:37 2017 No.9831384 >>9830809 You must have a terrible life anon. And it's beautiful to see that you're the only one to blame for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 12:52:03 2017 No.9831434 File: 1.28 MB, 684x1766, 1490913103436.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9825844

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 13:04:06 2017 No.9831476 File: 147 KB, 1600x1200, 34534243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9830720 >>9831294 Atheism is a plague that must be removed from society.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 13:06:39 2017 No.9831484 >>9831476 Belief in a creator is one thing. Believing in the Abrahamic god is another entirely

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 13:45:46 2017 No.9831584 >>9831476 >>9831294 Case in point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 14:11:01 2017 No.9831653 >>9830998 Being struck by lightning is not a requirement for having thoughts, being alive is. To say that life doesn't exist is a preformative contradiction, life has to exist if anyone is doing philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 14:15:36 2017 No.9831668 >>9825406 I know right, why can't they see the light of Hinduism smfh at least they aren't christian though, those are the worst

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 14:22:33 2017 No.9831701 >>9830951 his religious affiliation is profound and sophisticated, roughly speaking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 14:55:23 2017 No.9831868 >>9831476 You proved my post right. Americans need to have mandatory philosophy. Not even an atheist.

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 16:49:10 2017 No.9832346

>>9826243
>Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority
>Why am I deciding what is right to by my developed sense of what is right to do?

People say its "good" because you tend to feel discomfort when you do things you know are "bad" but do them anyway because reasons

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 18:36:55 2017 No.9832704 >>9831701 This. "do you believe in God?" is such a loaded question, because it requires mutual understanding of the word God, and not many people would have thought about what that word means for over 40 years like peterson.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 19:07:30 2017 No.9832799 >>9825406 What's wrong with scientism? Sam Harris has managed to have good opinions on many relevant issues nowadays, so I don't see what's so bad about him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 20:09:40 2017 No.9833017 >>9832799 >good opinions The inherent lack of priorities in scientism is its flaw.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 20:34:41 2017 No.9833090 >>9829544 Do you know how to form a coherent sentence or are you one of the biggest idiots on /lit/?

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 20:45:44 2017 No.9833129

>>9832799
Many of its proponents view its answering of "how" as also answering the "why", in other words, they conflate existential questions with prescriptive questions, without acknowledging that prescribing behaviour always denotes personal value judgements that are beyond the capabilities of scientific support.

Science is fine, Scientism, which posits that empirical investigation is the only way of generating valid claims about the world, is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst just another belief system that is blind to its own shortcomings and therefore dangerous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 22:11:37 2017 No.9833391 File: 37 KB, 350x492, summer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9833090

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 22:17:10 2017 No.9833408

>>9832799
>>9833129

This guy gave a good response. I'll add to it that Science and 'Sciencism' cannot promulgate values without dipping into the metaphysical, thus picking and choosing what and how it believes.

Or in other words, "Everything is empirical, except the proof for this statement, and my system of values. But if we ignore that I can clearly point to empirical evidence for what I believe as being correct."

Anonymous Mon Jul 31 23:19:33 2017 No.9833597
File: 42 KB, 409x409, 1497890528365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is there anything more annoying than people who deride religion as nothing more than fantasy, like calling the bible fiction and shit like that?
I'm not even religious, but that shit bugs me to no end.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 31 23:59:57 2017 No.9833729 I wonder if any of the godwarriors itt on their crusade have actually read any philosophy of science. The whole enterprise of Bayesianism is one big proof for verificationism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 00:08:15 2017 No.9833746 >>9833729 >Proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 00:12:13 2017 No.9833751 please respond

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 01:52:23 2017 No.9833988 File: 8 KB, 443x332, images (68).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9833751 To what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 02:16:06 2017 No.9834030 >>9826222 That is not how logic works...

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 02:43:42 2017 No.9834085 >>9833129 it is the only way of generating valid claims about the world, everything else is just faith

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 02:47:17 2017 No.9834089 >>9833408 this is why no one takes philosophy seriously, after two and half millennium is this the best philosophy can offer on why feels deserve the same respect as reals?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 02:49:21 2017 No.9834092 >>9826229 don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics or try to integrate it into your own personal philosophy when you can't even solve the wave equation for the 1D infinite square well.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 03:22:03 2017 No.9834142
File: 23 KB, 392x375, images (66).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9834085
As >>9833408 already pointed out, at the bottom of Scientism is faith as well, anon.
>>9834089
People don't take philosophy seriously because they completely misunderstand and misrepresent it. Same as you just did, nobody was talking about respect, let alone "feels" or "reals."

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 03:39:17 2017 No.9834171

>>9834142
Except Science makes no claims about metaphysics beyond the empirical, by definition all of its truths are limited to empirical reality and the world is in that empirical reality. There is no picking or choosing what and how it believes, it takes everything that into account that can be measured. All you have is that one has to accept some axioms that empirical reality is a things and that all knowledge of value will manifest itself empirically or will relate to what can be observed. If you choose to extend your beliefs beyond this realm which no one can ignore then go ahead, just don't expect me or anyone else to join in on your leap of faith or to take it seriously.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 03:47:56 2017 No.9834189

>>9834171
>Science makes no claims about metaphysics beyond the empirical, by definition all of its truths are limited to empirical reality and the world is in that empirical reality. There is no picking or choosing what and how it believes
Quantum physics and the dozens of competing theories and careers...
What role does the economy play in scientific process? What about our culture?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 03:53:57 2017 No.9834203 >>9825433 fucking kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 04:11:54 2017 No.9834235 >>9833597 You're right. This is bullshit and it makes the person doing it seem like a moron immediately. There are plenty of ways to argue about the problems in organised religion but shouting "sky fairy" at people just makes you look like a child.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 04:13:46 2017 No.9834240

>>9834189
What about quantum physics lies outside the empirical? I fail to see how competing speculative interpretations makes quantum mechanics unempirical, "shut up and calculate" is a thing because the majority QM is about solving wave equations and finding the subsequent eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

The economy and culture determines what research is prioritized and has an effect on the individuals that engage in scientific research, but scientific institutions and processes are geared in a way to discourage these influences and to erase them in the long run.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 04:14:41 2017 No.9834245

>>9834171
>all of its truths are limited to empirical reality and the world is in that empirical reality
>All you have is that one has to accept some axioms that empirical reality is a things and that all knowledge of value will manifest itself empirically or will relate to what can be observed.
This IS a leap of faith, anon. We also, strictly speaking, do not live by this at all. Can you measure free will, anon? No. But you live by it. I couldn't give a fuck if a bunch of fruity fedoras won't "join in" on their shitty twitter accounts, they already live beyond empiricism every fucking day of their miserable lives.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 04:25:29 2017 No.9834262

>>9834245
Can you eat, sleep, shit, piss outside of empirical reality?

>Can you measure free will, anon? No. But you live by it.
Living life does not require an answer to this question.

>couldn't give a fuck if a bunch of fruity fedoras won't "join in" on their shitty twitter accounts
Really? You seem pretty buttblasted.

Anonymous Tue Aug 1 04:40:00 2017 No.9834283

>>9834262
>Can you eat, sleep, shit, piss outside of empirical reality?
What has this got to do with anything?
>Living life does not require an answer to this question.
Sure, but it shows that Scientisms claim to describing all of reality empirically is incorrect, because it does not describe agency despite us living it. Either that or all disciples of Scientism are heretics anytime they place responsibility on themselves or anyone else.
>You seem pretty buttblasted.
You'd LOVE it for me to be buttblasted, hey? The impotent watch of 14 year old keyboard warriors. Insults are fun, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 09:20:54 2017 No.9834779 >>9833597 >like calling the bible fiction and shit like that? So you're saying that what is in the Bible is factual? When did The Flood happened?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 09:25:41 2017 No.9834791 >>9834240 >What about quantum physics lies outside the empirical The explanations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 09:26:52 2017 No.9834793 >>9834791 The cat wasn't there when I posted. I forgot to mention the schrödinger's cat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 1 14:13:52 2017 No.9835844 >>9825406 the problem with atheists is that they're the kids on the playground going all 'omg you believe in santa lmao' like yeah Blake obviously he's not real now shut the fuck up we're having fun believing in santa

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