- This topic has 341 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Convince me that Atheism is true and not just another false religion.
-
I wont because it is.
-
You are beyond saving
-
The implicit narrative that nature and forces of physics govern the universe instead of gods ancient people began worshiping is far more reasonable and evidence woke af than that of any religion.
I’m not an atheist. I’m just saying they’re definitely the most reasonable compared to Christianity and Buddhism and Scientology for example.-
Different ways of saying the same thing
-
>Atheist
>Reasonable
For whatever drugs you are doing: you need to seek professional help. I’ve yet to meet an atheist that wasn’t an insufferable, close minded, sciencism worshiping, Dunning Kruger cunt. And I’ve met allot of them.It’s not a religion. If I don’t watch sports that doesn’t mean my favorite spott is Nullball
-
therfor God real
-
>Non sequitur sophism
Yet another example of midwit cuntery.
-
-
This seems like more of an emotional thing for you than a well thought out criticism of the reasoning,
-
>Implying athiesm is well thought out
Good one lad-
>implying it isn’t
-
-
-
-
Where did the laws of physics come from?
-
god of the gaps
-
-
-
atheism is a religion the same way that "off" is a TV channel
-
It’s also a religion in the way that theism is a religion, in that it’s also too vague to constitute a religion, and it’s literally just a judgment on the question “do god(s) exist”
-
No. Turning the television off means there’s no more signal. Which would be equivalent to a human being dying; there’s no more brain signals being sent. So unless you mean to compare atheism with being braindead, which is quite unkind, you’re wrong.
-
>Bro, religion is just believing stuff
>if you believe in stuff you have a religion
>b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but MY religion is the only right one!
Shit like this is why organized religion is dying in the developed world-
Why would you believe that your religion isn’t the correct one? Like, really?
-
>religion
>correct
My sides.-
>everyone including me is wrong
Okay. Now what?-
Don’t be religious.
-
So you’re going to simultaneously reject the idea that God is real and the idea that God isn’t real? Okay, cool.
-
>God is real
Is there any good reason to accept this claim?>God isn’t real
Is there any good reason to accept this claim?-
Agnosticism is a religion. Is there any more of a reason to assume that we can’t know?
-
>Agnosticism is a religion.
I didn’t ask.>we can’t know
I have yet to see any good reason to accept this claim as well. -
So there’s no good reason to believe that atheism, theism, or agnosticism are true. Is there a good reason to believe that, and if so what is it?
-
>So there’s no good reason to believe that atheism, theism, or agnosticism are true.
In the ways that you seem to define those terms, yes. Do you agree?>Is there a good reason to believe that, and if so what is it?
Yes. The lack of sound argumentation on the behalf of an idea is a great reason to continue not buying it. -
>In the ways that you seem to define those terms, yes. Do you agree?
Obviously not, and I find that simple saying "Everyone’s wrong because I don’t like their arguments" isn’t a compelling reason to dismiss all those ideas wholesale. -
>I find that simple saying "Everyone’s wrong because I don’t like their arguments" isn’t a compelling reason to dismiss all those ideas wholesale.
I said pretty much the same thing three times, and it wasn’t that. If the claims "a god exists", "no gods exist", and "we can’t know if a god exists or not" are presented, do we have any good reason to accept any of those claims? -
>do we have any good reason to accept any of those claims?
Yes. -
>Yes.
I’d love to hear it, I’m always interested. -
Well I don’t believe that there are good reasons to believe that atheism is true, you’d have to ask them. Which is, of course, the entire point of this thread existing. I don’t think that anyone has posted anything compelling though, so far.
Agnosticism I find absurd for different reasons and I find that atheism, while untrue, is a more respectable opinion.
I am a theist and I would use standard arguments like kalaam cosmological to demonstrate the reasonability of a theistic worldview, nothing crazy. However, even though I believe it’s reasonable I don’t claim that I could prove without a shadow of a doubt that I’m correct. I would usually elaborate further but I’m going to sleep so I will have to check the thread in the morning if it’s still up. -
>I am a theist and I would use standard arguments like kalaam cosmological to demonstrate the reasonability of a theistic worldview
My biggest issue with the Kalam (other than whether or not it’s applicable to a god) is premise two. Has that been proven? Is it even investigatable at all? -
>Is it even investigatable at all?
No, not using any physical standard. But what, in your opinion, is a compelling alternative? -
>No, not using any physical standard.
That wasn’t really my question. Can premise two be legitimately investigated?>But what, in your opinion, is a compelling alternative?
Something other than an argument from ignorance could be compelling towards whether or not the universe began to exist. Furthermore, why would you ask me what I think about something that I’m not even convinced is subject to investigation? -
>Can premise two be legitimately investigated?
I would say that Big Bang cosmology is good evidence that the universe began to exist.
But there is also philosophical and practical arguments against the universe never having began. For example, if the universe never began, that means that it has existed forever. But we can measure time, which wouldn’t be possible if the universe eisted forever. You have to give me a model to understand what you are saying; are you saying you believe the universe may have been uncreated? -
>I would say that Big Bang cosmology is good evidence that the universe began to exist.
What does Big Bang cosmology say about the origins of the singularity?>we can measure time, which wouldn’t be possible if the universe eisted forever.
Why do you say this? I don’t see those ideas connect.>You have to give me a model to understand what you are saying
What is it that you think I actually am saying?>are you saying you believe the universe may have been uncreated?
I don’t currently accept that claim. I imagine you don’t either. -
>What does Big Bang cosmology say about the origins of the singularity?
Nothing.
>Why do you say this? I don’t see those ideas connect.
If time never began to exist, it doesn’t exist. I mean, if you never began to exist, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Imagine time the same way.
>What is it that you think I actually am saying?
I’m unsure which is why I ask for clarification.
>I don’t currently accept that claim. I imagine you don’t either.
Correct -
>Nothing.
Then how can you call it good evidence that the universe began to exist?>If time never began to exist, it doesn’t exist.
Is the statement “nothing can possibly exist which did not begin to exist” accurate, do you think?>I’m unsure which is why I ask for clarification.
I guess the most I’ve really said is that there’s no reason to accept the second premise of the Kalam. -
>Then how can you call it good evidence that the universe began to exist?
I’m saying it’s the other way around. The fact that the Big Bang – or rather the fact that there is a Beginning, suggests a Beginner.
>“nothing can possibly exist which did not begin to exist”
As a theist, no. In the physical universe, yes, but this doesn’t apply to God for obvious reasons. -
>The fact that the Big Bang – or rather the fact that there is a Beginning
If Big Bang cosmology says nothing about the origin of the singularity, how can it say anything about a beginning?>As a theist, no. In the physical universe, yes
How do you think we could go about proving this?>but this doesn’t apply to God for obvious reasons.
How did you come to conclusions about god’s attributes? -
The origin meaning what caused it to happen in the first place. Atheists would say physics, theists would say God did it. The theory itself has nothing to say about either possibility.
>How do you think we could go about proving this?
How could we prove that things that don’t begin to exist don’t exist? Is that what you are asking me?
>How did you come to conclusions about god’s attributes?
In this case it would be physical observation. I see a creation, but no Creator. This must mean that whatever created the universe is not detectable within the creation, only sensed through his "fingerprints" within it.
Now the Bible does make the assertion that this is exactly how God is, there is a verse in Hebrews saying that "That which created what is detectable and measurable is neither detectable or measurable". I don’t remember the verse from the top of my head but I can find it for you if you like. -
The big bang isn’t the origin of the universe you moron
-
>I would say that Big Bang cosmology is good evidence that the universe began to exist.
I would say you have no idea what the Big Bang is, but it’s no wonder as you’re regurgitating the same apologetics bollocks over and over again -
>time can be measured
>time doesn’t exist
Which one is it anon? -
And you’re dodging now lel. None of those address what the Big Bang model is for.
-
Dodging what? You didn’t ask me a question.
-
Dodging that your "argument" relies on misunderstanding what the Big Bang theory is about.
-
Do you have an actual argument to present?
-
-
The fallback of sophists
>Be atheist
>Totally ignore Epistemology
>Totally ignore the Axiomatic foundation of science
>Pretend the measurement problem doesn’t exist
>Pretend the human brain isn’t a quantum system
>Unironacally use dictionary definitions and analogy to support your beliefs
>Totally deniy that your ideology is predicated on believing your own rationalizations
> Spend hours on Reddlt group thinking and echo chambering your talking points
>Come to LULZ and repeatedly get btfo
>Use sophistry to deny getting btfod
Looooololol. -
never went on reddit once, been exclusively on LULZ since 2011
I could literally btfo any one of your idiotic and pedantic talking points. Your metaphysical bullshit doesn’t play, there is absolutely no evidence for it; and there is absolutely no evidence for one religion vs another. So you could argue that this universe does have a creator, is a sub universe, simulation, etc, but it wouldn’t fundamentally matter because whatever created it doesn’t care about humanity or you, nor has it created laws or rules (ala religion).
-
>Created rules eg. Science
Checkmate midwit. -
Silly pidgeon-man, you’re not playing chess…
-
So you are now arguing science is your religion halfwit? Otherwise science is just the practice of discovering how the universe works and making practical applications out of it through understanding its mechanics.
According to your semantics, science can’t be held as infallible (not that it is) they are simply discovered realities.
-
That guy is a schizophrenic who’s been repeatedly banned by being a scrotebrain, and now is trying to troll you. Don’t try to understand him.
-
>Repeatedly banned
Yes you chud mods can’t stand being intellectually trounced. -
Kek you’re so predictable, I just took a blind guess. You’re probably the idiot who spams the American McGee pictures in random threads, aren’t you. Best case scenario you’re the esotericawakening schizo.
-
Any luck finding those square circles?
-
Yes actually. I’m actually quite famous for it among actually intelligent people.
Sad that you don’t even comprehend what euclidean space is. -
>Sad that you don’t even comprehend what euclidean space is.
A thing invented by humans? -
https://i.imgur.com/vqK2zLU.gif
>Science is my religion
Naw M8, science is the dogma and holy texts of Athiesm.
Science is a useful tool I wield–fully aware of it’s abilities and short comings.
Atheists are like vegans, the live to tell everyone how much better they are than everyone else while pretending to be healthy. -
>Naw M8, science is the dogma and holy texts of Athiesm.
Could you define "holy" as it’s used in this sentence? -
The pic you got from a random university supports your post because… ?
-
Incoherent babbling
>Be atheist
>Cherry pick logical arguments
>Use analogy and even parables unironacally
What do we believe in: Nothing!
How do we support that: Logic!
What is logic: whatever we seem it to be!
Le athiesm -
You have no logic
>I could literally btfo any one of your idiotic and pedantic talking points. Your metaphysical bullshit doesn’t play, there is absolutely no evidence for it; and there is absolutely no evidence for one religion vs another. So you could argue that this universe does have a creator, is a sub universe, simulation, etc, but it wouldn’t fundamentally matter because whatever created it doesn’t care about humanity or you, nor has it created laws or rules (ala religion).
you have no answer for this
-
Is it embarrassing to you?
-
Sorry sis, your façade is gone. You’re a troll at best, a mentally ill individual at worst. Bt the way, stop ban evading, or in fact, keep getting triggered so you can get a perma soon.
-
So the analogy of being healthy here would be, being reasonable?
I think it’s pretty reasonable to not hold truth claims, for literally no good reason. -
yes but you didn’t respond to my argument, so i’m right
-
>You didn’t define that one word
Mmk>I could literally btfo any one of your idiotic and pedantic talking points. Your metaphysical bullshit doesn’t play, there is absolutely no evidence for it; and there is absolutely no evidence for one religion vs another. So you could argue that this universe does have a creator, is a sub universe, simulation, etc, but it wouldn’t fundamentally matter because whatever created it doesn’t care about humanity or you, nor has it created laws or rules (ala religion).
you have no answer for this
>I believe whatever created it doesn’t care
Nice belief system you got there
>Nor has it created laws or rules
I guess quantum mechanics and scaler gravity is magic then -
>Nice belief system you got there
No I said that either nothing created it, or something created it. However, you have no evidence or proof of anything more than that, none of the metaphysical. -
>It was either something or nothing and you can’t prove it either way.
So dealing with the unknowable is predicated on nothing but belief.
I agree. That’s a solid argument you have there. -
So then what is your argument? It is or it isn’t, but it’s not a dichotomy because there are other options. This could be the reflection of some bump on an 8d hologram, or some bizarre or incomprensible truth only knowable to some kind of being vastly superior or just beyond humans.
So even if there is a god, you can’t prove any assertions about him, you cannot prove religion.
-
>You can’t prove god
Ok
>Conversely can’t prove no god
OkAnd? You used a lot of words to out yourself as a sophist.
-
What is your actual objection?
-
My objection is with religion, not with theism
-
Your objection is against coherent logic.
-
Is that a slogan
Or you got some actual watertight arguments? -
Define religion
Define theism
I need a good laugh -
Theism: A belief that a god or creator figure made reality
Religion: A system or set of beliefs that can include a god, gods or etc. They typically include moral and philosophical assertions and systems.
-
So atheism is a religion.
Excillent work lad. -
Theism isn’t a religion and no one calls it one. Atheism isn’t a religion either.
-
Cool story. Keep telling yourself that.
-
I’m neither. I’m simply pointing at you and how stupid this angle is, and also wondering what you think you even accomplish if you get atheists to say atheism is a religion.
-
>They typically include moral and philosophical assertions and systems.
Atheism doesn’t
If you wanted to make a cogent argument you could say that these reddit types with the infallible belief in MUH SCIENCE GOOD emulate religion in some ways, but it is not organized at all, in the ways a religion would require it to be
-
>Math isn’t a philosophy
>Science isn’t a philosophy
>What does "typically" mean
I see the problem: you’re an insufferable hypocrite. -
Math is a religion?
-
>Atheism has nothing to do with math or science
Oh, ok, that makes it existentialism founded on belief–"typical"
All you need for religion is belief. -
Words have meaning, scrotebrain.
If you want to speak gibberish, go ahead. I can’t stop you.
scrotebrain. -
>Reads at an 8th grade level
>Words bro!>Science isn’t a philosophy
Some ‘science’, like psychology is inherently philosophical due to its very nature. Others are less philosophical, but overall its not a philosophy but a collection of practices and disciplines. We know chemistry is real because when you mix X chemical with Y chemical you get Z reaction.I probably should have said ‘generally’ instead of ‘typically’
How am I a hypocrite?
What is the Atheist morality?
Could an Atheist be anti vaccine? Will the atheist pope excommunicate him?>Claims axiomatic Logic isn’t philosophy
And that is how I know you don’t know shit about math or science.Loool.
-
no my degree is in history, but as far as i can tell you’re just talking semantics
-
>All you need for religion is belief.
Wrong. But also, how is lacking a belief, a belief? :~) -
>But also, how is lacking a belief, a belief? :~)
It’s not but that is also a non sequitur. -
>Math isn’t a philosophy
No, it’s immutable logic. In math exists inmutable proof and certainties. Philosophy is a human view on a human subject and therefore inherently subjective.>Science isn’t a philosophy
Some ‘science’, like psychology is inherently philosophical due to its very nature. Others are less philosophical, but overall its not a philosophy but a collection of practices and disciplines. We know chemistry is real because when you mix X chemical with Y chemical you get Z reaction.I probably should have said ‘generally’ instead of ‘typically’
How am I a hypocrite?
What is the Atheist morality?
Could an Atheist be anti vaccine? Will the atheist pope excommunicate him? -
>but it is not organized at all, in the ways a religion would require it to be
>he’s never heard of paganism -
Paganism had priests, codes of conduct and again morality.
> I’m particularly concerned about having to account for.
But see this is a problem, if you were intellectually honest you would realize that you don’t have a problem with atheism or the lack of religion on intellectual grounds, you just fear the inevitable result of realizing that fundamentally good and evil are nothing but human constructs. -
Yes but many forms of paganism either don’t have those things or explicitly reject them. Many pagan religions are decentralized, which is why people generally use don’t use the term "orgnanized religion" to refer to paganism.
>if you were intellectually honest you would realize that you don’t have a problem with atheism or the lack of religion on intellectual grounds, you just fear the inevitable result of realizing that fundamentally good and evil are nothing but human constructs
The problem is that they aren’t "human constructs" and I don’t think that atheism holds water intellectually either. It’s epistemologically absurd, which is why I consider to be atheism to be an un-intellectual form of religion. -
>The problem is that they aren’t "human constructs"
Proofs? -
>Many pagan religions are decentralized
Of mostly just savages that are irrelevant and still have authority figures. There is no form of paganism that doesn’t have or explicitly rejects morality, that makes no sense.Greek and Roman paganism was organized, as is Shintoism.
> It’s epistemologically absurd
How?>they aren’t "human constructs"
They absolutely are, morality is relative -
>The problem is that they aren’t "human constructs"
You’re right, they’re scrotebrain constructs. Humans are above using those words. -
You tell me
-
How?
>You can’t prove god
Ok
>Conversely can’t prove no god
OkAnd? You used a lot of words to out yourself as a sophist.
In what way is that sophistry? What even is this "sophistry"
-
>What is sophistry
This is sophistry:It’s a disingenuous method of argument founded on a methodology of rhetoric focused on steering narratives woke af on, essentially, false logic, ignoring portions of arguments and projection.
Literally every Atheist you ever need uses it in liu of actual logic.
-
Says the guy that is too pussy to make any arguments, where’s the "coherent logic" we’re supposed to object to?
-
Then you’re the sophist
here
[…]
>Reeeee believing in no god isn’t a religion because we say so reee>the lack of something is the same as the existence of something
did you write 2+2=5 in school?It’s semantics, but his obsessive arguing that it is a religion is woke af on nonsensical schizo logic that is fun to argue with
-
Stay mad midwit.
>Understanding math and science beyond the highschool level is bullshit
Yes yes. Quantum Mechanics isn’t exoteric. -
nice seethe halfwit
-
No, THIS is the fallback of theists using sophistry to cling to believes they have no reason to think is true.
-
It’s unironically because they’ve never taken a moment to seriously think about and reflect on their own religious beliefs, so they have no legitimate argument for them.
-
except he has no argument for
>I could literally btfo any one of your idiotic and pedantic talking points. Your metaphysical bullshit doesn’t play, there is absolutely no evidence for it; and there is absolutely no evidence for one religion vs another. So you could argue that this universe does have a creator, is a sub universe, simulation, etc, but it wouldn’t fundamentally matter because whatever created it doesn’t care about humanity or you, nor has it created laws or rules (ala religion).
you have no answer for this
-
Do you want to seriously engage you? Because I will if you drop the cursing and ad hom. I’m not the anon you were replying to though.
-
>Do you want to seriously engage you?
Absolutely, I’m a reasonable guy. I only started throwing shit because the other guy was, there is no reason we can’t have a cordial debate. -
Okay I’ll just take the post you gave him but give me a moment
-
Yeah catscrote, that’s it. Agree with the schizo troll. Good job.
-
What, I can’t agree with people now? DAMN! I can’t do anything to please you guys.
-
>What is the big bang theory used to describe
>Reee you didn’t ask me a question
Behold the powers of atheist logic -
The Holy Spirit may reveal itself if you read and finish Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. I believe because of Hegel.
-
>The Holy Spirit may reveal itself if
How do you know this? -
In particular, He revealed Himself to me. Furthermore, the book is titled "The Phenomenology of Spirit", which if you take the Greek means the ‘study of the appearance of Spirit’. Additionally, Hegel is titled "The Protestant Aquinas." Empiricism is necessary, but not sufficient for absolute knowledge unless in conjunction with rationalism.
-
>personal revelation
I too received Holy Revelation from His Figure, saying that you’re a false prophet and must be stoned according to the Law. -
>In particular, He revealed Himself to me.
This is what I’m asking. How do you know whether that was revealed, as opposed to merely that you think it was revealed when it was not?>Furthermore, the book is titled "The Phenomenology of Spirit", which if you take the Greek means the ‘study of the appearance of Spirit’.
Understood, thank you for the recommendation. -
How did you figure this first cause has a mind?
How did you figure it was the God of the Bible™ ? -
The first cause has a mind because the universe has the appearance of design. It is unlikely the appearance of design was generated by something that is unthinking and random, and obviously you need a mind to decide to create something.
As for why Christianity, that would honestly require an entire other thread to explain in detail and I want to just stay on topic. -
>the universe has the appearance of design
The universe is only a 4.13 on the designometer scale. -
Then you don’t really need the Kalaam. If it’s a teleological argument/fine-tuning argument that get you at God, rather than unknown natural process.
Fine-tuning arguments don’t really work, unless you got an independent reason to believe why the God would create an orderly life-giving universe.
It unironically falls to: Who fine-tuned the fine-tuner. No joke.
Why is God the way he is? I find it incredibly unlikely, did someone fine-tune Him?When trying to account for why everything in nature is the way it is. Bottoming out in: God’s nature necessarily being that way it is. It’s a worse explanation that nature necessarily being the way it is.
They are both arbitrary. The naturalistic explanation needs no new ontologies, entirely new unknown categories of stuff (God). Just stuff of a kind we already know exist (nature). -
>It unironically falls to: Who fine-tuned the fine-tuner. No joke.
Let’s assume that someone fine-tuned the fine-tuner. Who fine-tuned the fine-tuner who fine-tuned the fine-tuner? Infinite regress is a logical problem that "first cause" argumentation avoids. -
All the issues with infinite regress can equally be dealt with by assigning whatever property God has (the properties that avoids infinite regress problems), to nature.
Could range from naturalistic pantheism, in which by I mean, basically theism minus the mind/intentionality part.
Quantum fluctuations science-babble I don’t understand at all, -> unknown natural process.Or just not acknowledge potential infinities as a logical problem, saying nature has existed in some state forever, eternal nature.
Obviously time has not existed forever, that would be an actual infinity(I think?).
But if you say time is an emergent property of space, and whatever state the universe was in prior to the big bang was without that, timeless. There is no actual infinite regress with that kind of state, without time.
This last thing I’m trying to describe, is the current model used by cosmologists. -
>All the issues with infinite regress can equally be dealt with by assigning whatever property God has (the properties that avoids infinite regress problems), to nature.
That’s not possible because God by definition is not contradictory, unlike what you are proposing.
>Quantum fluctuations science-babble I don’t understand at all, -> unknown natural process.
It is a complicated cope used by atheistic physicalist types, but the fact that the argument exists at all is a good indication to me that pure naturalistic worldviews are growing weaker by the year.
>Or just not acknowledge potential infinities as a logical problem, saying nature has existed in some state forever, eternal nature.
I’m not a fan of this because it would imply that nature existed "before" time itself.
>But if you say time is an emergent property of space, and whatever state the universe was in prior to the big bang was without that, timeless.
Well for all intents and purposes there was nothing prior the expansion. Technically there was, and some people use that extremely brief period of time to make complicated metaphysical speculations about the behavior of quantum mechanics. But physically speaking, it is impossible to verify such claims. So yes, time did exist at that point, but some people speculate that time may have behaved differently at that point. -
>God by definition is not contradictory
Word solve it?
If you can just define God that way. I see no reason I can’t do the same with a naturalistic explanation.
"unknown natural process" which means I don’t know anything about it, besides it being natural, why is this impossible?>I’m not a fan of this because it would imply that nature existed "before" time itself.
It’s not a particularly hot take, I think. It is what virtually all physicists dealing with early-universe stuff believes to be the best model.
That there never was nothing, is what the vast majority of scientific theories assert.>some people speculate
The physicist that works with this stuff? Not saying that anyone can know this kind of stuff with confidence.
But.. It’s not like they believe that for no reason. I’m pretty sure they’ve done a lot of work to arrive at that.
You’re the one that is baseless to just brush it off. -
>If you can just define God that way. I see no reason I can’t do the same with a naturalistic explanation.
You can and this is what people like Hawking do. It’s not impossible, but I don’t find it to be a compelling model. For one, pure naturalistic explanations don’t factor for something like the existence of good and evil. In such a model, the Holocaust would merely be considered another physical event determined by physics. Obviously that does not jive with me.
>The physicist that works with this stuff?
Yeah, Krauss is a big proponent of it but there are plenty others who subscribe to similar ideas.
>I’m pretty sure they’ve done a lot of work to arrive at that.
Like I said it’s impossible to verify. There aren’t particle accelerators that could concievably be built that would allow them to conduct the research. It’s metaphysics, no different than just saying that "God did it", you are just replacing an unobservable "God" with unobservable quantum mechanics. -
>compelling model
The idea wasn’t to invent a compelling model. I’m have to settle for saying "we don’t know".
The point was to show how theism doesn’t explain these things, when you can just mirror all their claims, where "a God did it", and say "nature did it", it’s the has the same explanatory power, and a better ontology.Your tangent about good and evil is weird. I think you’ll find plenty of materialists that accepts the existence of morality.
And again, inventing an explanation for things, is not the same as explaining them.
If you presuppose the existence of good and evil, using your mind experience as evidence, then assert that this cannot be accounted for through physical means (why?). It follows that you also presuppose the existence of the supernatural (? something beyond the material) and have already ruled out a naturalistic explanation of reality, seems pretty fruitless to entertain the possibility at that point.>impossible to verify
Well, science deals with theories, not certain truths. How is that a relevant objection?
But I disagree with there being no conceivable way research this stuff. Early universe (pre-universe?) on a materialism model would still be, material, meaning that we could interact with it, measure it, in some sort of way.
Obviously people are not going back in time, so it’s indirect. People can’t see the Big Bang, but they can infer it through cosmic background radiation, does that make it not science? If so, you’re the one with a weird definition.
Point is, nobody know if this is impossible or not. Could be. Could also be possible.
>It’s metaphysics
You literally don’t know that. Nobody does. If materialism was true, it certainly wouldn’t be the case.
You just asserting it to be metaphysics, is not proof of it in fact being so.>you are just replacing an unobservable "God" with unobservable quantum mechanics.
It’s not the same as saying "God did it", if one has reasons to think why it’s so -
>and a better ontology.
I strongly disagree here but other than that I think that’s mostly fair.
> I think you’ll find plenty of materialists that accepts the existence of morality.
So what? If they have no evidence or rationality for their position it does not actually matter t me.
>Well, science deals with theories,
Science deals with the physical universe. Anything that can not be experimented on is metaphysical, therefore not subject to scientific study.
>Early universe (pre-universe?) on a materialism model would still be, material, meaning that we could interact with it, measure it, in some sort of way.
It’s impossible to build particle accelerators large enough to do it. It’s not going to happen. -
By better ontology. I simply mean in sense of not requiring to invent an entirely new category of stuff (immaterial stuff).
If one grants we already know the physical exists. And you can account for the same things as theism. It’s better, by way of needing less new unknown stuff to explain the same things.
That’s the whole idea for preferring "unknown physical process" to "a God did it".
Obviously a way to dismantle this, is to hammer down on something you think it’s logically impossible for the physical to explain. (Though I’m not currently cop know of no such thing)>morality
Exist conceptually inside human minds? Exists as an real/objective thing through an "unknown physical process".
Both of these seem possible to me. And that was the whole point, for them to be possible. Not to invent an imaginary explanation.>It’s impossible to build particle accelerators large enough to do it. It’s not going to happen.
This is just baseless. Also there are other possible ways to obtain knowledge.
You don’t know what can be studied or not studied. -
>By better ontology. I simply mean in sense of not requiring to invent an entirely new category of stuff (immaterial stuff).
But metaphysics is not limited to monotheism and there is other immaterial things people believe in that have nothing to do with this. The category wasn’t invented by us and goes back further to the pagans, but this seems like a digression.
>If one grants we already know the physical exists. And you can account for the same things as theism
I think it has less explainative power overall which is why I find it to be a weaker model.
>Obviously a way to dismantle this, is to hammer down on something you think it’s logically impossible for the physical to explain.
Impossible, no. Highly unlikely, yes. Abiogensis would be a fantastic example of this.
>Exist conceptually inside human minds? Exists as an real/objective thing through an "unknown physical process".
Seems like a godlessness of the gaps argument to me. Sure it could be possible, but metaphysics holds more water as it accounts for non-physical phenemenea like morality and explains their origin. -
Yeah. By "new" and "invented", I don’t mean in the historical sense.
But in the sense of, so far, not yet being demonstrated to exist independent of human imagination. Not having an empiric basis.>godlessness of the gaps
I like this phrase, I’m going to start using it.But I am thinking more along the lines of: I don’t have a reason to believe in moral realism, that morality exists outside human minds.
It’s not a thing I’m particularly concerned about having to account for.
When it being a conceptual thing is perfectly coherent with my worldview.I myself, confidently believe morals exist, woke af on my own experiences. That’s not something I can test with a science experiment.
Them existing in a material mind, or something entirely different, doesn’t change the nature of my experience. They still exist in some way for me to experience them.Same thing with free will. If determinism is true (not arguing that it is), so would also compatibilism be. As I definitively feel like I can make choices.
-
>Not having an empiric basis.
Empirical just means woke af on experience. If I say that something is going to happen because I had a dream about it, that would be empircal because I experienced it. Do you mean scientific?
>But I am thinking more along the lines of: I don’t have a reason to believe in moral realism, that morality exists outside human minds.
It’s not a thing I’m particularly concerned about having to account for.
That’s fine. Different things compel different people. In my opinion, the moral argument is the strongest argument against atheism, but other people might be compelled by some other thing. -
>Empirical basis
Doesn’t have to be scientific, would accept any method that can successfully differentiate imagination from reality.
Anything that works.
Stuff we already know exists, (through empiricism, my favorite method for obtaining knowledge about the world outside my own mind) is much easier for me to accept as parts for a reasonable explanation.
Than stuff we’ve never experienced existing in reality.A dream would be imaginary, unless you could demonstrate them later coming true, being predictive of reality, anything like that.
-
-
Agnosticism is a religion. Is there any more of a reason to assume that we can’t know?
Agnosticism is not the simultaneous rejection of god being real or not, it’s the uncertainty with his existence that makes the individual require convincing one way or the other.
Not being sure the stove is hot doesn’t mean you reject both it being hot and it being cold, it means you need something to touch it to make sure.-
Agnosticism is simply the idea that it is impossible to know whether or not any god exists. That’s it. I wouldn’t compare it to a stove being hot because heat is a physical property, but we can’t "touch" a god to see if it really exists or not.
-
>but we can’t "touch" a god
That’s not what the Mormons say about Mary -
It’s not that it’s "impossible to know" it’s impossible with our current knowledge
-
It would depend on the God in question wouldn’t it.
If I claimed my particular Zeus lived on a specific mountain in Greece, and was very much physical.
We go to the mountain and check if he’s there or not. I’m sure that would qualify as knowledge to anyone, but the most radical skepticic. (which will acknowledge no knowledge in the fist place.)Also works the other way around.
One can always shift the God claim one step back, make it more unfalsifiable. God is hidden, etc.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah, I mean it’s totally convenient that out of the myriad religions out there in the world, you just happened to be born in the correct one and everyone else is a filthy sinner unable to see the light.
-
>you just happened to be born in the correct one and everyone else is a filthy sinner unable to see the light.
Why do you assume that I was born in the correct religion?
-
-
I mean unironically this. Why would you belong to a faith you think is false?
-
-
-
sorry, i cant hear you with jesus’ throbbing cock in your mouth
-
>Which would be equivalent to a human being dying
It’s really not tho, it would be the equivalent to not thinking about something. You’re probably an agelurist, (someone who lacks a belives in the existence of gelurs) yet you’re not dead, are you?-
Such a person isn’t just "lacking a belief". He’s making a positive assertion in his intelect that "gelur’s don’t exist". Some atheists of the Ricky Gervais variety deny that they’re making the positive assertion that "God doesn’t exist".
-
atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
>lacks belief
please understand the definitions
-
-
-
-
This is a naive view of atheism, especially in how it can manifest in mass movements. For example, many American atheists today practice essentially a form of Protestantism in which they believe in all of Christ’s teachings other than his divinity, only because they grew up in a society that is Christian and were taught his basic teachings in how to treat each other. They believe that how a modern, wealthy, Christian nation manifests ideals of equality, human rights, fairness, the golden rule, etc. are somehow innate human behaviors. Furthermore, without thinking about why, many first world atheists say humans "ought" to practice these behaviors because it’s logical and "humanist" or some shit like that.
What I’m trying to say is many atheists find flaws in religion but then naively assume they are immune to religious-style thinking, but will still believe in an ought system of ideals without really questioning why. They will get caught up in capitalism, democracy, communism, environmentalism, humanism, feminism, militant-atheism, etc. and fervently believe in these systems of belief to a religious, unquestioning level because religious thinking is instinctual.
Without deliberate practice and life-long reflection an atheist is just as susceptible to being a crackpot like your evangelist.-
>many American atheists today practice essentially a form of Protestantism in which they believe in all of Christ’s teachings other than his divinity
Ephesians 6:5 -
You have just described Unitarianism.
-
I find many atheists online and in-person to be Unitarians, I guess.
-
Who is the stand in for guts?
-
I assume Bob
-
-
-
-
Yes, I agree. An atheist better remember that.
I was originally replying to this postatheism is a religion the same way that "off" is a TV channel
Which presupposes that atheists are immune to religious beliefs, a cultural and traditional phenomenon.
It’s like something you’d hear on r/atheism over a decade ago. Kids believing their mind and lived experience is an island of logic that is isolated from all forms of cultural transmission. Believing that atheism proves democracy is the best form of governance, that we should treat others the way we want to be treated man, that humans are all equal, and if everyone was an atheist we’d all hold hands in a ring around the world singing kumbaya while rockets colonized the cosmos.
This is an exaggerated picture yes but I wish atheists would reflect more on their belief systems and realize their not an infallible science man.If there is no God and our being alive is all happenstance what logical extremes can you take that to? It doesn’t end with humanism or any other milquetoast, scrotegy belief I’ll tell you that
-
-
-
Christian revisionist BS, bible literally supports slavery.
All the positive traits you listed were in Confuscianism centuries before.-
Why would an atheist be morally opposed to slavery? Why have any moral system? Slavery can cause distress in the human organism sure, but what if its only in benefit to you, your family, and your friends?
I don’t give a shit about where some belief system initially started, I don’t give a shit if Christianities "positive" beliefs are all revisionism, the point I was originally making is that atheists are not immune to absorbing cultural beliefs, including religious ones.
Even if it did start somewhere else and it doesn’t belong to Christians somehow why even believe in those positive traits? Run with the freedom atheism grants you, everything is on the table.-
>Why would an atheist be morally opposed to slavery?
He wouldn’t necessarily be. But if he was, it could be for thousands of different reasons.-
I don’t disagree he could have a myriad of reasons. Is there any validity to those reasons?
Okay. That certainly is down to the individual but it is not a universal belief or principle. I’m not saying you’re saying that it’s just a point to remember. I might ask them to ponder what being a dick means and why they are beholden to not being a dick, and if that means other should not be a dick.
Moral relativism necessitates temporary morals that can be changed on whim and circumstance. Beyond personal, even agreed preference, morals do not exist beyond fabricated human conceptions. You are not beholden to another’s conception of morality or even your own temporary conception. An economy in the future might objectively benefit from slavery. I might be wealthy enough to have slaves as something frivolous but otherwise worth my while.
-
>An economy in the future might objectively benefit from slavery.
it sure might, and it might even drastically stretch our definitions of slavery. but right now it doesn’t.-
Yes. Of course. Neither of us disagree with that.
In hindsight I need to avoid asking questions, to find another way to prompt self-reflection. This has gone too far off the mark as the point wasn’t about slavery but positing universal values in a valueless world. Let’s rewind to the beginning.
This posterbrought up slavery as if there should be universal outrage at the mere suggestion of it. I don’t see how a morally relativist atheist can have righteous indignation when there is no right or wrong. I’m not talking about what’s temporally culturally shared as right or wrong, I’m not taking about "objective" (practical) economics, I’m talking about how atheists need to explore the true ramifications of a Godless universe and think about their place in an existence where their moral outrage is meaningless.
Nietzsche: cool atheist, if he truly was one. Atheist humanist: meek scrote who doesn’t realize they’ve adopted all of their culture’s social morays and claimed them as their own logical (God forbid "scientific") conclusion.-
well, you need to understand what moral relativism means in full: no moral system is objectively right, but that also means that none are objectively wrong. humanism is no more incorrect than any other systems of morality, and righteous indignation is an emotional response to perceived immorality. its plenty permissible for an atheist humanist to be indignant to other moral systems, even if its not logical, because the human mind is not fully logical.
but i agree; exploring the ramifications of a godless universe is incredibly important, and it places an extra burden of importance on the systems of thought we use to step outside of emotional responses in order to explore ideas.-
I agree with everything but how it’s permissable for a humanist atheist to be righteously indignant 🙂 but I’m also not a moral relativist
-
-
Only brought up slavery as a clear contradiction of the supposedly christian values in the post I was replying to. The rest is all you.
-
No one in the West is talking about or supporting slavery any more. No one in any main stream. No one in the Western world knows what Confucianism is or was ever taught it’s values outside a small minority. The Western world you are immersed in is a value structure composed of Christian virtues (especially New Testament), even if it’s bastardized and not all of the virtues are practiced.
I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. All I was saying is an atheist who thinks he’s immune to erroneous or religious-type thought is naive. For example, they might fervently believe the Christian values they were taught and immersed in are not a modern culture’s interpretation of Christian values and bring up something completely irrelevant like slavery or Confucianism. -
Still trying to push that bullshit? And you want to deny history because "no one" knows about it?
Christian values are flippant and follow societal values to ensure the church continues to survive.
-
-
-
-
>Moral relativism necessitates temporary morals that can be changed on whim and circumstance
I believe in moral relativism, or whatever is the opposite of moral realism.
That morals is just something humans invented. But that doesn’t believe I think they were invented a random, for no reasons at all.
And certainly not changeable on whim, when you have to change everyone else’s mind as well, cultures being a thing, that stuff is an ordeal, and takes time.Roughly, very roughly, humans do tend to agree on some moral behavior, across all time and culture, and I believe the reason for that is the human brain.
People have similar brains -> people have similar morals. You get my drift.The human brain, being kinda objective. Morals arising from that brain, Still, it’s not like people can’t go against their more naturally ingrained sensibilities if given sufficient training.
Objective-subjective morality?-
When I say whim I mean throughout a larger cultural timespan. One cultures values can be another cultures sins, especially across time. It sounds like you are, but be very careful in what you assume to be shared morals across most if not all of the human timespan.
The brain can register and create complex, logical systems, but the human organism is not an objective creature, creating logic systems does not make the brain a purely objective organ, and the human experience altogether is not objective.
An atheist does not need to be beholden to a a generally shared brain morality. That’s a huge benefit to atheism in my book, they are not beholden to any system of belief or moral virtue. There is so much freedom in that, especially when you dig down and realize many of your own self-constructed limitations.
-
-
-
-
>Why would an atheist be morally opposed to slavery?
How about not being a dick because you don’t feel like being a dick? -
>Why would an atheist be morally opposed to slavery?
since atheism necessitates moral relativism, there are a thousand reasons an atheist could be morally opposed to slavery
of course, if you demand an objective reason, its that slavery is not conducive to an industrial or postindustrial economy which are built off of mass capital from the consumer class-
>since atheism necessitates moral relativism
It doesn’t-
it does. all arguments for objective morality with atheism are tenuous at best and complete logical gymnastics at worst. but go ahead and take your shot, i doubt you can go better than harris.
-
I can believe morality exist as an objective thing, like an undiscovered law of nature
I can believe there is no GodThere is no logical contradiction here
-
>believe
you found your logical contradiction, good job-
Is that not how you define Atheism, as the belief that there is no God?
I’m sure I can phrase it another way if you insist on some scrotebrained definition. -
I’m a different poster I would genuinely ask for you to rephrase that or extrapolate more.
-
>Is that not how you define Atheism, as the belief that there is no God?
atheism is not believing in a god. it is disbelief, not belief.it literally is. logic doesn’t require belief; if you’ve ever studied logic, you would understand that the system can be written in mathematical notation.
-
Logic does require belief
-
it does not. you can use logic with a belief (axiom), and you can use logic poorly in tandem with belief (leaps of logic), but it does not require belief and any logic done with an axiom cannot be done independently of that axiom
1. I don’t have a belief in God
2. I believe in moral realism (any kind)WHERE IS THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO STATMENTS???
you are so freaking scrotebrained>WHERE IS THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO STATMENTS???
belief. there is no evidence that morality is real, and that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without it; your belief is by definition illogical and thus contradictory to logic. -
Okay.
It’s literally not a logical contradiction.Yu don’t know anything about logic. Go back to school or something.
I think we are done here. -
understandable; considering you’re an utterly irrational person, i would not expect you to understand logic. good luck with your life.
-
>logical contradiction
1. I don’t have a belief in God
2. I believe in moral realism (any kind)Tell me how it impossible for both these statements to be true at the same time, that would be a logical contradiction..
-
I’m sorry anon, I was wrong.
-
Logic rests on fundamental axioms
-
1. I don’t have a belief in God
2. I believe in moral realism (any kind)WHERE IS THE LOGICAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO STATMENTS???
you are so freaking scrotebrained -
furthermore, an objective morality in and of itself fulfills the exact same role as a god and therefore your belief in objective morality is little different from belief in a nonspecific god
-
Irrelevant, still not a logical contradiction.
-
It’s quite relevant. Saying you believe something IS wrong implies a belief in something other than the natural world.
Science nor logic can prove something to be wrong. "Wrong" and "right" are outside the remit of science.
-
Do you just conflate being an atheist, with being rational in all cases?
I can believe in ghosts, bigfoot and UFOs. While also not believing in God.
It’s not a bold assertion.>Saying you believe something IS wrong implies a belief in something other than the natural world.
Why?
It’s perfectly possible for wrong to be a concept, something humans made up.
It could also be something that exist independent of human minds, but still is a part of the natural world.Neither is there a issue with science and right&wrong
I can make a hypothesis, that the feeling of wrongness is determined by a wrongness center in the brain, or a certain brain state.
Then scan a brain to see if I see any action.No contradiction.
-
>I can make a hypothesis, that the feeling of wrongness is determined by a wrongness center in the brain, or a certain brain state.
Then scan a brain to see if I see any action.There was a reason why I capitalised "IS". There’s a difference between "I think this thing has negative effects" and "I think this thing is wrong".
-
it’s literally not a contradiction
-
-
-
-
-
-
>Why would an atheist be morally opposed to slavery?
It’s economically bad for society, you’re taking an entire section of the workforce and then telling them they have no power to buy anything.-
Slaves in the americas at times actually owned property.
-
>It’s economically bad for society, you’re taking an entire section of the workforce and then telling them they have no power to buy anything.
So what?
-
-
-
-
-
No atheism would be Reddit the tv channel and atheists would be consuming it 247 while simultaneously posting in Reddit, that’s how the analogy would go
-
Therfor God is real
-
-
What an interesting belief.
>Preaching by analogy and doesn’t see the irony>my religious beliefs are like sportsball
disparate comparison>Also doesn’t see the irony
Behold the mental giants of atheism.
-
In this analogy, Atheists would be people who religiously stare at a blank screen for several hours a day.
-
that would imply that the screen being on is the default, which is an assertion you would have to prove
-
-
-
It’s not a religion. If I don’t watch sports that doesn’t mean my favorite spott is Nullball
-
>my religious beliefs are like sportsball
disparate comparison
-
-
Even if no god appeared before you, you would insist that your senses deceive you and that there is a god, so there’s no point.
-
Underrated.
-
Hahahaha holy kek
-
-
Extremely woke af replies for this board
-
Read the Bible and find out, it may surprise you.
Now there are two reactions : Being in denial and saying everything is a metaphor or being a schizo and saying the world was created in seven days and plants appeared before the sun. -
Define "true"
-
It means whatever is convenient to them in favor of their argument.
-
Having the state or quality of being true. I can pull up a dictionary or not.
-
>defining a word with the word
You failed.Sir this is a discussion board, not kindergarten.
You can use google for such inane queries.>truth is a simple matter that even 5 year olds can grasp it
Is that why philosophers grappled with issues of truth for thousands of years? If this is your response, then I can safely say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.>all there is
This changes depending on the brain we are asking.-
>This changes depending on the brain we are asking.
What you mean? Brains exist in reality
Things are true regardless of a certain brains opinion/imagination.
Unless the question is about opinions, or anything specific to that one person, I don’t agree that truth would change depending on who you ask.I grant that conceptual stuff exists, exist in reality. As by my definition. Brain/thoughts part of reality.
Just that there is a difference between me imagining having a hot girlfriend, and me having a hot girlfriend that exists outside my imagination.-
>Things are true regardless of a certain brains opinion/imagination.
How much of "things" are true outside of the brain? How much of this can you verify? How do we know it’s not the brain that distinguishes "things" in the first place?>Just that there is a difference between me imagining having a hot girlfriend, and me having a hot girlfriend that exists outside my imagination.
This could just be you reflecting on the world your brain has created. Or in other words, reinterpreting your brain’s initial interpretation. Not one word you’ve used can be demonstrated to refer to something outside of a meaning that your brain itself has created, and that goes for everybody. And why would it go through this process? Because it is compelled to dominate its environment / experience itself as a ruler, and in order to do that, it must first create a "world" with which to observe and understand.-
Did you have anything to contribute. Or did you just want to reiterate how knowledge are uncertain?
Even if I grant what you say, it’s not like I’m going to add: "It may just be illusory, though", to my every sentence.I have, what I think is good reasons, to believe there is a difference between my imagination, and the world outside my mind.
-
I think you missed my point. Not every brain sees the same things. You are anthropomorphizing reality. "All there is" means something different to different humans, and even more-so between different species of animal.
-
I don’t understand. "All there is", it would include the content of different minds + mind independent stuff
-
>"All there is", it would include the content of different minds + mind independent stuff
The problem with this is twofold:1) "content of different minds + mind independent stuff" is something that makes sense to OUR brains, but not necessarily to other organisms’ brains, which don’t even interpret there being other brains (and perhaps, due to their structure / size, do not even see that there are many other lifeforms, and frankly don’t care; microorganisms would fall into this category).
2) All organisms are part of the same evolutionary chain, which means what "makes sense" is in perpetual change, just like ourselves; each brain is defining what "makes sense" for itself in the moment, with whatever arrangement of genetic and other bodily information it currently has, but these variables are not static, meaning they are not grounds for validating "truth."
So, to go back to my previous posts, exactly how much of "all there is" can be verified outside of the brain? And how do we measure whose "all there is" is "more accurate" to the "truth" than another’s? This is why atheism seized the world, because once our brains started formulating and seeing evolutionary theory in things, we lost the capacity to guarantee that any of us have any right to something like "truth." What are we positing when we speak of "truth" if our own brains are in constant change, and are, in some sense, on the same level as other organisms’ brains when it comes to being able to verify what is outside itself? How can we determine which organisms are "closer" to the truth?
-
I still don’t get it.
If I think there is a world outside minds, it wouldn’t matter how my mind, or other minds perceive that world. If it exists independently of minds.
A statement would be true, if it described that world. Regardless of my ability to accurately verify the fact. -
You can think that there is a world outside of your brain, and it would be practical for us to assume this on some level, but you can’t verifiably assert anything about that world. If you assert that the world you perceive is related to that world in any way, you would be dishonestly anthropomorphizing that world outside your brain.
>A statement would be true, if it described that world.
It would be "true" in the sense that it accurately reflected how your brain works. It wouldn’t be a description of the world outside your brain. None of our brains have any right to such a thing. This doesn’t mean there is no point to thinking, evaluating, and discerning "truth" — it just means that, if we want to be honest with ourselves, we must understand the "truth" that we are working towards "discovering" is really only a description of our own brains. That is of course plenty valuable, since by understanding our brains better we can better act out our desires and achieve our goals, but at no point in this process are we describing a world outside our brains; not only this, but we have no means of discerning how much of this idea of "a world outside our brains" isn’t in itself a concoction of our brains. -
>A statement would be true, if it described that world.
Maybe I should have written: A statement would be true, if it -accurately- described that world.I didn’t mean in the sense of me just giving my best go at describing reality, would somehow arrive at truth.
I would only be true IF it corresponds to reality. I don’t believe I would have any way to know that with 100% certainty. Seems like we agree on that point. -
If that’s what you mean by true, then I can accept that — but then you have to contend with the atheists’ assertion that God is something fabricated and not a necessity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sir this is a discussion board, not kindergarten.
You can use google for such inane queries. -
that which corresponds to reality
-
and "reality"
-
>reality
all there is-
how do we determine what "there is"? can we?
-
I think it’s pretty telling that Christians need to kick the can so far back, to the point of asking "how can we even know things exist?"
when challenged about their beliefs, why they believe certain things to be true for no good reasons>how do we determine what "there is"?
I think, therefore I am?
How could I possibly be thinking/having an experience, if I didn’t exist? This should demonstrate some for of existence>can we?
Know things for certain? No. Of course not.
There is no logical contradiction of me being a brain in a vat. Or having a really elaborate dream.
(Almost) all knowledge is uncertain.-
>Christians
I’m not a Christian, and I’m not the anon you were originally talking to.
>How could I possibly be thinking/having an experience if I didn’t exist?
>brain in a vat/elaborate dream
it answers itself. we could be robots for all we know. guess it all depends on what "exist" means.-
>we could be robots for all we know. guess it all depends on what "exist" means.
No. I think the matter of the existence still is certain. Brain in a vat/Robot, something still exists, that’s the knowledge I want to get at.
The content of my experience being uncertain, what I think myself to be, etc. Is not a defeater to the claim of existing.
If "I" was a robot, or a program, that would still be "I" for this sake. "I" would jus be wrong about my own nature.But, what I cannot be wrong about, is the fact that "I" experience,, something. Could be wrong about my perception of the experience. It could be illusory, a simulation.
-
-
>Know things for certain? No. Of course not.
Then how do you know we can’t know things for certain? You don’t.-
Walk me through how it’s at all possible to solve the problem of solipsism
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The consequence of worshipping the wrong Gods is much worse in most religions than worshipping no Gods, so what do you have to lose by not worshipping anyone?
-
Is it a coincidence that it looks like the Starfleet logo?
-
It’s backwards with how the down-pointing parts are
-
probably not
-
-
When people say stuff like: Science disproves religion.
It’s not like science has searched under every rock, and in every corner of space for God, and found none.
But we have found a reason why people have things such as religious beliefs; pattern recognition, biases, a bunch of stuff native to the human psyche.>God is real
Why? Do you want to argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The veracity of some fraudulent Catholic miracle claim?
Get the fuck out
No reasonable reasons to believe God to be real, rather than imaginary.>God isn’t real
Seems to be where all the evidence leads.I’m don’t believe we need to know things with absolute certainty for it to be knowledge. So it’s not like saying: "God isn’t real" (How could I possibly KNOW that? God is unfalsifiable)
is overstepping the lines of my epistemology-
>But we have found a reason why people have things such as religious beliefs; pattern recognition, biases, a bunch of stuff native to the human psyche.
So what?
>Seems to be where all the evidence leads.
What evidence?-
Humans can make up stuff in their imagination, independent of it existing in reality or not.
God seem to be a purely imaginary thing.>What evidence?
The evolutionary/psychological stuff, would account for how and why we have these beliefs.
Coupled with the fact of there being no evidence for God being a real thing.-
>Humans can make up stuff in their imagination, independent of it existing in reality or not.
And you think that this applies to everything except atheism for what reason?
>The evolutionary/psychological stuff, would account for how and why we have these beliefs.
Which would explain everything except atheism, why?
>Coupled with the fact of there being no evidence for God being a real thing.
Can you prove that there is no evidence for God existing?-
I’m not going to keep replying when you only make low effort posts like this
-
>I have no argument, and I am embarassed so I’m going to give up
Okay. Goodbye anon, have a good night.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not him, Cause things we consider to be good and bad are able to happen
-
-
>pattern recognition, biases
Yep, these two words definitely convinced me dude. Great argument here.-
You think there is a more reasonable explanation for why literally (virtually) every culture across time has had some sort of religious beliefs?
-
I was ridiculing your post because you wrote a lot to give the illusion of substance it yet, in truth, only those two terms had any and you didn’t even bother to elaborate on them.
Religion is a lot of things that exists for many different reasons. Confucianism exists because one scholar’s writings got popular, Islam exists because some goat-fucker got duped by something he couldn’t understand, and the origins of Indo-European polytheism are an eternal mystery.
-
-
-
-
"If there are no reasons to believe God is real, then it would be reasonable to believe he isn’t real"
Tell my why this is an unreasonable statement -
In the abstract it might be, but the New Atheism is basically scientism plus neoliberalism in practice. The Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett) were little more than a psyop designed to get liberals and libertarians to not oppose America’s Global War on Terror (a.k.a. PNAC’s Seven Countries agenda for Our Greatest Ally).
-
>scientism
Such a scrotebrained freaking bogyman, as is "new atheists"
It’s not really an angle pushed on this board-
Obviously religious people like strawmen
-
Whether it’s pushed on this board or not has nothing to do with the "New Atheism" psyop that was pushed very hard in the early 2000s. It has more or less faded away since it accomplished its mission. But scientism is still with us, stronger than ever.
-
If you got a hypothesis, and want to find out if it’s true or imaginary.
How would you go about it?-
>thinks being anti-scientism is being anti-science
ngmi, anon.-
Then why are you linking "scientism" to atheism?
I described science as being my preferred method to distinguish imagination from reality.
Scientism does not factor into that, or the way I get at knowledge-
Good for you. But the New Atheism, as a manufactured movement post-9/11 is a psyop designed to promote the GWOT among the people most likely to oppose it. Hence "The Four Horsemen", etc. And the two fundamental principles of this psyop were scientism and neoliberalism. If you never bought into this psyop, then I unironically applaud you.
BTW and FWIW, I am not religious.
-
Science is (mostly) fine as the only tool for understanding if you accept materialism on faith, though on closer examination even that falls apart. The notion that a man is not qualitatively different from a rock since they’re all made from the same atoms can only be called comic.
-
>The notion that a man is not qualitatively different from a rock since they’re all made from the same atoms can only be called comic.
It could, alternatively, be called "Christian strawman". -
>The notion that a man is not qualitatively different from a rock since they’re all made from the same atoms can only be called comic.
That’s literally a strawman, or a you-problem.
I don’t believe that. Most atheist don’t believe that.You don’t believe that (I think), the reason here being: Many Christians use this argument. Many Christians lose their faith, some turn atheist.
But, virtually zero Christians->turned Atheists, takes on this extreme nihilism in the wake of that.Things can still have meaning if you believe they have meaning. Even if the mind that belives that came about through a naturalistic process, rather than divine. No logical contradiction there.
-
>accept materialism on faith
Materialism being true is not a requirement for science to function, material things being what? stuff that we can in some way interacts with, measure?
if there exists non-material things, they would be outside of what science does. there would be no observation, no testing. By definition.
Material stuff would be a boundary of science.Besides, accepting materialism for being a likely explanation of things, it’s not hard to a hard pill to swallow. Literally everything that has been explained so far, had a material explanation.
Obviously we have no reason to believe induction to give certain knowledge. But it’s still more reasonable, than the alternative for which there currently are no reasons to belive.>on closer examination even that falls apart.
how so? I bet you can’t successfully elaborate on that.-
>everything that has been explained so far, had a material explanation
how do we know that the material explanation is actually true and not merely a product of the way through which the the thing was viewed/observed? how do we know that, if looked at through some other means, the matter would appear different?-
>how do we know
We literally don’t know. Knowledge does not need to be certain. -
>things have a material explanation
>we literally don’t know -
Don’t Know with a capital K.
If you are asking what reasons we have to believe materialism is true. Million reasons
Testable predictions, model still holds. Accounts for all the data better than other theories (here’s where people argue about a theism/naturalism)
I don’t know of any defeaters to materialism -
i’ll get back to you on that when we look at things through some other means
until then i think our current explanation is plausible for the time being -
I think the most you could say about testable predictions is that something appears to be the case through a certain lens, but that doesn’t mean it’s true per se.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
New Atheism is true in that it revealed the God of Israel for the Yahweh desert demon demurge garden gnome farce that he is. New Atheism is also true in that it revealed the physical improbability the resurrection and divinity of Jesus himself. However, in doing so, New Atheism, in doing both, accidentally proves the Holy Spirit (who is the God of the philosophers), which encompasses its natural and physical philosophy. By proving the Holy Spirit, it asserts the truth of the Father and the Son despite the Aristotelian impossibility of it.
New Atheism is both true and false. Christianity is also false and true. "American Christianity" (Judeo-Christianity) is decidedly false and we have the New Atheists to thank for that. For the truth of both New Atheism and Christianity is mainly through the ‘coherence theory of truth’ rather than Aristotelian correpondence truth.
Read Hegel.
-
because while all religions are directly contradictory to any scientific evidence, the claims that "a god exists and does nothing" or "a god does not exist" are not in contradiction of any evidence
therefore, being an atheist or agnostic are the only rational stances -
>100 replies
>30 posters
>atheist asses combusting
*AHEM*
Well kek’d, OP. Have a drink on me. -
It’s a religion made for depressed neckbeards or something like that. Overall, it’s for scrotes.
-
-
Doesn’t matter, at least I’m not gay.
-
The people that diddle kids in the church are
-
Why do you do that to the kids, you monster
-
>"Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection#:~:text=Projection%20is%20the%20process%20of,own%20unacceptable%20urges%20to%20another. -
Sounds like (you) diddled kids in church anon.
-
-
-
-
-
Even if God is real, Christianity effective boiled down to nihilism anyways. The logical conclusion of Original Sin is anti-natalism.
-
-
-
For one, it’s not a religion
-
It is, by definition.
-
-
Science relies on God to work.
-
Looks like Christians have totally stopped even arguing that their god is real and have gone down their predictable paths of moral panic and things like “just because you’re atheist doesn’t mean you can’t also believe in dumb things like ghosts”
That’s a W for the atheists. I’m agnostic but you guys definitely are the most reasonable and close to truth among the non-agnostics.
-
>Looks like Christians have totally stopped even arguing that their god is real
There’s no reason to argue about that because there is nothing to argue about.-
because he isn’t real
-
-
Atheists cannot believe in ghosts?
-
Yes they can. I agree that it would be a stupid point to say that both atheists and theists can be superstitious, but a theism means without theism, not without belief in ghosts. Ghosts have nothing to do with atheism.
-
>I don’t believe in God because there’s no proof He exists, unlike ghosts
Peak scrotebraination-
>there is proof for g*~ but there is no proof for ghosts
? -
Who are you arguing with?
-
-
-
-
-
Atheists will deny it’s a religion but they are lying to themselves
-
-
When atheists use the word religion, they usually mean a set of beliefs revolving around an unfalsifiable text. Atheism isn’t a religion when the word means that.
-
Really it depends on the definition of the word you’re using. That said, I don’t know why atheists get upset when you call it a religion, because atheism being a religion opens up no possible opportunity for me as a theistic apologist nor does it detract from any possible argument they could make. Atheism being a religion has as much impact in an argument as accepting an orange as a fruit. It just is what it is, I cannot meaningfully use it as an apologetic point.
-
Fuck off scrotebrain
-
-
-
-
>atheism
>religion -
Atheism is the lack of religion, it can’t be one. But everyone who is religious is atheist for other religions and gods, as they believe that the religion and god they subscribe to is the true one.
-
What I think is meant by the statement "atheism is a religion" is that atheists are pushing another unfalsifiable claim over reality, which makes them no more right than theists. What’s not being considered is that atheists don’t necessarily think "reality" is something definite / static, but something evolving / relative instead, and that they don’t treat their position as "the Truth" but instead as a next step in an ongoing theory, kind of like scientific theories.
-
>unfalsifiable claim
You could still have (good) reasons to believe that claim, which would make you more right, than someone that believes the claim to be false, for bad reasons
That goes both ways -
Atheism is the lack of belief in god or religious practice, everyone is atheist for some gods and religious practices. If you’re a christian you’re atheist for odin and the other thousands of gods humanity created, minus your god (because you believe that he is the real one and all others don’t exist).
-
Atheism is woke af on dogma, therefore it’s a religion
-
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Where’s the dogma? The definition of words?
Off yourself-
>Worships science
>Pretends not to worship science
>Pretends science isn’t largely dogmatic
We’ve got a live one
-
-
It’s on par with theism, which is not a religion either and simply an assessment of if you think gods exist or not.
Furthermore even if it you were right, why would that matter? I genuinely do not understand why religious people want atheists to identify as religious? How does that framing make s difference?
-
-
-
-
>atheism is the lack of religion
>a theism
>without theism
You know that "theism" doesn’t mean "religion", correct?
>But everyone who is religious is atheist for other religions and gods, as they believe that the religion and god they subscribe to is the true one.
That’s like saying Democrats are atheist to Republicans, it’s completely stupid and makes no sense. Me being one religion instead of another doesn’t make me "atheist" towards other religions, it just means I don’t believe them. Atheism is a seperate religion altogether.-
There are atheist religions like Buddhism, but atheism, like theism is not a religion.
-
Why?
-
-
>Theism belief in the existence of God
>Religion belief and reverence for a supernatural power
>Atheism belief in the powers of dictionaries and math books-
>Atheism belief in the powers of dictionaries and math books
-
-
>You know that "theism" doesn’t mean "religion", correct?
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, as western religion is focused on gods existing i could safely say that atheism is the lack of religion.
>Me being one religion instead of another doesn’t make me "atheist" towards other religions, it just means I don’t believe them.
If you don’t believe in a god you’re atheist regarding TO that god. If you’re a christian you’re an atheist to all gods us humans created except yours.
>Atheism is a seperate religion altogether.
Atheism isn’t a religion, atheism is lack of belief in god or any religion.-
>Atheism is the lack of belief in gods
No, it’s the belief that no gods exist.
Are you saying that atheists don’t believe that God doesn’t exist?-
>No, it’s the belief that no gods exist.
No, it’s the lack of belief in a god or gods.
>Are you saying that atheists don’t believe that God doesn’t exist?
A lack o belief isn’t a belief. There is no belief in no belief.-
>atheism is a lack of belief
>therefore, my desk, which lacks a belief in God, is an atheist-
An atheist is actually a person that doesn’t believe in gods. Hope this helps.
-
>An atheist is actually a person
No. You just said that atheism is a lack of belief. My desk lacks a belief in God, which makes it an atheist according to YOU, not to me.-
An atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in god(s).
We don’t label inanimate objects by what they do or don’t believe.
I know this is challenging subject matter but I hope this helps you understand.-
>An atheist is a person
>An atheist lacks belief
You are experiencing what they call "cognitive dissonance". This is my last reply to you on this matter. -
believing doesn’t make you a person, it makes you an idiot
not that its relevant considering we’re all animals
-
Do you think you were clever in this chain of posts?
-
No. Why would I be clever for telling him what a word means?
-
Anon you are an idiot and I hope more people read this reply chain for the laugh at your expense
-
-
-
>An atheist believes there is no god
Yes, nice religion you got there.-
I’m not atheist, you’re a moron. Theism isn’t a religion either
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Being a christcuck, or generally any other religion, although in more primitive societies the brainwashing and conditioning are much stronger and backed up by coercion; is just the coward’s way of dealing with the ambiguity of a godless world.
There are a lot of people who are so stupid that the only way they could possibly understand life is
>muh god made it
but thinking or rational individuals have no excuse, they have the benefits of access to education and philosophy. The idea that instead of a plan, we exist in an entropic abyss scares them. It also brings them to nihilism, whereas they should be considering that this frees them to make their own purpose in life.-
>Atheism isn’t a belief in no god
>Atheists believe in the infallible power of science and their own, superior, ability to judge
Cool story midwit-
Fuck off scrotebrain
-
>And the arrow strikes true
-
-
>Atheism isn’t a belief in no god
I never stated anything about "atheism", just statements about belief in god, and also what they say about the kind of people who make them.>Atheists believe in the infallible power of science
What? That’s reddit tier nonsense. However, it’s true that we in a purely material world. There is a lot more power in the ability to split the atom than there is in some old book made by bronze age szichos> their own, superior, ability to judge
yes, your own vastly superior ability to judge what you want in your life. Halfwit.
-
-
-
When the Christians have fallen all the way back to “atheism is a religion” (what do the religious people mean by this? Are they saying being religious is bad?)
And accusations that you worship dictionaries, you can effectively declare victory.
Good job atheists, you guys won by a landslide and the Christians are looking freaking pathetic.
I’m agnostic but you guys are always making better points and more sense than the assblasted christcucks that oppose you-
Nice cope
>We can’t refute any of it therefore we won!
Wew lad.-
About a dozen people have pointed out that like theism, atheism is not a religion, just a lack of belief in gods
-
>We believe there is no god
>See the dictionary definitions of our holy dogma support this
You worship the void kid.-
Yeah so what? The freaking void is more real than the God of Israel.
-
-
-
-
Agnostics are cowardly atheists
— Stephen Colbert
-
These are scrotebrains pretending to troll atheists. Actual Christians who say that memorize their pastor’s script as means to "own" unbelievers by circlejerking among themselves.
-
-
Now this extremely buttblasted, self-proclaimed Christian came out of the wildy to have a public meltdown. Again.
-
>n-no atheism IS a religion
>n-no atheism ISN’T a religion
What does this even matter? What a pointless discussion.-
that’s not the discussion
it’s one scrotebrain trying to say it is a religion, people explaining that it isn’t
-
But who cares if it is?
-
-
I mean, it’s an obvious bait thread that sort of took off and got some above-average levels of discussion
-
it’s one scrotebrain trying to say it is a religion, people explaining that it isn’t
>Reeeee believing in no god isn’t a religion because we say so reee
-
-
>Christians think they can define things into being real
imagine my shock
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.