Where is objective 'difference' in a purely materialistic universe?

Where is objective 'difference' in a purely materialistic universe?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What if I just believe in logic instead of the gods? So you believe in the Bible, I believe in logic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      First of all, what kind of logic? You need to establish a source for objective ethics first because you need reason and to proclaim if X, Y, Z is 'logical'.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I believe in the Peano Axioms

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I believe in the axiom that everything I say is true. And that axioms don't need to be justified is in itself justified by another axiom.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >First of all, what kind of logic?
        Buddy you made the post saying atheists can’t find evidence for logic. You’re already backpedaling.
        You can believe in plenty of things even if you don’t believe that gods exist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God is logic. checkmate

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Logos does not pertain logic or ethic but metaphysics

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not quite sure i've heard logos being restricted to just metaphysics before. In fact, I've often heard that it is a very broad term that means reasoning.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're thinking of the Logos, Pathos, and Ethos persuasive method which has nothing to do with God if that's we're you're heading

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              John identifies Jesus Christ as the logos who was with God from the beginning in the first chapter of his gospel.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No retard I was referring to your previous comment about Logos going past metaphysics and into reasoning

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Idk what you're trying to say. this could be a learning opportunity for me, but you keep leaving vague and unhelpful responses.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's a Christians engage in 7D sophistry because they can't produce evidence of Yahweh thread

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Define 'evidence'.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not meme tier shit like arguments that can maybe sort of work if you squint and presuppose that Aristotelian metaphysics are undisputably objectively correct.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what counts as prove for an external world for example?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is no conclusive proof of that, but wholesale scepticism of the external world is completely useless.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What is useless? That assumes objective ethics.

              And I don't have a solipsistic view, I'm doing a reductio ad absurdum.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What is useless?
                It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place. Have fun talking to your tulpa (me), retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's useless in the context of this argument because scepticism of the external world necessarily implies a scepticism of whether we're having thing conversation in the first place.
                Which si not my argument I'm doing a reductio which is using your resuppositons and appliying them onto yourself. You can neither give an account for the external world, or numbers, or objective logic, or ethics, or universals. You couldn't even form a sentence if you'd be coherent.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I just believe in all those things but I don’t believe in gods.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And as long as you don't pretend your beliefs were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Methodical evidence based approach is grounded in axioms anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And as long as you don't pretend your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
                Better?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >your [AXIOMS] were formed by some methodical evidence-based approach, we have no conflict.
                Better?
                Yeah anon that’s what an axiom is. In order to make an evidence based approach you need axioms to ground it. There’s no such thing as an evidence based approach without presuppositions/axioms, it only exists because of them.

                Look anon I’m going to cut to the chase.
                You’re mad that people tell you your religious visions were hallucinations, it made you question your reality and that hurt, so you want to make atheists hurt in retaliation by making them question whether reality exists.

                You miss a big lesson here though anon…
                With your approach you paint a picture, atheists believe in reality, you believe in gods.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I told you the case in which we have no conflict and respond in a confrontational tone about more details of the case.
                Is there a point you're trying to make?

                >hurt
                Ah, no further questions.

                >atheists believe in [a contradictory] reality
                Lesson learned.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.
                So you can have a fact and evidence based approach where you dismiss the existence of say, the Iron Age tribal deity Yahweh because of the lack of evidence.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't understand [the thing you confirmed twice]
                Ok.
                >dismiss the existence of say [an axiom] because of lack of evidence
                The problem is that you don’t understand a fact and evidence based approach pre-supposes axioms.

                Anon, you're trying real hard, but you're seemingly trying to regress the discussion to an earlier point that it had began at. Our axioms differ. And yours are more inconsistent. Do you have anything to say to say about that? Or are you gonna keep jumping back and forth between axioms needing and not needing evidence?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon if you believe in logic you can’t believe in your god. Those are exclusive axioms. Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Elaborate because you didn't even define objective ethics to predicate that something is 'logical' or not, otherwise you're trapped in relativism-town.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you need to define objective ethics to make statements about logic
                What did he mean by this?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you know what I mean with 'logical'?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you say that you need objective ethics to speak about logic, then no, I don't know what you mean by logical.
                Are you doing that cringe bit where you're gonna be like "b-but Chesus is the logos, so when you talk about logic, you don't even realize it but you're talking about my god"?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm arguing that since there is no ethical grounding for logic there is also no objective understanding of 'logic' in your world view because that presupposed reason which presupposes value judgements.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can be logical without touching ethics. I will get down the road quicker at 60 mph than at 30 mph. No ethics needed, logic is solid. Didn’t need Jesus either did I anon?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can be logical without touching ethics.
                >Why the fuck would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?
                *Should* we use logic? *Should* we be logical consistent?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Guy you didn’t say atheists can’t justify why they *should* use logic, you said that they can’t even use it or explain why it exists.
                You retreated anon, it’s done. Try a new thread at your current position where you’re now saying atheists have no reason why they should be logical.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If logic is just a human invention then it's subjective from the start, yes.

                What does that have to do with the conversation that prompted this autism? You didn't say that the atheist has no way of proving that it is wrong for the christian to be illogical.

                Well if the laws of logic are relative they don't.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what you were saying you dumb slag. You were saying that logic has to be grounded with ethics. You failed to prove that. You lose.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is logical and what is reason and would everyone agree what that means?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That has nothing to do with ethics.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So everyone does agree what reason is because it is self-evident?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That has nothing to do with ethics.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So reasoning is idependant of valuejugdements?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements, value judgements are not necessary for reasoning.
                Thanks for playing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If logic is just a human invention
                I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention. Logic is real and part of reality. I believe in Logic and Logic tells me your god isn’t actually real

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I’m not saying it is, a car getting down the road sooner by going faster being logical is not a human invention.
                Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together because the notion of "progress" presupposes that there is an objective target to where we progress and advance towards.

                >Logic is real and part of reality
                Would you agree that it is independant of the human mind then?

                >Reasoning is necessary to make value judgements
                Who determines what is resonable and what not?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't describe the process of a car going down the road unless you support industrialization
                Alright, I finally caught up. Not going to respond to any further bait, Mr. Ebi N. Trolle

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Because that is a subjective value judgement because there are people who would do away with technology all together
                You have lost the plot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >using logic to determine that more speed in a car will get you somewhere faster is impossible because some people don’t want cars to exist
                That’s a white flag if I’ve ever seen one. GG

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                On what objective grounds?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
                I was going to tell you again you’ve clearly lost but you’re showing your ass and making Christianity look bad the more you talk.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Even if I didn’t want cars to exist I could still use logic to determine that I will get down a road in a shorter amount of time if I drive faster.
                And what is logical on what objective standard in your world view?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No anon, it’s over. You didn’t say atheists don’t know why they *should* be logical until now. You shifted, which is a loss and it’s time to take that L

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What does that have to do with the conversation that prompted this autism? You didn't say that the atheist has no way of proving that it is wrong for the christian to be illogical.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why the fuck would you ground logic with ethics? Do you have brain worms?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Logic dictates that the character named god in the Bible isn’t actually real.
                For this to be true the Bible would have to had been written in terms of propositional knowledge. Premises, statements, etc. The first two chapters of the first book alone debunk this take.

                I appreciate you trying, but this is Dawkins-tweets level of engagement. You can make sense neither of the Bible nor of the existence of the universe. I can of both. If you still think your axioms are more useful, I think I'll just have to let you live with that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your axioms force you to worship a dead israeli rabbi. My axioms allow me to have premarital sex.
                We are not the same.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah I can't make sense of the book
                >yeah I can't make sense of existence
                >but I can coom
                We are not the same.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >aaaaaaaah I'm gonna a reductiooooo
                You're missing the point, retard. I don't need to prove external reality, I can show you that your argument is losing both if there is and if there is not an external reality.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't need to prove external reality
                So if you don't need to justify that then why should some 90 IQ muslim justify his god to you then if you're just gonna go into arbitrary mode?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.
                How do you know that this muslim you're debating is not just an illusion of your sense data in the first place though?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know that. All my judgements implicitly proceed like this: I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists. If this assumption is correct, the muslim exists.
                This line of thinking means that I am correct and not just circlejerking with a tulpa at least in one of the two available options. However, the sceptic position leads to either being incorrect or circlejerking with a tulpa.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I make a foundational assumption that external reality exists.
                And you're unjustified to believe in that, you can't even prove the existence of a self because you don't observe your 'self' with your sense data.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you retarded? I literally wrote that I am not actually convinced that external reality exists, I'm just making the implicit assumption that it does for the sake of further investigations because I'm playing to my outs.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not actually convinced that external reality exists
                So how can you give an account for the existance for a 'self' even? Foundationalism and empiricism pretty much destroys that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can't decide whether you're genuinely retarded or just choosing not to read my comments.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He’s trying to make you question reality because him having no evidence for his god makes him question reality.
                Also so funny he’s not going to church today, the christcucks here are such bums.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >doesn't know there are multiple Christians in the thread
                >doesn't know it's late afternoon in Europe
                >losing so hard he's seeking support from a fellow atheist

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah anon

                Because the 90IQ Muslim is making more assumptions than me (there is an external reality AND there is Allah) and his Allah assumption is unnecessary, arbitrary and not grounded in the primary assumption.

                Atheists and Christians/Muslims are lined up on many of their beliefs, it’s just a fork in the road at “are the gods in the stories real?”

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You know someone is on solid footing with their beliefs when they have to resort to questioning the very concept of proof

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you believe that everything is proven through empirical sense data then of course you only accept that. But naive empiricism can't even prove and external world because the appeal to sense data becomes circular.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People start from the axiom that their senses work. We have multiple senses verifying and checking eachother. Are you suggesting people need to disprove that their senses are all giving them a false reality?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You'd have to from the empirical perspective, yes. And I don't accept axioms because they are not self-evident and are themselves needed to be justified by other axioms.
            So I'd like to have an empirical justification how you can give an account for identity over time, the existence of a self and difference.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I don't accept axioms
              Well too bad, it’s impossible to be coherent and escape circular logic without them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Axiom led to an endless regress because you need to justify that axioms don't need to be justified with other axioms. And there's nothing wromg with circular logic at a paradigm level or at certain objects like language, meaning, truth and numbers.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is exactly what you need to do (disregard your senses) when believing in a ball earth spinning and hurtling through space, at various speeds.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, literally just get on a boat and travel from east to west.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You mean like atheists who insist every direct verification can be considered hallucination? lol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For the believer no evidence is necessary whilst for the unbeliever no evidence suffices.
      Written in the bible exactly the same.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s so funny that this thread will be filled with angry “Christians” bitching about atheists on a Sunday morning.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in logic, you believe in Jesus.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is logical and what is your objective ethic to confirm what is 'logical' to make this value judgment that something is objectively logical?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
        Don’t need Jesus to figure that one out anon, do you?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s logical that driving faster to a destination will take less time than driving slower on the same route.
          So utilitarianism. And it's subjective in your world view.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ? Anon I’m just making a logical statement. If I drive the speed limit, I will get to my destination faster than if I go 10 miles under.
            I do not believe in Jesus or any god.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >? Anon I’m just making a logical statement.
              So what are your ethical groundings to call something logical? Because if someone would have a hpyothetical beliefe that life is suffering it would be logical for him to exterminate as much life as possible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but first cause literally came from the founders of logic. I dont think you understand your own position. (for clarity Christcucks are also retards)

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you need israeli fairy tales for logic to exist

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the ontological status of logic then?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The ontological status is coping about reality and trying to debate reality into subjective israeli magic tricks.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ad hominem, appeal to motive. Logical fallacy.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Ad hominem, appeal to motive. Logical fallacy.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's simple, there was a israelite raised by a cuck 2000 years ago. So his father created everything you see?
    Now repeat with me the holy prayer and be one with the israeli cuckoldry fairy tales:
    the stepfather
    the stepson
    the holy cuckerino
    Amen

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: materialist cope and seething

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Physical evidence for logic" is a nonsensical statement.
    How does a magical space israelite provide physical evidence for logic? There's no physical evidence for the magical space israelite.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So where is the physical evidence for 'difference'?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You can't see God until 2 more Aeons

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fr tho, what attracts religious schizos like OP to LULZ?

Your email address will not be published.