/fa/ - Fashion

it's not about being intelligent

being intelligent =/= being right

you can be incredibly intelligent and still be a huge fucking idiot with idiotic wrong views about everything like russell brand

>>9720079
edgy e contrarian detected. I've seen like three Russel Brand videos and they were all correct.

>>9720082

yeah he's great at appearing intelligent to uneducated people

What the fuck? I just come here to find nice fits, mannerisms aren't inherently /fa/ (except smoking, which everyone seems to agree on), just be you, but nicer looking and people will just generally accept that this is what a nice looking person is.

How late is it where you live and how bored do you have to be?

>>9720079
Are you implying Russel brand is intelligent?

>>9720045
Being a genius is pretty effay, but it doesn't make you a good person or an enjoyable person to be around. Take nobel prize winner Gajdusek, who was a genius, but had sex with little boys. Is having sex with little boys effay? I don't think so

>>9720090

Russel Brand has a very versatile vocabulary and is good at making connection between ideas (abstract thinking). He is TERRIBLE at logic.

But the first two make him seem deep and intelligent, which he is to a degree.

>>9720082
>correct
Yeah, no...I think you mean plausible, but certainly correct is the not the word you're looking for.

if you like noam chomsky then you are not intelligent
he's russell brand with a better vocabulary

>>9720113

he is (see >>9720116), he's just an educated fool

>>9720123

OP here: I was just using him as an example of someone who is commonly perceived to be smart. He is technically very smart in the field of linguistics. His political theories sometimes strike me as ridiculously simplistic.

>>9720134

chomsky is incredibly smart in general, he's just generally wrong

Having a high IQ is probably pretty nice, but I know so many high IQ people who are retarded as fuck.
Specifically because they'll take a very basic idea, and then compare it to 1000 completely irrelevant concepts and think they cracked a code. They can convince themselves their right about something they're wrong about.

I really hate the people who say "let me see some evidence" and then ALWAYS seem to find some flaw in the evidence provided. "Yea but that was written in 1998 and things are completely different now."
"lol you're using one of the most biased journals known in existence. they got a fact wrong once."

That's why burden of proof is shit.

>>9720145
>They can convince themselves their right about something they're wrong about.
>their
Shit. my bad.

If you can be both incredibly intelligent AND stylish/sexy, you are not only /fa/ but a God among men.

Most very intelligent people spend a lot of time in their head and consequently neglect their outword appearance. Hence the common image of the feeble nerd or smart neckbeard.

However, I went to high school with a guy who was not only genius level smart (he was in a philosophy class with me and was smarter and more well read than the teacher) but had James Dean like style/fashion. Consequently, everyone was magnetized to him and he was dating the prettiest girl in the class.

>>9720145

>Man, they're retarded as fuck! They disproved my evidence!

>>9720097
tell em!

>>9720174
No, it's not disproving evidence.
It's constantly saying "let me see the evidence" during times when things can't be proven or disproven with evidence.
You know, like social ideologies, philosophy and stuff like that.

>>9720196

"Social ideologies" and philosophy can absolutely be proved or disproved. Any proposition that can't be subjected to such scrutiny should be automatically discarded. Seems like your friends are right, and you're just a bitter idiot who got ridiculed in public.

>>9720125
he doesn't really have a formal education, he just speaks eloquently and talks about things that sound clever to average folk (communism, meditation, ethics, but very basically)

>>9720045
Handsome Young Noam is /fa/, if that's what you're getting at.

>>9720301

He's smart in his own way. He has a knowledge about a very wide range of topics but only about as deep as the first two lines of a Wikipedia article. He is good at connections between ideas and communicating them in big words at a rapid speed but his ideas don't usually reflect reality/are hopelessly idealistic.

He well-quipped, soft logic is inherently sexy though (moreso than hard logic) which is how he's sexed so many women.

>>9720301

you don't need a formal education to be educated

>>9720222
Well pwned amigo

>>9720045
Nah intelligence is cool. Overthinking and sperging out about it is uncool, think of the school captain vs the nerd

Nigga, having a PhD is sexy as fuck.

You can't be truly smart/intelligent if you still believe in god. Sorry for being edgy, but it's true.

>>9720907

Technically you can but you have to construct a real bullshit argument to defend you "faith" which was probably instilled in you in the early stages of brain development, so you can't shake it and it's not subject to the laws of reason.

>>9720907
where do you get that knowledge from? any sources?

>>9720934
he's right

>>9720907
>>9720948
ridiculous

>>9720948
this image gives me cancer, please take a philosophy of science class instead of keeping and spreading your gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and this simplistic idea on what "faith" is

>>9720968
u give me cancer. gb2 whatever second rate educational institution caused u to develop such a annoying attitude

>>9720968

Though simplified as the picture us, it gave me a chuckle. But it does tend to show the big picture in a simple way.

But on to the point, religion in all its base is about one thing and one thing only, power to control the masses.

Intelligence is shit. Worry about having accomplishments instead. Being smart isn't worth shit if you have done nothing with your life.

Having ideas in your head and thinking about your intelligence is something teenagers and euphoric neckbeards do.

>>9720992

This is actually somewhat true. Intelligence only means something in so much as it can be in service of accomplishing some personal goal, which ultimately makes you happy or helping humanity. Boasting intelligence for intelligence's sake is immature.

>>9720988
religion does have its merits

>>9720986
Bible is just written huh, Jewish writers from Babylon and Egypt came to write it, translating stories from many other places. Already rewriting and translating. Then in Carthage, then under roman rule, was changed and rewritten. Then in Constantinople was another big gathering to rewrite it, and it Rome it self it was rewritten for Catholicism. England from the Anglican church and rewrote it. There are also many minor revisions too, like the ones in the 1500s during the reformation.
Its a book like any other, constantly changed as time goes to fit well with the current people, their language and ideas.

—-

Jesus(the myth) sinned a lot in that stupid old book. The sabbath laws were to be held to time indefinite(meaning FOREVER). Jesus was a “son of god” as all early christians claimed to be “sons of god” he never claimed any divinity in the new testament so everytime he broke a sabbath law or busted up a temple on the sabbath he was being a criminal. This is why the jews say they deny christ when in reality they know he wasn’t a real person and allows us our illogical behaviour for lulz. If you are a christian in here, I am sorry but you have been living and preaching the same lies your forefathers have been telling for years. Unquestioning sheep, lemmings. This is like the walrus and the carpenter type of shit ppl.

>>9721009
>>muhammad was a rapist, pedophile, sinful, murderer and don’t forget he’s dead.

Not according to Muslim faith. First and foremost, no, they do not believe he is dead. They believe he was bodily assumed directly into heaven in Jerusalem. The believe that the rock this supposedly happenned on in Jerusalem still bears his footprint which somehow got left in the rock when this happened. WTF do you think the “dome of the rock” that you here about in the news now and then is?

>>Jesus is sinless,

Your holy book says he is, Koran says he ain’t, and was just a man, sinner like all others. Neither can prove the assertion.
>> the Son of Man and still alive.

Again, no proof your book is right. Muslim holy book says he is dead. Which to believe?

And don’t even get me started on more unusual Levant religions like Manichaeism that teaches Jesus was a corrupt false prophet, John the Baptist was the true Messiah and the God of the Jews is actually the Devil.

Again, one fairytale seems as valid as the next. All have absolutely ZERO evidence for their claims other than their own scriptures and traditions.

——–

I too think that a book written 2000 years ago knows everything we need to know about the universe. And said book claiming to be inerrible only makes it more true.

reply:

EXACTLY…nevermind that GOD the NEVER ERRING ONE transforms from vengeful and smite-happy headshots the fuck out of everyone then decides to be benevolent and industry fa-ggotry standard

>>9721015
reply:

that’s because your existence here on Earth is to worship him. Period. End of story. If you don’t like that, you can choose not to believe. But he still knows who you are. He doesn’t like it when you go astray. Not when you were created out of the dust to do his will. But you were given free will. Turns out he doesn’t like forced worship. However, every few hundred years he likes to set things back on track. But just like mechanical parts, if you don’t submit, then at the end of your life you’re getting tossed to the trash can of Hell.

——-

>>9721018
The anomaly that we have such intricate systems inside of the smallest pieces of our body supports that this entire universe is custom fit for us.
Change the force of gravity by the tiniest amount and everything in the galaxy would be radically changed or something along those lines.

reply:

Why do men have prostates which inherently go bad? Why is there a vestigial yolk sac present in the womb of an embryo completely unattached and not using any of what used to contain nutrients? Why are some humans born with vestigial tails? Why can we witness evolution(mutation) of cells in a petri dish and yet discount evolutionary change? How hard is the American skull that they can not grasp simple scientific theory. The reason they re-write theories is to get a clearer explanation as your church leaders attempt to get a fuller understanding on some jibberish some idiots wrote in the 2nd century. Who knows we all chase possibilities, but only some ver get results when looking for answers and it isn’t your religiot.

Pic related: he’s got my back on this [Bill O'Reilly]

——

>Moses was not real.
0/10
>The israelites were never slaves in egypt(there is written historical records of their craftsmanship and salaries and room and board)
what are slaves freed from?
>There is no recorded history of moses.
of course there is. you refuse to believe in historical documentation that you don’t agree with.
>ALl of that was lies based on earlier pagan myths.
orly?
>Mithras being the most plagiarized of the gods who could just as well be jesus or moses. The fact is that all Judea-Christian religions are simply pagan fairytales turned into centralized religion for the sake of building nations and wealth.
Please provide historical documentation that Mithras rose from the dead as well as every other similarity you’re claiming.

Provide historical documentation.

>>9721015
>>9721009

>>9721021
calm down autist, this is a fashion board

>>9721009
this image is funny because it fails to acknowledge that Churches are far more charitable than the government

/fa/ - religious debates

Since we're on religion.

What religions (including atheism and agnostism) are most /fa/? make a -tier list

>>9721032
please die

>>9721035

Apparently humor isn't very /fa/

>>9721025
original!

>>9720045
Look, the most /fa/ people are designers.

You gotta be at least as intelligent as them to achieve their level. And they are very intelligent obviously.

>>9720097
Where do you come here from? MFA?

Intelligence isn't the same as knowledge and neither are the same as wisdom, but in most cases the first two are required to attain the latter. In the end you can be intelligent but not be extremely knowledgeable. Intelligence usually manifests in what some might consider reason and rationality, and a fair-handed, judicious view on life. Knowledgeable people can still be major spergs. In this way I think intelligence is the more admirable trait. Maybe it isn't /fa/ per se, but its certainly a nice quality in a person and generally the result of some internal self-actualisation.

>>9720934
>>9720923
Obviously you can be smart/intelligent and believe in god but you'll never achieve the full potential you have. It just limits your thought process.
>>9721007
Can't deny the fact that without religion we'd be better off.
>>9721025
Really original, and the fact someone posted this unironically is just pure autism, but what to expect form a pigfucking redneck.
>>9721116
>internal self-actualisation.
Nice way to put it, everyone should strive to improve themselves.

no OP it's really fashionable to be as dumb as a brick, chicks go crazy for it

>>9721136
>Can't deny the fact that without religion we'd be better off.
you absolutely can

>>9721181

Secular ethics is enough to guide humanity. Scandinavia is a good example of a region that is very irreligious. They are doing fine, it seems.

>>9720045
"Intelligence" is great and all but it lacks substance. My girlfriend is intelligent with a high IQ and scholarship at a top uni but practically she's a retard and not /fa/ at all. Streetsmart is more /fa/ than booksmart.

Being experienced in the world with the knowledge, skills and creative thinking to solve problems near effortlessly is what is truly /fa/ imo

>>9721027
to themselves, lol

did u read it at all?

>>9720907
>>9720923
>>9720948
>>9720988

Are you guys retarded or just euphoric? Most of the smartest men in history have been religious.

>>9720907
Yeah, because you're much smarter than Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, and Jean Luc-Marion

>>9721292
I hope you realize that book smart does not mean the person can engage in abstraction. Honestly, the only people I consider intelligent are the ones that can engage in abstraction. A lot of STEM retards -- and a lot of humanitiesfags -- can't engage in abstraction. It's ridiculous how our required formal educational system neglects abstract thinking.

>>9721032
Agnostism is the most /fa/ because it isn't associated with dumb groups of people who think they are 100% right and act autistic about it. (Muslims, /r/atheism, american christians)
It tells others that you don't proclaim to know what can't be known and you come off as an open person.

>>9721187
>secular ethics
lmao

>>9720045
intelligence is a cool asset, mainly when paired with humility and tact.

noam needs to stay in his lane tho.

/fa/: insecurity, vanity and constantly searching for validation the board.

>>9722021
And? Without religion they'd be even smarter, that was my point.

>>9721295
No?
Guess who runs the soup kitchens, domestic violence shelters, thrift shops, 3rd world schools and clinics etc
The majority of the Catholic church's spending goes towards health care, then followed by education

>>9720162

Camus was a huge faggot. I know he's one of the few /fa/ philosophers, but still...

>>9722250

>Camus was a huge faggot

Mind explaining why?

>>9722032
>>9722032

Abstract thinking seems very much valued in academia, particularly the humanities, which incorporates philosophy. I agree, however, that some STEMfags seem narrow minded when it comes to philosophical curiosity.

>>9720142
Says who? You? Hahahahahahahaha.

>>9721292

Is street smarts synonymous with wisdom?

Wisdom = the intellectual and moral wherewithal to live in harmony with reality

>>9722166
Most agnostics don't factor in the possibility of a deity at any point in their decision making process, meaning they are just atheists except they want to sound cool and act superior.

People who ignore the concept of burden of proof and believe that there is an equally likely chance of god existing and not existing are fucking retarded. I wonder how they would react to the wizard that lives in my chimney, or the faeries in my garden or even the hippocampus in my swimming pool.

I couldn't give two shits about the religious debate with the exception of agnostics, they are fuckwits.

>>9722316

The agnosticism you're referring to (atheistic agnosticism) is more a philosophically concise term than anything else. You can't disprove a negative, therefor calling yourself a hard atheist is intellectually dishonest, etc etc.

I think the first thing you have to do (before comparing God to the likelihood of fairies and trolls) since the God of Judeo-Christianity is waaaay different than the God of pantheism which basically just says God is the physical universe (kind of in the sense Einstein used it),

>>9722333

*I meant the first thing you should do is define what God is.

>>9722166

In fact, agnosticism is the most retarded position of all. It puts arbitrary claims and rationally supported ones on the same level. At least theists take a definite stand, even if it's mistaken. Agnostics are just cowards who think that by not taking any stand they're "safe" and invulnerable to any attack. Retardation and cowardice are certainly not /fa/.

>>9722294

alas for you who says anything is irrelevant :) that's appealing to authority

>>9722347

No it's not. You seem to not understand how logic works. Read my above post.

>>9720162
Im studying philosophy now.
>can't date girl

>>9722166
No it's not + it's agnosticism.
>>9722316
>>9722347
True, agnostics are the weakest of all.

>>9720045

Intelligence is fine so long it's the kind of intelligence whose immediate product is action. The reason that "thinking too much" is bad is that those who spends all their time thinking have a tendency to spend none of their time DOING.

>>9722371

As someone who really into philosophy.

Philosophy can be be a slippery slope to analyzing things to death and becoming annoying to the average person. Real philosophers, in conversation, are always asking, "but what is x? Define?"

They often not live in the world of here and now but some abstract mental world. Being a pragmatist is much more rewarding in the long term.

>>9722368

I read it and chuckled.

>philosophically concise

And which specific tradition of philosophy are you talking about here exactly? Or do you just think there's "one philosophy" as such?

>You can't disprove a negative, therefor calling yourself a hard atheist is intellectually dishonest, etc etc.

Non sequitur. It can't be disproved because it can't be subjected to any rational standard of examination. It's arbitrary, unfalsifiable. Such claims can be discarded without any further consideration because they're epistemological white noise.

>>9722383

And the reason doing is important is that people who actually put thoughts into real world action are more satisfied in life and attract others vs. those who sit in their head, become neck beards and take SSRIs because they haven't created any purpose in their life.

Life is short, don't squander it.

>>9722333
Pantheists who believe that God is the physical universe have a redundant belief system. They are taking the universe, slapping a "God" name tag on it and continuing to treat it as normal.

Then you have all the ridiculous strains of pantheism which are just average theists who are so desperate to justify their irrational beliefs that they make weird creator/universe hybrids and start thinking that rocks have consciousness.

>>9722419

It's more concise logically/semantically (but the question is ultimately one within the domain of philosophy). It's not a non-sequitur, even famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they are technically agnostics. You can't logically claim the non-existence of something for which there's no evidence ( at this point, unfalsifiable). I can have a very strong inclination it is BS, but I cannot say it's false because there is no basis for that claim.

>>9722426

Pantheism is basically reducing god to the level of semantics (replacing one word with another) as if that has some intrinsic significance.

Basically, I think it's a safety net for fallen theists.

>>9722470

>It's more concise logically/semantically (but the question is ultimately one within the domain of philosophy).

Which logic and semantics are you talking about? Different philosophies have different epistemologies that lead to different interpretations of logic and semantics. All questions are ultimately within the domain of philosophy. All sciences are based on some vision of metaphysics and epistemology, which is ultimately philosophy.

>It's not a non-sequitur, even famous atheists like Richard Dawkins admit they are technically agnostics.

It is, in fact. The fact that negatives can't be disproved (which isn't true) doesn't lead in any way to "hard atheism" being dishonest. Dawkins is the fast food of atheism. No wonder why he gets this wrong as well. What he "admits" to be or not is irrelevant though. That's appealing to authority.

>I can have a very strong inclination it is BS, but I cannot say it's false because there is no basis for that claim.

It isn't false, it's arbitrary, which is even worse than false. Arbitrary claims can be dismissed like nothing had been said at all. Therefore the notion of "hard atheism" is retarded and redundant, as it assumes groundless claims deserve any consideration whatsoever.

>>9722529

I'm speaking of logic in the most basic sense. I realize epistemic skeptics like deconstructionists would call to question the premise of logic but, in general: inductive, abductive and deductive reasoning have been the universal tools of logic. If, we can agree 1+1=2, then we can agree on inductive reasoning.

Semantics I'm speaking of in the abstract: word meaning and usage, which is exactly what our conversation boils down to.

You seem to equate atheism with the dismissal of an arbitrary proposition, I equate it with a declared knowledge of God's non-existence. Therein lies the conflict, our fundamental ideas aren't different, we just defining words different. It's pretty trivial.

>ITT: /fa/ shows off how dumb they are

you guys are losers

>>9722745

Valuable contribution there chap, I'm sure you're a genius.

>>9722250
sartrefag detected

>>9722752
circlejerking with tryhards, who took a couple philosophy classes before they dropped out of their architecture program is, literally, the last thing i want to do on a saturday morning.

i'm sure you're one of the fedoras in here "debating"

>>9722529

>All sciences are based on some vision of metaphysics and epistemology
>metaphysics
>meta
>physics is based on metaphysics

SOMEBODY SOUND THE RETARD ALARM

>>9720948
This is exactly what I mean. If you can't respect fideism and the associated school of literatures than you cant claim to be washed in philosophy. This is why I want to leave boards like this when coming across these threads, because a place in the noosphere is earned, not bought by chichi fashions.

>>9722722
Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, not the claim that you are sure there is no god.
>>9722470
>Dawkins admits to being an agnostic
I believe he said he was as agnostic to deities as he was agnostic to faeries in his garden.

>>9722780
>circlejerking with tryhards, who took a couple philosophy classes before they dropped out of their architecture program is, literally, the last thing i want to do on a saturday morning.


So I have decided to observe them and try to insult them on an online anime image board instead. Golly gosh my saturday mornings are productive.

>>9722791

>This is why I want to leave boards like this

Please do, pseudointellectual

>>9720090
this

>>9720045
I genuinely think I'm quite smart, but not very /fa/. I'm also as good at picking up on minor details as some people.

>>9722347
Agnosticism is the philosophical position of believing you can't sufficiently prove something to be true or false. Being an "agnostic" by itself doesn't mean anything: you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

>>9722032
>pseudo-intellectual using buzzwords

Any STEM topic studied to any sort of depth requires the utilization of abstract thinking. What the fuck are you even on about?

>>9722827
That's true but people describe themselves as just agnostic (without atheist or theist) to not offend and insult other people, that's some weak shit, weaker than HBA.

>>9722797

He still used the term agnostic. If it's a useless term, why don't we just scrap it?

>I'm agnostic the existence an undiscovered species of beetle in the South American jungle that's bright blue with black spots that I just made up.
>I'm agnostic to God

Both are unsubstantiated but the beetle idea sounds more "likely" past on past knowledge. Can we really apply percentages of likelihood to such things, though? Can we be 99% sure god doesn't exist and 50% sure the beetle doesn't exist when, ultimately, they either either exist or don't so it's 100% or 0

Russell brand is 14 y/o tier world-views and terrible attempts at comedy. I hope the world can mature out of respecting that kind of drivel, but until that happens I can't fault him for cashing in on it.


Smart people can be religious, and if you think otherwise, you are absolutely an idiot.

>>9722871
Dawkins heavily criticizes the separation of theistic beliefs into theist, atheist and agnostic. He has claimed to be an agnostic as he cannot prove that god doesn't exist but he also claims to be a de facto atheist.

Your example doesn't really make much sense either assuming you believe in the existence of probability at all.

Assume there is a 6 sided 'fair' die. On 5 sides there are stars and on one side there is a moon. If someone were to roll that die, there would be a 1/6 chance to roll a moon and a 5/6 chance to roll a star. If someone rolled that die without showing you the result and then asked you if you believed it was a star or a moon you would say "I cannot know but it is far more likely to be a star than a moon" even though it must be 100% a moon or 100% a star.

Although the existence of something is boolean in nature, if one does not know whether something exists they will act based on the likelihood of the things existence.

>>9723016

With a six sided die we have exact mathematical knowledge of probability of a real world occurancr. With the existence/non-existence of something unsubstantiated, we only have "probability" based on gut feeling or some loosely related information that may suggest an answer. Existence is not really subject to probability, though, in the absolute sense.

>>9723068
Just because we do not have exact knowledge of somethings probability does not mean that the probability doesn't exist.

Inductive reasoning exists, we can determine if something is very likely, likely, unlikely etc.

I could ask you whether or not the world will stop spinning in 20 seconds and you could not possibly know, but through inductive reasoning you would consider it so unlikely that you don't even consider it as a possibility

>>9723118

Right but my statement was directed specifically at the existence/non-existence of something, the only probabilities, in the objective sense, are 0% or 100%.

>>9723153
I don't see your reasoning behind the thought that existence is in any way special, it is simple a truth like any other truth. How is 'God exists' any more boolean than 'My die rolled a 6"

>>9723166

Yeah, I suppose the causality that governs how the die lands if based upon the laws of physics and how you flicked your wrist and any other physical properties, so rolling a 5 seems less subject to completely random probability but is as determined as anything else, in which case probability seems partially arbitrary.

Fuck, I'll leave this shit to mathematicians. I'm going for a walk.

>>9722389
>thinking right brain left brain is real

>>9721021
>Why do men have prostates which inherently go bad? Why is there a vestigial yolk sac present in the womb of an embryo completely unattached and not using any of what used to contain nutrients? Why are some humans born with vestigial tails?

I don't know. Probably because god wanted us to have prostates that "inherently go bad" and vestigial organs. Obviously things god would fabricate. Really, it's no more illogical than saying that women came from ribs.

>>9720114
it totally is. Being the little boy someone is having sex with ain't effay, but fucking little fuccbois is effay.

it's not it's why everyone on this board types in run on sentences and no punctuation and doesn't capitalize like this

how have you not noticed

If you were actually intelligent you wouldn't be on a malaysian laundromat directory asking angsty teenagers for advice.