/lit/ - Literature

because it might as well be

>>13172764
Because western atheism still comes out of the western Christian tradition, and it is reacting against Christian dogmas. Atheism doesn't come out of a vacuum , it is historically and culturally formed like any other system of philosophy.

>>13172764
So if atheists who follow this are religious, that means Thomas Nagel (who rejects basically all of these) is the one true irreligious atheist?

>>13172764
Spoken like a true npc. Is it really that hard for your kind to differentiate belief and faith?

>>13172764
Many of these are just logical conclusions to there being no god

>>13172764
Nobody is really an atheist. After we die we all see God, so we all start believing in him. It's just too late to admit you're a retard at that point.

We will eventually shift away from both organised religion and atheism. Some things can’t be analysed rationally but can still be in some sense we don’t yet grasp “true”.

Firstly, none of these things are dogmas. You can be an atheist (i.e. you can hold the view that there isn't enough evidence to positively affirm the existence of a theistic god) while rejecting all of these things. I don't know why it's so common for religious people to use their own language such as 'faith' and 'dogma' when describing atheism. It isn't true and it just betrays a self-hatred on your part.
Secondly, religion is the belief in a supernatural, teleological, spiritual, eschatological, etc. view of the world. It usually comes in the form of holy scriptures from thousands of years ago which claim to reveal the ultimate truth about the world. Atheism doesn't meet any of these standards; it is in fact the antithesis.
Thirdly, it doesn't follow from the fact that certain philosophical beliefs are associated with atheism -- or are more prevalent among atheists -- that atheism demands you believe these things. Atheism is simply the statement that you are not convinced of the existence of a theistic god. It says nothing further than that.

>>13172764
Because people only are aware of so many metaphysical options, so when they eliminate one, they tend to default to another.

Also, some beliefs cluster together.

>>13172764
based
reminder that materialism is just metaphysical conjecture

>>13173254
name one person who after they died realized there was a god

>>13173246
>Is it really that hard for your kind to differentiate belief and faith?
no, but it is an ultimate leap of faith to claim that matter exists unperceived, there's nothing beyond it, and its behavior is ultimately random

>>13172764
This was the moment religion was defeated forever.

>>13172764
If platonism isn't a religion why do platonists believe in idealism hurr durr

>>13172764
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a mental illness, like feminism.

what if i am a non materialistic atheist?

>>13173254
>After we die
GTFO skeleton

>>13173841
then you are based
atheism vs religion doesn’t matter, it’s materialism that is the poison on society
and you can be religious and materialistic (hence priests raping kids)

>>13173841
If you mean not ignoring intellectual or cultural values that's cool I guess, but if you mean being "spiritual" then I guess you're not really an atheist, so why would you define yourself as such.
>>13173983
you're gonna be the person that you are and do the things that you do whether you're "materialistic" or "non-materialistic" because at the core of it materialism is correct, and you are influenced for the most part by circumstance, as in having a pedophile's brain is a circumstance.

>>13174002
>how you think doesn’t effect how you behave
uhhhh source?

>>13174002
There are spiritual atheists though, did you not read any 19th century philosophy at all? You can’t just state things are “the truth” when debate is still ongoing about them to this day, pseud.

>>13174008
how you think is a materialistic circumstance in the brain, and I did say "for the most part", meaning that defining yourself as materialistic or non-materialistic is such a weak influence on behavior as to be almost negligible, if the brain is working in such a way as to have empathy for other people, and intelligence and imagination to understand the consequences, it won't choose to harm kids even if the urge is there.

I'm an atheist, but I also reject materialism and naturalism. (And I'm not spiritual in any way either.)

>>13174069
So your argument is your own headcanon about how the brain works

>>13174002
>If you mean not ignoring intellectual or cultural values that's cool I guess,

yes, that´s the one, i want to become an artist after all

>>13174076
Well it's not my own, we know there are a number of people with no empathy at all. We also know there are people with low intelligence and low impulse control, these are established facts.

>>13172919
>yfw the church deliberately perverted scripture into doctrine so they could refute the former through the latter
>yfw all stem memes are catholic inventions
>yfw the pope IS the antichrist

>>13172919
That makes it hypocritical. It shouldn’t be reacting to what it says isn’t true, since in that case religion is irellevent to its message

>>13174112
Tell us more.

>>13172764
that seems like a pretty weak definition for a religion: believing in any certain theory. you are assuming their belief must be dogmatics, which is (unfortunately) most likely projection. why don't you propose a coherent definition for religion and we'll do this whole thing properly

>>13173983
wtf does materialism have to do with raping kids?

>>13174165
Atheism is the negation of religion just as religion is the negation of atheism.

>>13174558
Muh pleasure, which is the only moral claim a materialist can make

>>13174165
Western atheism infers that since certain things aren't true, the things which religion taught and turned out to be false, the opposite of those things should be true. Even though that doesn't necessarily follow.

>>13174112
>the antichrist is said to reign for 1260 years
>the reign of popery started in 756 AD
>yfw the Apocalypse already started 3 years ago

>>13172764
I notice you used the word 'dogma' in the place of 'explanation,' 'belief' or 'hypothesis' in order to beg the question, making your desired answer a foregone conclusion.

>>13174569
>the only moral claim a materialist can make
you are right. is = ought

>>13174569
why would a materialist make any moral claims at all?

>>13174692
I don't know, but they will tell you more money is "good"

>>13172764
a robust critique of religious has nothing to do with dogmas you absolute brainlet

>>13174598
That’s what I mean. If christianity is a lie, how is it a basis for an argument? Why would the opposite be true if the whole thing is bullshit with no founding in reality? It makes zero sense

>>13172764
>"atheists are dogmatic too!"
cringe, stop projecting OP

>>13173254
based

>>13173254
which God? reminder to be specific because almost everyone's idea of God is mutually exclusive

>>13174779
Whichever god created the universe? Why does everything have to be tied down in scripture or organised religion? We can accept “a god” or some kind of creating force without being specific

>>13174801
because the word "God" carries certain baggage. what if the creation of the universe was an entirely mathematical event. do you come face to face with an equation then?

>>13174821
Maths is a man made concept that explains things that already exist. Maybe god is the same

>>13174842
if you are implying that the "God" concept is a man made concept which inaccurately represents the truth behind it, then I would say you're on to something

>>13174642
anti-realism about anything that isn't made up by billiard-ball particles interacting in an objective spacetime is dogmatic tho

>>13174569
What are you talking about? Deontology and virtue ethics both have materialist readings.

>>13174854
Nope. I’m saying there’s a truth behind it indicative of an actual god

>>13174866
>anti-realism about anything that isn't made up by billiard-ball particles interacting in an objective spacetime
Ah, so this is the definition of atheism. Finally, we have it.

>>13174881
Yeah, if you're retarded

>>13174885
Why insist on the loaded term of god? In our cultural context, it means a entity, a being, literally a personification. Since we don't know that is the case, you are being inaccurate since you could just say the truth behind the universe

Atheism is the religion of the modern era. Those with authority and power want you to believe in it, and espouse it, shunning people who don’t accept it as blind. Eventually we will get to some sort of genuine truth.

I want to get into Acharya S. Where do I start?

>>13174895
What does this even mean? I consider myself both a materialist and a Kantian deontologist, come at me.

>>13174899
I’m just talking shit. I don’t really believe in god, but I don’t find atheism satisfactory either, there are a similar number of logical leaps of faith you have to make to fully accept it.

>>13174918
Rational duty is not material

>>13174887
that is the main driving force behind stances mentioned in the OP
let's not pretend anyone holds them for independent reasons (esp. in conjunction)

>>13174918
How can you follow deontology while being materialist? Deontology has at baseline several moral assertions and codes that don’t really apply to material reality at all

>>13174928
To separate reason from material structures is nonsense, we are well aware of the role material conditions has on structures of consciousness.
>>13174934
There are no baseline moral assertions in Kantian deontology beyond the formulations of the categorical imperative. All moral claims fall under this. The categorical imperative is based on pure practical reason, something which materialism has plenty of room for. The synthetic a priori is still a totally relevant catagory in materialism.

>>13174962
On dogmas, but not consciousness itself

>>13174974
No, consciousness is very clearly an emergent product of complex neurological processes. The way our brains are physically structured matters to how we perceive phenomena.

>>13174999
Wouldn’t that make any abstraction true to materialism then? What differentiates the made up from the valid?

>>13175046
>Wouldn’t that make any abstraction true to materialism then?
You are going to need to explain how you got to this position

>>13174999
First, you would have to trust our sensibilities to accurately depict/comprehend what is being sensed. do you accept Kent's things-in-themselves?
Second, do you think a thing can ever experience itself? For example, I can only "know" what I look like by looking in a mirror, a picture, or someone else's description, none of which capture the entirety of what's happening.
Thirdly, how can a-priori thoughts exist in materialism and be valid? A-posteriori aka empirical aka material is all that should be valid

>>13175097
*Kant
Sorry

>>13175097
>you would have to trust our sensibilities to accurately depict/comprehend what is being sensed
What? Why? Why would you come to that conclusion? Of course I subscribe to the thing-in-itself, any good materialist would. What sense do you mean experience? Obviously we have an experience of ourselves, but that doesn't mean that A) our experience corresponds to reality, and B) that experience is total or exhaustive.
>A-posteriori aka empirical aka material is all that should be valid
A posteriori means after experience, it is NOT a experience of material (as in the thing-in-itself), a posteriori specifically means it took place in phenomenal consciousness and NOT in the "real world". You are basically making the assumption that all materialists are naive realists and that's simply false.

>>13174702
some could say that, materialists are allowed to be different people, they are not bound by a single dogma

>>13175173
So are you a type of transcendental idealist or something? I suppose it would help to know what you believe other than consciousness being derived from material things

>>13175269
I am a materialist monist. Consciousness is grounded by an inherent incompleteness in ontological reality, which again, is totally material. If you want good contemporary materialist ontologies, check out OOO with Harman. (Or Zizek.)

>>13172764
>there is no such thing as atheism
>we dont make names for anti-astrologist
>we dont make names for people who dont believe in the teapots between saturn and jupiter
>we dont make names for people who dont believe in poseidon
>we dont make names for people who think that grape juice will cure you of cancer (maybe a crazy guy)

>>13175322
I see. Well, I'll look into it, Have a good one

atheists are mentally retarded, perhaps more so than Protestants

>>13175358
thank your god for making us this way

>>13175404

>>13175404
you are a product of a decadent culture void of any meaningful philosophy, which is why I don’t blame you at all. you are just a product of the time.

>>13172764
Atheism is the default state and all religions are social constructs. Atheism doesn’t have any particular set of beliefs nor does it ask anything of anyone

this neolib hell we have now is the eternal christfag's fault, it's the logical end of the judeo-christian worldview for a scientific era. problem is, being a schismatic and championing islam for example (which is the only abrahamic with enough calcium left in its bones) brings its own set of issues, since it is anti-american and anti-western. the glorification of literal shiteating faggots will always indirectly be the christian's fault though, and they must never be allowed to forget this, even if you have to make due with them in the interim between now and ideal

>>13172764
>why do so many atheists believe in one or all of the following dogmas?
Evidence

tfw there is no good argument for materialism
it only causes humans to become arrogant and destroy the world around them

>>13174614
>Trump was elected 3 years ago
It all makes sense now

>>13174112
yeah man Martin Luther was pretty based

>>13175863
But muh hands

>>13175417
so if I'm a product of society or lets say my brain is fucking stupid, why would God punish me at all?

>>13176657
Read about Original Sin and you'll have your answer.

>>13177297
sorry I'm an illiterate Chinese peasant

Belief is the natural state of humans

>>13177536
Basically, we die and suffer because of Adam's sin.

>>13177583
This Adam guy sounds like a real jerk!

>>13177666
As if you had nothing to do with it.

>>13177583
damn, it's too bad I wasn't born as a hunter gatherer before Adam, he really fucked us up

The same reason /pol/ is a religion. Common enemies. If you unite under the banner of hatred toward any group(s) you become dogmatic. Dogmatism looks the same in every ideology. Every religion at one point or another was empowered by the mantra "_______ is everything wrong with the world."
Atheists simply believe that religious individuals are everything wrong with the world.

>>13172764
Atheism is not a religion, to say otherwise is to play word games and Symantec mumbojumbo waste of time, like 80% of metaphysics

>>13172764
Because they are all true.

>>13172764
Atheism is a religion based off of cringe and vibrating anal dildos

>>13174769
Atheists are dogmatic, they have no proof for their belief that God doesn't exist. Agnostics are based though.

this fucking thread

>>13172764
>moral nihilism/non-cognitivism/relativism
>aesthetic subjectivism

Not really.