/lit/ - Literature

This bothers the afterlife deniers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9v7sCCPHiU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8SO_aCk_sU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbMMBYijNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78SkTuk8Zd4

>>19514279
What? Atheism usually is about "muh science" and not knowing certain things, anon.
Dunno, I don't really believe in such things, I do have some "wishful thinking", but I'm aware of it.

>>19514279
God isn't even a sufficient explanation for everything. Also there's still no good definition of what life "is" to even talk about its various possible states.

>>19514294
>What? Atheism usually is about "muh science" and not knowing certain things, anon.
That's agnosticism

>>19514279
Nobody knows why the world exists and we will probably never know. Be agnostic and take the epoche pill.

>>19514312
No, anon. That is Atheism, Agnosticism is more about not knowing all things.

>>19514279
Atheism is fine since religion is retarded. The hullabaloo around atheism is pure Redditing however

>>19514279
>For one, there is no way to explain how everything can come from nothing. You might as well believe in god.
God doesn't explain how something can come from nothing. And the idea of creation ex nihilo is a doctrinal assumption of Abrahamic religions taken from the etiology in Genesis 1. Many philosophers from Aristotle to Stephen Hawking have argued that the universe has always existed.

>>19514279
>the simple fact that anyone and everyone can think about life.
That's the point, it's joining in the conversation that's been going on for thousands of years, there's countless people that have contributed to the conversation beyond what just one person in one lifetime can think of. Someone can join that conversation and have their thoughts questioned and challenged.

>>19514279
>there is no way to explain how everything can come from nothing. You might as well believe in god.
Nihilism is not the opposite of theism. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Some atheists are nihilists. But even theists, especially Abrahamists, believe the world was indeed made ex nihilo. So even if one such person fancies himself a not-nihilist, he meanwhile believes the entire world he lives in is made of nothing, whether he will admit it or not, and all that really exists is God, who he has imagined on the basis of that world made of nothing.
>The second thing that I don't understand is how atheists can be so sure that there is no "life" after death.
Many Buddhists, who are atheists as far as belief in an Abrahamic creator is concerned, believe in both an afterlife and a before-life. Just because there is no god does not mean there is no more continuity in the world. Quite the opposite, for with God we must attempt to explain how something uncontacted is able to cause everything to continue? Where is he? Did he die? Why hasn't anyone heard from him? Curious that all we have are texts preserved by political herdsmen instructing us how to behave.

>>19514343
The belief that the universe has always existed is just as ludicrous and I do not believe there is a "god" per se. My belief is that there is something that controls every aspect of our being and we are forced to exist forever . We have no free will and if there ever was a purpose it would be to ascend and have dominion over our own conscious.

/lit/ will become a Bataillean board. That's my thought on atheism.

>>19514464
You are arguing over the semantics of what nothing means and not all theists are going to agree on their view about god, life, and so on. I think it is far to say that god created something out of nothing and that he transcends that which we can measure/observe.

Most atheists would disagree with you and say that the afterlife does not exist because there is no way of proving it . When it comes to god one can argue that "it" doesn't owe us anything and that his understanding is beyond our own but that we know enough to question where we came from.

>>19514531
>Most atheists would disagree with you and say that the afterlife does not exist because there is no way of proving it
Yes there is absolutely no proof you go to "heaven" so that goes out the window with god. It's far more plausible that lives are recycled on earth, which if unprovable in a metaphysical sense is very true materially. Your parents ate animals to get the energy to make you, and their parents, and so forth in a regress

>>19514279
crypto-Zionist and -neocon

it was all a psy-op for the post-9/11 wars

>>19514279
>For one, there is no way to explain how everything can come from nothing
No one is suggesting this except Abrahamoids.

>The leap of faith is Kierkegaard’s conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one’s beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person’s thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, “doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world”.

>>19514561
what? if thats not what the big bang says then what is it?

>>19514279
>The second thing that I don't understand is how atheists can be so sure that there is no "life" after death. If something as complex as us can come from of nothing then what is to say that we will not "reincarnate". There are also numerous stories of people reincarnating or people being fully conscious after being pronounced dead.
There isn’t a mind-body dualism. Our consciousness stems from our brain. Without it, we don’t exist.

>>19514571
The big bang is literally just theology. Ex nihilo.

>>19514571
The Big Bang posits that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, all space-time and energy was compressed to a single point. This point then exploded outwards, leading to where we are today. This is fitting with an observed trend of cosmic expansion (essentially distance is increasing; "a meter" is getting longer, everywhere, in all three spatial dimensions).

The Big Bang cannot, by its own theoretical setup, describe what happened before that. All space-time and energy was compressed to a single point, so if we are to presume a big-bang - big-crunch cycle (wherein after some point cosmic expansion reverses until all space-time and energy compresses to a single point) then whatever order was in the prior-universe was destroyed during the compression. The only way to prove that our universe is the result of a big-bang after a prior universe would be to find something that hadn't gotten compressed into that point. Whatever this thing would be, it would probably have to be really fucking weird to not get destroyed in the big-bang ("where" is it if all space-time is compressed to a point?), and given current theories on False Vacuum Stability, it might very well have been radically altered by changes in the Laws of Physics that occurred during the movement to this universe from the prior one. This would also imply that 100% of a universe is not necessary to trigger a big-crunch, which is a bizarre idea itself, and can be made even weirder if we assume that somehow there's a net-gain in energy to fuel the big-crunch-ification.

So, by definition, no, the Big Bang does not posit that something came from nothing, it posits that everything was compressed to a single point that then exploded outwards. This is unlike the Abrahamic creation myth wherein Yahweh poofs into existence from nothing for no reason and then creates a bunch of stuff from nothing for no reason. Under the Big Bang model, everything was already there, it's just been moving around.

>>19514572
Yet we have thousand of people that say otherwise. To say that we know everything about conscious is not only stupid but unscientific.

>>19514555
This actually. The atheism fad helped justify American foreign policy to the Left. Then once it was no longer useful it was allowed to be devoured by the proto-woke.

>>19514279
Atheism is a default setting for every human on earth after he was born. Depending on the quality of education he receives, he may gradually progress either into having 1) a firm belief in atheism or 2) a certain level of superstition and agnosticism. Given a lack of proper education based on science, the latter corresponds with the evolution of religion in history in which religions developed from early primitive shamanism to polytheism and from polytheism to some forms of organized monotheism. The final stage of religion is actually a long process of evolution and accumulation that a single person by definition cannot reach in his lifetime by himself without the "help" of the organized religion.

So, only if you impose organized religion since childhood age can one actually skip the period of wonder and turn him into a believer in a certain religion, like a woman having a baby without making love and getting pregnant which you probably heard already from the Bible.

In other words, that's unnatural. Getting into a religion is by definition a manufactured and constructed action by the organization.

Provided that you remove the religious "thought factory," it's rather natural that the majority in society ends up being atheists if not a weak sort of agnosticism. You will have to accept that only a small percentage of the population due to their brains, experiences, gender, age, mental issues and so forth will be into a religion, especially an organized one. And if you think that's unnatural, that's likely because the place where you grow up and live has permanently reprogrammed your brain to an extent that you can't remember nor imagine what it was like before organized religion was imposed on you either by your parents or community or society.

For another example, atheism even existed in ancient times. Take the Han Dynasty politician Fan Zeng. He objected to the "cause and effect" theory of Buddhism, rather he claimed that the soul of human beings would fade away when humans physically die. Later on he wrote the 神灭论 (theory of the death of soul), claiming that only the body of human beings are real and the soul belongs to the body, so once the body is dead the soul is gone too. Therefore he claimed that the existence of soul is fake. Further he argued that the so-called God is just an internal mindset which couldn't last when the body is dead either.

Thus, he claimed religion is just a superstition and people should focus on the current lives. His theory also served as the framework for anti-Buddhism campaign years later in several Chinese dynasties which promoted the separation of church and state. However, if you look at the history of the Roman Empire, they went down a different path by adopting and promoting Christianity.

https://youtu.be/Qo5odzLpwl4

>>19514811
>the evolution of religion in history in which religions developed from early primitive shamanism to polytheism and from polytheism to some forms of organized monotheism. The final stage of religion is actually a long process of evolution and accumulation that a single person by definition cannot reach in his lifetime by himself without the "help" of the organized religion.
I disagree with your argument of a historical progression here, for two reasons.

Firstly, there is no indication that there is any kind of movement towards some kind of pure true ultimate religion of Qabbalistic Judaism as some kind of end state of religion. This is purely something that Abrahamics, who are only a tiny majority of the worlds different religions, state in order to defend their own legitimacy. Outside of Abrahamic religion, we see a trend towards increasing polytheism, and attempts at creating an uber-God are really just attempts at allowing unlimited polytheism (by creating an uber-God under whose aegis unlimited polytheism can occur). In Korea, for example, Neoconfucians were influenced by Catholic ideas of a supreme deity as a means of unifying Qi and Li. They absolutely did not reject the idea of the world as being filled with all sorts of supernatural things that could be interacted with in various ways.

Looking at actual practitioners of Abrahamism, they can't stop themselves from falling into worshiping supernatural entities, let alone literal objects. Angels, demons, Saints, literal actual deities like Jack Frost and the Green Man, alongside statues, crosses, books, buildings, institutions, and scrolls. You might say that this is just people reverting to their natural atheism or agnosticism, but then we're forced to admit that these terms are actually useless here. If worshiping your ancestors and some local ethnic deity of war is "atheism", then "religion" is meaningless. What we're really arguing about is the veracity of an Abrahamic myth.

This is my second point: to accept this myth is to accept a SPECIFIC myth, which itself must be a religious (to use your terminology) action. If we are to actually step outside of these myths, then we must step outside of ALL of them, not just adopt a modified version of one, especially one that is so obviously flawed. If Christianity had to be enforced upon the Romans at sword point, and is constantly being undone, how can it said to be a natural progression?

>>19514811
Atheism can not be the default setting if there was no god then religion should have never existed in the first place. The complete randomness of life is also something that we are not in control of. If we believe that animals and humans are both conscious, what is actual difference between us ? why weren't you born at a different time ?

>>19514811
>>19514893
You ought to start with the caves. Read Bataille's The Cradle of Humanity

>>19514279
It's not about choosing something appealing, it's about looking at things for what they are... hell sanity itself be damned I'm not taking the easy reassuring lies.
Not saying there's nothing good about religion either, it's just not for everyone.