/lit/ - Literature

>>20118541
>It seems like most of you are fairly intelligent

There are several christian discord servers which organize infestations of different parts of 4chan. They seem to have started to give up on /pol/, then they tried /his/ for a long time, and I think now they're experimenting with /lit/ as it has a smaller population and can thus be colonized more easily.

I'm not saying every christian poster here is a discord spammer, but many of them are and also many of them are just naive, tone-deaf kids who go with whatever they perceive the current zeitgeist is and thus would not be doing this were it not for the spammers.

>>20118541
huh i will give a quick reason: the major fuck up by the atheists is that they have created ''laws'' which they claim ''govern the cosmos''. it turns out it a utter retarded stance.

But first let me digress super quickly.
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to them

theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth

theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fish today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ho and btw, they did the same with their bigbang:
you believe a uncaused bigbang with the size of rice grain created the whole universe, then your granddaddy was a fish, then you daddy was an ape.

yes the bigbang is purely theoretical. nobody ever experienced a bigbang and nobody did a bigbang in a controlled lab.

bigbang= claim that there is a universe [placeholder for everything, universe was never observed in a lab]+claim that universe is expanding+claim of conservation of energy+reversing time in some mathematical model

there is a cause for the bigbang or there isnt. so far science says there is not, ie bigbang= god

So to reformulate this part.Atheists have replaced God with The bigbang. Atheists have never obseverd a bigbang, they have never replicated it, and yet they said it existed. Christians never witnessed God,and yet they say God exists. The best part is that each one of those God and Bigbang leads to inchorent views....

>first there was nothing
>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>then a few billions years after that, through evolutions, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence

Now the second point.
Reminder that if you believe in scientific realism, you literally believe that there is an immaterial symmetry group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)× P(1,3)
living outside the universe and yet governing every interaction in the material universe without even being able to explain how immaterial rules act on matter.

>>20118649

The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to science, reality is composed by mathematical objects. Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.
It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system is acted upon by immaterial rules
5/in labs, all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

Atheists are so stupid that they deserve to be depressed and commit suicide out of their own-making nihilism.

Because materialism is either self contradictory or makes so little claims there's nearly nothing there to discuss

>>20118669
This materialism is so easy a 3rd grader can be taught it’s entirety. It takes becoming a man to know God.

>>20118684
in cases like that the explanation of materialism tends towards self contradictory

>>20118684
This isn’t actually true kids can be taught God too, but that takes a good family already in it.

>>20118541
Material monism is incoherent just as spiritual monism is, rather the truth is more of a pluralous coexistence.

>>20118659
What are you then? It sounds like you are also an atheist but don't like Nu-Atheism

>>20118541
Atomism is also stupid.

>>20118684
Desperate cope. Almost all religious people were raised that way and only tapered off in it with age.

I don't understand how we could ever know that matter is the fundamental substrate of reality. Specially since matter is not a clearly defined phenomena and acts inconsistently depending on scale.

Monism? I'm all about it. Materialist monism? Cringe.

Edgy contrarianism.

>>20118541
The existence of qualia and of their being non-physical self evidently disproves materialism.

>>20118720
They’re not Christians

>>20118723
A materialist would say that qualia is an epiphenomena of matter interactivity. What would you say to that?

>>20118750
That the epiphenomena is non-physical.

>>20118649
>nobody ever experienced a bigbang

That's not what your mum told me.

>>20118541
Because materialism, with the help of the natural sciences, attempts to proclaim things about which we have insufficient knowledge. More often than not, such claims stem from a misinterpretation of data and strong oversimplifications. For example, I am referring to claims such as the absence of free will, the possibility of reducing all human behavior to chemical processes (of which we actually still have a very superficial understanding) or animal behavior, the absence of the existence of God, and the like. These are very significant assertions that we can't really verify yet. And I say this as someone who has many acquaintances with advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, neurophysiology (btw, I doubt they would call themselves materialists). And despite the lack of evidence, people who are not even real scientists (e.g. Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins; I don't know the other two) make these claims an absolute, denying everything else in the most radical way and turning science into a self-proclaimed ideology. Naturally, no one will take such ideologues seriously.

>>20118750
Not him
Consciousness is the greatest defeater of materialism. It doesn't matter how far neuroscience progresses, how tightly we can correlate brain states to conscious states, or how detailed our neuro-anatomical knowledge is, it doesn't get us even an inch closer to being able to explain why we have a first-person, subjective experience. Materialists are forced to say that well we don't know how it works now, but given the track record of science, eventually we will be able to describe the emergence of immaterial consciousness from physical brain matter. But this is a severe misunderstanding of the problem. First-person, subjective experience is categorically different than physical, non-conscious matter. You can't logically derive one from the other, or reduce one into the other. That's a much harder problem than just figuring out correlations in the brain. If you're a materialist, you're basically committed to an illusionist view, that we just think that we have consciousness, but actually it's a concert of complex neural processes all running at the same time, which gives you the illusion that you're conscious, but that isn't really so. I can't think of anything more obviously retarded. There isn't anything that you could possibly be more certain of than the fact that you're conscious.

>>20118805
>people who are not even real scientists (e.g. Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins; I don't know the other two)
Richard Dawkins is a real scientist. He has a PhD in zoology and has done real work in evolutionary theory. One of the other two you
don't know the name of is Daniel Dennett who has a PhD in philosophy

literature spans last 3000 years of human history and people who read a lot of it are naturally going to be more open to worldviews predating the modern one simple as

>>20118541
BECAUSE MATERIALISM ISN'T TRUE YOU STUPID FUCK

>>20118835
This is a pretty good summation of the hard problem of consciousness

>>20118541
Among philosophers today, materialism is actually becoming increasingly less held. And it's not because they're converting to theism or anything. These are atheist but honest smart people, smarter than the scientistic pseuds anyway, but they feel consciousness is not reducible to the material. Why don't you take them seriously yourself?

materialism is just reddit-idealism

>>20118541
Because materialism is no different from any other worldview, they all have their own presuppositions.

>>20118541
This is a Kantian board

>>20119323
This

i dont like materialism bcuz it gives rights to women and gays

>>20118785

>>20119433
>Philosophy can really mess you up
This is also true.

>>20118541
None of the people in the picture you posted are materialists, except *perhaps* Christopher Hitchens because of his history as a Marxist, but even that is thin given his pivoting to becoming a liberal imperialist.

The fact is that there's nothing about being a scientist that necessitates a belief in materialism or even physicalism, the whole point is simply that you develop hypotheses and follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the evidence leads to material explanations then so be it, but that doesn't in principle mean that immaterialism is false.

>>20118541
>is the view taken by the vast majority of intelligent people these days
(?) The best scientists and philosophers weren't materialists.

>I see more favour for Christianity on here than I do for a view that actually corresponds with reason and science.
There are Christian materialists like Josemaria Escriva and atheist anti-materialists like Schopenhauer, the dichotomy isn't between materialism and Christianity, but the former and idealism or realism. The only metaphysics view that actually corresponds with reason and science is probably realism which a lot of Catholics support.

>>20118541
Define intelligence

>>20118714
Yes

>>20119435
If you really think about this its true. Almost all leftists are materialists, and leftism ends up with abolitionism

>>20118649
american hands 100% wrote this post

>>20118750
>>20118754
Is there anything left to say other than this? Seems like the answer depends on more evidence for either position

Are we just wasting time talking about it?

>>20119742
>Are we just wasting time talking about it?

Obviously.

>>20119474
Just how the fuck could empirical evidence lead to immaterial explanations? The very nature of what is empirical is that it is observable and therefore of physical reality.

>>20119976
>Mathematics

simple, because it’s obviously true and this board is full of contrarians

>>20120044
>Empiracle

>>20118541
Feels wrong and I don't identify with it. I have some vague spiritual understanding that I can't articulate but I also don't care to.

>>20118541
materialism is not real. you're completely ignorant of philosophy so you construct dichotomies and ideas that don't exist. Try thinking for literally 5 seconds about what "matter" is.

>>20119433
why does this pic create so much butthurt. in the rare occasions that i see it posted outside of 4chinx it's like a nuclear detonation. the seethe from atheists is so palpable you can touch it, they don't even bother with their usual arguments they just insult, wish death, rape etc on the poster. at other things they only insult but at this specific picture a secret switch is turned on somehow. glorious.

>>20120410
the only other response to it was in agreement

>>20120415
outside of 4chan i said.

Materialism insists upon itself

>>20118541
Things like mental states, intentionality or "aboutness", are just a couple realities that materialism cannot explain. Also, most intelligent people are not reductive materialists these days.

>>20118716
Can't ever know anything. To the degree that you can know things quantum phenomena have occurred at very large scale during experiments.

>>20118720
This. Edgy teens doing edgy things.

>>20119313
we are gonna have in the future pathetic and decadents anti-materialist and anti-physicialist and anti-empirism scientists that still proclaim the truth and importance of scientism while science empire goes down in their hands and they will pass out to a completely different system of thought while call it its just "for science". as all empires always do.
every thought have his own fall and his own emptyness inside.

>>20118634
I love how you focus your disdain towards "Christers" (because I know that's what you call them in other threads) when OP didn't make any reference to them.

>>20118541
positivism is trash epistemology. materialism is a dead end that only leads to nihilistic effete.

>>20118835
But dualist approaches fail as well. If the stuff of subjective existence doesn't interact with matter then how do they effect each other. If they do then what makes them not just be matter. I don't see that Christianity even starts to address the hard problem except to say God is mysterious and while I could accept that alone why does it come with so much baggage about butt stuff and so on.

>>20120101
do you have a single fact to back that up sir

>>20118715
You're being subversive and misleading. It's true people abandon their faith, but there's also plenty of people that convert. Not everyone has the religious instinct of course, but it definitely doesn't exist in a strict vacuum of nurture over nature.

>>20118541
>implying Christianity is incompatible with reason and science
While I personally am not Christian, these are not exclusive, I wish this view would die off.
>>20118634
A valid theory
>>20118649
You don't understand what you're talking about. Honestly, neither do those trying to make sense of the Big Bang, but they at least have better structure in their analysis.
>>20118716
I think I agree.
>>20118805
Mostly correct here too.
>>20119756
Okay abandoning thread lol
>>20120520
>"scientism"
Though this would be hilarious to see while actual scientific research abandons/remains separate from such dogma

>>20118541
>Appeal to the majority
Fallacies aside, there is nothing worthwhile to gain from a positivist worldview, nor has it proven to be true. In fact, the empiricists had abandoned metaphysics since the days of Hume since they just can't do it. All they can do is observe and report what their senses are experiencing, that's it. You're merely making an assumption that the object your first sense experiences is in fact the same object your second sense experiences. This is an invalid move as you must appeal to the mind which is a transcendental category or metaphysical principle before processing this sense data. None of this takes into account the issue with even simple things like trying to define what understanding is without actually proving to understand how they got to the understanding of that definition.

tl;dr the empiricists haven't progressed since their project started 200 years ago, nor have they addressed any of the issues, assumptions, or contradictions within their philosophy.

>>20120576
>Though this would be hilarious to see while actual scientific research abandons/remains separate from such dogma
i dont understand you well.
scientific research is just the practice of the dogma. you have everything upside down. once time the dogma falls you gonna have basically an empire crumbling and the practice too, you gonna have people making scientific research just for pure faith. which is possibly what we will have, like little churchs of good old empiricism and scientific knowledge while everybody believe in a new non-cohesive, non-rational system or whatever.
anyway we have a long time of scientific research ahead till people lost his faith in it.

>>20119558
No its just common sense. One thing communists got right was Lysenko.

>>20118709
Reality is the time/space hologram interacting with divine consciousness.
On this plane, material conditions of living are dominant.

>>20120576
Just realized I didn't actually answer. I think the reputation comes from the basis of this board as the main board open to philosophy, which seems to be disregarded by more current pop science viewpoints, and so those that appear more intelligent, depending on how you measure intelligence and what you consider it to be (people who, to generalize, may be slightly above average intelligence but not actually necessarily involved in literature or interested in philosophy) don't actually appear in the conversation. Those who are interested in philosophy tend to have a more nuanced take and so dislike it at least in part because of this dismissal
>>20120615
>scientific research is just practice of the dogma
Not if the dogma carries bias with it (which it does), scientific research itself is not intended to (at least theoretically) have any attachment to bias or particular theory, with the findings typically then interpreted by others to develop new theories. Science is supposed to be skeptical in nature, despite what popular sources may lead you to believe (the ones parading around evidence for ultimate truths, or lack thereof, tend to ignore this as they attempt to push differing theories explaining science's overall findings). It is inherently dogmatic, yes, but not in the way it's typically expressed in media ("These are THE FACTS"), and I think as a tool it can be useful though ultimately inconclusive.

>>20120640
>One thing communists got right was Lysenko

>>20120551
Personally I'm not a dualist, but rather an idealist, which gets you out of that problem.

I would agree that the question of immaterial/material interaction is a problem for the dualist, however I would say that dualists have a more complete metaphysical picture than materialists because they at least acknowledge the irreducibility of consciousness in physical terms. The mystery of how it is somehow localized in our brain is exactly the same one that materialists face, but they don't take the extra step to say that it's an illusion, which seems insane.

>>20120699
>It is inherently dogmatic,
yes, thats it. just that. like al dogmas, all will fall. im not saying its not skeptical, im saying "it have to be skeptical" is a dogma and as a dogma will fall as a representation of Real Truth. just that. anyway, its not important. we are living in the present.

>>20120771
Yeah but idealism fails to have explanatory power. Aside from rectifying that one issue it doesn't explain why so much of the world looks like matter that follows materialist rules or what thinking is or what rules govern it and why there appears to be these two incompatible things.

>>20120831
yeah but being depserate for an explanation is not that smart. and once a few people give you some explanations, with the same predictions, you wont be able to say which one is true or not. and in fact, even if you are given only one explanation, you still dont know if it's true or not, all you say is that ''at this date in time, i verified the predictions of explanation A"

>>20118541
Materialists are sent onto /sci/ or Reddit

>What exactly is it about materialism that you find so objectionable?
The problem of consciousness is unsolvable if you hold to a purely physicalist view of the world. A similar argument can be made for intentionality. Unfortunately both intentionality and consciousness exist, which means that the physicalist picture of the world is simply false.
Now, it's not the end of the world if scientists hold to it. Their main task is to further their own field of knowledge, and this can be done with false pictures of the world (as long as they're instrumentally valuable and lead to better predictions). But when it comes to philosophy this lenient attitude loses all meaning, and only leads philosophers to adopt downright wrong philosophical models and systems.
Finding actual refutations in philosophy is usually quite hard, but when it comes to materialism I think it is fair to say that as a position it has been conclusively refuted.
>I see more favour for Christianity on here than I do for a view that actually corresponds with reason and science.
I think all these critiques can be made regardless of one's religion. The problem of consciousness and intentionality can be recognized by thr Christian, the deist and the atheist alike.

>>20120831
I think that the explanatory power of natural sciences simply does not depend on this sort of philosophical interpretations. I can be an idealist or a materialist (or I might subscribe to no philosophical interpretation at all), and still do the same exact kind of research. The fact that the predictive power of natural sciences is associated to the materialist interpretation is just a sleight of hand which, ultimately, finds no confirmation in the actual development of natural sciences.

>>20118541
>Why does materialism have such a bad reputation on here?
Because it's obviously false and absurd with a modicum of thought applied to it's critical appraisal.

>so why do you mock materialism when it is the view taken by the vast majority of intelligent people these days
Is it? I've never read a book about materialism from someone I would consider "intelligent" where intelligent is informed of the philosophical issues. The closest I suppose would be Peter van Inwagen but even then I feel like he spends so much time trying to defend the inherent absurdities with the position that the fact he needs to devote more pages to the defense says more about the position than his argument itself does. Van Inwagen is completely faithful to the logical conclusions of materialism and says there are no "chairs" only "chairlike things", and while his argument for identity makes sense within a materialistic framework you can't help but wonder at what cost?


>I see more favour for Christianity on here than I do for a view that actually corresponds with reason and science.
Theism corresponds better with reason and science than the modern materialist/empiricist/skeptic worldview does. Most people just don't realize it because we've all been bombarded with propaganda from enlightenment fedora tippers all our lives. For example did you know throughout the middle ages it was well known that the earth was spherical and not flat? From whence then does the prevailing idea that they all thought it was round come from? Would it surprise you to know that the idea stems from a single enlightenment author who was interested in portraying the middle ages as backward and uninformed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

>The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict

What else have you uncritically accepted as truth that was simply lies from a time when a certain group of academics were interested in impugning religion?

>>20122326
As an addendum the root of the modern historical critical method that secular scholars use to this very day was created by the Young Hegelians for the explicit purpose of undermining the Prussian state.

>The Young Hegelians interpreted the entire state apparatus as ultimately claiming legitimacy based upon religious tenets. While this thought was clearly inspired by the function of Lutheranism in contemporary Prussia, the Young Hegelians held the theory to be applicable to any state backed by any religion. All laws were ultimately based on religious tenets.

>As such, their plan to undermine what they felt was the corrupt and despotic state apparatus was to attack the philosophical basis of religion.

When you wake up to the fact that all of modernity revolves around lies and falsehoods by atheistic scholars then you're on the right path

>>20118634
It's the reverse. There's a discord of leftists who shill every christian thread with videos of gay tiktok pastors to try and dissuade Christian discussion.

>>20120831
Explanatory power of what? With respect to consciousness and our means of acquiring and using knowledge considered in itself apart from externalities, idealism is vastly superior to materialism and can even get its foot into place, whereas physicalism falls into a void. In terms of natural phenomena and scientific experimentation, physicalism (and at least a bracketed assumption of materialism, where indivisible matter is assumed but not proven) is the superior explanatory device. Idealism gives us nothing in that domain. It's not as simple as one or the other, which is where most opposition to physicalism or materialism comes from.

>>20120424
There's an outside?

It's obviously because of marxism. The funny thing is that Marx didn't even care about what people actually talk about here, physicalism.

>>20118835
>Materialists are forced to say that well we don't know how it works now, but given the track record of science, eventually we will be able to describe the emergence of immaterial consciousness from physical brain matter
Yes they don't grasp that the issue is we haven't discovered the secret yet, but that within a materialistic framework there can be no answer even in principle. The experience of seeing red or eating a cheese is quite different than any material interactions that underlie phenomenological experience. The scientific worldview partitions off subjective experience for the sake of simplification and convenience but the truth is that reality is NOT objective it is inherently subjective. There is no frame of reference that is outside the mind of an observer. Reality, as it is, only exists within each subjective observers experience of it, anything else is merely a simplified abstraction of reality as we experience it.

This presents an absolutely intractable problem for the committed materialist because their materialist position is predicated on mathematical and scientific abstraction of the real that is actually experienced by observers.

>>20118835
>There isn't anything that you could possibly be more certain of than the fact that you're conscious.
In states of fight or flight you can be completely certain of things that are external to you, and only become aware of the fact you were conscious in those moments later when the adrenaline wears off.

>>20122349
>The funny thing is that Marx didn't even care
Because he took it as an assumption and axiom. Which is why it's not properly speaking philosophy.

What difference does it make?
Do idealists believe in free will?

>>20118541
It's because 4chan is quite literally the last refuge of anti-materialists, since they have taken over Reddit (aka the Church of Atheism) and most of media. In /here/ we banish all the materialists to >>>/sci/.

Because most people on here are seething Christcucks who can't handle their wishful fantasy being destroyed

>>20122366
How can you be certain about something that is external? And why do you think that fight or flight moments are incompatible with an idealist framework? I think even Berkeleyan idealism can account for them

>>20118541
I love materialism.

>>20118541
The majority of people on here are Americans and the USA has never managed to grow out of the whole god thing

>>20118541
>Why does materialism have such a bad reputation on here?
No evidence matter exists.
>It seems like most of you are fairly intelligent, so why do you mock materialism when it is the view taken by the vast majority of intelligent people these days.
Because no evidence of matter exist.
>What exactly is it about materialism that you find so objectionable?
The fact that it's based on no evidence.
> see more favour for Christianity on here than I do for a view that actually corresponds with reason and science.
Christiaity corresponds to reason. Materialism is yet another strain of paganism.

>>20122631
You need to experience it to find out. Although I've never had experience with "flight", just "fight." You're only aware of the experience after it occurs like a vivid memory, but it's as though you are in a world where there are no chances and only things which must happen, in that sense you are sure of something external. If you fail in that situation it was not because you weren't certain of what was happening, but because your body failed you and was not able to keep up with what was happening in the fight. And I don't think it's incompatible with any framework, I'm just saying it's wrong to think that your own consciousness is the only thing you can be most sure of.

>>20118541
>It seems like most of you are fairly intelligent
That's why we mock materialism. Materialism is a picture of the whole of reality that cannot, according to its own intrinsic premises, address the being of the whole; it is a metaphysics of the rejection of metaphysics, a transcendental certainty of the impossibility of transcendent truth, and so requires an act of pure credence logically immune to any verification…. Thus materialism must forever remain a pure assertion, a pure conviction, a confession of blind assurance in an inaccessible beyond; and that beyond, more paradoxically still, is the beyond of no beyond. Interpretation of evidence produced by science can never yield a proof of materialism, or even a coherent way of thinking in materialist terms.

>>20122694
People make fun of Americans on here saying they're soulless but then I read posts like this which make me think Americans might be some of the only Westerners left with any soul.

>>20118634
wrong

>>20118720
wrong

>>20122694
>The majority of people on here are Americans and the USA has never managed to grow out of the whole god thing
Pathetic

>>20122801
Fantastic post. /thread'd

>>20118541
>why do you mock materialism when it is the view taken by the vast majority of intelligent people these days.
Stupidest argument I've read today, you should feel ashamed.

>>20118541
Unironically, contrarian reaction to the guys in your OP. /lit/ is slow to keep up with the times though, e-Christians are a dying breed, no one cares about Radical Islam anymore, etc.

>>20123081
Christians aren't going anywhere

>>20123071
I posted something criticising materialism and unsurprisingly the tiny handful of materialists who peruse this board replied to it, but no one else. So I made this post because I wanted to see actual discussion. Simple law of 4chan. If you want lots of interesting responses, make a claim that the majority of anons will disagree with.

>>20123132
Yeah I'm talking about a specific type of online-only Christianity that only became popular starting around 2016.

>It seems like most of you are fairly intelligent
Maybe the /lit/ of 8 years ago. Now it's just reactionary pseuds who watched two or three Peterson videos and believe they're the next Nietzsche.

>>20123136
Christianity started to become popular on /lit/ because some random dude showed up and posted essays for dubs that were for any and every topic and he only cited the Gospels.

>>20123136
>Undeniable proof demons are real
>Christianity starts becoming more popular among people who can actually see what's going on and aren't propagandized by globohomo
Go figure.

>>20123081
Nobody gives a shit about the new atheists. It's the degeneracy they've fostered and that is killing society that people are concerned with.

>>20123159
>he thinks Christ taught hatred against one another
Please, actually read the gospel.

>>20123159
A disproportionate number of e-Christians suffer from same-sex attraction in my experience.

>>20123162
New Atheism isn't even that important anymore, once Dawkins started attacking Islam instead of Christianity he became a persona non grata. It evolved into the alt-right and woke leftism following the Elevatorgate incident and Gamergate. New Atheism itself was mostly a reaction to perceived excesses of Pentecostal Christianity in the second Bush admin

>>20118541
The one thing that prevents me from become a materialist is that I believe there are certain immaterial things that nevertheless exist without our being able to touch them.

For example, there are particular permutations of, say, a deck of cards, that have never been physically realised by man or machine. There's 52! possible ways to arrange the cards, which is large enough that I can guarantee man has not known or seen or touched all arrangements. Nevertheless, I believe they all exist, whether something can be physically realised where we are now is not so important. It's the possibility of existence that implies existence. Thus, the possibility of this universe is what has kept it. I believe there are many universes popping in and out of existence, the more 'possible' a universe, the longer it lasts. But as far as we're concerned, none of these other places exist.

As another example, and I'll be briefer, think about the universe beyond the observable universe. It is not real at all, it has not (yet) interacted with us, there's no way it can exist. And yet each day the observable universe expands, and more unreal space becomes real. Does it just spawn into existence, or did it always exist and we just didn't see it?

Anyhow, such topics of coming into reality and permutations... these are at the crux of all consciousness, in my opinion, but it's late and I've rambled enough.

>>20118541
The forces behind the movement hold something true and something false. Intelligence is a tool. 'Spirit' is what pushes people forward. That spirited forward momentum is the underlying force, vitality, power that is responsible for science. People like faceapp pictures. A stupid material computer can conjure up something (more employable than your average materialist) because we are receptive to these kind of abstract value fields and not 'pure data' like some retarded chemically-puppeteered gimp. Thus materialism is lost in it's own head - a schizophrenic just discovered the *true* meaning of numbers - It's like 'materialists' just discovered the philosophical equivalent of concrete only to find that the romans, among others, had their own mixture which was also superior. In reality, they, like their fans, are the necessary rebellion against the historical father force that created them. By their own material analysis, they are capitalizing on the current presence of an instinct toward the world (by a value analysis, they can be the four horsemen sounding the horns of the industrially-created-wasteland.) What's wrong with all movements depends upon their time, the youth like to make everything silly until they come of age. Considering materialism was the popular thing 10 years ago, it is going to be unpopular now, because it's just a fad, as it stands.

>>20122694
"god" means geometry, if you don't believe in geometry you're the retard

>>20123208
>Considering materialism was the popular thing 10 years ago, it is going to be unpopular now
People are trapped into false polarities. It's not because the mainstream pushed materialism 15 years ago, that the opposite, pure idealism, is necessarily true.
Truth is not in the mainstream/non-mainstream polarity. Often, it is somewhere else.
That's the principle between disinfo. Indeed, it would be too easy, if to know the truth, you only had to reverse mainstream propaganda. That's why a good disinfo is often about something trivial, not important, but which triggers people. E.G: LGBT culture, race, feminism. Something that doesn't threat the "elite", if in favor, nor if against. False dialectical units are great. And 4channers often fall for the trap.

>>20123273
I agree. Although any idealism or spiritualism implied wasn't also implied true (or false), as much as 'just is right now.' There are (right now too) uses for materialism. People are, as you said continuously mired in polarities. I
Considering you brought up the elite - what do you think of some coming (even creating) to our senses with a more preternatural force, even if just as a utility against an impending threat to the worlds existence? I know that the new age spiritual movement and even earlier movements in the past couple centuries lay out a strange preoccupied picture of possibility for this kind of thing; psyops etc. Hmm, what do you think anon?

>>20123165
Yeah no. The gospels are not canon, only secondary commentaries.

>>20118649
What do you call a group of people, who believe in fairytale story books written by Jews who have no way of proving any of it is true?

Atheists.