/lit/ - Literature

Why? Leave them alone.

You could let them believe what they want to believe and not push your own ideals onto them.

That's certainly an option.

the best part about being atheist/agnostic is that you don't have to care/worry about others being "saved."

Your evangelism is for a good cause but can probably be more closely associated with the religious institutions that you oppose.

by trying to 'convert' them, you're just as bad as any other religious person.

LOL OP

SURE IS TEENAGE DARK AND EDGY ATHEIST

I BET YOU KNOW SO MUCH MORE THEN YOUR PARENTS, RIGHT?

op here. We're not fighting.

Why?

Richard Dawkins is not the Jesus Christ of atheists.

you can't reason with religious people

Are they younger than 30?
If not, no media is going to work. They have to have some kind of life-changing experience for them to change their views about something as important as God.

In any case, why would you want them to?
Is it that important that your parents see eye-to-eye with you on this?

>>2364302
Then why bring it up?

You're insecure about your own beliefs and you've projected that insecurity onto the beliefs of your parents.

>>2364299
I'm not trying to convert them per say. We have debates about this stuff all the time. politics, religion, etc. Doesn't mean we're fighting about it.

>>2364301
I'm married.

OP, Dawkins is actually a good go here. He is very patient and slow about it and his books are made to appeal the "slightly religious, stubborn" crowd, so I think it's just a very good choice to introduce them to other ways of thinking. If anything, they will be more understanding on this matter.

>>2364310

>per say

>I'm not a kid! I'm married!

Go away.

>>2364310
>I'm married.
that doesnt make you less of a kid, dude

>>2364297
>>2364295
This. For the love of god, by trying to 'convert' someone you're just as bad as one of those door-to-door jehoves or mormons. Live and let live, if they want to be christian then let them. They're probably happier off for it.

>>2364306
more like you can't reason with atheists

Dawkins is easy to read, but he says a lot of things for the sole intention of pissing people off. The Age of Reason is pretty good, and there are a shit ton of cosmology books that mention the fact that God is unnecessary.

>>2364311
Is that so? I assumed he was pretentious about it, but I'll take a look.

To everyone in the thread thinking we're fighting about this. We're not. My dad's a conservative, I'm a liberal, and we give each other shit for it. My mom believes in karma and Jesus, doesn't believe in evolution, and I'm agnostic. We also make fun of each other. If their views were to change because of me, that'd be great. But it's not the end goal.

Jesus Christ you autistic nerd, let them believe what they want
Richard Dawkins is also very narrow minded and quite inarticulate when it comes to any of the finer humanistic points to do with religion, he seems like a bit of an autist himself really.
I'm not even religious, I just hate dogmatists like you OP.

>>2364327
Shh, Rae.

>>2364331
Who the hell is rae?

>>2364327
Stop being such a whiny bitch.

>>2364318
Faith requires you to completely ignore logic, reason, and the laws of nature.

Atheism does not.

>>2364335
>this is what atheists actually believe

>>2364335
OH BOI HERE WE GO

Reality is subjective, your interpretation of the human condition is but one amongst countless billions.

Atheism is no more logical or "intelligent" than any other religion, and yes, atheism is a religion.

>>2364335
Actually it is perfectly possible to argue for the possibility of the existence of God deductively, or logically, which is using one's reason.
There is nothing in nature to suggest that a creator is not possible.
Likewise there is nothing to suggest that there is a creator.

Simply put, the question of religion is not one to which the answer can ever be KNOWN. It is IMPOSSIBLE to EVER know whether or not God/s EXISTS.
It is simply a choice or preference.

>>2364335
Atheism is usually as dogmatic as religion. Your post proves it because you assumed an objective point of view.

>>2364335
>He doesn't understand quantum physics
The laws of nature are bullshit. Go down to a small enough level and we have no fucking clue what's going on. For all we know it could be a God, it's as good an explanation as anything else we've got.

>>2364337
>>2364327
>>2364316
>>2364313
>>2364309
>>2364303
>>2364301
>>2364299
>>2364297
>>2364295
Fucking sanctimonious scum

>>2364342
Atheism is a religion! Just like not playing soccer is a sport...

>>2364346
>you assumed an objective point of view.
There's an objective point of view somewhere, we just haven't found it yet. That's the point--you'll never find it unless you're looking for it, and you'll never look for it if you deny it.
>>2364345
There's nothing in nature to suggest that a creator was ever necessary. You cannot prove a negative, therefore it would be impossible to logically suggest that a creator is not possible. I'm not going to argue with you about religion being a choice, but it's not a simple choice, and from past experience, clouding your mind with delusion has never been a good thing.
>>2364342
>atheism is a religion
You should really read a book before posting on the literature board.

>>2364352
>has never heard the term "Religion without religion"
You have a long way to go, newfriend.

>>2364352

This. If atheism is a religion, what is the word for not being religious.

Learn to semantics, religionfags.

>>2364342
>reality is subjective
No it isn't. Our perception of reality is, but truth exists independent of whether believe in it or not.

>>2364355
>There's an objective point of view somewhere

This is just where we will differ. You think it's somewhere to find in life. I think it's impossible to find because it exists outside of our boundaries in terms of comprehending.

>>2364356
>Religion without religion
You obviously misunderstand the term, because it doesn't apply here at all. Atheists, through a specific context of the word, can be "religious," but atheism is not a religion.

>>2364355
Of course you can't prove it, but you can argue more or less convincingly for it, e.g. Descartes.
Exactly what I'm saying,can't be PROVEN either way.

>>2364360
It's pretty safe to assume that there's an objective, physical reason for the universe. Believing that the answers are beyond our boundaries is the same thing as having faith in something there's no reason to have faith in--it takes you nowhere.
>>2364365
It's illogical and irrational to believe in something because it can't be proved wrong. You can't tell me that there isn't an invisible monster living under your bed, teapot orbiting the sun, etc, etc, etc.

>>2364359
Duh, but you've never experienced objective reality and you will never experience it, so what difference does that make?

>>2364349

Grow up, autist.

>>2364359
You have a very, very long list of people who disagree with you, ranging from the Copenhagen School of physicists to almost all of phenomenology.

This thread was born dead. You are wasting your time.

Yes, you.

YOU, exactly you.

Go do something that will teach you something, don't you stay here in this thread.

OP, give Dawkins for them to read. They might find it to be cool and the world will keep spinning, I assure you.

>>2364359
Dude, I am atheist, I dig science and I think that is pure bullshit and that is in fact a very religious point of view.

>>2364372
>It's pretty safe to assume

Realize your entire methodology is set on a number of assumptions and you will start to see some fairly good reasons for the existence in the opposite of what you're looking for. The only reason you don't want to believe in anything that isn't materialistic or set in stone is that you're afraid it will hamper your thought process or that you might be wrong.

>>2364372
As I said, it's a choice. It isn't irrational because it is possible to argue for it on the basis of reason or logic (Pascal, Descartes, Kant, etc.) logic does not take facts into account, only the rules of logic apply to logic. Therefore it is possible to conceive of a lead balloon, etc. I believe you are thinking of deduction or empiricism.
But there may very well be a teapot orbiting the sun, we have no evidence to the contrary, who knows, an astronaut may have brought one up.

A creator or deity or original moving force etc. isn't the same as a monster or pixie. It is at least plausible that there was something or some power, etc., some prime mover or moving force responsible for the universe.

>>2364363
>"Religion without religion"
>You obviously misunderstand the term
>Atheists can be "religious," but atheism is not a religion.
I'm afraid this is a case of NO U.

>>2364374
We have to assume that we have at least a decent understanding of objective reality given how well we can manipulate our environment through scientific discovery (which has done a pretty good job considering how we're communicating right now.)

>>2364388
This is the only objective truth in this thread now.

Dubs proves it.

>>2364337
I'm sorry. Believing that a man born of a virgin mother (who was impregnated by spirits) can cure blindness with a single touch does require you to completely ignore the laws of nature. Atheism does not.

>>2364342
Reality is not subjective. Reality does not care about your beliefs. Reality never changes because it exists outside of consciousness. If reality were subjective we should be able to defy Newtonian physics whenever we want.

And Atheism isn't a religion.

>>2364345
Russel's Teapot

Atheism contains many "religious" and dogmatic aspects, as does any "radical" formal organization of people. The Soviet Union also defied religion, but contained many "religious" elements.

>>2364407
the soviet union was only anti-christian, not anti-religion.

>>2364402
Yet we do not have any access to that objective reality, nor is it possible for creatures of our nature ever to do so, we are subjects.

>>2364394
>But there may very well be a teapot orbiting the sun
No, you see, the rational thing would be to say "there probably isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, therefore I'm not going to worry myself about it."
>>2364396
I could say "NO U," but that would just be redundant at this point since you obviously aren't going to look into it.

Also

>>2364411
Something doesn't have to be yours for it to be objective. You are the slave in this world, not the master.

>>2364412
From wikipedia

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[8] He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."

>>2364384
>Copenhagen school of physicists
>implying that the uncertainty principle isn't just a lack of understanding
Just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean that it will forever remain a mystery

>>2364419
>doesn't have to be yours
What are you even trying to say here? Are you an idiot?

Objective = external to the mind
We are stuck in our mind, all of our perceptions are mediated through our senses

EXTERNAL VS INTERNAL, nitwit

We know only of the body and the senses of the body.
We don't know if there is a god or not, because all we know is what has entered our senses.
This argument is pointless.
Both sides, just admit that deep down you don't know.

>>2364422
It also doesn't mean everything will be known to us.

Discussing religion on the internet is dumb.

>>2364428
Are you prepared for this?

Because you and I are going to be the only two people in this thread who agree with each other.

>>2364425
You mean one side.
It's more like agnostics (me and maybe one other) vs. dogmatic atheists.

>>2364420
The teapot is an theoretical extreme, but what the teapot has in common with virgins being impregnated by Gods is that neither of them could happen in our universe. So you're right, the burden of proof isn't the only reason not to believe in something, but the teapot argument was a counter-argument to delusional claims in the first place; the whole point is that it's fallible to say "YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST, SO HE MUST EXIST."

>>2364424
You just proved my point.

Reality can be objective regardless of whether you think so or not. Off with your Cartesian drivel. Read Hume and grow the fuck up.

>>2364425
Has everyone just read Descartes and just stopped?

>>2364420
But there's massive evidence supporting the existence of those people, while "god" is nothing more than a notion in the mind of the believer. We can be fairly certain that demons don't cause disease despite billions throughout history believing that it does. Truth isn't democratic.

>>2364433
But I'm not saying he must exist.
You keep on rephrasing my words. How crafty of you.
I'm saying it can't be proved either way. Just admit it.

>>2364434
But we can't access it. We can never have objective knowledge. Fucking idiot.

>>2364425
Atheist: there's no reason to believe that a god exists, the burdon of proof is on the person claiming that it does
Believer: I know that god exists.
Agnostic: lol i dunno

>>2364440
We are arguing for the same thing.

>>2364440
This.
Obviously reality is objective, but don't forget you are a human and can only be a human.
Reality's objectivity is meaningless to a human being.

>>2364444
>Agnostic: lol i dunno

That isn't agnosticism.

>>2364437
I never said that you said that, so in fact you're the only one twisting words here.

I've already admitted that you can't prove a negative (which means you can never "know," but it's a really redundant thing to say, so I don't see why I would), that's the whole point of our conversation, but I've shown you my reasoning for my lack of a belief in God.

>>2364440
>We can never have objective knowledge
That's subjective

just once i've decided that it's time to migrate over to reddit, /lit/ reminds me why 4chan is the stronger of the two

>>2364455
>That's subjective
THAT's subjective.

>>2364455
Exactly. Something said by a subject, about an external world, separate to and unknowable in the absolute by us.
/thread

>>2364458
"And slowly the thread descended to a Solipsist abyss to which they could not crawl out of for a long time. Time seemed to stop and only echoes of whispers were heard. Those also faded."

Religion is the only topic that can make any board, any forum, anywhere into a /b/ thread.

You guys will discuss over anything. Next someone comes here and says that Jesus was real and etc...

When did philosophy become so ridiculously self-absorbed and nihilistic? We wouldn't be able to interact with or understand our environment if we didn't have at least a decent understanding of it.

I think there's one that that Epicurus DOES disprove: the idea of a benevolent intervening god.

>>2364471
so is it your assertion that there never was a rabbi from galilee, executed by the romans, named jesus?

>>2364422
>implying that the uncertainty principle isn't just a lack of understanding
Look, it's real simple, you just have to look up the Bell inequalities and the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. The former should allow you to see a connection between quantum uncertainty and the macro world, the latter will allow to understand you can either choose No Hidden Variables or Spooky Action at a Distance. It is not a case of "we haven't understood it yet", that's just enlightenment inspired ideology talking.

>>2364475
Philosophy is the quest for wisdom. We may possess knowledge to some small degree but wisdom involves knowing what you do not know.

>>2364358
>If atheism is a religion, what is the word for not being religious.
Atheism is a belief system lacking a creator being or creation myth, but the word for not being religious is "irreligious". Hence why theists can also be without a religion, yet still believe in a god.

>>2364485
>It is not a case of "we haven't understood it yet"
Claiming that anything in the physical world is fundamentally unknowable is INCREDIBLY short-sighted. We simply don't know how much we can know.

>>2364492
>theists can also be without a religion, yet still believe in a god.
They're called diests

>>2364412
>I could say "NO U," but that would just be redundant at this point since you obviously aren't going to look into it.
You could just google "religion without religion" and see how stupid you are. It's not exactly a cryptic phrase.

>Ignoring Epistemology
Look into it. Real thought takes considerable effort and strength.

>>2364507
>They're called diests
Do you mean deists? I was thinking more along the lines of spiritualists or theists who don't agree with organised religion, but deism works too.

>>2364294

>Implying they aren't right

>>2364507

No, that's not what a deist is.

Just curious, how many people here describe themselves as atheist or agnostic? How many as religious or deistic?

>>2364531
>arbitrary labels
Yes, just continue setting up false dichotomies...

>>2364531
Agnostic Theist/ Theist Existentialist for the most part.

>>2364535
Nope, those labels encompass pretty much everyone.

>>2364540
>Theist existentialist
How arbitrary. Might as well say "agnostic theist/theist brunette for the most part"

>>2364531
If I had to title myself it would be agnostic-atheist.

I also don't believe agnosticism can, in and of itself, be a belief. ie, agnostic-theist, gnostic-atheist, etc. That you can't be purely agnostic.

>>2364548
id est = that is
I believe you meant "like" agnostic-theist etc.

>>2364540
>Agnostic Theist
dude, you just blew my mind

i'm what he is

>>2364547
You should stop saying arbitrary again since you don't know how to properly use it.

>>2364559
Ah, my mistake.

The lengths people will go to deny death...
We all know that God is just the invention of a species that's evolved a brain capable of becoming self-aware. It's our way of coping with the inevitability of our nihilation.

Stop. It doesn't matter. Intensely believing in something that doesn't exist will not effect the outcome of our demise.

>>2364557
Read Kierkegaard if you want to explore other, more individual questions regarding this.

>>2364559
>id est = that is
It also means "that is (to say)" in most contexts.

>>2364573
>Nihilist detected

Everyone back the fuck up. We got a bad ass nowhere ohgodnothingexistsonlydiien

>>2364543
>Nope, those labels encompass pretty much everyone.
You've not read the post you replied to.

>>2364548
>I also don't believe agnosticism can, in and of itself, be a belief.
What's the issue with having an ontological belief without an epistemological one? The above statement is itself an ontological belief.

>>2364573
>"Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits."

Think outside of your narrow abyss perception of the world.

>>2364581
What a ridiculous distinction. Death is inevitable regardless of our perception

>>2364579
>The above statement is itself an ontological belief
Hence why I started with "I also don't believe". You're welcome to disagree with me but I was just raising the issue of bias within agnostic belief. With out it, you'd be an apatheist.

>>2364598
>raising the issue of bias within agnostic belief.
>bias within belief
Not following you.

>>2364603
Agnostics like to think of themselves as impartial. Almost like a "fence-sitter". I disagree that you can be purely impartial.

You don't have to agree, but it's not hard to understand.

Thread full of assumptions

- Atheism is not a religion because it's not a system. Atheists don't agree with each other, they just don't believe in a creator type of God. They are not all rational, not all scientific, not all angry teenagers, not all agnostic or gnostic, not all assholes, not all cuties and yeah, not all of them don't have a religion.

- If someone thinks a virgin actually gave birth to someone, that person is an idiot. If one thinks Adam and Eve don't tell anything about the origin of life, consider that it explains that it takes a man and a woman to make something work and that naming things and creating language was the first thing. They say religion is just as real as a fairy tale and that's true, but for good and for bad, it tells something about us and how we relate to the world. The story of Red Riding Hood is very much true.

- There is nothing to prove or not to prove about religion. It's a myth. Learn all about it. No, that doesn't make it "right", it's not like that either. Don't assume people are taking it literally and don't listen to those who take it literally.

>>2364596
>Missing the point

We do not live to simply die. Your value of death depends on your view of life. If you think this is life and that's it then death will mean a lot to you in a sense of dread and abyss despair (nihilism). Thinking of life as forever flowing or continuously coming to something else and being itself at the same time will make death seem like a necessary exercise.

Value of death depends on your point of view.

Op, this thread is terrible, and you should delete right away. This thread is worse than /b/.

- Myths didn't work like that in the past. Don't take metaphors and shit like that like you were talking to a religious person today. If Newton believed in god or not, if Buddha talked about demons, if Epicurus was an atheist, all of those things have particular contexts and you shouldn't fall for discussing that shit unless both know what they fuck they are talking about.

- Everything is subjective. Deal with it. Reason can only work to put a limit to reason itself. Understanding subjectivity makes you understand the role of science in all of this much better.

- The institution of religion sucks, deal with it and don't defend it. It's all politics and politics are full of shit.

- Dawkins is fine. He is not a philosopher, he just talked hidden atheists out of their closets and said what he was thinking. He is more kind than people make of him, to the point that it becomes a bad thing. He is also not saying anything new about it at all.

Fuck you all.

>>2364618
>Everything is subjective.
That is subjective.

>>2364626
Which would have to be the case if everything is subjective

>>2364607
>Agnostics like to think of themselves as impartial.
Everyone who's agnostic? Can you not get out of this idea that not every belief has to have dogma attached? But, hey, if you need this flimsy belief to justify your own, whatever.

>>2364631
>Not understanding the Socratic Paradox

If everything is subjective to the point where it negates itself then objectivity exists somewhere regardless of whether we can know it or not.

>>2364634
Why are you attacking me? I'm just stating what I believe. Of course I'm generalizing, but if someone claims to be PURELY agnostic then they are an apatheist - as agnosticism, by itself, is not a belief system.

>>2364647
Everything is subjective. If you don't see this it's only because you can. It's subjective, yeah.

If it wasn't we could make a rule from it and cut your head off.

>>2364661
LOL EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE NO MORALS I'M SO EDGY KILLING PEOPLE IS NOT WRONG I'M JUST MISUNDERSTOOD

>>2364648
>Why are you attacking me?
Why do you feel attacked?
>as agnosticism, by itself, is not a belief system.
Why do you need a "belief system"?
>if someone claims to be PURELY agnostic then they are an apatheist
No they're not, I don't see why you think you can impose that on someone else either.

>everything is subjective
>implying the computer you're typing on would exist if science were subjective

>>2364666
>666
But seriously, killing in self defense, killing in war, "killing" a foetus, killing an "animal", these are all objectively wrong and to the same degree as murder-one then?

>>2364673
It is subjective, subjective = internal point of view = limited point of view = not an absolute point of view.

SO MANY UNEDUCATED SWINE AND EDGY TEENAGERS IN HERE

HAVE YOU EVEN STUDIED PHILOSOPHY AT UNIVERSITY???

>>2364672
Oh for fucks sake, there's no reasoning with you.

>>2364666
But killing is right. I don't know what you are talking about.

>>2364689
You just go right on ahead and take a walk and kill the first person you come along then.


captcha: provincials hereonli

Sure feels like that. Why does captcha always know what to say?

>>2364694
Ah but you see there are consequences for that, I am not that guy but I am a hedonist. The only intrinsic good is pleasure, the only evil, pain.

>>2364701
What an absolutely flimsy world view.
So if you could plug your brain into an orgasm forever machine or the matrix or something, you would willingly do so?
You are scum.

>>2364707
Hahaha, and why is that? And that's a funny statement, I am anhedonic in many ways, orgasms included.

>>2364712
I feel sorry for you.

>>2364707
>What an absolutely flimsy world view
>You are scum
Sure is personal attack in here.

>>2364716
Why would that be?

>>2364720
“I [Epicurus] know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, [sexual pleasures,] the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form.”

>>2364725
I still don't get it, are you criticising Epicurus?

>>2364720
Because you claim to be a hedonist yet are anhedonic. What irony.

>>2364737
Yes, I was considering writing a book about it, but I decided I wouldn't enjoy it.

>>2364306
>>2364318

>>2364826
fuck off back to the dark ages, where we would be without the church.

As if there are no secular reasons for chuch doctrine..

Agnostic here. Wouldn't force that book upon my worst enemy. Dawkins can hardly reason his way through a basic syllogism and when he attempts to deconstruct the classic proofs of God's existence, he generally does so only in the ways that have been shown not to work. The author seems to believe that by taking a tone of authority he can compensate for intellectual sloth.

>>2364826

>argues from the authority of a television character

>>2364325

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/maudlin-on-philosophy-of-cosmology.html

>tl;dr— cosmologists suck at being philosophers

>>2364942
welcome to all liberalism.