/lit/ - Literature

>reading dawkins
>ever

The rest of this book is like that but I highly recommend you check out The Ancestor's Tale. Fucking brilliant.

I hate his atheism books, fwiw.

Sage, hide, let him rot.

>>3126248

>not reading Dawkins
>attack him anyway

laughingdawkins.jpeg

>>3126241

Dawkins has a problem with religion, and it shows. There isn't anything wrong with hating religious people though. He's very condescending, but I enjoy the books anyway. In fact, it may even be because he's condescending towards them that I like it. He has good arguments, and he has bad ones, just like any person. Read him sure, but keep critically evaluating what he says.

He is doing it consciously. Just think of his "distasteful" arguments as satirical and you'll enjoy it.

>>3126270

It's filled with platitudes. He also bitches about people who complain about being sexually abused.

Maybe he needs to realise people are bad, and that the religions reflect this, instead of going after a muddy puddle of water.

>>3126344

People are bad, but they can be good. One of the contributors to people staying bad is religion.
That's his point.

>>3126270
>There isn't anything wrong with hating religious people though.

>>3126378

No. The only contributor to people staying bad is people. Religion is just a reflection of all that is good and bad in our moribund little societies, nothing more.

To say that it is a worse thing than people, or a better thing than people is ridiculous; moreover, to say this supposes something other than us created it.

>>3126399

By saying religion makes man act badly you are giving power to religion, therefore legitimizing it and proving G*d's existence.

Checkmate, atheists.

>>3126398

What? I have honestly never liked anyone who was religious. They have very few redeeming qualities. They can write good books and paint good pictures, but they're terrible to associate with.

>>3126399

>desert people believe in a war god, the god says that people who don't believe in him are bad will be punished for eternity
>somehow, people still believe this
>say that this belief doesn't impact on whether those believers will act morally

kbro

>>3126436

By "religious," do you mean "Christian?"

>>3126440

That's one example. I know the history of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology better than the others.
Although I would presume the majority are pretty much the same.

>>3126481
Most animalistic and pagan religions are pretty cool if the dude ain't a teenager.

>>3126489

This is actually generally true. Just try to avoid Wiccans.

>>3126489
Most people are pretty cool if they're not a teenager, in general.

>>3126500
And that applies to any physical age.

>>3126241
>Does he continues like this in the rest of the book and in his other works as well?

Yes, Dawkins is an altogether miserable shite, as are his disciples and followers.

>>3126344
I hate to say "citation needed," but what does he say to that effect? I know his comments on "elevatorgate" so it's not like I doubt it. He disagrees with Lacan's proposition that the image of the image of the erectile organ can be equated with the square root of -1, what the fug.

Isn't Dawkins' "moral zeitgeist" a spook? I've been trying to read more on it but instead I found some article where he says evolutionary science should replace classics programs; shit rustled my pietas.

>>3126528

Pretty sure Dawkins said evolutionary science should be included in the classics. Classics more or less means a well-rounded tertiary education, right? If so, I don't see why not.
They don't have that in Aus :(

>>3126545
>Classics more or less means a well-rounded tertiary education, right?
Wrong

>>3126554

What is it then?

>>3126241
#Read - "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, progress (45 / 415). Hilarious rant on God, I need to push the upper limits on what I'm reading, ideally I would read 45 minutes per day, so I can finish about 1 book per week. Feels good man.

>>3126561
>>3126545
The article I got it from is http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jun/12/richard-dawkins-evolution-new-classics

I don't know if it's different in the UK, but what he was talking about was "classics" as opposed to a classical education. The article says something about an assumption that classicists are the best to adapt to a new field of research, which makes me think it's talking about a well-rounded education with rhetoric and all that, but I always associated classicists with the study of the ancient world and all that.

>He said the course "places evolution at the centre but brings in lots and lots of other subjects such as economics, social science, philosophy, engineering, medicine, agriculture, linguistics, physics, cosmology and history of science."
>He claimed that in the areas of sexual selection, parent–offspring relationships and sex ratio theory, economic thinking was "rife" within evolutionary research.

>>3126614

That's actually a pretty good idea.

Dawkins is an anti-literature, anti-humanist scientismist that recycles high school level philosophy to claim about philosophy being pointless. He's a tired old wind-bag that has nothing left to say, and is currently experiencing that existential crisis in the public sphere.

What happened to anti-humanist atheists? :(

>>3126418
I hope you are trolling otherwise you are dumb.

>>3126248
Anon, I think you have oral cancer

>>3126614
"the study of the ancient world and all that" includes "rhetoric and all that"

>mfw dawkins get mad when people apply darwin's theories to society

His argument is literally "b-but muh feelings!!!".

>>3126436
Maybe you've liked religious people but you didn't know they were religious. Contrary to what Dawkins may say, religious people aren't all fundamental nutters who talk about their beliefs 24/7.

Weren't people supposed to grow out of hating Christians when they reached adulthood?

>>3126701

What is there to like about Christians?

>>3126692

I only have a few friends, but funnily enough, often I'll meet people, decide I don't like them, and later find they're religious. Religious people aren't fundamentally nutters; they're just people who value fitting into a group more than their nurturing their reasoning ability and admitting that they're wrong. People like that annoy me.

>>3126678

Look at what he said in >>3126614 's link. Dawkins wants evolutionary theory applied to more parts of life.

>>3126701

LOLOL EPIC WIN U SURE SHOWD HIM ANON

>>3126715

Just to name some: it is initially Christian ideals which inspired liberal values such as equality. Also Christianity helped abolishing slavery in America and segregation of black people.

Dawkins is strictly against religious fundamentalism and he doesn't have any problem with moderate religious people.

If you paid attention, he doesn't talk shit about buddhism and even mentioned he viewed it as an ethical and philosophical way of life. His point is that some people take shit too seriously and literally. When he acts like a jack-ass towards religion, he is mainly imitating the attitude of religious fundamentalisst and demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

Dawkins is 2deep4U

>>3126436
That is a pretty big blanket statement. You must not like a lot of people,if you'll excuse my bluntness.

It's just that, I don't really see a correlation between religion and a core personality (especially one that could be disliked) other than a specific moral code.

>>3126715
Christians are nice people.

>>3126481
>Although I would presume the majority are pretty much the same.
Prejudices are not substitute for knowledge, anon.

>>3126919
So he does the same thing he's fighting against. I think there's a Nietzsche quote about that.

>>3126912
>implying Christianity wasn't into slavery itself

I'm from Portugal, so I should know.

>>3126928
Sure are.

>>3126955
This is what fundamentalist atheists truly believe.

>>3126674
R-repetition is a rhetorical skill... but what I meant to say is that classical studies (which is what I associate the phrase "classicist" with) stays within the ancient world, whereas a classical education is the more comprehensive program (which is what Dawkins is talking about, I think)

>>3126955
Believers give to charity far more even when not counting church charities; u gotta face facts bruv. Bashing Christianity because of Alexander VI is like bashing fascism because of Hitler.
>http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Uncharitableness
>Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.
checkm8

>www.conservapedia.com

>>3126957
>>3126963

Oh, you guys. I was just commenting on the stupidity of saying that "Christians are nice people" as though all of them are and always have been, which just isn't true.

Also, conservapedia is amazing.

>>3126623
at least I'm not the only intelligent one left on /lit/

>>3126948
In what way?

>>3126241
there is a reason dawkins is like a hero to edgy teenage athiests; he can be very childish and bitter about religion. Not surprising as his wife left him and she and his daughter are both christians. He lets his emotions and private life affect his logical thought processes.

>>3126967
Religion shouldn't really affect whether you're a good person or not; it encourages virtues that all people can appreciate, what is not to approve of?

>claims God doesn't exist
>making a living talking about God

>>3127042
This.
It's like he wants to make a religion about denying there is a God.
If you really want to distance yourself from religion, stop caring about it. It's that easy.

>a thread about atheism
>doesn't entirely devolve into religion-bashing, but a proper discussion on what makes a person good or bad, and how religion factors into it
Holy shit, I need to visit /lit/ more often.

>>3127044
So we are supposed to sit back and watch while mohels mutilate the genitals of children, while kids are terrified by the idea of eternal damnation, while the serfs are tricked into a life of servitude because the reward of heaven is greater, while women are second class citizens in most Islamic countries and are forced to cover their faces and denied a vote? Sit and watch while Jehovahs witnesses die because they were told they would go to hell for having life saving medical treatment, while islamic women flock to clinics to have their hymens reconstructed?

Dawkins is doing society a great justice by liberating people from their religious shackles. His crime is compassion, yet the edgy teenage agnostics attack him at every opportunity on this board because atheism is too popular. OP, if you want a serious discussion go to the philosophy board on 420. It's slower, but you will have a far better discussion.

>>3127063
>Jehovah's Wittnesses
>Hell
It seems you know very little about what other people believe.

>>3127072
What? It's heaven that they believe is full, not hell.

>>3127063
So, what's your opinion on Hindus, theistic Buddhists, Taoists, Asatru, the Native American traditions, the Australian Aboriginal traditions, etc...?

>ITT dawkins worshiper gets torn apart by normal tolerant sensible people for his puerile teen rage against the big 3 which he takes to mean all religion
>ONWARDS ATHIEST SOLDIERS

>>3127074
The same as pagans, Theravadas, amazonian forest spirits, Bahá'ís, Shintos, and Santerians; They are all slaves to an unsupported view of reality. They believe in things that are 'objectively better' to observable reality and as a result reduce the value of their own life and short experience living it. I used to be of the opinion that you should leave them alone if they aren't hurting anybody, but left to their own devices they spread their various brands of misinformation on to others. I think they should be liberated from their celestial tormentors wherever possible.

>>3127074
Seems like it would be awfully hard to look at contemporary India and believe Hinduism is a force for good, or India in any era for that matter

> God
> Religion

Choose one, Dawkins.

>>3127090
>>3127094
Wow, some real cynics in the audience tonight...

>>3127114
Hos is it cynical to want to free somebody from the fear of a hell; to show them they they don't have to spend their life kneeling in front of an altar; that they can still have empathy and compassion without a God providing morality?

>>3127119
*How

>>3127119

Because you are imposing your values on him, while you claim it as "freeing", maybe he doesn't want to be freed at all and it can be seen as suppression or intolerance.

>>3127119
Most forms of Paganism don't recognize those concepts. What the fuck are you responding to?

>truth is distasteful

Kids these days

>>3127204
Truth can be uncomfortable, but it's all about how you go about saying it. What's more, when you discuss something like God that cannot be supported or disproved, as if you have some kind of authority on whether it is real or not - from any side - you come off like an asshole who thinks very highly of himself.

>>3127204

lol i know right

>>3127204

the truth is often distasteful. since when is truth a synonym for happiness?

>>3127212
Don't be silly. Existence of the various Gods of religions can be easily refuted. The 'first cause' argument is what the dispute is about. There is no reason for someone to be in servitude to a God for which there is no evidence.

>>3127221

>there is no reason

fun. that's one reason right there. i could go on.

>>3127221
Define servitude.

His books are great if you want to have a better understanding of evolution.

>>3127264

this. but you're better off reading the selfish gene.

>>3127221

I like how you assume you know the cosmological details of all of said religions. No, really, it's funny.

>mfw motherfuckers in this thread never realized the truth of higher forces
>mfw this thread is bad

ITT:
>let him rot.
>laughingdawkins.jpeg
>Checkmate, atheists.
>Dawkins is an altogether miserable shite, as are his disciples and followers.
>LOLOL EPIC WIN

Pic related is how the other chans discuss this issue.

the only Dawkins' books appropriate to read are the ones not related to atheism (avoid at all costs)

The Greatest Show On Earth was pretty cool.

Most religions are bad because they make people think the Universe was created for us which in turn leads to them doing whatever the hell they want to the environment (because it's theirs) which in turn can lead to grave consequences.

He is a bit too militant, but i'd rather have an atheist than a christian being zealous. Because you know, the crusades and shit.

>>3126919
But Buddism has the same problem as christianity, denying this life for a supposedly better next one.
Dawkins really is like a high school kid.

>>3127090
>implying Greeks believed their petty gods were objectively better than anything
>implying Norse gods were anything other than role models and an excuse to have festivals
Why dont you at least wiki something before you go all reddit on it.

>>3127363
>>implying Greeks believed their petty gods were objectively better than anything
No, I didn't mention Greek or Norse Gods. Either way, the Greek Gods had similar faults to humans, but this didn't stop the Greeks believing that they had an effect on reality. The same as The Egyptian Gods and Roman ones.

>implying Norse gods were anything other than role models and an excuse to have festivals.
They believe that Thor lost his hammer, and lived in constant fear that their fields wouldn't be fertile next summer unless they made sacrifices. Again, they believed their deities had an effect on their reality, and lived in a state of fear as a result.

Son, either form decent arguments or leave. I can't be bothered with you snarky greentexing implication kids.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

>>3127063
10/10

>>3126919
Nu-atheists like Buddhism because someone told one of them it was atheistic, and it spread from there. They all flip their shit when you tell them the Buddha, according to the Buddhist canon, talked to gods personally, and that all non-white college Buddhists worship gods.

Dawkins is a religious bigot.

It's a good book, but the dude hate religious people/

Everyone in this thread rustling about Dawkins’ hate for the religious need to read some Hitchens.

Now there was a master of the rational argument.

>>3127684
Nope. Hitchens is a master orator who forwards only mediocre religious critcism. Anyone with an above average intelligence could come up with any of his arguments.

>>3127695
Who else articulated the God=despot argument?

>>3127695
i agree to a degree. Yes, Hitchens is an orator on par with the greatest minds of antiquity, and some of his criticisms are just exceptionally voiced versions of common arguments. The thing is that although the bulk of the work is simple ideas made eloquent, the truly poignant items are all his own.

Richard Dawkins is just as extreme as the religious bigots he criticizes so thoroughly. I mean really, do we even need to debate if there is a god? The lack of evidence neither disproves or proves his existence, so what does it matter when it's nothing more than a mute argument to begin with?

>>3127734

I mean really, do we even need to debate if there are unicorns? The lack of evidence neither disproves or proves their existence, so what does it matter when it's nothing more than a mute argument to begin with?

>>3127734
>do we even need to debate if there is a god?

"Christianity - 2.1 billion
Islam - 1.6 billion
Hinduism -1.1 billion
Buddhism - 376 million

World population: 6.9 billion"

Yes. Yes I think we do.

>>3127734

>Richard Dawkins is just as extreme as the religious bigots he criticizes so thoroughly

I don't think Dawkins ever bombed anything.

>>3127684

>Hitchens
>Master of anything

I'm glad he's mean and disrespectful. Religion deserves no respect, supreme stupidity deserves no respect and I'm glad he attacks not only the notion of a god but also the people that believe in it. It is a delusion. If you take their beliefs out of the context of religion, everyone would call them utterly insane. When you label them religious though... suddenly it's just okay, and "personal beliefs should never be attacked."

>>3127752
only because he's a gutless faggot

>>3127745
Unicorns can be disproved, we just haven't looked everywhere yet.

>>3127334
>leads to them doing whatever the hell they want to the environment
such as?

>>3126963
No, he was literally talking about classicists.
Classics programs generally produce the most well-rounded intelligent people, just watch University Challenge, all the smartest cunts are classicists.
Dawkins thinks that his program of study centered on evolution would produce better graduates than classics programs, thus replacing classicists as the most sought after group for employers.
But of course it's ridiculous, because classics programs only produce brilliant people because people with the potential to be brilliant tend to want to study classics, while the type of person who worships the field of evolutionary studies enough to want to place it at the core of his learning is not very bright in the first place.

>>3127792
Well then, lets attack Dawkins for having a stupid face and an unflattering odor

>Dawkins
>not when I shift into maximum overpleb

>>3126963
>Bashing Christianity because of Alexander VI is like bashing fascism because of Hitler.

There exist positive historical examples of fascism?

I'm an atheist and I dislike Dawkins with a passion. His writing is bland and he doesn't really formulate interesting arguments. Most of it seems rather drab and shallow. The book starts with cultural relativism and pretty much ends on the same level. Fuck him

>>3127929
I'm an agnostic and I dislike this posters critique of Dawkins with a passion. His writing is bland and he doesn't really formulate interesting arguments. Most of it seems rather drab and shallow. The post starts with cultural relativism and pretty much ends on the same level. Fuck him

That's pretty much a blockbuster, you faggots really reading stuff like that?

>>3127958
oh really - where's the cultural relativism? :p

>>3127958
I'm an agnostic and you're a faggot. Fuck you

╔═════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ if you are a beautiful strong atheist ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no theology ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚══════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╝

>>3127971
>not reading books because they're popular
coolguyattheparty.jpg

>>3127985
no u!
prove me there is reasonable doubt to reasonably doubt!

>>3128001
>prove me there is reasonable doubt to reasonably doubt!
Read this.
>>3127331

>implying that the verifiability of a god has anything to do with faith

srsly guys, the first thing you learn is that no god has a provable existence

>>3127331

Archie thinks there's a mutual exclusivity between agnosticism and atheism. They sound civilized but they're actually retarded.

Dawkins is a pop-culture pseudo intellectual who's entire 'works' are made to appeal to an audience of drooling dullards.

One could describe him as the 'clever' equivalent of twilight or Justin Beiber

>>3128050

What books of his have you read?

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

>>3128045
>Archie thinks there's a mutual exclusivity between agnosticism and atheism.

I agree with that. Atheism rejects a God, but agnosticism accepts the possibility. You can't have both.

>>3128050
Jesus, when did /lit/ turn into such a snarling cesspool of bad vibes?

>>3128076

>I agree with that.

You're wrong then.

>Atheism rejects a God

No, atheism means the lack of belief in God(s)

>but agnosticism accepts the possibility

Someone who doesn't believe in God can still accept that it's a possibility, almost all atheists do.

>>3128089
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

You can't have "I believe God does not exist," and "I believe God could exist."

>>3128082

Right around a year into its existence.

Never again shall we see the halcyon days of our founding.

>>3128102

>You can't have "I believe God does not exist," and "I believe God could exist."

Why not? Are you trolling me you little shit?

>>3128125

I acknowledge that aliens might exist, but I do not believe in them.

>>3128128

You responding to the right person there, buddy?

>>3128134

No, but the point's been gotten across

>>3128128
>I acknowledge that aliens might exist, but I do not believe in them.
"I believe, 100%, that aliens DO NOT exist... actually, wait, they might exist."

>>3128151

Yep, he's trolling.

>>3128125

You don't think a distinction should be made between people who are split down the middle on the issue and people who only say that it is extremely unlikely that God exist because they can't prove it either way?

>>3128151

Lack of belief is not a positive belief in an absence. This is grade school stuff.

uppose we define God as infinite awareness: consciousness of all objects in the universe, simultaneously.

If God has an infinite consciousness, and we are to distribute this equally amongst all of the objects in the universe, then the limit as God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects in the universe is 0; since God distributes 1/infinity of his consciousness to every constituent object, then he is not conscious of any object.

That which is conscious of everything is conscious of nothing; thus, God exists, but he isn't: God is a lack of being.

>>3128163

>people who are split down the middle on the issue

What? You mean to tell me there are people out there who actually think it's a 50/50 chance between god and no god? I think that's bullshit, I think these "split down the middle" either have a belief but are too non-confrontational to announce it or have none at all (in which case they're pretty much braindead).

>>3128171

>approaches an infinite number of objects in the universe

Wut? The number of objects in the universe isn't infinite.

>>3128171
well put. i like you.

>>3128183
If we're to think of the universe in its designated spatio-temporal framework, then the ceaseless expansion of space over an infinite temporal continuity suggests that the universe is infinite.

Is it possible there exists a creator or creators? Yes.
Is it probable the Christian god exists? No.

>>3128177
>You mean to tell me there are people out there who actually think it's a 50/50 chance between god and no god?

I do. How could you possibly try to form any other kind of percentage with no information to go on? "I'm 15/85," doesn't make sense. We exist, but we have no idea how, so every possible option is equally valid.

>>3128206

I thought by objects you meant particles, not volume.

>>3128177

Not necessarily people who don't think about it, but rather people who don't lean enough in either direction to identify as being theistic or atheistic.

This sudden outpouring of people saying 'agnostics don't exist' confuses me. It's like the term bothers some atheist on this personal level. That there exist people who aren't taking a strong a position as on this unknowable topic like it's a sort of weakness.

The term atheist really doesn't seem like an accurate characterization of someone that is "40/60" on the issue.

>>3128206
No. Where are you getting extra mass and energy from? Just because the universe is expanding doesn't make it infinite in size. You could say the universe might expand forever, unlikely, but you could say it. Still at any given time the universe would have a finite size.

>>3128212
>>You mean to tell me there are people out there who actually think it's a 50/50 chance between god and no god?
>
>I do. How could you possibly try to form any other kind of percentage with no information to go on? "I'm 15/85," doesn't make sense. We exist, but we have no idea how, so every possible option is equally valid.

>Talking about the supposed transcendental in terms of probability

Tee hee, STEM-babby's first agnosticism.

>>3128212

>How could you possibly try to form any other kind of percentage with no information to go on?

What do you mean "no information"?

>We exist, but we have no idea how

Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, laws of thermodynamics, any of these ring a bell?

>so every possible option is equally valid.

8/10 I am sufficiently mad

>>3128165
>Lack of belief is not a positive belief in an absence.

How?
If I say "I don't believe in quantum physics" Or "I don't believe the person of Shakespeare ever existed" I seem to be making a philosophical claim.
The notion that I just have a "lack of belief" in the way that you suggest it seems to be saying very little. It reads as just a kind of psychological phenomenon of me not having faith, etc.

For example, I don't believe that there are unicorns flying about in the sky. I don't believe this positively, as a matter of fact. In other words, I would ascribe a false value to the statement "There are unicorns flying about in the sky above me." If I were simply to lack belief, it seems like I would simply be saying something like "well, I don't really think so, but I won't ascribe any truth value to it." But this is not philosophy -- it's just indecisiveness.

>>3128212
>>3128177

I'm trying to figure out which of you is stupider.

It's entertaining. Please continue.

>>3128224
>Trying to convince someone deducting form a premise they don't agree with

6/10 sufficiently upset

>>3128228

"I don't believe in quantum physics"
"I don't believe the person of Shakespeare ever existed"

=/=

"I believe quantum physics does not exist."
"I believe Shakespeare never existed"

>>3128224
>Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, laws of thermodynamics, any of these ring a bell?
poor child, he fails to think outside the materialism

>>>/sci/

>>3128228

The point is there's a difference between believing and knowing. An agnostic atheist believes there is no God. A gnostic atheist knows there is no God.

just fucking typical that discussion about dawkins ends up in false dichotomies all over the place

>>3128236

the solution to all these mundane issues

>>3128244

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. Goddamnit.

>>3128251

Where in material space does the cogito reside?

>>3128236
Ok, so you're saying that "I don't believe" and "I believe that it is not the case" are not analogous expressions. Fine, I concede that there might be some subtle difference, but please explain then what this difference is.

As I stated in the earlier post, the only difference I can imagine is that "I don't believe" is a sort of psychological state, whereas "I believe it is not the case" is a logical statement about the truth-value of some thing.

The way I see it, there are only two possible truth-values in logic, namely "ture" and "false." We make such statements, assessments about the world every day. In other words, when we don't believe something/believe something is not the case, we are ascribing, with some degree of confidence, the value "false" to some statement. What you are suggesting, I think, is that there can be some kind of third value. This, so far, I don't understand.

Can someone recommend literature discussing the existence of God apart from the context of religion?

>>3128221

For the sake of clarification:
Matter consists of anything that is - anything that has being. I am using this in a philosophical sense. We can conceive and experience that which is matter (let us not confuse this with physics). That which does not have being - or is non-being - cannot be conceived and should only be realized as the negation of that which IS (for any further investigation into non-being would be empty). Thus, objects is any collection of matter. If something has matter, it is an object that can be spoken of.

>>3128251
I'm not. Have you ever tried thinking
abstractedly?

>>3128260
How about every philosopher ever since Descartes because he brought up that bullshit cop-out.

>>3128217
Let us not confuse philosophical and scientific terminology. That which IS (and can be conceived), is an object; that which cannot be experienced is non-being.

>>3128257

It is a process that emerges from the brain.

>>3128261

There is 'true' 'false' and 'neutral'

"God exists" is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist" is a truth-claim.

"I do not believe God exists" is a lack of a truth claim

>>3128272
shhhhh

no it isn't. not proven yet, hombre

>>3128251
Protip: he is.

And if he isn't he's way beyond saving because he doesn't understand the basics of logic, aka this thing called premise.

>>3128267

I meant scientific ones

>>3128272

When you close your eyes and imagine a yellow triangle, can you show where, exactly, in physical space, that triangle resides?

>>3128277

Right, and man's evolution is not proven until the fossils of every single form of animal from the first bacteria to us is found.

>>3128278
>>>/sci/

>>3128282
How is that /sci/? Are you that dense?

His premise:

Materialism, everything is beings

The premise of the existance of God:

God is transcendental, a non-being.

>>3128280

The triangle doesn't exist by itself because it's just a part of the (visual) process emerging from the brain.

>>3128270
Maximum trolling, not very mad.
Does your perception exist? Perception in the philosophical sense of a contiguous, particular identity, intake of information by that identity, formulation of thought, etc. etc. Where, pray, in the material realm, does this perception exist?

>inb4 neurons

>>3128288

If it doesn't exist, how can I see it?

>>3128281
there is no reason to believe consciousness resides in the brain your moronic fuck. comparing the origins of species to the origins of consciousness is as retard as your constant spouting of demonstrative bullshit

>>3128262
So you concede that there is not an infinite amount of mater in the universe. Are you trying to say "That which does not have being - or is non-being - cannot be conceived" is infinite?

>>3128291

It exists as part of the visual process of the brain.

>>3128287
>God is transcendental, a non-being.
Point me where he said this.

>>3128301
>there is no reason to believe consciousness resides in the brain

>>>/x/
>>>/tinfoil/

>>3128276

So would you be willing to admit, then, that atheism, under your formulation, is an unphilosophical stance? Because no logician I know of would take seriously this tripartheid division you are proposing. In other words, as I said before, this "neutral" state is simply a kind of indecisiveness, a psychological state, or a refusal to proceed with investigation of the premises at hand.

>>3128301

>there is no reason to believe consciousness resides in the brain your moronic fuck

Yeah except all that stuff about how messing with the brain directly affects consciousness in predictable ways.

How can you be this delusional?

>>3128305
Where who said that? God?

Not _his_ premise of God - the premise under which God can exist as the common concept of the term which we come to call 'God'.

This thread needs to discuss the premisses: whether there can be such a thing as a transcendental being or how everything can be objects, not whether consciousness is in the fucking neurons or not.

>>3128313
Nah, brah. We are like channelling conciousness from the essence of the universe, man. Damaging the brain is just damaging the receiver. You can damage a radio and have predictable results, but it doesn't mean the broadcast isn't there. Dude, free your mind.

>>3128313
>How can you be this delusional?
How can you be this assertive making such bold statements? It is not known YET. If it were, everyone would be talking about it.

13 year old science absorbed teen atheists everywhere

>>3128309
> Because no logician I know of would take seriously this tripartheid division you are proposing.

Not him, but I think you got your logic wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Don't worry kid, we all speak without thinking it through from time to time.

>>3128327
>Implying all dichotomies are false.

>>3128319
>This thread needs to discuss the premisses: whether there can be such a thing as a transcendental being or how everything can be objects, not whether consciousness is in the fucking neurons or not.
I agree

>>3128289

This is a straw man argument.
You assume I'm referring to the material realm. This is an unwarranted assumption: I am simply defining the universe - not in a scientific manner - but as a set of all that is conceivable. Don't suppose I'm referring to objects or the universe as empirical reality. Supposing this was some sort of semantic confusion and not a fallacious counter-argument, I hope my point is evident.

With this cleared, I would say "yes: that which you perceive is also subject to God's consciousness." In fact, all ideas are subject to God's consciousness: for, even if they don't physically exist, they still have being.

>>3128324

>It is not known YET

Saying that is equally retarded as saying it is not known YET how humans evolved because there's a lot of stuff that we're missing.

I'm really having trouble imagining what exactly mongoloids like you would accept as sufficient proof.

>>3128335
>comparing the origins of species to the origins of consciousness is as retarded as your constant spouting of demonstrative bullshit

read this 100 more times for it to sink in, buddy.

>>3128302

Let us define the universe as a set of that which is conceivable: non-physical as well as physical objects. I'm making no claim about non-being, as I cannot even think of non-being - and thus, it does not belong to the universe. God's infinite awareness is, thus, distributed amongst all objects (all conceivable sub-sets) within the universe. Is this clear?

>>3128336
mah soul.

>>3128339

You're just saying that my analogy is retarded. That isn't a counter-argument.

>>3128335
Cool analogy bro
Exactly how much evidence is there against the existence of a god?
>"Hurrr durrr we looked in the sky and d'idnt find anyobe. God dost not exist faggit Christianists"

>>3128327
>...is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

I don't think this dichotomy is false. It is an evaluation of the premise "God exists" (i.e.: the statement is either true or false). What is the additional 3d option in the statement "Either some divinity exists or it doesn't exist"?

>>3128341
Your objects are finite. Even if your gods awareness is infinite, there are a finite amount of objects.

>>3128345

>Exactly how much evidence is there against the existence of a god?

None. So what? There isn't any evidence against the existence of invisible goblins on Jupiter either.

>>3128341

You would contend that the number of ideas capable of being thought is finite as well?

>>3128333
>>Implying all dichotomies are false.
>implying that isn't a fallacious dichotomy in itself

He's rejecting that there can be anything else in natural language than one true and one false value based on 'logicians he knows'. Wittgenstein would shit himself in his grave (in a bad way) knowing someone actually read his Tractatus.

The proper solution to this would be:

Question: Does God exist?

Premise: God exists,

God exists, truth claim.

God does not exist, false claim

I do not believe God exists, invoking 'believe' which does not adher to deductive logic (since it is not an universal claim), thus rejecting the validity question itself.

>>3128356
But there would be if we went to Jupiter and looked.
Now how do you propose we look for evidence of "god"?

>>3128356
>invisible goblins
>immense, eternal, benevolent being

The point is that invisible goblins are redundant. The notion of God fits integrally into human life, beginning of the universe, the problem of evil, etc.

>>3128373

So does Buddhist thought, not to mention any number of other ideologies that attempt to answer these questions. What rubric do we have for determining which path is the nearest to the true state of things? (not anyone in this thread)

>>3128372

We don't.

>>3128373

>The notion of God fits integrally into human life, beginning of the universe, the problem of evil, etc.

So what?

>>3128384
>So what?
are you serious now? why are you even on /lit/ if you're unable to think philosophically?

>>3128384
So you should step away from the computer, have your supper, and get ready for bed. School in the morning junior.

>>3128356
This is actually a valid argument for once, much like the one often posed against Kant's "thing-in-itself". There is something so grand that we can't know it exists, thus it may exist. But if we cannot know it exists, then how can we even speak of it? There must be some ground for experiencing it or perceiving it.

As for, >>3128335

You simply have to prove that the premise is false, that there are no transcendental beings. Perhaps by proving that all there is, is objects. But you'd have to get by the problem of induction to do that.

Good luck, people have been at it for a long time.

>>3128368
There is only one true and one false value, but it doesn't matter, theology and metaphysics are meaningless anyway.

>>3128393

Can you get to the point?

>>3128303

And what is it that experiences the visual processing of the triangle?

>>3128367
That is an abstract and false analogy. Anyway, at any given time there will have been a finite amount of thoughts pondered.

>>3128368
>does not adher to deductive logic
So you agree that "I don't believe" brand of atheism is illogical?
If not, what do you put in place of deductive logic after this rejection?
Is it nothing? If so, then you admit it's a form of religiosity, or faith?
If it something else, please tell.

If you are going to appeal to Wittgenstein, please elaborate, rather than just dropping his name.

So far I haven't seen anything to show me that "I don't believe," under the formulation being discussed, is nothing but a rejection to participate in the question, and henceforth, functions in some kind of emotional realm, not logic, not philosophy.

>>3128398

>You simply have to prove that the premise is false, that there are no transcendental beings. Perhaps by proving that all there is, is objects. But you'd have to get by the problem of induction to do that.

Wouldn't I have to do that to prove that evolution is real too, and the laws of physics, as it could be all the work of the Creator?

>>3128400
>There is only one true and one false value, but it doesn't matter,

I'm sorry if I can't give you the benefit of doubt on this.

>theology and metaphysics are meaningless anyway.

Well, I guess you're in the wrong thread, then.

>>3128393
>why are you even on /lit/ if you're unable to think philosophically?

This is a literature board NOT a philosophy board.

>>3128412
No, as long as you prove that there is no such thing as a transcendental being then it cannot be the work of the creator, because it would require God to be transcendental.

Unless they say that they _believe_ in God, no matter what. But at that stage they have already abandoned discussing with you and there wouldn't be much point in continuing, would there?

>>3128417

>not realizing the two effectively aren't disparate

>>3128408

There is no thing external from the process experiencing it, the process itself is the experience.

>>3128413
Dude, I was kidding. That's what Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus. I thought you would have got that.

>>3128397

Is there an argument you want to make or are you just aiming your asshole at the keyboard and letting loose?

>>3128414

This is a red herring. I defined the universe in a specific manner (a set of that which is conceivable), and included all objects that have being (this includes thoughts, as thoughts are conceivable). If God is all-conscious, he must be conscious of abstract ideas as well. The analogy is not false, as it simply satisfied the definition as initially posed.

Whether a finite amount of thoughts are pondered at any given instant is irrelevant to the fact that thoughts are conceivable objects within the universe.

He's a Biologist, not a writer.

The book isn't brilliant.

God is not Great is far better, (Christopher Hitchens)

>>3128445
>"suppose we define God as infinite awareness: consciousness of all objects in the universe, simultaneously."

Nice try, but thoughts aren't objects.

>>3128411
>So you agree that "I don't believe" brand of atheism is illogical?

Because it's an argument from ignorance. Surely you've heard of the phrase.

You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>If you are going to appeal to Wittgenstein, please elaborate, rather than just dropping his name.

Sure, gladly.

Wittgenstein in Philosophical Remarks argues about the statement that "he knows that his hands is in front if me, no matter what anyone says." is a rejection of the question whether one can even know such a thing, and thus renders the question invalid. That is the similarity between the "I don't believe" of the agnostic.


>and henceforth, functions in some kind of emotional realm, not logic, not philosophy.

It is because philosophy operates in mostly natural language and not logic. Sure, it employs logic at many times, if not most of the time, but would you claim that Kierkegaards leap of faith isn't philosophy?

Or if you necessarily want it in logic:

Logic is philosophy ≠ Philosophy is logic

>>3128472

They aren't objects if you define "objects" as physical things within the universe.

I'm defining "object" as that which has being and exists within the set of that which is conceivable. This includes physical as well as non-physical objects.

Thoughts will be included in the set of objects for the purpose of this demonstration; it is analogous to different definitions of "equality" in classical and non-classical systems.

>>3128384
>So what?

So the notion is worthy of investigation. If you genuinely evaluate God's properties (immensity, eternality, benevolence), you recognize God as a tenable solution to a vast number of philosophical problems. I am not claiming that the solution itself is unproblematic, but it is less so than some others.
Invisible goblins, on the other hand, simply have to relevance to any of those problems (because their properties are not those of God). You might say "well, I posit them as having the same properties," to which I would respond that you are talking of the same thing, simply calling it a different name.

Shortly, the existence of invisible goblins on Jupiter has no impact on anyone's life. All branches of knowledge investigate things that are, to varying degrees, relevant to human life, and give the best possible answers they. These answers, more importantly, are not arbitrary concoctions, but are informed by the history of such investigations.

>>3128428

Haha, you got me. Good one anon. (One never writes sentences like this on 4chan so it is hard to come across as sincere, but I am!)

>>3128483

>If you genuinely evaluate God's properties (immensity, eternality, benevolence), you recognize God as a tenable solution to a vast number of philosophical problems

Sure but that has no relation whatsoever to the question whether God exists or not.

>All branches of knowledge investigate things that are, to varying degrees, relevant to human life, and give the best possible answers they. These answers, more importantly, are not arbitrary concoctions, but are informed by the history of such investigations.

Not sure what you're getting at, of course the question of God is more significant than the question of invisible goblins, but what is your point?

>>3128478
* On Certainty, not philosophical remarks

sage sage sage

>>3128478
>argument from ignorance
Sure, so under this criterion the aforementioned "I don't believe" position is fallacious.

>Wittgenstein
I don't think I understand what you mean. If you are trolling, congratulations.

>Kierkegaard
Strictly speaking, no, his leap of faith is not philosophy. Loosely speaking, perhaps it might be said to be philosophical. In the opening of Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard himself admits that he will not present any "system" (as a stab at Hegel). While philosophy, his work is largely of a spiritual nature.

Either way, even if you want to dethrone logic, you must at least admit that philosophy rests on some method, and at the most basic I would call this "argument."

>Reading Dawkins

Face it pleb, the only motherfucker that ever got anti-theism and anti-Christianity right was Nietzsche.

>>3128548
>pleb
Back to >>>/mu/

>>3128555

>Went to /mu/

>They told me to go back to /lit/

Well fuck

>>3128571
this is what we do when we finally get tfw gf

>>3128073
>2 hours

>>3128582
>won't invest 2 meager hours to watch one of the most erudite living apologists debate one of the most idolized, recently deceased atheists.
>gives a shit

At least skip to the Q&A at the end, if only to witness the probing argumentation that seems to make Hitchens very nervous.

Conversely, you could get the book. Dismantles a vast amount of edgy atheist claims.

>>3128539
>choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

Come on. At least read the article, the "I don't believe is not fallacious", it is the "There is no evidence that there is or isn't, thus it might as well be."

>I don't think I understand what you mean. If you are trolling, congratulations.

Essentially, the "I don't believe" is synonymous with the statement that "I just know there is a hand in front of me." because to say you know something, for example I know the distance to Jupiter, is measurable (within the system) while "I just know" is a reaction to a question "How do you know that your hand is in front of you?", it is a rejection of the validity of the question. That's why I said it was similar, not synonymous (and only mentioned Wittgenstein in passing).

I don't see why you have to disregard this as trolling simply because you don't understand.

You're the one that called me out, implying I was just name dropping for the sake of it.
In fact Wittgenstein is relevant because the Tractatus treats language and philosophy as you implied earlier, purely logical and reducable to propositions, while the later Wittgenstein rejects the notion.

contd

Strictly speaking, no, his leap of faith is not philosophy. Loosely speaking, perhaps it might be said to be philosophical.

What does that even mean? That only later analytical philosophers' work can be considered philosophical? Is Plato's claim that you need to be sufficiently capable at reason to even understand the ideal world not philosphy then either, because it's not strictly logical? I'd say that looser notion is way more accurate if you look at philosophy's history.

>In the opening of Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard himself admits that he will not present any "system" (as a stab at Hegel).

Not sure why system equals philosophy to you. I'm assuming that

While philosophy, his work is largely of a spiritual nature.

>Either way, even if you want to dethrone logic, you must at least admit that philosophy rests on some method, and at the most basic I would call this "argument."

And at least here we are at an agreement. If I say "I don't believe that God exists, simply because I cannot find any proof for or against his existance. Thus I don't say whether he exists or not, my position to the question is that it is unknowable" is that not a valid argument according to you? Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence, thus it is a perfectly valid stance to take.

>>3128634
not synonymous but similar*

Shit got chopped, writing in 4chanx's small window messes things up

Although I own quite a few of his books on atheism and his attacks on religion, I found The Greatest Show on Earth to be my favorite.

He is an inspiring Evolutionary Biologist, and his eloquent style of writing is so clear and concise.

Honestly, I won't partake in the religious debate portion of this thread, but it would be cool to have a discussion on some of his other books.

Other books to check out:
The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris
A Universe from Nothing - Lawrence Krauss

>>3128637
Absence of evidence does not necessarily imply evidence of absence, but a) the God all major world religions actually talk about, rather than the one they bring up only when attempting to suggest their insane beliefs are plausibly true, is the kind of thing that would leave a lot of evidence and b) you can equally say that about infinitely many things no one believes in, and no should believe in, and there is no reason to take this particular belief more seriously than those.

>>3128666
So you are only considering the Abrahamitic religions then?

A) I thought we were discussing the discussing the possibility of God's existance, the transcendental 'God' of philosophy, and not the Judeo-Christian god.

Even so, the Abrahamitic gods are transcendental, i.e. non-beings, I would like to see what evidence there might be against non-being seeing such evidence would most likely be based upon beings and subject to the problem of induction, thus not agreeing on the initial premise that there are transcendental beings (which is a perfectly valid position, but it won't disprove the existance of God in the sense that it can be convincing - it can only reject the whole premise as nonsense.)

B) Sure, that's a pragmatist way and I don't necessarily disagree.

The issue here is in the motivation in trying to convince others who agree on the initial premise that there are transcendental beings.

An agnostic is someone who was posed the question "Do you believe God exists?" and then is forced to take a stance. It's more probable that you would be forced to take a stance in this issue than whether invisible goblins exist as someone mentioned earlier.

>>3128706

the other solution* not thus not agreeing

I'm getting tired, my sentences are all garbled up, so I'm going to bed.

Despite the disagreements I enjoyed this discussion. Have a good one, anon.

>>3127042

>>3128637
Hey anon, I'm the person who has been posting so far, and I'm not
>>3128666
also,
>dem trips

Had to be afk for a while. Anyway, in case you check this thread tomorrow and it's still here:

I concede to have blundered a fair bit. And I see now what is mean by a lack of belief, as you've elucidated it. On this account I would then have the contention that there is not an absence of evidence, but rather an absence of conclusive evidence.

Seeing how (at leas in the Judeo-Christian religion) most religious tenants rest on faith, and arriving at God through faith, conclusive evidence of God would be contrary to God's will and instruction as revealed through religious text.

Now, it depends on what your criteria for "evidence" is, but I would suggest that arguments from first cause, the problem of evil, historical Jesus and so on, count as evidence (although properly speaking, they are just valid, perhaps sound, arguments). Arguments for atheism, meanwhile, rest on the absence of evidence. If one is willing to accept that the above-mentioned can be considered a type of evidence, I think the atheist position becomes complicated, perhaps even more so.

Enjoyed this discussion as well, and have a good night.

>>3128799
>an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.

Don't fall for that crap, son, he posts it everyday. Usually in a Hitchens thread and always following/followed by: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

>>3128823
the fuck are you on about. I rarely post on /lit/, and never have I done so in a Hitchens thread.

>>3128799
>666
>me responding to the devil impersonating you
Oh, wow.

I was thinking the sentence structure was different.

At work now so I'll be brief but I think this sentence is key:

>but rather an absence of conclusive evidence

This describes the situation perfectly. It's not for nothing philosophers have been working their ass off, desperately trying to prove the existance of God which most hold so dearly (a life without absolute value can be unsettling, to say the least).

In the light of atheism position, and consequently theism, becoming complicated I must insist that agnosticism can't be considered indeciviness and emotional any more than theism can.

>>3129875
>the fuck are you on about. I rarely post on /lit/, and never have I done so in a Hitchens thread.

Not the guy you replied to, but:
>an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
>That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Gets posted nearly every day.

>atheism
> either a.) an ontological philosophical position about the nonexistence of god (that it is likely or necessary) or b.) a lack of (doxastic) belief in the existence of a god
>anti-religion
>a political position about the overall negative impact of some or all contemporary and historical religious institutions

these two things are not the same thing

ps don't mix up doxastic truths with propositional logic

beliefs are not bivalent. I can believe that p, or believe that not p, or suspend judgement on p. this is a cornerstone of epistemology

suppose the claim, "God exists" is not necessarily true or false (or, if it is, we are not able to divine why yet, perhaps due to an as-yet underformed philosophical apparatus).

then, there is then question of whether belief in

a.) the proposition "God exists" is justified.

If you say, "yes," you ought to be a theist
If you say, "no," go to b

b.) the proposition "God does not exist"
If you say, "yes," you ought to be an atheist
If you say, "no," you ought to be an agnostic

So the choice depends on a.) your personal criteria for epistemological warrant and b.) the evidence you have for the existence or nonexistence of god

Debates about god's existence should do one or more of
1.) demonstrate the necessary existence or nonexistence of god
2.) attempt to persuade an a/theist to change their epistemological theory of justification or
3.) provide new evidence