/lit/ - Literature

oh wow, yet another teenage victim of the anti-intellectual neoatheist(s)

>Going to buy 1 or 2 of Hitchen's books today.

save your goddamn money.

i recommend you go to >>/reddit/ and sincerely fuck off as soon as possible

Anyone?

>>3363408
I'm sort of with this guy. But mostly because it could have been Dawkins.

OP, save your money and read Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking or something.

>>3363400
Hitch-22 and Letters to a Young Contrarian.

>>3363400
oh yea and his last collection of essays, forgot what they are called.

>>3363408
I'm interested to know more about your opinions regarding atheism. I agree with you in regards to OP, but I'm legitimately curious as to how you came to the conclusion that atheists are anti-intellectual

>Hitch is dead

>>3363690
Arguably

>>3363693
I don't think he's arguing all atheists are anti-intellectual, only this new wave of atheists which he dubbed "neoatheists".

>>3363707
As opposed to the other type of atheist that exists nowadays?

And my question still stands. How are new wave atheists anti-intellectual?

He was intelligent, but an abysmal polemicist. His 'style' consists solely of calling the other side of the agon retarded.

>strategic WHAT?

>>3363710
not that guy, but many atheists nowadays a) believe that simply not believing in a religion or god is a free ticket to intellectual superiority, yet they blindly follow anti-religion without basing it on any rational foundation.

In that respect they become the very thing they supposedly hate, a people subscribed to a belief system without questioning or rationalizing those beliefs.

b) Atheism has become anti-religion, which is not included in the definition and should not be: atheism literally means a lack of belief in god or religion. I do not understand why atheists cannot subscribe to their own belief and leave religious people alone, especially Hitchens who operates under the deluded belief that Religion is ONLY bad, which anyone with a brain can see is clearly not true.

At least Dawkins uses empiric-ish proof to try and sway people away from following the herd, Hitchens just uses half-assed logic to curse the very name of religion

>>3363744
Those are all fair points, thank you for your rational response.

>>3363744

>>3363744

Add to this: these aggressive atheists only form part of unity with aggressive theists, a dialogical reinforcement that only appears antagonistic.

Mortality is like 23.99 US for a small slim thing. I was like "Nah." then I saw a misprint dust jacket. I wanted to, but I couldn't justify it at the moment. Then next day I said "Alright, it is a misprint and after reading I can sell it to some idiot for high dollar." I went back, and it was gone. I missed out on some atheist nut giving me a crisp 100 dollar bill for a 24 dollar new book.

>>3363744
>Atheism has become anti-religion

in the same way that all christianity has become anti-abortion, perhaps.

>I do not understand why atheists cannot subscribe to their own belief and leave religious people alone

it's an ideological-political issue, not a purely metaphysical one. to them, that'd be like saying "I do not understand why marxists cannot subscribe to their own belief and leave capitalists [and the systems they perpetuate] alone". also, attacking your ideology isn't attacking you.

Love, Poverty and War is pretty great.

It's a bunch of essays about different shit, from Churchill to JFK, to Graham Greene to Orwell/Huxley

>yfw you realized God exists

>>3363899
>mfw

>>3363869
Marxism cannot be compared to religion in this respect, Marxism is a rejection of a real-world system and structure of hierarchy, whereas atheism is a rejection on intellectual and purely metaphysical principles.

Atheism as a belief system is a rejection of the very idea of religion- it argues against the philosophical and spiritual BELIEFS that each/every religion adheres to, rather than the traditions, hierarchical structures, and practices of those religions.

Atheism should, as Dawkins does, attack the idea of God, not- as Hitchens does- the actions of the Church.

>>3363869
furthermore, why is it that 90% of atheists only talk about Christianity and Islam in their arguments?

>>3363930
Because they're the largest religions in the world.

>>3363930

Jews don't impose on culture the way Christianity and Islam do. Buddhism and other shit isn't relevant in the west.

>>3363930

This: >>3363939

Jesus, it's like you don't even think about the words that you type.

>>3363933
You're like a vegetarian who only complains about McDonald's.

>>3363945
No, I'm not. Don't be a fucking idiot.

>>3363920
>Atheism as a belief system is a rejection of the very idea of religion- it argues against the philosophical and spiritual BELIEFS that each/every religion adheres to, rather than the traditions, hierarchical structures, and practices of those religions.
Most people would say there's a difference between your faith and religion.

>>3363949
Most people believe in an imaginary man in the sky.

Most people are wrong.

>>3363939
>Jews don't impose on culture
Is this an attempt at starting /pol/ shit?

>>3363920
>whereas atheism is a rejection on intellectual and purely metaphysical principles.

not for the politically involved, which is why i said it was a ideological issue for them, not simply metaphysics. c.f people who bomb abortion clinics. just ignoring the point won't make it any less true: atheist describes several kinds of people, and some of those people are ideologically opposite to religion and that does not make them any lesser atheists.

>Marxism is a rejection of a real-world system and structure of hierarchy

as opposed to religion's fake effects on the real world?

>Atheism as a belief system is a rejection of the very idea of religion- it argues against the philosophical and spiritual BELIEFS that each/every religion adheres to, rather than the traditions, hierarchical structures, and practices of those religions.

thanks, merriam-webster, wanna rejoin the discussion now?

>Atheism should, as Dawkins does, attack the idea of God, not- as Hitchens does- the actions of the Church.

atheism "should" do dick, there's no "should" involved.

>>3363950
Well, so long as you think being a special little snowflake is more important than learning the language game the rest of us are using, maybe you should stay in silence.

>>3363952
No, you know they don't. Other than
>hurr durr holocaust
>hurr durr control the media
Jews have no discernible impact on Western culture, with an emphasis on discernible.

Mortality was too short. It's ony 128 pages and a third of it was an introduction by his editor and an epiloque by is wife.

>>3363920

To be fair, most atheists only oppose religion having any sway over state matters.
In the us you have religious organisations getting involved in political matters, so some atheists rise as opponents.
In secular Sweden, there's no such thing as an "angry" atheist, there's no need for it.

>>3363952

No. Do you want it to be>

A point of consideration: Is it unwarranted for one to believe in the non-existence of God or the existence of God?
Provided there's no intellectual basis for either of these stances, a choice is going to have to be made regardless. When presented with a question, one has the option of saying "yes" or "no", or refusing to respond. But when there's no evidence in favor of any one response, don't all of these responses weigh just as equally? We must choose by virtue of being presented with the question. Answering the question "Does God exist?" thus appears to answer more questions about oneself and one's decision-making process than it does about the accuracy of one's claims. If you want to believe in God, it is a justified belief; if you don't, it is also justified. Until evidence arises, this issue is a non-issue.

>>3363958
I don't see what anything you said has to do with anything mentioned in this thread...

What does being a special little snowflake have to do with this thread? What 'language game' are you referring to?

>>3363960
Hurr durr, state of Israel. Hurr durr, Kosher. Hurr durr, any discussion where a Rabbi can get namedropped.

>>3363964
Obviously he does, otherwise he wouldn't have taken issue with the idea that the Jews keep to themselves (something which they fucking do)

Look, here he goes now: >>3363973

>>3363956
why do you argue like a teenager? Can't you engage in a dispute without having a tone of whiny condescension?

>>3363972
You'd be better off asking what a language game is.

>>3363965
>until evidence arises
What? How much evidence do you need?

>>3363978
Brilliant, how did I know you'd side-step answering any of the questions I asked.

>this thread
>i'm sorry op

>>3363964
The fact is, every part of society necessarily "imposes" on culture, though this process isn't necessarily a bad thing. People having a place to pray or reflect, or to have equal access to places based on things like dietary beliefs I don't see as bad things. To say one part doesn't impose is either you saying they don't matter/aren't part of the culture, or that they are somehow victims in culture through politeness.

>>3363983
Because you're a special snowflake?

>>3363994
also the jews snippy the willy of their children, which is imposing.

>>3363997
There you go again.

>>3363999
That's one of the weirder cultural things that have come from Judaism and Islam for sure.

>>3364001
You are truly schooling me, snowflake-Sensai.

>>3364002
i know and it happened to me :(
>that feel when I will never truly feel

>>3364006
Just answer the fucking questions you conceited little child.

>>3364008
What were your special questions?

>>3364008
lel nigga he's softly rustling your jimmies

>>3364011
Are you twelve years old?

>>3364014
le trolling fase

>>3364015
Would that make this somehow better for you?

This is fucking retarded, I'm out.

Fuck this thread, fuck everyone in this thread.

>>3364028
>this guy

I liked The Missionary Position. Anti-religion rants kept to minimum, great investigative journalism and neatly constructed arguments. Would be nice if the photos described were included in the book itself, but I guess you can't have everything.

If it wasn't for the new atheists more vocal stance I'd probably still be unaware of my belief options and just be a Christian. For annoying as it can be sometimes, I'm glad for it. I'll agree with the one guy who says some atheists seem to think their atheism gives them a free ride to intellectualism especially if they didn't have to radically alter their belief to come to the same conclusion. (Not as much effort or research is required if you're raised in an atheist household or a family who doesn't care much about religion).

Anyway, attacking people who are simply interested in Hitchens or Dawkins seems just as bad as what you are accusing everyone else of doing. Just because you find out someone enjoys reading Mark Driscoll or Christopher Hitchens should you assume either is the worst of the type who reads that stuff?

>>3364037
saved that so hard just now

>>3363977
yawn

so you concede you have no argument then

>>3363687
"Letters to a Young Contrarian" is essential, his best, but generally I don't think buying someone's memoir when you've read one other semi-memoiric book by them is a good idea.

"Love, Poverty, and War" would be my other recommendation- it's Hitchens at the height of his powers.

>>3364037
This is DFW in what context?

I GUESS CHRISTOPHER REALLY DOES KNOW IF GOD EXISTS OR NOT NOW

I HOPE FOR HIS SAKE HE WAS WRONG

>>3364633
OR WRONG WHATEVER IS BETTER

God you all are stupid, Hitchens never attacked the person he debated personally, just their arguments. He's in no way an "anti-intellectual", only someone who got their defenses up because of their religion would say something like that.

>>3363408
Elaborate. What do you specifically find repulsive and "anti-intellectual" about Hitchens' arguments?

>>3364653
Lolno? The fantastic thing about reading a Hitchens attack is how thorough and all-encompassing it is. "This person's arguments are wrong for reasons x, y, and z, and anyway they're only making these arguments because they're little pissant theocratic pacifists with no regard for sex, literature, or civil society who hate women and want you dead."

I like Christopher HItchens. He was schooled in his debate with William Lane Craig, though. But that's to be expected since Craig is an actual philosopher with two PhDs.

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

>>3364770
It is often to be expected when someone who actually knows what they're talking about comes to blows with an alcoholic whose claim to fame is having a posh English accent in America.

>>3364770
>2:12:20
Yeah, I ain't watching that.

>>3364770
Can't agree with that, unfortunately. Craig is a pernicious little turd who's debating style is basically to dump a whole boatload of rambling, convoluted arguments on his opponent, repeatedly claim the person has to disprove all of it, try and ensure their time runs out and them claim victory because he suffocated the debate.

In that debate, Craig basically drummed up the usual metaphysical, black-hole arguments that have no actual answer. His arguments can basically be summed up as "you can't prove God doesn't exist!", dressed up in rambling, pointless verbal diarrhea. Hitchens, to his credit, didn't fall into the trap and had to repeatedly point out to Craig the fallacy in asking someone to prove God doesn't exist, but to no avail.

Craig also got his ass handed to him by TheoreticalBullshit on youtube. You can see the exchange here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCCF97F3B92DF3CB8

As usual, he's evasive and dishonest. I have nothing but contempt for that man.

>>3364810
Craig's pretty succinct in his arguments, it's Hitchens who is unable to clarify his rambling.

>In that debate, Craig basically drummed up the usual metaphysical, black-hole arguments that have no actual answer. His arguments can basically be summed up as "you can't prove God doesn't exist!", dressed up in rambling, pointless verbal diarrhea. Hitchens, to his credit, didn't fall into the trap and had to repeatedly point out to Craig the fallacy in asking someone to prove God doesn't exist, but to no avail.
Even if that were the extent of the debate, to say to someone who is claiming to have an answer that in fact they don't is a valid rebuttal. Nothing fallacious there.

>>3364820
Good thing Hitchens doesn't claim to be able to prove God doesn't exist, then, huh?

He says there's no convincing or good reason to believe that He does, which isn't the same thing.

>Craig's pretty succinct in his arguments, it's Hitchens who is unable to clarify his rambling.

I've never gotten that impression.

Anyone perhaps have a link for a Love, Poverty & War ebook?

>>3364770
I cannot take these debates. I watched dozens of them some time ago and they always end up with circular baseless argumentation and crying from the theist side.

I find this aggressive atheism really distasteful, people actually turn it into a religion itself. I mean, if someone's belief in a religion isn't making them attack others or something then why attack them? And the fact they all act like they're somehow special for not believing in a God is ridiculous, as I'm pretty sure the majority of people aren't religious.

I don't believe in any form of religion by the way, but I do believe in 'live and let live'

>>3364835
Exactly, they're totally pointless. It's not as if someone who believe in something so firmly as to dedicate their lifestyle and the time to debate is just going to decide God does/doesn't exist.

>>3364824
Fittingly, both points coincide here. Hitchens is never clear about what he's defending or arguing. He never makes it clear what he means by "atheism", even to say he will not do Craig "any favours" by doing such a thing. It devolves into this at one point:
CRAIG: Do you have any arguments leading to the conclusion that God does not exist?

HITCHENS: Well I would rather, I think—I'm wondering if I'm boring anybody now. I would rather say—I'd rather state it in reverse and say I find all the arguments in favor to be fallacious or unconvincing. And I'd have to add, though this isn't my reason for not believing in it, that I would be very depressed if it was true. That's quite a different thing. I don't say of atheism that it's at all morally superior, that would be very risky. I wouldn't admit that it was at all morally inferior either, but we can at least be acquitted on the charge of wishful thinking. We don't particularly...

CRAIG: I wonder—I wonder if that's the case. Would you agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

HITCHENS: Well, you know, I'm not sure that I would agree.

CRAIG: Ok.

HITCHENS: No, I mean, I think...

FUCKING HELL, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU THINK HITCHENS?

>>3364852
Religious beliefs affects education, cultural beliefs, the shaping of an entire society, the negation of a large other number of beliefs and an enormous amount of individuals that belong to certain societies. Religion affects you greatly and should not be left on a untouchable pedestal, thinking it has no effects on anybody as far as it does not kill someone.

>>3364856

Hitchens looked his worst in that debate. But I think it's unfair because he's just not at Craig's level as far as pure intellectual prowess goes. Hitchens is a witty cultural kind of critic, not an academic philosopher conversant with recent physics and cosmology.

Hitchens looks a lot better in his other debates. Craig is just out of his league, in the same way that Hitchens is out of Reverend Sharpton's league when they debated.

>>3364864
Oh no I understand that, and personally think that religion should be kept farrrr away from the state, education, law etc. It's just that I find the belief of 'IM AN ATHEIST SO I CAN INSULT YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT AS SMART AS ME' a bit sickening.

>>3364865
Yeah, and you know Craig knows it, he's extremely confident, seems to be very familiar with the lay of the land as it were. It would have been better for Hitchens to not have necessarily tried the same silly arguments (God like a unicorn or a tea pot, was Jesus a magician) and maybe tried to throw a curveball, get Craig out of the comfort zone.

>>3364856
The idea of defining that a god can exist or not is something that has already been accepted as not possible. Your belief is yours alone but it does not make it a fact no matter how many assumptions you want to make based on that belief. To even bring the idea of "Let's discuss if God is real or not!" onto the table is already showing childishness.
>>3364865
How can you even say this guy is right about anything? As far as I have watched, he pointed a world's worth of biased bullshit and already refuted argumentation. Every single argument that you can see being used in previous debates such as these are there, he is preseting nothing new or better, he is just repeating the same bullshit that has already being pointed wrong.

>>3364886
No, you've misunderstood the debate. Hitchens says he sees no reason to believe in God, but Craig comes right back with he sees no reason not to.

>>3364886

Oh, it's definitely true that he reuses his arguments. Everyone does that, though. I've watched shit tons of these debates on youtube and am sick of them by this point – William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, Doug Wilson, Hitchens, etc, they all repeat the same bullshit over and over.

>>3364901
The belief of Christianity is based on the factual existence of God. They affirm that God does exist. Hitchens arguments that there is no reason to believe in the christian god because, well, there truly isn't, there is no reason to believe in any kind of deity from any other religion as well since they are all left to a metaphysical realm of existence to each individual. What Craig would have to do is prove that God exists, not give mere reasons that his story of a god is probably true. If you are going to prove something, then you must provide objective proof that that is true.
In the end, his arguments are just biased moral arguments, cosmological nonsense and apparent correlations of scientifical discoveries with passages of the bible.

>>3364865
>>3364878

Did we watch the same thing? How can you find anything Craig says remotely convincing? It's contrived, rehashed bullshit. He's not on some "higher" level. He can speak in front of an audience quite decently, but he's still a fool.

This sums it quite nicely: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

>>3364945
sums it up*

>>3364945
>linking to rationalwiki.org
Hotbed of anti-intellectualism. Actually, that gives it too much credit: hotbed of blatant idiocy.

>>3364945
>http://rationalwiki.org/

elel

just as bad as the LessWrong site; flooded with scientism, edgy teens having read no more than parroting popsci and popphil books of brainwash, wanking to dawkins, singularity and similar degenerative atrocities

>>3365042
>>3364991
>I can't make points to support my position so I call you names
okay

>>3363400
His writings on mother theresa are almost impossible to find but worth the read. Id take the audiobooks he's done over any physical writings though. But i have a soft spot for a few famous voices (Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, one other i cannot think of at the time)

Good taste OP.

Read his hit pieces. He wrote a book called "The Missionary Position" about Mother Theresa and another book about Henry Kissinger, I forget what it was called.

>Arguably
>Mortality

Buy those two. Great reads.
Those essays really are worth a purchase.

I have no interest in checking out his atheist "reddit /lit/" though.

I have to register my love for Hitchens here, in spite of anyone, trolling or not, who slanders his name. HE SUPPORTED IRAQ THAT MEANS HE SUUUUUCKS!!!! I cried actual literal bitch tears when he passed away. We will not see a polemicist as witty or brilliant as he was for a long time. Letters To A Young Contrarian is wonderful, as is Why Orwell Matters.

>>3364770

I applaud this troll post, it is utterly marvelous. I was doubled over with laughter. Bravo, sir.

>>3366362

The book on Mother Theresa was going to be called "Sacred Cow" but his publishers wouldn't allow it.

>>3364669
I believe you are seeking this post:

>>3363744

>>3366540
he did support Iraq tho, and more than that, he wzas a total cock about it

>>3366567

Cry me a river.

>>3364945
>rationalwiki

Really? If we're going there, I'm sure conservapedia has an equally insightful article.

>>3364945

Craig's arguments don't have to be convincing for Hitchens' debating to be poor. We're talking about a specific kind of rhetorical game, here, that's all about clarity and directness. Hitchens' is entertaining, yes, and he makes some interesting points, but Hitchens' barely responds to Lane's arguments. Hitchens is entertaining, and will convince a lot of normal people just through appeal to 'common sense,' but Craig is, more than most atheist debaters, an excellent rhetorician within the bounds of formal, point-by-point debate.

He's this because he's basically been running the same arguments against atheists for decades, and has developed responses covering any level of counter-argument he'll encounter in the length of an hour, two hour, three hour long debate. There's also the fact that he runs five arguments, and will slap your hands if you try to get too deep on any one of his five arguments. He also slaps hands for going off on tangents, like Hitchens' did. Notice how he does that?

He's is selective about his opponents. He will refuses debates with non PhDs and a lot of people who are well versed in theology. He also studies up on his opponents before hand and addresses their popular arguments.

If you want to see somebody actually scoring some points on him, check out Stephan Law and Shelley Kagan's debates with him. There's also a Cambridge philosopher, I forget his name, who I saw rough him up a bit.

>>3364770
If this is the debate in which Craig talks about exorcism and the virgin birth, I doubt that hitchens was schooled in any way.

I have to agree that of all the theists in those kinds of debates, Craig is probably the only one to be taken at least somewhat seriously.

I was completely destroyed by Lawrence Krauss though. the video on yt hast shit quality, the audio is still shit but slightly better. I encourage you to watch it, its really worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wascB0xunig

>>3363744
Why does /lit/ hold this incredibly generalised, almost child-like view of modern-day atheists? You need to stop lumping all non-believers together under the one simplistic banner. I'd say 1% of 'new age atheists' are what you describe. Your post is as unfair as saying most religious people are anti-intellectual, anti-science, intolerant and ignorant assholes.

And when Hitchens argued against religion, he was arguing against religion (he never said it was ONLY bad, just that its cons outweighed its pros), not faith (except when discussing the validity of claims made to support the existence of a supernatural being).

>>3366631
>completely destroyed by Lawrence Krauss though
>Lawrence Krauss

and off to /sci/ you go.

FORGET BOUT JESUS!!!1 U CAEM FRUM STARZ. TSO PROGRESIVE MAN, TSO RADICAL!

>>3366639
>FORGET BOUT JESUS!!!1 U CAEM FRUM STARZ. TSO PROGRESIVE MAN, TSO RADICAL!
This is what brings down this board to some serious levels of autism.

>mfw the average atheist can't spot all the fallacies in this video
>mfw an atheist believed science could provide an objective morality near me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-hkpqVlYw

>>3366642

I'm guessing he's from another board as well, spazzing out ironically in caps is usually the tip off that it's a shitposter.

>>3366642
>>3366648
just that i've found that the worshipers of Lawrence Krauss are usually 16 year old teenagers with the inability to think for themselves.

this thread is, and has, turned into a major shitfest of colossal shitposts.

don't read hitchens. Read some true visionaries:
http://futureliterarygeniuses.tumblr.com/

>>3366647
What atheist believes in objective morality?
What atheist requires an objective morality?

>>3366664
The famous one in the video who makes reddit atheists rock hard.

>>3366671
And his buddies. Hitchens was creaming over objective morality too.

Arguably audio 16kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?0vckrnnc4pfa3w2

>>3365721
>His writings on mother theresa are almost impossible to find

They are? I bought a copy of The Missionary Position at Barnes and Noble a few months ago and it looked like a recent printing.

>>3364991
>>3365042
>>3366572

How about actually reading what the wiki says? I've never even heard of it before that link, but it confirms everything I've seen about Craig.

>>3366638

I suspect it's because they want to seem even more sophisticated. They're beyond 'mere' atheism, which is for plebs.

I don't get why people bitch so much about atheists anyway. What do the so-called militant atheist do? They write books and give lectures. Oh noes!

>>3366612

Hmm, as far as I recall he didn't really address any of Hitchens' points.

And a large part of what he said can be summed up as saying Hitchens can't prove God doesn't exist, only in an incredibly verbose and inflated way. Hitchens addressed this twice, but Craig ignored his answer flat out and kept saying "well, you can't prove God doesn't exist, nah nah naaaah!" It was annoying.

Someone earlier posted the link to his 'debate' with TheoreticalBullshit on Youtube about his version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig got his ass handed to him by a soap actor.

>>3367328

It's a childish philosophy and a useless claim to make. As a label it does nothing but betray you as a willful contrarian.

>>3367355
Might be true for some, untrue for others. And Atheism isn't a philosophy. It has no content.

>>3367367

>Atheism isn't a philosophy

Certainly it is.

>It has no content

Certainly it does.

>>3367371
Like what? Not believing in deities is a philosophy?

Seems silly to make a position of negation a philosophy. As the old witticism goes: it's like bald being a hair colour, or not collecting stamps being a hobby.

>>3367393

You don't understand what the term 'philosophy' means, do you?

>>3367393
>Seems silly to make a position of negation a philosophy.

are you kidding me? ethical irrealism, epistemic nihilism (and all the other ones), non-cognitivism, etc etc there's a long tradition of philosophies basing themselves on negations, read a book and stop thinking in platitudes, nigger.

>>3367406
Sorry, should have been more clear. I was talking specifically about atheism being a philosophy, not negations in general.

>>3367417

In what sense is atheism not a philosophy?

Please elaborate for the class.

>>3367417
oh you were talking specifically when you said

>Seems silly to make a position of negation a philosophy

or is my browser just fucking up?

>New Atheism

Do us all a favor and hang yourself.

>>3367424
Not believing in something until it's proven isn't a philosophy.

>>3367436

Yes it is, my friend.

You're making a philosophical statement.

>why am I still talking with children in 2012

>>3367436
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

>>3367440
>I don't believe in Unicorns
>"That's a philosophy!!"

>>3367424
It can be one, I just think it's a little...thin, maybe?

It doesn't really get you anywhere. Atheism seems more like a correction to default rather than an actual practical position.

You're most welcome to correct or convince me.

>>3367425

I said that in the context of atheism being a philosophy or not. Which I should have been more clear about.

Depending on a person's situation, I suppose there are a number of 'positions of negation' that can be useful and important philosophies. Apartheid-era South Africa was a very racist country, so a position of non-racialism would be a legitimate position to hold.

>>3367465
>Atheism seems more like a correction to default

we don't know shit about the "default"

plz read a book

all beliefs are asserted

>>3367474
Sure, but the claims religion make are unsubstantiated, as far as I can see, so my default is to not make any claims at all.

>>3367461

Yes. It is.

Are you being deliberately dense?

>>3367465

>doesn't really get you anywhere

You really have never read any philosophy, have you.

>>3367489

>my default

Is a philosophical position.

>>3367489
it's like you just read the first line of my post

im out

you guys deal with this

>>3367499
How about you stop being vague and patronising, and actually give me something to work with. As I said, you're welcome to correct or convince me.

>>3367502

Quite right.

>>3367503

Your belief that we don't know shit about the "default" is also asserted then, not so? Based on what?

>>3367529

Any statement of belief (or lack thereof) you make is by nature a philosophic claim.

>>3367529
You can't have a "default" position, you ninny.

>>3367539

Yes, I know. That makes sense. What that I said made you think I disagree with that?

>>3367489
>Thinks atheism is substantiated
>confuses theisms with religions

>>3367548

How would you know?

>>3367558
How would YOU know?

>>3367553

Depends what you mean by atheism, I suppose.

>>3367568

There's nothing 'default' about secularism or modern atheism. They're assumption-laden ideologies like everything else. Spirituality is a universal human phenomenon, part of being human really, and every society throughout history has practiced some form of it save for those affected by very recent, culturally contingent Western European ideological formations like liberalism. You are the oddity and the aberration, not religious people.

Also sage

>>3367583
>lots of people believe it therefore it's true

>>3367589

Where did I mention 'truth'?

>>3367589

Stop bringing up 'truth'. Nobody said anything about 'truth'.

>>3367576

>>3367594
The burden of proof is still on you regardless of how many people believe it. Unicorns don't exist until I prove they don't, that's not how logic works.

>>3367600

Why is logic important?

>>3367600
confirmed for not reading the posts he's replying to.

>>3367600
>The burden of proof is still on you regardless of how many people believe it.

According to whom?

>Unicorns don't exist until I prove they don't, that's not how logic works.

If unicorn cults were a universal human phenomenon, I'd feel more inclined to hesitate before declaring that unicorns don't exist.

>>3367600
Can you logically prove that it's necessarily true that Unicorns do not exist in the past, present, or future?

>>3367644
>>3367617
>>3367643
>>3367608
>WHY DOES LOGIC MATTER?
>PROVE FACTS EXIST!

>>3367652

"It has been said that the proof of an affirmation is incumbent upon him who enunciates the thesis, not upon him who rejects it; but this is a perfectly arbitrary opinion, for if someone owes us a proof for a positive affirmation, he equally owes us one for a negative affirmation; it is not the positive character of the affirmation, it is the absoluteness of its character that obliges us to prove it, whether its content is positive or negative. There is no need to prove an inexistence that one supposes, but one is obliged to prove an inexistence that one affirms. It is true that those who deny the supernatural do not lack arguments which in their eyes are proofs of their opinion, but nonetheless they imagine that their opinion is a natural axiom that needs no demonstration; this is rationalist juridicism, not pure logic."

In any case, I'm not attempting to 'prove' the existence of the supernatural. That's a separate issue which really has no bearing on what I said here:

>>3367583

>>3367679
What were you trying to say then? That people have believed all kinds of supernatural stuff? Yeah, and?

Doesn't it strike you as interesting that the more we learn about the universe the less the supernatural claims are valid? Note, I'm not saying we're anywhere close to disproving any kind of supernatural phenomena. Whatever that means, anyway. I'm just saying that things that used to be attributed to the supernatural we've later found to have natural explanations.

>>3367644

It all depends on your definition of "unicorn" by a lot of definitions, unicorns exist. Gods exist too: I have one on the shelf behind my kiln. It's a kiln god, charged with making sure my glazes don't run and my bisque doesnt explode. It's a potter's tradition to build and fire a "kiln god" as the first thing in every new kiln.

he doubtless exists, and whether or not he does his job is pretty much moot. He's a god: it's his call.

>>3367661

Difference between "affirming inexistence" and being sceptical about existence, though.

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html

>>3367745

Well, that's quite distasteful.

>>3367704
>What were you trying to say then? That people have believed all kinds of supernatural stuff?

Precisely what I said at the beginning of the post: modern atheism, secularism, etc. are in no sense default human positions. They're a rather recent deviation from the human 'spiritual norm'; they emerged under specific conditions affecting a specific place during a specific period time and spread from there. IOW, only the specific forms assumed by spirituality are culturally/historically contingent; the phenomenon itself is universal. Non-spirituality is entirely contingent.

I've said nothing about what is or isn't true; you can interpret these things however you'd like.

>Doesn't it strike you as interesting that the more we learn about the universe the less the supernatural claims are valid?

Valid in what sense?

>>3367714
>Difference between "affirming inexistence" and being sceptical about existence, though.

Acknowledged.

>>3367790

>
Precisely what I said at the beginning of the post: modern atheism, secularism, etc. are in no sense default human positions. They're a rather recent deviation from the human 'spiritual norm'; they emerged under specific conditions affecting a specific place during a specific period time and spread from there. IOW, only the specific forms assumed by spirituality are culturally/historically contingent; the phenomenon itself is universal. Non-spirituality is entirely contingent.

I've said nothing about what is or isn't true; you can interpret these things however you'd like.

Problem is, spirituality is such a nebulous and vague term. It can mean almost anything.

Now let's take a newborn child, for example. If he was brought up with no cultural/traditional 'spiritual' education, do you think he would develop it on his own? Would he create his own supernatural ideas out of nothing? Or is it reliant on those around you?

>Valid in what sense?

Well, the age old example would be something like people thinking lightning strikes were a sign of Zeus' displeasure, or rough seas meant Neptune was upset.

Many everyday occurrences are also ascribed to some supernatural cause, even though natural explanations exist. Sleep paralysis, for example.

>>3367868

Woops, fucked that up. Let me fix.

>Precisely what I said at the beginning of the post: modern atheism, secularism, etc. are in no sense default human positions. They're a rather recent deviation from the human 'spiritual norm'; they emerged under specific conditions affecting a specific place during a specific period time and spread from there. IOW, only the specific forms assumed by spirituality are culturally/historically contingent; the phenomenon itself is universal. Non-spirituality is entirely contingent.

I've said nothing about what is or isn't true; you can interpret these things however you'd like.

Problem is, spirituality is such a nebulous and vague term. It can mean almost anything.

Now let's take a newborn child, for example. If he was brought up with no cultural/traditional 'spiritual' education, do you think he would develop it on his own? Would he create his own supernatural ideas out of nothing? Or is it reliant on those around you?

>>3367868
>Now let's take a newborn child, for example. If he was brought up with no cultural/traditional 'spiritual' education, do you think he would develop it on his own? Would he create his own supernatural ideas out of nothing? Or is it reliant on those around you?
You claiming supernatural origin of supernatural beliefs?

>>3367873

Goddamnit, I dun goofed again. Anyhoo, I'm sure you can follow.

>>3367874

Well, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. If not having supernatural beliefs is not the default, then what is? Will children develop their own supernatural beliefs if it's not taught by those around them?

>>3367868
>Well, the age old example would be something like people thinking lightning strikes were a sign of Zeus' displeasure, or rough seas meant Neptune was upset.

>Many everyday occurrences are also ascribed to some supernatural cause, even though natural explanations exist. Sleep paralysis, for example.

OK, I see what you're saying. I'd just point out that religion is more than its explanatory function, and also that this explanatory function most importantly addresses basic metaphysical questions which aren't dealt with by modern scientists (either because they're incapable of doing so or because they consider them irrelevant to their field.) Regarding natural phenomena, there's no reason to assume that naturalistic and supernatural explanations of the same phenomena/universe are mutually exclusive. They tend to serve different purposes anyhow. With mythology, the actual historicity is beside the point; I'd say that they're a form of symbolism more than anything else and exist to direct the people who use them to the higher realities of their religion.

>Problem is, spirituality is such a nebulous and vague term. It can mean almost anything.

You're right, but I think it can probably be defined in a way that suits our purposes. I won't attempt to do that now, though.

>Now let's take a newborn child, for example...

This is a good question and it's unfortunate that there's really no way of testing this without running into major ethical problems. It would also be interesting to see if changing the subject from an individual to a group produced different results. Although a religious person (or some, at least) could object to the assumptions underlying these experiments and hold that religions are the product of revelation.

Sorry the response so long; I'm getting ready for class.

>>3368118

>OK, I see what you're saying. I'd just point out that religion is more than its explanatory function, and also that this explanatory function most importantly addresses basic metaphysical questions which aren't dealt with by modern scientists (either because they're incapable of doing so or because they consider them irrelevant to their field.) Regarding natural phenomena, there's no reason to assume that naturalistic and supernatural explanations of the same phenomena/universe are mutually exclusive. They tend to serve different purposes anyhow.

That's one of the problems for me about religion, though. It doesn't actually provide any answers. It might quench someone's desire for an answer, any answer. But fundamentally the questions remain. What I mean by this is that saying God did this or did that doesn't actual tell me anything. It's like saying an omnipotent purple dinosaur living in the Andromeda Galaxy is actually doing it.

Regarding supernatural/natural explanations of phenomena not being mutually exclusive. Sure, but the supernatural stays just that, it's beyond the natural, and thus beyond our scope, if it exists at all. In terms of evidence, it's as good as any fiction.

>You're right, but I think it can probably be defined in a way that suits our purposes. I won't attempt to do that now, though.

Understandable.

>This is a good question and it's unfortunate that there's really no way of testing this without running into major ethical problems... *snipped for brevity*

I think from a sociological perspective it would be very interesting. You could observe how collective thought and interaction influence beliefs in general.

Regarding revelation, it would be the perfect opportunity for those claiming that it happens to demonstrate.

>Sorry the response so long; I'm getting ready for class.

Cool, have fun, man.

>>3363744
>I do not understand why atheists cannot subscribe to their own belief and leave religious people alone

Well, see, in American the Christian/Religious majority seem to want to take over things. Prayer in schools, God on the money, God in the pledge, anti-abortion, abstinence-only education, and so on.

So don't go thinking that the Theists are innocent. At all.