/lit/ - Literature

>implying the mathematical nature of the universe isn't the most comforting idea there is
>implying some capricious omnipotent jerk is a better alternative

I don't know. What's god?

>>3615407
this

>>3615407
why do you need comfort?
I do not disregard math nor logic, as it is real.
But why do you disregard something you cannot disprove? Original thought please

>>3615408
What do you think?

>>3615407
>>3615409
But... That's the same thing. I mean, that's God, the mathematical nature and etc, etc. A lot of people see it that way, it makes no difference to call it a different name, you still think the world follows something, that it is objective, etc. You are theists.

>>3615420
yes, good man. Good discussion

>>3615413
>why do you need comfort?

you brought it up

>But why do you disregard something you cannot disprove?

i. there is an infinite number of possibilities for such things
ii. considering them all is pointless, given that some of them must be mutually contradictory
iii. there is no reason to regard something unprovable

"My personal theology is described in the Gifford lectures that I gave at Aberdeen in Scotland in 1985, published under the title, Infinite In All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence." -- Freeman Dyson

>>3615420
deist, yes. the degree of anthropomorphization in abrahamic faiths is just ridiculous. there's a distinction. i never said i was an atheist.

Cue a bunch of pretentious and elitist idiots saging and telling everyone in the thread how they're idiots for discussing this age-old philosophical problem that has been talked about by pretty much every even peripherally important philosoper since forever.

I do believe in God, but I think every religion has it wrong. Not that I have the right idea of it, but I think the central thing about God is exactly that it is the name of the unamable, that you cannot create a concept for it and that it's fairly easy to confuse it for its image. The idea of an anthropomorphic God or something of that kind is just ridiculous. The universe follows no rule, no master, no science, that is all derivative, reality comes first of all, whatever it is. The thing is that God, in my view, is a word for the way things are and it is, therefore, flawless. I think everyone has an idea of how things are, even if they don't call it God. I believe this whole issue is a language game, a problem of translation, in between people, religions, ages and so on. People think words are either literal or metaphorical, things are either there or not there, but I don't think God or "how things are" is an object, but a relationship. So, at the same time, all religions are right, simply terrible mistranslated into actions and attitudes left and right, taken my politics the minute they start. If you look for it, you'll find it. If you don't want to find it, you won't. Just like the meaning of a poem. So at the same time that the anthropomorphic God is ridiculous, it's also a brilliant device. It's no question that "things are what they are" and this is my idea of God. The matter of faith enters to speak of our relationship with that.

Wanting to believe God exist comes from fear of dying/unknown.
Wanting to believe God doesn't exist fear of being fearful of dying/unknown.

Both are fear based.

No, I don't believe in god and I see no reason to. It's a completely unecessary concept for me.

>>3615464

And here we go.

(>>3615438)

sage
you are all unphilosophical and uneducated clowns

>>3615420
If your definition of a theist is, "Somebody who believes reality is objective and has rules," then you have a very broad definition.

I personally think it's a shit definition.

>>3615458
>both are fear based
you could not be more uneducated or wrong.
Please, apply yourself

>>3615464
And you are a pretentious cunt, enlighten us oh wise one? Oh wait....

>>3615471
an unenlightened person can still know everyone else is unenlightened as well. The best way to get out of this stupid circle jerk is to point out the obvious

>>3615475
oh no, look at us having a conversation

>>3615481
I've already gotten out. Maybe you should do the same.

>>3615465
You know when someone say God is the mountains, the rivers, love, the sunset and so on? That's all very nice, though a typical response would be "then why call it God?".

I think the contrary also happends. I see some people who say they don't believe in God, but believe in strict rules, and a will of nature, and a reality that is projected by these unique rules, call all others lunatics for it, believe in mathematical truths and act based on rigid ideologies, etc. Well, why not call that God? To me, it's the same thing, you take the man in the sky and put a mathematical equation in the sky there. Then you read on religion and you realize a lot of people didn't see this God as a man in the sky anyway, the similarities just grow.

>>3615475

Get the fuck out, you child.

No, I don't,but I'm agnostic. I have nothing against theists and religion in general, in fact I see religion as a necessary and inherent part of human life and culture. I hate the new atheism.

I don't think there is some supreme being that created everything, no. But some days I think pantheism isn't that far fetched.

>>3615481
>>3615471
I posted in this thread, mostly because I'm bored, but I completely agree with him. This is child's stuff, don't take it anyway seriously.

>>3615487
Then whatever, you're just changing the words around in a way that tries to avoid conflict.

Instead of Atheism vs. Religion, it's Physicalism vs. Men in the Sky. The question still remains as to why somebody would believe in men in the sky over a strictly physical nature, and that's the real question in the OP, even if you try to change the subject and say, "People who believe in physics are religious, too."

>>3615488

Considering the cruelty of religion it's hard to see how it's an "inherent" part of human life, and even harder to see how it's a "necessary part" of life.

It doesn't make any sense to me to "hate the new atheism." What exactly is it they're trying to promote that you don't like? The exposing of pedophile priests in the catholic church? Trying to fight for LGBT-rights? Women's rights in countries ruled by islam? Trying to get the catholic church to understand that not allowing condoms in the biggest STD-infested place on Earth is a bit of a problem?

I'm not deism, but I am admittedly very much against organized religion.

>>3615400
Agreed on all counts. Panentheist master race reporting in.

Religion and Theism are not mutually inclusive. Lrn2Nietzsche

>>3615495
No, I think people already changed the words around so that there is a conflict. Words are cultural, they bring your ideas. If you are raised with the word God, it's a good word, if you are raised without it, it's an awful mystic word. But thought goes beyond that and clever people work around their own words and give them intelligent meaning.

I don't think the alternative to god is a "strictly physical nature", I think that has nothing to do with it at all.

>>3615496
>Considering the cruelty of religion it's hard to see how it's an "inherent" part of human life, and even harder to see how it's a "necessary part" of life.
Anthropology shows it's an essential human behavior, even if it's had different forms over millions of years.

And new atheism primarily promotes capitalism, Western cultural imperialism, and narcissism, which makes it a shitty movement over all. Those things you mentioned are nice but new atheism has done zero to actually help with it, with all the movement towards those things coming from practitioners of those religions and (to lesser extent) governments.

>>3615496
Leftish is buttmad.
>The exposing of pedophile priests in the catholic church?
You're a Hero. That's what you want to hear ?
>Trying to fight for LGBT-rights?
They don't need you to promote their own rights.
>Women's rights in countries ruled by islam?
Why are you minding about problems that doesn't concern you. You must be leading a meaningless life, seeking for gratitude in a desert.
It is not an interesting debate. There's no factual proof. And new atheists are criticizing institutions not religion. You can believe in God without listening to the Church.

>>3615400
I do not believe in any deities, prophets, or forces. I was not raised to believe anything in specific. Both my parents believed that it was not right to force a religion on me when I was a child. My mother is a lax Seventh Day Adventist, and my father is full Catholic.

I find worshiping an odd ritual. I find attributing everything to a deity absurd, insulting when there are actual people involved who used the skills they have trained for.

To me, organized worships seems like a form of induced obsessive compulsive disorder. You worship because if you don't, you'll subconsciously sabotage yourself until you've worshiped yet again, righting the wrong.

I've taken several courses since college trying to understand the entire religion thing, and to me it seems to be a placation of fear of the unknown, a way to develop a social structure, and a means to control group-think.

And now I'm done.

>>3615495
>men in the sky

Shouldn't you be writing your next pop-phil book, Dawkins?

>>3615530
>You're a Hero. That's what you want to hear ?
Really?

>They don't need you to promote their own rights.
Eh, it can't hurt.

>Why are you minding about problems that doesn't concern you. You must be leading a meaningless life, seeking for gratitude in a desert.

>why do u have empathy
>what do u care about other humans

Jesus christ. The level of sophistication in your refutations is that of a first-grader.

And yes, they are criticizing institutions that are abusing religion. What exactly is it that is wrong in this?

>>3615525
Well you can call it whatever you want, but there sure as fuck IS a difference between believing in physics strictly and believing in some supernatural beings that can change physics, and that's the relevant religion argument.

You can say people believe in God all you want, but there is a still a fundamental difference between what I believe (as a self-called atheist) and what a Christian believes.

>>3615552
You think theists believe in "men-in-the-sky"; yoy have no idea what Christians "believe".

>>3615552
I don't think that's the religious argument, I don't think any religious argument is about including elements to the mix, so it's not "a supernatural being that change physics" at all, it is the nature itself, it is what it is anyway and God is but a description of it. What do you think of Newton's God of mathematics? I never heard of any God that changes physics, only of ones who are the source of physics anyway.

I don't see absolutely any difference here, no difference in attitude, no fundamental disparity between these ways of thinking. To be atheist is, in this sense, an aversion against this ultimate nature of the universe, of reality, this objective truth, this solid stone of stuff that is a source of all you see, whether that's written in the bible or in a science textbook.

There are just so many types of Christian, you can't put Kierkegaard with Sarah Palin, with the Pope, with Aquinas, with the regular church goer here or there.

All I'm saying is that I think one should go a bit full way, not just change the words around. To bash the concept of God and then replace it with something else just like it (but not God), doesn't change anything.

>>3615575
"men in the sky" was just a placeholder for supernatural beings. Sorry if you didn't catch that.

>>3615578
I mean, you aren't really recognizing the other aspects of religion which are very important to it. Worship, faith, and the supernatural being 3 that are very heavily intertwined with the modern view of religion.

If you want to say I'm religious because I believe in some form of objective truth, then you have to drop the 3 above things from our understanding of what "religious" means.

back in newton's era science was considered a way to reveal God in the natural world.

they don't have to mutually exclusive. both have to take a leap of faith when believing in either God or Nothing. And there is evidence to "suggest" both depending on you narrate the explanation of it.

gotta sage when thread is so shit.

>>3615488
A lot of the reason why atheists are so out spoken today is because of the fact that if we had attempted to do the same in the past we would have been put to death. Exercising our relatively new freedoms and what not.

As for being an inherent part of human culture, we are poised to move beyond that. It was necessary when we had to have things to explain what we could at the time not understand, and ways of promoting morality in primitive culture. We no longer need our boogeymen or angels, we don't see lightning and hear the shout of god. We have science, which does what religion could, but better.

Do not let religion be the answer to how, as a lot of people have attempted to make it be, let it be the why. I can tolerate that.

>>3615684
there are snags in science and there will always be by nature of the beast. answers only provide more questions etc etc.

science doesn't do what religion does. it might seem so to someone who understands very little of religion.

>>3615684
It's because, given the final establishment of the order of empiricism, atheists - who are those on the side of this order - view non-atheists as societal dissenters; aggravators against the patterns of progress and 'equalizing change' that define the empirical (using this word differently now) culture/order (the American, for lack of a better word) of the 'globalized West'.

>>3615699
And so we should seek an answer to "all the questions" some kind of answer that does create more wonder? That is the route of stagnation and ultimately death of progress. We should never be satisfied with not understanding the world, and if anything the fact science always has more questions is a good thing.

The fact that religion provides a final answer isn't a good thing, especially not for society if it is allowed control.

>>3615681
The majority of religious people I know have very bad evidence to suggest there being a supernatural being. To be honest, I've never read an argument from that side which was compelling.

It's all just "miracles," and "human nature," and other shitty evidence. Who should I read for good evidence?

>>3615707
Nah, bro. That motherfucker and his dreams; he had some theory about reality being dependent on perception, or something, and therefore the coherent form of reality relied on its being under constant perception, or something, and therefore God; who was this guy, /lit/zers?

>>3615672
I said theist, not religious. See, it's word game all along.

A lot of religious scholars will preach against any kind of worship and in favour of faith. The best thinkers were all about criticizing religion as it is and how it has nothing to do with the actual thing.

The point here is that it's not about saying what you think is out there or not there, but to say what it means that which you said it's there(horrible phrase, I know). To call it god or science or nothing or tao or elvis is irrelevant, until you speak of how you relate to it, of what it means to be there.

Because others have their definitions of it. You say God is "supernatural being", but a lot of people who say they believe in god, don't see god as a supernatural being. One may say Elvis is the true nature of the universe and you may call that bullshit, afterall, a dead rock singer cannot be that thing. And then one will say "oh, but wait, Elvis is just how I named the 10 absolute perspectives of ultimate reality" and you get into a theological argument. And that's exactly what it is.

We have pre-determined words in our vocabulary and I think we cannot afford to love or to hate these words with a passion. We don't want to be confused with terms we hate, but then again, they might be just a good description of how we think (and if that's so, there is nothing wrong with that term). So what is god? What is religion? What is atheism? What is necessary for them to be what they are and so on.

>>3615702
religion doesn't provide a final answer. that's your strawman in using religion in the western tradition as a reference for all.

>>3615718
When of the religious population, the vast majority have religions who do have a "final answer", then I am allowed to make guesses on how it would affect society if allowed control. Maybe not some religions would be, but if most of the major ones were, barring buddhism, then society would be in trouble.

Can someone finally tell me if the universe is truly chaotic, if there's no intricate order that is worthy of admiration? Can you at least direct me to literature on the subject? It's the only thing that still makes me "consider" the existence of God, an intuitive (and admittedly naive) feeling that the universe is too complex to be the result of a mere coincidence.

>>3615716 here

The questions are just food for thought, not to be answered here and now, to me or to OP. The idea is to step aside from this illusion that people mean the same thing with these words, and also to crack misconceptions around it. Some old ladies think the word "atheist" means "fornicator from hell", some young guys think "theist" is "delusional fairy believer" and this is all too childish.

That is one of the reasons why some anons always mention how ridiculous this debate is, for people go on to "do you believe in god?", when the answers (yes, no, don't know, maybe, sure, nope) doesn't say absolutely anything unless you relate that to a meaning. I defend that if we ought to start a debate on God, we don't come from a definition that already fucks up discussion from the start, making him an object as solid as santa claus, and that is what the question "do you believe in god?" brings up. Rather, I think it would be better to start with what does God even mean, regardless of what you believe or not believe. And then, to start talking of what you believe (regardless if it is related to an idea of god or not).

>>3615722
Watch the movie Andrei Rublev

no i don't believe in god, never had. i never felt any kind of feeling that something was guiding us or nature. i don't need solace from a god, i never been frightened about dying really. i have shitty things happen to me in life, but i always had a human being to comfort me. i find my solace in humans.

Aside from the everyday reasons, there's another reason why I'm atheist: How can you pick one religion? There have been thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of religions in the world. How do you decide which being(s) you want to worship? I'd guess it's the one you're brought up with, but that just seems shallow to me. What makes your parents' god better than someone else's? If you're religious for the spiritual element, why not convert to Buddhism? Or Confucianism?

I don't understand.

>>3615725
I honestly don't think there was as much confusion as you think there was. We could still pretty much argue it, even if the terms were a little off.

>>3615496
>Considering the cruelty of religion
Lel

>Women's rights in countries ruled by islam?
What if I told you that most women in islamic countries support sharia law? Why do you think you know better what is the best for them?

>What exactly is it they're trying to promote that you don't like? The exposing of pedophile priests in the catholic church? Trying to get the catholic church to understand that not allowing condoms in the biggest STD-infested place on Earth is a bit of a problem?
I don't get it why atheists care so much about what is going on in the catholic church. Just leave it to Catholics faggots.

>Trying to fight for LGBT-rights?
Hahaha, good one. Sure fight for them, it's the biggest problem the world faces now.

>>3615725

well said

>>3615736
>What if I told you that most women in islamic countries support sharia law? Why do you think you know better what is the best for them?
Yes, humans have these things called rights that exist regardless of what the majority people want.


>I don't get it why atheists care so much about what is going on in the catholic church. Just leave it to Catholics faggots.
see above

>>3615496
Why can't people just realise that homosexuality is a mental disease?

>>3615736
>I don't get it why atheists care so much about what is going on in the catholic church. Just leave it to Catholics faggots.

Because there are children being abused and the perpetrators of the crimes covered up for?

>What if I told you that most women in islamic countries support sharia law? Why do you think you know better what is the best for them?

Because of inalienable human rights, not all african americans supported taking away slavery, but it was what was best for them.

>Hahaha, good one. Sure fight for them, it's the biggest problem the world faces now.

So because it isn't the worst problem we face we should ignore it?

>Lel

For a very long time religion was a cruel institution, and still is in some countries. At least to those who proved to be deserters from the religious norm.

>>3615744
Does it matter if it is?

>>3615741
>Yes, humans have these things called rights that exist regardless of what the majority people want.
Lel dude and where did you take it from? Your God told you that? Do you acknowledge it is not an universal law and some people disagree with it? You just went more fascist and fanatic than muslim brotherhood bro.

>>3615748
Yes, and they need help.

>>3615749
It comes from human reasoning, and most of the developed world accepts there are rights humans must have and that must be protected.

So you're saying people should be able to sign away their rights, and that there should be no universal law?

>>3615749
I'm like a liberty fascist, then.

Anyway, what your saying lets the majority do whatever the fuck they want so long as they stay in the majority. It's some really terrible subjectivist going on that basically forgives nazi germany and every other evil thing a people have done.

>>3615672
>"men in the sky" was just a placeholder for supernatural beings.
Again, you have to use strawmen, which makes you a pseud.

>>3615744
Why do you believe it is a mental disease? From the best biology can tell it is a natural form of population control.

>>3615684
>A lot of the reason why atheists are so out spoken today is because of the fact that if we had attempted to do the same in the past we would have been put to death.

Such a tragedy that we lost Hume before he could become a best-seller and live an unadulterated life of luxury. Oh, wait.

>>3615746
>Because there are children being abused and the perpetrators of the crimes covered up for?
So it's the job for their parents. What if some of these cases are falsificated by press? But you already know the answer, right?

>not all african americans supported taking away slavery, but it was what was best for them.
I guess majority was against it. Poor rhetorics.

>For a very long time religion was a cruel institution, and still is in some countries
It's the people that are cruel. And they always be cruel, regardless for what institution they work for.

>So because it isn't the worst problem we face we should ignore it?
It's just bullshit presented as big problem to distract you from more serious things. Also, it's the case where liberalism go to far for majority of society.

>>3615764
>My anecdote proves all those atheists burned at the stake and killed for their beliefs didn't matter.

The fuck, you serious man?

>>3615757
It's not a strawman, it's just the only word I can think of. I get that religion is viewed as natural and not supernatural to people who believe it, and that religion doesn't strictly mean "men in the sky."

I'm just trying to distance it from physicalism and the belief in nothing beyond strict scientific physics.

>>3615755
>"It comes from human reasoning"
>My reasoning is the one true reasoning
>that flip-flopping over the tyrannical majority

>>3615768
>So it's the job for their parents. What if some of these cases are falsificated by press? But you already know the answer, right?

It's the job of their parents? So one should not expose crime if they see it because it is the job of whoever is responsible for the individual. If I see a kid being beaten, I shouldn't call the police because it is their parent's problem. This is a natural extension of your reasoning.

>I guess majority was against it. Poor rhetorics.
Where are your statistics saying the majority of women do not want rights?

>It's the people that are cruel. And they always be cruel, regardless for what institution they work for.

Yes, and religion was used as a vessel for this. We should attempt to remove said institutions whenever possible.

>It's just bullshit presented as big problem to distract you from more serious things. Also, it's the case where liberalism go to far for majority of society.

Where it goes to far for the majority of society? I suppose that is way the majority of americans support it. Hurr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2013

Spirituality is a universal human phenomenon. Moderns can claim to be 'secular' and deny this fundamental aspect of their humanity as adamantly as they'd like; vestiges of the 'religious' behavior and sentiment they've convinced themselves to hate persist in them nonetheless and always will.

>>3615759
>>3615757

I believe they have the right what's good for them not enlightened Westerners. Universal law is bullshit, it is already being abused and it will keep being used for politics in cruel way just like the church you hate so much.

>>3615783
> I suppose that is way the majority of americans support it.
>wikipedia.org
Whatever, I'm not even American.

>Where are your statistics saying the majority of women do not want rights?
I seriously doubt there are trustworthy statistics on that. Anyway I believe it's highly possible.

> So one should not expose crime if they see it because it is the job
Do you know any such case irl or you depend totally on media? Media sometimes exagarate, you know?

>>3615734
I'm not talking about confusion between you and me. I think it is a general problem to all religious talk. I think it is always a language problem, never of what is there or not there. I get what you mean, I'm just trying to provoke the sight of a new perspectives over these very terms.

>Hello /lit/ time for a debate
Hello. Happy Easter.
>Do you believe in god?
Yes. I went to mass yesterday.
>Science!=atheism. God!=religion
LOL
>Atheism brings no solace.
Nor does religion, nor theism, for most people.

>>3615803
>Universal law is bullshit, it is already being abused and it will keep being used for politics in cruel way just like the church you hate so much.
That's why I'm only saying we need to the most basic of Universal Laws. Very few things should be rights, and therefore very few should be laws. The point of the rights most modern nations believe in are to physically protect individuals from other individuals. In such laws as the muslim ones in question, rights are being taken away from somebody who hasn't tried to take away rights from somebody else.

>>3615839
FUck this thread isn't a rights discussion, I'm out.

>>3615847
Let's talk about God

>>3615741
>Yes, humans have these things called rights that exist regardless of what the majority people want.

>implying rights are universal
>implying rights actually exist without humans to enforce them

>>3615487

The exact opposite of Occam's Razor? Nice.

>>3615407
that's what I for one am implying, damn straight. Without a God, or, at least, without knowing that I am immortal, then the end of ALL things, no matter what I do, is death, and my erasure from existence. Therefore, it does not matter what I do, my life is meaningless, etc., and I will live a life of Hedonism. And you are all fools for not doing otherwise. It's either hedonism or Pascal's wager. Anything else is illogical.

>>3615434
This is actually a really lovely theory.

>>3615407
>"Mathematics is the language which God used to create the world" W. Leibnitz
get on that level pleb

>>3615407
Without God, all is permitted.

I don't believe in any defined religion. A higher power? I think one exists, but I'm against worship. Worship lessens the value of humanity and religion is a tool used to control the masses.
The Big Bang that created our universe was proceeded by the Big Crunch that destroyed the previous one. Using knowledge that we currently have, that means this has happened for an infinite amount of time. But it has to start somewhere.

>>3615949
>"Mathematics is a language created by advanced apes in order to frequently hypothesize God's (or God itself) work"

fix'd

Rights are a purely societal creation
you cannot have "universal rights" without pushing your society on others, just another example of western imperialism

>>3615400
>The Big Bang that created our universe
Oh my
A brainwashed one.

>>3615975
>The Big Bang that created our universe
Oh my
A brainwashed one.

>>3615943
thats only true if you believe time is linear

>>3615993
and your theory is??

>>3615993
Our universe did technically star with a Big Bang, and we are currently growing cancerously on a larger universe, and there are several smaller universes growing on us (I say smaller, but it doesn't really work that way).

>>3615993

Yes, because all the physicists in the world who actually dedicate huge portions of their lives to study these matters are all wrong....

ugh.

This board is fucking retarded.

>>3615975
>The Big Bang that created our universe

wrong, that's not what the big bang is.

>the Big Crunch

bro science.

>Using knowledge that we currently have

you mean "nowhere near the accepted standard model".

>But it has to start somewhere.

congratulations, besides failing physics you also fail logic.

It's odd how people on /lit/ tend to defend religion, yet when they look to the philosophers they so adore, for the most part they all criticize religion harshly.

For instance, what's really the difference between "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion" and "god Is Not Great", for instance? The content is essentially the same, but the names of the writers are different. /lit/'s choice is almost always the one that leads one to be the most edgy. Therefore, Schopenhauer is the shit, whereas Hitch is just a "tryhard edgy new-atheist faggot".

These threads in many ways show how philosophically retarded /lit/ is. By trying to be the people they so fervently respect (Zizek, Schopenhauver, Kant, what have you), they paradoxically become the exact opposite: intellectually bankgrupt people who criticize without having read and understood the works of the people they criticize. This can be seen from bookshelf-threads also. If someone even so much as owns a Dawkins or Hitchens book, every pseudo-intellectual jumps the gun and starts raving about how much of a pseudo-intellectual the other person is for even owning the books!

Just fuck this place. There is the occasional interesting post here, but for the most part this place fucking blows, ridden with elitism, pretentiousness combined with the nastiest ignorance. It's just disgusting.

>>3616062
schopenhauer did more than rail against religion. it is not what he is most known for. there is a long line of philosophy residing within theology, so it's to be expected the literary wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything related to religion.

>who criticize without having read and understood

how would you know?

>every pseudo-intellectual jumps the gun and starts raving about how much of a pseudo-intellectual the other person is for even owning the books!

what's the problem?

go back to red-dit if you're this mad.

>>3616080

But what you people seem to miss is that when atheists criticize religion, they aren't criticising the idea of a god (in fact, none of them have anything against deism). They are however criticising the role of religion in society, and I don't see what exactly they're doing wrong in doing that. If you're going to claim they're being "unphilosophical" or whatever, then you're essentially just strawmaning them.

>how would you know?
Because there are never any arguments as to why it is bad. It's always just
>lel hitchens dawkins gb2rdit

>what's the problem?
The problem is that you are supposed to read the works of people you disagree with before you just disagree with them based on a few snippets on youtube. If you don't own at least a few books by people you fervently disagree with, you are doing something very, very wrong.

Let us define the world as a set of all that is conceivable; let us define an "object" as any constituent part of the world.

I. Suppose we define God as that being that has consciousness of all objects in the universe, simultaneously.

II. If God has infinite consciousness, then we must distribute this consciousness amongst all of the objects in the universe.

III. If we take the limit as God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects in the world, then the limit approaches 0. To explain: The limit as n (the number of objects in the world) approaches infinity means that any 1 object is a fraction of n, so they function is 1/n. Thus, 1/infinity becomes infinitesimally small, and 0.

IV. If God ascribes a quantity of 0 consciousness to each constituent object in the world, then God is not conscious of anything.

IV. That which is conscious of everything is not conscious of anything.

V. God exists, but he is nothing.

QED

what does != mean

>>3616062
It's not a matter of defending or attacking it. This is not cheering for a sports team. There are a number of ways of attacking it, a number of ways of defending it. The usual internet debates on this matter are just retarded and new books are just sad in their content. Anyway, the best and most constructive attacks against religion were exactly done by religious guys. If one really wants to know what stinks, one reads Erasmus of Rotterdam, Kierkegard and so on.

I get back to the sports team analogy to mention how shitty the discussion is. All goes down the drain.

Do whatever you will, do not confuse me with a religious person! Oh no, don't mix me up with atheists bleargh! Labels, t-shirts, hats. "Debate me". Keywords: Pascal's Wager, Occams Razor, contradiction, new-atheism, fact, supernatural, proof. Wow, big discussion.

Few people mention faith anymore, or work with a cool head around this.

That /lit/ is retarded, I have no doubt and I share the sentiment.

>>3616117
Not equal to.

L2program

>>3616094
>I don't see what exactly they're doing wrong in doing that

their arguments are facile, thus deserve derision.

>Because there are never any arguments as to why it is bad

so? every group has their truisms.

>The problem is that you are supposed to read the works of people you disagree

ok so you've constructed this reality where people who mock these people are completely ignorant of their ideas. good for you.

>>3616115
I don't come to lit often so I don't know if this trip is known for trolling/generally bad posts but that is one of the laziest "proofs" I've ever seen.

>>3616094
>>3616062

Atheism =/= Anti-clericalism
The problem is people who say something like "I don't believe in a man in the sky" basically show they have no idea about philosophy connected to christanity. It's hard to discuss with them in other way than
>lel hitchens dawkins gb2rdit
And just because there are a lot of threads about Zizek and Nietschze doesn't mean they are respected by everyone here.

>>3615975
The big crunch is basically 100% proven to not be true at this point, just so you know.

>>3615684
>Do not let religion be the answer to how, as a lot of people have attempted to make it be, let it be the why. I can tolerate that.

Which is what early Islam used to be like. There wasn't so much conflict between the scriptures and science and in fact the scriptures were an active source of encouragement to go out and discover. to understand more about 'Gods creation'.

Where did it all go wrong?

>>3616127

Was it not convincing? And, if not, is this due to it being a proof of God in itself or because it's truly a bad proof?

is it because the likelihood that it is false outweighs the likelihood that it is true due to the many failed attempts of past proofs?

i'd be interested in hearing why it's soooo lazy. Maybe you're just not understanding it.

>>3616151
>Where did it all go wrong?

protestantism

>>3616115
Shoudn't it be "god is everything"? Also afaik "infinity" does not always "equal" to another "infinity".

>>3616158

Orders of infinity aren't quite relevant to this discussion, but you are correct. Consider the example: there are more real numbers than natural numbers, but both sets of numbers are infinite. It's actually pretty simple to prove infinities are greater than or equal to one another too.

Proof that the set of rational numbers = set of natural numbers:

1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5............
2/1 2/2..............
3/1.............................
4/1..........................

1-to-1 correspondence between the rational numbers and natural numbers. This means that for every natural number, there is a rational number it can be paired up with. If this matrix continues, we find that this'll always be true - neat, right?!

Anyway: so yeah, 1/infinity is always 0 regardless of the order of infinity.

whereof one cannot speak, etc
>this thrad
ludwig is literally breakdancing in grave

whereof one cannot speak,etc
>this thrad
ludwig is literally breakdancing in his grave

>>3616152
>I. Suppose we define God as that being that has consciousness of all objects in the universe, simultaneously.
Without defining such a loaded term as "consciousness" the proof has already failed.

>II. If God has infinite consciousness, then we must distribute this consciousness amongst all of the objects in the universe.
Why is this the case?

>III. If we take the limit as God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects in the world, then the limit approaches 0. To explain: The limit as n (the number of objects in the world) approaches infinity means that any 1 object is a fraction of n, so they function is 1/n. Thus, 1/infinity becomes infinitesimally small, and 0.
This is vague. "As God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects"?

>IV. If God ascribes a quantity of 0 consciousness to each constituent object in the world, then God is not conscious of anything.
Complete fallacy. You go from the percentage of total "consciousness" each individual object has being 1/n as n->infinity (which approaches 0), to the value of the "consciousness" each individual object has as being 0. These are not equivalent.

>IV. That which is conscious of everything is not conscious of anything.
See previous comment.

>V. God exists, but he is nothing.
There are plenty of things which the common definition of consciousness would consider as not "conscious of anything," but these things still exist and are...things.

believing in god just because it gives you solace is still pretty daymned dumb.

>>3615975
>it has to start somewhere
Why? I believe that it never started in the first place - it just was. It doesn't have a beginning or an end and we can't comprehend that because everything we as humans do has a beginning and an end. The universe doesn't.

>>3616228

who gives a fuck what you think?

>>3616232
Your mother doesn't seem to mind.

>>3616000
>>3616012
>>3616048
Lovely; just as expected. Vainly teens parroting instrumentalist dogma.

>>3616062
This dimwit made me lol the most.

>lisp of a 15 year old projecting philistine
>has a hard time comprehending the heavyweights of the intellectual tradition
>is only able to grasp the frequentative regurgitated tidbits constituting the surface layer of said tradition
>defends the literature of the lowest-common-denominator, marketed towards the cognitively impotent

Embarrassing. Why couldn't you just keep your impulsive mouth shut?

>>3616152
>>3616186
>>3616115
You're retarded and clearly don't know or think shit on this

>>3616216

let consciousness = awareness, obviously. i see no other alternative means of interpretation for this particular example. context clues would be of great benefit to you. if something that isn't clear need be defined, the proof isn't assumed a failure. suppose someone believed "simultaneously" were a loaded term, would the lack of a definition of it mean the proof has also failed?

If God is conscious of X things, he has to distribute his consciousness equally amongst them. if something is aware of everything, they have to devote some piece of their total awareness to that thing, no? I can be aware of a television and of my cat meowing at the same time, get it?

You clearly don't understand the argument. God has to be aware of everything in the world. So if there are n objects in the world, then got is devoting X of his consciousness to each piece. Problem is, since n is infinite, God has to be equally devoting a piece of his awareness to n. But if this happens, then the amount he devotes has gotta be 0 for it to account for all them objects!

Also, you're clearrrlllyy not a proponent of panpsychism. all things have phenomenal consciousness, duhhh. it's like talking to a wall here...

>>3616273
Good show.

>>3616245

>don't know or think shit on this
what does that even mean, m8 ?

don't confuse your own subjective incomprehensibility for objective incomprehensibility, darling

if you don't get something, shut ya trap and go watch repo games

>>3616289
You are seriously retarded my friend

>>3616289
It means you never read anything about it or that you are 12 or whatever is the source of your retardation. We are just here to tell you that it shows.

>>3616115
>V. God exists, but he is nothing.

I am the alpha and the omega...

>>3616313
Nothing is real, everything is permitted?

>>3616308

>read anything about it

About what, pray tell? is this going to be a series of inscrutable posts that never help me understand what you're talking about?

>>3616303

Provide counter-arguments, don't talk shit. maybe if you could wrap your mind around my ideas things wouldn't be so hard for you, bitchhtits

address the problems with the post, otherwise close your face-pussy, u cunts

>>3616393
>Provide counter-arguments, don't talk shit
So you can come up with more retardation. Sounds like a great idea.

>>3616426

Strategies for arguing:

>call everything stated "retardation"
>don't explain why or address the points at all
>????
>profit

that, ladies and gentleman, is a class-A act! he'll be here all week!

pussy-ass bitch evading like a mothafucka.

2abstruse4u
2deep4u