/lit/ - Literature

This thread is just going to be filled with fatties and silly hats, so here I go

*dips bedora*

>>4511181
but Atheism is a religion though...

>>4511217
But god is my dick, though...

>>4511232
Don't be theological girly man.

>>4511217
Atheism is a religion but it is not religion.

That image is retarded. I've never heard a Christian claim Christianity isn't a religion. Fucking ridiculous.

>>4511270
Then you haven't been deep in the midwest. I've definitely heard that "Christianity is more than a religion"

>>4511181

"because God gave us free will" is always the response to the problem of evil. If we do not have free will, then it was God that chose to do evil, making him evil.

He gets more in detail on this stuff in the book but here's a small blog post from him on the subject:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will

>>4511330
Which book?

>>4511181

Harris is absolute horse shit, don't read him.

>>4511339
Free Will
>>4511340
I agree he's not a good author, but he's a neuroscientist so it's kinda to be expected. He still makes some very good points though.

>>4511284
Yeah, they say that Christianity is not a religion, because a religion is a set of rituals, but your relationship with God and Jesus Christ shouldn't be so ritualistic, so it is not a religion. It is a personal relationship. That was something that turned me away, because I did not feel like I actually had a personal relationship with God. I didn't feel like I was in any real tangible contact at all, and that was all that I wanted.

>>4511418
Yes, most people grow out of imaginary friends pretty early on

>>4511427
Yeah. It can be hard to differentiate though when you're told of this entire world of spiritual existence throughout your childhood, and taught that this spiritual existence is a tangible component of reality. I was taught from an early age to try and listen for God in everything. I think it helped develop my imagination, but I think it also made me a bit crazy. I spent the first 19 years of my life fighting to reconcile these two clearly opposing worldviews. I thought everything was a sign of God's plan for my life.

Religion is just a tool, it does nothing on it's own. It's man's use and misuse from which problems arise. To blame lack of free will on religion is the same as blaming "the devil" for all evil and temptation.

>>4511445
Well I used to be beaten and grounded for retarded shit and my parents would force me to remember the bible as part of gaining privilege. Fortunately I live on my own and now I campaign against religion, specifically when parents indoctrinate religious ideas in their children. Out of all religion does, this is the most morally reprehensible in my view; kids do not have a defense for this.

>>4511330
There are so many varieties of Christians. There are those who believe in predetermination (no free will) as well. I have never, ever met an atheist who doesn't make generalizations on whole religious groups based on their smaller sub-groups.

>islamic extremists are bad, therefore all muslims are bad!
>remember the Spanish inquisition?? Christians are all violent!

And other awful arguments. You gotta love it when they bring up fairy tales/santa/unicorns/the easter bunny though. I imagine a guy with a tower of fedoras on his head when I hear one of those sad, regurgitated arguments.

>>4511496
Bringing up the Crusades is killer. We sure attacked those poor Muslims, it was all religious violence.

>>4511496
>I have never, ever met an atheist who doesn't make generalizations on whole religious groups based on their smaller sub-groups.

Maybe you shouldn't associate with adolescents. The vast majority of atheists I've ever met never even speak about religion, let alone make enormously generalized accusations.

>>4511514
Have you read Dawkins book? He is the most celebrated man to atheists, and all his books consist of are

>Oh, look what this DUMB religious man did! He did a dumb thing, therefore God doesn't exist!!!

Ad infinitum.

>>4511519
>He is the most celebrated man to atheists

Are you in high school? The only adults I've met who really respect Dawkins do so because of The Selfish Gene.

One might say you are "making a generalization on the whole [atheist] group based on a smaller sub-group."

>>4511549
No atheist respects religions. Someone might say,

>I'm an atheist but I respect other people's beliefs!

But that is a complete lie. By definition an atheist is a person offended by the beliefs of others around them, so much that they must call themselves "a person against what you believe".

Agnostics are okay though, because they do not take offense of the beliefs of others around them.

>>4511519
>He is the most celebrated man to atheists

No he is absolutely not, now you're the one making these kind of assumptions.

>Ad infinitum.
?

>>4511330
Yes, he says as much in the Bible. Had you read it and knew what the fuck you were talking about you'd realize this isn't an issue for most theologians or believers who know their shit.

>Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

>>4511559
>By definition an atheist is a person offended by the beliefs of others around them, so much that they must call themselves "a person against what you believe".

Okay, you're a moron.

>>4511559
Don't talk about things you don't know about

To me, atheists vs. believers isn't even an issue of religion, it's basically political. Yeah, I agree that guys like Dawkins (and especially that insufferable fuck Maher) love to misinterpret and generalize religions, but they almost universally seem like reasonable, liberal people. If I could choose between living in a community full of atheists and a community full of Christians, I would choose the former in a second, because they are statistically less likely to hate me.

>>4511575
This chart is a misleading response to his post because it implies that the claim of knowledge has something to do with his objection that atheists are categorically "offended" and "don't respect religion."

A person could be a gnostic atheist irrespective of whether they take offense or not, and irrespective of whether they are courteous and accepting of religious individuals.

>>4511575
I think I'm agnostic atheist, but calling myself this seems like it would require explanation for every second person.

people who identify as atheists aren't dicks
people whose identity is atheism are universally dicks

>>4511567
Of course God created evil, he created everything. The point here is that it makes God himself evil if we do not have free will. The theologians and believers you talked about would claim that God is all-loving or incapable of sin, which wouldn't be true if he purposefully designed us in such a way that we would commit evil.

>>4511575
>>4511591
The problem is, when you say atheist, people automatically assume you are like Richard Dawkins (a gnostic atheist). You're better off calling yourself just plain agnostic since outside of this little bullshit chart, people understand agnostic to mean "needs proof of god to exist and needs proof of god's nonexistence to believe in that as well" and that doesn't fit into this chart.

>>4511585
Dawkins in debates is entirely different from Dawkins in books. When he's faced up against someone who will call him on his shit he doesn't bring it up. But when he needs to make headlines to sell his book well generalizations are the easiest way.

Maher on the other hand is just a faggot who can't detach himself from from his tv persona.

>>4511596
Succinctly put.

This is true of all forms of identity politics.

>>4511599
Evil and Good are both just measurements we place to understand events. To an infinite being who can see all of time these measurements have no bearing.

Calling something good or calling something evil is just that arrogance on humanities part.

>>4511602
>Richard Dawkins (a gnostic atheist)

Actually he's stated numerous times that he really only thinks God's existence is "incredibly unlikely." His position is that it's delusional to believe in God not because we have proof positive of his non-existence, but because it is a belief without any concrete basis.

>>4511587
He was the one that implied that "agnostics do not take offense of the beliefs of others around them." Since most atheists are agnostics this makes his first claim that "No atheist respects religions" nonsensical.

>>4511611
>Since most atheists are agnostics

Citation needed. Most atheists also think things like "Christians think the bible is written by God!!" and other silly misconceptions.

>>4511610
To add on to this. When pressed he has stated he's agnostic.

>>4511611
Honestly, I think this "gnostic" vs "agnostic" atheist thing is a bit of cop-out that the New Atheist movement has invented. To "believe there is no god" but not to "know" is something of a strange distinction. Belief is informed by knowledge. An "agnostic atheist" is different from a "gnostic atheist" only in degree, not in quality--that is, he thinks that what he does know implicates god's non-existence, even if it doesn't conclusively prove it. It is still a knowledge based claim.

>>4511614
>and other silly misconceptions
I realize that amongst christian academics this is not the case, but the fact is that every single Christian (dozens if not hundreds) I met outside of college believed exactly that.

>>4511626
>To "believe there is no god" but not to "know" is something of a strange distinction. Belief is informed by knowledge.

This. How can a man of science like an atheist say "I believe God doesn't exist" and then say that they don't claim to know for sure that he doesn't exist. The atheist's beliefs are founded on observation and science in general.

>>4511614
To be honest, I don't know of a single person that is not agnostic. If you ask an atheist if he's 100% certain that a god doesn't exist he will answer something like "no but i'm 99,99% sure"

>>4511427
>Le Imaginary friends xD

Fuck off back to reddit.

>>4511637
This is the problem. How can you say a bold statement like "I believe God doesn't exist" and then right after say that your previous statement might not be true?

>>4511639
>"no but i'm 99,99% sure"

That rounds up to 100%. The 00.001 is just them not wanting to offend others.

>>4511637
>The atheist's beliefs are founded on observation and science in general.

>implying atheism necessitates logical positivism and strict empiricism

But more to the point, "not knowing" is entirely consistent with science--in fact it is a necessary constituent of the scientific world view, since the method presupposes that every single hypothesis is susceptible to counter-evidence, no matter how long it has been believed or how much supporting evidence we have found.

Science as an epistemology implies that all knowledge be tentative.

>>4511652
How about you address the rest of my post and not just the last sentence without the context of the previous sentences?

>>4511645
>How can you say a bold statement like "I believe God doesn't exist" and then right after say that your previous statement might not be true?

See >>4511652

"The mass of an object increases as it accelerates toward the speed of light" is also a statement of belief, supported by empiricism, that might yet be falsified by forthcoming evidence.

Agnosticism is essentially a scientific axiom.

>>4511660
I don't think I took anything out of context really. Your question was essentially:

How can someone make a claim of belief, and simultaneously claim they don't know?

I explain that this is actually how all knowledge works within the framework of scientific empiricism. It is not unique the question of God, or even to metaphysics.

>>4511637
>The atheist's beliefs are founded on observation and science in general.

Yes, and this is exactly why people are agnostic.

However, the "beliefs" here do not apply to the notion of a God, because atheism is the abscense of belief in one or several deities, it's not a belief, it's not an anti-belief, it's an abscense.

An atheist such as a newborn baby does not even need to know of the concept of god, but is still by definition an atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

>>4511645
>That rounds up to 100%
>00.001

Yeah, no. That's not how maths work

>>4511675
>An atheist such as a newborn baby does not even need to know of the concept of god

But even alone in the woods, even without words, away from society: they would have thoughts of a creator of everything around them. A creator of the very laws which you come to discover and observe through science. Nothing in science disproves God, for science is God's too.

>>4511679
Big deal, I added on an extra 0. You would be more happy in life if you didn't make such big deals about things like that since you knew what I meant. I can smell the fabric of your fedora from this post.

Pleb question to my atheist friends...

How do fundamental, hardcore, "science-only", type of atheists (Dawkins, Harris, and co.) sufficiently explain the necessity, validity, and truth of something like math--an idea which exists outside of the physical realm but is absolutely essential to our understanding of the physical world? You could apply the same question to things like language, thought, ideas, and consciousness.

Not trying to flame I'm genuinely curious because it has always seemed to me that these self-proclaimed skeptics take a lot of things for granted without the need to explain their justification for using methods which exist outside of the physical realm.

>>4511673
The problem here is that we are not talking about a tiny, specific element of science. We are talking about that which created science, the first cause of everything, God.

>>4511691
You have not even made an objection. In what way is scientific empiricism an inadequate epistemology?

>>4511270
Yeah, you'd be surprised how many Christians say that the exact thing in that pic.

>>4511559
So explain Buddhists to me.

>>4511683
The Pirahã tribe has been isolated in the jungle for hundreds of years and they have no concept of a god or creator, they are very much implicit atheists. The Pirahã are also very interesting because they require evidence for everything they hear, their very language is built around this notion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

As for the maths, I took issue with your idea that 99,99%=100,00% because there is a crucial difference there which is also the difference between agnosticism and gnosticism.

>I can smell the fabric of your fedora from this post.

Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident.

>>4511683
You're not making any sense here. I, for example, never had any thoughts about a "creator" that I didn't get from others, why would you claim it's inherent in us?

>>4511690
I don't see what you're trying to ask. Abstract things like math and stuff has the same explanation regardless of whether a god is posited in to a worldview or not. Can you elaborate a little what you're getting at here?

>yfw Richard Dawkins is Agnostic and dislikes being called an Atheist by neckbeards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

>>4511743

Leaving God aside, how does one explain, utilizing the scientific method only, the reality of something like the number "2". The number "2" does not exist in a physical sense. It exists outside of the physical realm and yet it is a reality. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.

Suppose I have one apple and acquire another apple. The total number of apples I would have would be two. This is both a physical truth and an epistemological truth. Even if I didn't exist, there would still exist two apples. The existence of the two apples is not dependent on my own existence. The truth of their being a total of two apples is a reality beyond doubt.

Yet if we are to use only the scientific method to understand the universe, how then can we even begin to use the scientific method? As the term "scientific method" is an idea which exist outside of the realm of the physical.

In other words, the statement, "I believe only that which can be tested using the scientific method" is non-nonsensical, as that statement is self-contradictory--one can not test the veracity of the scientific method using only the scientific method.

Forgive my bad formal philosophy. I guess my main concern is that the fundamental atheists put so much emphasis on physical proof that they don't see the irony of their own statements. Mainly, that the very thing they use to convey their ideas--language, words, symbols, etc.--can not be verified to be true using their own criteria.

>>4511690
>atheist friends
you are funny.

>How do fundamental, hardcore, "science-only", type of atheists (Dawkins, Harris, and co.) sufficiently explain the necessity, validity, and truth of something like math--an idea which exists outside of the physical realm but is absolutely essential to our understanding of the physical world? You could apply the same question to things like language, thought, ideas, and consciousness.

Language and thought can be explained by evolution in great detail.

Math doesn't exist outside of physical realm entirely, 2 atoms + 2 atoms equals 4 atoms even when it's inside the physical realm. The point here is that these atheist scientists do not believe that anything "exists outside of the physical realm" as you said. Math is still a entirely physical concept because it exists inside of the human brain, which is entirely made out of physical particles.

>>4511799
Math is a system of logic. Yeah, if you have an apple and add another apple you have 2 apples, this is not disputed. But math gets into goddamn metaphysics.

>>4511770
You are aware, of course, that the number 2 is a human construct, a tool. Language is a way of communicating both concrete and abstract ideas, and there is nothing about it that doesn't have a place in science. As I do not wish to talk down to you, I'm very reluctant to point out that using science, we can very much deal with things that are not physical, as proven by the very existence of the field of mathematics.
Now, as for the verification of the scientific method... I don't see where this is going either. You ask how can we begin to use it? Simple: people tried to do shit differently, it didn't work, people started using the scientific method, it worked. The results are justification enough. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, it's okay to make use of what people did in the past.

The literature board on 4chan had one purpose.
To discuss literature.

>>4511690

Those all refer to things that we can't properly define yet. Furthermore, math is always presented as some kind of Oracle of Delphi, while logic itself and the mechanisms of logic are far from perfect. Take for instance people like Cantor and Gödel, who pushed logic to extremes where the normal laws of logic seem to break down.

A good example of this is that we know right now for a fact that we will never have an algorithm that will be able to distinguish 0.999999.... from 1.0000000....... If you were to run such an algorithm, by definition it will keep running forever, without ever spitting out an answer. Yet everyone will say that 0.99999...... is different from 1.00000....., despite the fact that we are absolutely certain we have no way of knowing this.

I guess the point of this is that science and philosophy are really about what you can't know, something that I see a lot of fundamentalist religious people really forget. Now, you can make science into a god, but this can never work, as science, by definition, is fallible. In fact, the fact that it's fallible is the reason that it works in the first place

>>4511770
Let's say we trash the scientific method and use your abstract logic instead. How do you know that your logic is true? You will run into the same problem, you use your own logic to make statements about what is logical or not.

I believe this is the same problem Descartes ran into, he finally concluded that the only thing we can truly prove is that our own thoughts exists, because we are thinking about this right now.

>>4511575
this chart is fucking bullshit

>>4511863
Is it? If you want to make a point, calling things bullshit without any explanation is not a good way to do it.

>>4511519
This post reflects a breathtaking stupidity on the part of it's author

>>4511799
>Math doesn't exist outside of physical realm entirely, 2 atoms + 2 atoms equals 4 atoms even when it's inside the physical realm. The point here is that these atheist scientists do not believe that anything "exists outside of the physical realm" as you said. Math is still a entirely physical concept because it exists inside of the human brain, which is entirely made out of physical particles

Supposing there was no intelligent life form to observe our theoretical two apples. The fact remains that there would still exist two apples, whether there is a conscious being to comprehend the idea of two apples is irrelevant. The truth of there being a sum total of two apples would still remain. Perhaps we are getting stuck on the physical apples. My main concern is with the transcendent truth of the idea which we call two. Mainly, that which is greater than the idea of one but less than the idea of three. These ideas are truthful ideas that can not be quantified from mere physical observance. In other words, the reality of "two" is not dependent on the observance of two objects. Therefore, the atheist scientist is left to conclude two propositions. 1.) That the idea of two exists outside of the physical realm and is therefore proof that not every truth is dependent on an physical reality or, 2.) There has been no process as yet discovered that can quantify and verify the truthfulness of two.

I mean even the existence of language is transcendent of physical reality and is indicative of higher forms.

Now I'm starting to sound like a Neo-Platonist....

Also, I don't know why me saying "atheist friends" is funny. Just looking for some open dialogue without all the flaming and name-calling.

>>4511882
Abandon the folly of Platonism, ideas exist only inside our minds. Just because things exist inside our minds, it doesn't mean science can't deal with them. You keep saying science can only deal with physical things. This is bullshit, and I don't know where you're getting this idea.

>>4511575
That post is retarded because since god is a deductive, tautological human expression, it can't be proven not true. A real empirical discourse, like science, ultimately says that no, God does not exist, because no evidence suggests that idea at all. Not because there is an actual deductive proof for it.

"Jiggidly Wiggidlys transcend the physical and there is no empirical way to understand it. Since you can't disprove a tautology by definition, it exists (non sequitur) and you can't judge me for living my life by it (again, a non sequitur)"

That notion is entirely retarded and is pretty good at describing exactly how religious people are about God. As I posted in the other thread, you need real inductive evidence for God to be a practical belief, and induction is steamrolling every notion of God, year by year. Religious people only have their dogmas to cling to and in many places are openly advocating believers disregard actual science.

>>4511519
Dawkins is a genius biologist and has great ideas about evolution. Just because he's not the greatest debater about Christianity doesn't mean you can dismiss him via argumentum ad hominem. You couldn't even stand on a podium next to him and speak 2 sentences on the subject without making yourself a laughing stock, so please don't even begin down this road.

>>4511808
Yeah, to discuss atheist literature and atheism in general.

Point me to the "belief" board where to better discuss religion

>>4511877
agnostic means not being sure about anything to do with the creation of the universe
That was solved easily

>>4511882
>The truth of there being a sum total of two apples would still remain.
No, because these "truths" are defined by intelligent life forms in the first place. These theoretical apples you are talking about only exist inside your brain, and your brain is a physical object. The idealistic world outisde of the physical reality exists, but it's only an expression of the physical one.

>>4511690
Math is tautologically correct because it is deductive by it's own nature. You'd have to dismiss the fundamental idea of logic, that you can't have a contradictory idea, to disprove mathematics.

It's by coincidence that physical phenomenon can be modeled by mathematics to a point of almost 100% predictability

>>4511691
God is a non-sequitur deduction from ignorant desert-walking peasants.

>>4511914
Well, /x/ is about the belief in supernatural things, religious or not.

>2014
>calling oneself an atheist
>not calling oneself a humanist
ISHYGDDT

Atheism is hardly even a thing.

>>4511923
It's also devoid of semi-intelligent conversation.

>>4511805
No, it fucking doesn't. The human power to reduce and turn complex system into deductive principles is how we are able to figure anything out at all. Humans are just mutants and fucking disturbingly good at deriving deductive principles.

The reason deduction is shitty though, is that deduction doesn't guarantee the principles are true in every scenario. It's easy to work through why it took so long to figure out Newton's laws of physics.

We rely on induction, which is best practiced by rigorous science, to produce GOOD evidence to build new deductive principles out of. For instance, you can deduce that round things roll as a fucking 2 year old.

Your intuitions about rolling will be INCREDIBLY wrong until you take a modern physics course, because there were dudes who spent years of their lives rolling things until they understood inertia, the moment of inertia, friction etc. in order to gain enough inductive evidence to define new principles for rolling that are accurate in every scenario.

This is why science WORKS, it's a codified process to easily throw out the shitty deductive principles our minds produce naturally and put in artificial models that have been tested thoroughly.

This SAME INDUCTION METHOD has shown that nearly EVERYTHING the ancient religious texts have to say about how the world was, where people came from, it's magically stories, etc. are ALL WRONG. In fact, these supposed events can only be understood through the lens of fibbing and delusion. It's not like we can't use induction to observe "religious ecstasy" (look it up before you ever call an atheist a euphoric fedoraflipper, you fucker) and other such phenomenon and get an idea of what's happening. Deductions derived from inductions are powerful, deductions from a tribe of ignorant peasants formed thousands of years ago is fucking asinine, retarded, and have no place in modern society.

>>4511854
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=response+to+descartes+ontological+argument

>>4511916

I think you missed my point about not having an outside observer.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing but using different language. You are right in the sense that the brain is observing the two apples. However, my point is that the idea of two would remain a truth regardless of if there were conscious beings to observe the two apples. The truth is not dependent on physical observation and can and would exist whether or not intelligent lifeforms existed to observe it or not. It just so happens that we are the lucky lifeforms who can observe these truths.

Furthermore, if all of these ideas, these physical truths which atheist scientist require to come to a definitive conclusion upon, only exist within our head, then what is the point of the scientific method?

I fear we are starting to tread into circular logic....

If I am to understand your logic correctly, you

>>4511915
It goes a little bit further than that

weak agnosticism - we don't have enough information about the universe to conclude whether a deity exists or not, but I think someday we will know the answer.

strong agnosticism - we don't have enough information about the universe to conclude whether a deity exists or not, and I think it's impossible that we will ever know for sure.

>Atheism thread
Pathetic

>>4511950

If you're reading religious texts for an explanation of the physical universe then you're missing the point.....

To dismiss ancient wisdom as "ignorant peasants" is exactly why militant atheists are viewed as fedora wearing self-contradictions.

They claim they are so upset and angry that so many people could be so ignorant but then go on to talk about religious texts and doctrines as if they are meant to provide scientific answers to the origin of life, thereby missing the entire point of most religious texts.

Also, math exists because the human brain evolved to be good at understanding physical principles; math is the result of us understanding these processes. All primates can do it, humans just became mutants and are insane at it

>>4511980

But then how do you explain math as a natural process.

If this statement is true then the whole field of chemistry is nothing but a facade and illusion produced by human brains....

Just because the human brain can observe math doesn't mean that math's existence is dependent upon the human brain's comprehension of it. Again, whether a human brain exists to observe math is of no consequence to the process of math. It will continue to function as a truth whether or not intelligent beings observe it or not.....

>>4511977
Which was to provide an explanation to everything, thus easing people's anxiety and fear of the unknown, and also enabling social control. Of course religious texts aren't giving "scientific" explanations, most religions existed before science. Their wisdom, no matter how great for their time, is now meaningless, because their ignorance is so very, very vast compared to ours. And just so you know, there are lots of people who use religious texts as science manuals, they're called creationists.

>>4511977
There can be ancient wisdom, sure, but only in that context. The problem is people who take it literally, and they are a massive fucking majority of religious people, and until you accept that it's a huge problem then you're missing the point of atheism

Also, fuck Spinoza for creating the pantheistic God, to where now people confound doctrinal god to pantheistic god and use them interchangeably to not be wrong. pantheistic god is fine because he's disconnected from the insanity of literal religion

>>4511991

Then direct your anger towards creationists, not theists as a whole...

Also, let me ask, lest I throw stones, are you claiming that the wisdom of Christ, the Buddha, Augustine, Aquanias, etc, etc. is now meaningless, simply because the texts which hold their wisdom was written at an earlier time?

>>4511989
That is the natural process, dude. You throw an object, it flies on a parabolic path, catching it is a matter of your brain being able to intuitively calculate when an object is travelling on a parabolic curve. Same with being able to throw. A human who can't do these intuitively will probably be killed. Fortunately our brains are wired so these same centers can also be utilized by the decision making part of the brain that teaches humans deductive rules (such as fire=bad, hot, burn, stay away). Deduction + intuition for physical events that are moved by simple forces = mathematics

it's not hard to understand. that's why we can't process a 4th dimension in our brain, because we're only wired to understand in the third dimension, althrough we can extrapolate and do math in fourth dimensional spaces, we can't understanding them with the same intuition

>>4512000
The wisdom is meaningless if it's based in God or objective morality. Because neither exist. Most of what the bible says isn't even very profound or meaningful for our lives, if you seriously look at it anyway

>>4512016
>God doesn't exist
gonna need some sauce on this immediately

>>4511925
>humanism
>not a christianity 2.0 religion
>being this blind and dumb
kill yourself

>>4512018
God as the idea he is expressed in the bible exists, because ideas exist tautologically. he does not have any effect in the physical, which makes the idea that he exists false.

>>4512013
>that's why we can't process a 4th dimension in our brain, because we're only wired to understand in the third dimension, althrough we can extrapolate and do math in fourth dimensional spaces, we can't understanding them with the same intuition

Yet the fourth dimension exists as a reality....do you see a pattern here?

>>4511955
>The truth is not dependent on physical observation and can and would exist whether or not intelligent lifeforms existed to observe it or not.

How do you know? What if you're living a entirely solipsistic life where truth is made by your own thoughts? It's unlikely and you would be insane to think so but it's entirely possible.

>Furthermore, if all of these ideas, these physical truths which atheist scientist require to come to a definitive conclusion upon, only exist within our head, then what is the point of the scientific method?

The point of the scientific method is, well, science. Scientists make things work on a practical level, they are not philosophers that search for some kind of universal truth.

>>4512033
Yeah, the pattern that I'm seeing is that everything humans have done can easily be answered by natural explanations. Only massive inductive evidence and constant work developed mathematics to the point of understanding that the 4th dimension is workable by math even if we can't understand it.

Oh wait, you're suggesting God, aren't you?

>>4512026
So what if it's Christianity 2.0?
I have no problem with my morals being pulled from Christianity, because I do think it contains a good message. That still doesn't make its supernatural claims right or reasonable. If anything, I find this argument self-defeating as it simply implies that Christianity was a stepping stone to a more progressive form, where we don't need objective, divine morality to care for fellow beings.

>>4512027
>he does not have any effect in the physical
proof?
>which makes the idea that he exists false
lol this is what satan actually wants you to believe

>>4512034
>How do you know? What if you're living a entirely solipsistic life where truth is made by your own thoughts? It's unlikely and you would be insane to think so but it's entirely possible.

It's probably not, as far as we're aware death permanently separates you from this life. If we created the life, life wouldn't be able to end our thoughts. Have you ever been unconscious? What was life like before you were born? Etc, none of it makes sense unless if the physical exists outside of us

Plus, no one in philosophy takes seriously the Descartes "I think, therefore I am" principle. The idea that only you exist is laughable to, well, everyone

>>4512042

What I'm suggesting is that truth exists outside of human understanding. If there were no truth to observe then our minds would not be able to observe it...

>>4512045
>proof?

How about the prayer studies that showed prayer seems to have a psychological effect but no physical effect? Every religious text claiming to have knowledge of the physical and also be the knowledge of God being patently false? Etc.

>lol this is what satan actually wants you to believe
That's what the flying spaghetti monster conned YOU into thinking.

>>4512044
that's not the point dumbfuck

i'm not saying it has "morals being pulled from Christianity" (even though it has), i'm saying it IS (as baseless as) christianity which makes it a religion - you are no atheist, just a crypto christard

>>4512053
You're right, without humans what humans thought would still be true. Implying that means there's a divine authority on truth is a total non-sequitur and you're a fucking idiot if you're heading down that road

>>4512059

So you concede my point and then call me a fucking idiot...

...and i thought we were friends!

>>4512056
Okay, I don't understand the point still. How am I a Christian, when I deny any absolute knowledge of a deity or anyone being contacted by a deity? My morals are based on ideas of personal liberty and freedom, which are not metaphysical. You could, of course, say that the belief in an inherent value of human life is a philosophical point that requires a sort of "faith", and I tend to agree, but yeah... What are you talking about?

If this is about the validity of science, no, I don't think we can know if scientific truths can be shown to be absolutely true apart from our own consciousness, but as they are currently the best possible and likely scenario, I don't see a good alternative. Even if you construct the most perfect argument for God and the divine, you have still accomplished nothing more than agnostic theism.

>>4512076
So you were heading down that road then.

>>4512088

Maybe. Maybe not. It's apparent that you won't be swayed by your apparent disdain for any type of talk of transcendent intelligence even though you've conceded to the fact that transcendent truth exists.

>>4512085
universality of baseless "laws" is christard concept which humanism, the good slave religion it is, has adopted

religion doesn't need a deity to be a religion, just dogma

>>4512112
Okay, and what would your views on the matter be? Total nihilism?

>>4512118
abandonment of moral realism is the first step in reality check

>>4512122
Well then I'll gladly stick to my "religious" morals, thanks.

>>4512122

Then why are you picking fights on the internet? If there is no "right" or "wrong" then why do you feel the need to tell another person they are wrong?

Ultimately it doesn't fucking matter, right? So why are you so fucking pissed at moral objectivists?

>>4512130
Of course you already know the answer to this. Emotions and motivations do not have to have any moral component. This was a lazy response and you posted it anyway.

>>4512126
the existence of subhuman slaves like you pleases me greatly, you do the job of enslavement all by yourselves

>>4512130
>Ultimately it doesn't fucking matter, right?
i am the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't you dumb pleb, it amuses me that filth like you can't even comprehend the simple concept of value nihilism

>>4512126
If you ever took like, 10 minutes to think through the paradoxes of following an absolute moral code, you would realize how utterly retarded it is. "morality" has all of it's bases in evolution

>>4512130
We are talking about morals here, not absolute truths. "2+2=4" is true, "killing is wrong" is not. Saying "nothing is true" is ultimately self defeating since you would claim that in itself is true

>>4512147
>i am the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't you dumb pleb

But your philosophy is ultimately the belief that morality doesn't matter. So your opinion doesn't fucking matter and you can't be the arbiter of what matters because it's all an illusion.

Stay edgy....

>>4512130
BECAUSE MORAL OBJECTIVISTS DO RETARDED THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE, THAT'S WHY I CARE.

>>4512157
What's really amusing is how some people start posting "fuck" in every sentence when you take an antagonistic position. The dream is collapsing.

>>4512157
>But your philosophy is ultimately the belief that morality doesn't matter
I can't believe that in the age of internet this spoiled, pampered human filth can't do a one minute google search and learn what "nihilism" actually is before making a fool of themselves

second hitler can't come any sooner

>>4512169

But to care is to imply that you value something more than others. That somethings have intrinsic merit and therefore it is "right" to defend said things.

Look at the edgy nihilist whining and crying about all the moral objectivists doing things that he "doesn't like"

It's honestly laughable at this point.

>>4512151
As I said, I do believe that absolute morality entails a kind of faith, or at least a philosophical argument that has no connection with materialism. I'm not denying that. But I consider it necessary and good, whereas I don't consider personal gods and holy books necessary.

What do you achieve with your nihilism and your incredible self-importance? Do you think we can live better with it?

>>4512185
this made literally no sense

not that i'm surprised

>>4512196
>But I consider it [...] good
nice circular logic there son

why don't you just skip the whole rationality thing, then? you made one leap of faith, just go all the way in into allahs embrace

>>4512185
This isn't about values or opinions, this is specifically about morals. When we say "right" we don't mean "true" we mean "good". I believe in objective truths such as 2+2=4, but I don't believe in objective morals.

>>4512212
>I don't believe in objective morals.
it all starts making sense when you realize "morals" don't exist, they don't make sense as a separate category from values (and those can only be subjective)

look up non-cognitivism

>>4512211
How is it circular logic? I consider objective morality, if an illusion, a necessary one in our current state of development. I don't see how nihilism achieves anything for most people.

>>4512185
Why do you think all people must assume something has "intrinsic merit" in order to "value" something?

>>4512196
>What do you achieve
Is there a objective goal to achieve? I don't believe so.
>self-importance
I don't consider myself important, I don't consider anything particularly important.
> Do you think we can live better with it
What does "better" mean? I don't believe there is any objective "better".

>>4512221
morality is about determining "good"
my morality is "good"
how do you determine whether your morality is "good" if not with your morality?

>>4512227
>Is there a objective goal to achieve? I don't believe so.
>What does "better" mean? I don't believe there is any objective "better".

Well then this is where I just have to leave the argument, since I simply cannot comprehend this perspective. You can be a skeptic in many things, but to deny any sort of progression for human beings is just downright delusional.

>>4512231
lol, just leave thinking to the betters of you, wimp

>>4511181
Atheism --> Autism

aww yis

>>4512238
Better than me? Doesn't that imply a concept unknown to you?

>>4512026
>Christianity 2.0
You don't know what you are talking about.

>>4512231
>progression for human beings
What is this progression exactly? Can it be defined objectively? All I see is more humans everyday and more suffering and death at the same rate.
>delusional
Is it? What if I said the same about your perspective?

>>4512248
just read a fucking book moron, you've made a clown of yourself throughout this thread

fuck, just read a wikipedia page on any concept that has been thrown your way in this thread, it might be your only chance

>>4512256
i know all about your whore mother, though
>>>/b/

>>4512261
You're really buttmad, aren't you?
Just fuck off with your pointless philosophy, it's retarded by definition. Great, you realized nothing makes sense, go shoot yourself in the head or smoke crack.

>>4512272
nice expression of humanism there, shitlord. watch your whore mouth or your humanist sins will land you in humanist hell

dumbass

>>4512276
As you mentioned Hitler before and have a tendency to refer to people as weaklings, I'll conclude you're simply a fucking /pol/tard and recommend you follow your idol.

>>4512285
nice expression of humanism there, shitlord. watch your whore mouth or your humanist sins will land you in humanist hell

dumbass hypocrite can't go five minutes without contradicting his own slave value system

all it took me is few posts to show how full of shit you are, how readily you abandon you show-off bleeding heart "ethics" and how quickly you show your true colors of hatred

just another monkey, simply more deluded than most

>>4512259
> All I see is more humans everyday and more suffering and death at the same rate.

Now this is where you're being, well, just blind, honestly. Things have undeniably gotten better in the last few centuries.

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_yt_vbn2_012023/#section=home

Is it still awful? Sure. We inherited a shitty world full of diseases that, honestly, were it designed, the designer probably couldn't beat an engineering undergrad in a bridge building contest. If theres a God, hes probably retarded.

That doesn't mean you should be a pessimistic wanker about it.

>>4512300
How in the fuck is an internet board a showcase of my ethics? Man, you're seriously reaching right now.

>>4512122
Morality can be logical.

>>4512300

Not trolling but assuming you're not just trolling I actually feel very sorry for you and hope one day you can have a fulfilling and meaningful life.

>>4512310
I will pray for you.

>>4512185
OH LOOK A RETARDED POSITION THAT YOU HAVEN'T ARGUED FOR AND ASSUME

THEN YOU CALL ME LAUGHABLE

ARGUE THAT MORALITY EXISTS

>>4512196
>But I consider it necessary and good

What if I told you that 90% of the time "morals" given by religion would form automatically by people without religion, and that these same moral codes often add extras that are not actually moral but are for maintaining heirarchy and social control?

>>4512322
Morality exists so we don't get pathetic idiots like yourself.

Enough for me.

I haven't seen a single smudge on Harris's view of scientifically derived morality this whole thread. Clearly none of his detractors have read him. In fact, some people on the atheist side don't seem to be defending it either. Not surprising. It has some philosophical nuance that's not well known.

For the those that want to actually try for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html

Yes, something like Harris's view would be the death of both religious morality and pomo in the multicultural sense. Sad that its been libelled more than wrestled with. I suppose that's the fate of most fine works thrust into a popular spotlight. Alas.

>>4512330
10/10, this is probably the most retarded post in this thread, even the caps guy has nothing on you.

>>4512330
rude
u
d
e

>>4512325
I'd say you were probably right. I don't know, do you have to either oppose religion or fully condone it? I don't think of it that way. In my opinion, for a big stage of our moral development, Christianity was the preferable option. It was shitty in some ways, sure, but its cultural and moral functions cannot be ignored. In societies where people suffer and toil every day to earn their bread, I can't possibly argue that we have to make them aware of theological inconsistenties. Even if you're an atheist, I think you have to acknowledge Christianity as a potential positive force. Now the problem today is simply that atheists tend to be more liberal than any Christian, so the whole love your neighbor idea has been outdated by, as the annoying nihilist would say, "humanism".

Oh my, just take a look at this shit-fest.

>>4512241
Religion --> Retardism

>>4512367
"Retardation" fits better.

>>4512345
Religion opposes science at conception, because it makes broad assumptions on no evidence. They really aren't compatible, and the religious people who practice science simply hold a duality of thought and never cross-examine beliefs to find the contradictions

>>4512396
This is a general truth but not a necessary truth. I think that's an important distinction to remember.

>>4512402
But it is necessary. What about any religion has any meaning or truth to it, really?

There are cultural elements that are fine, sure, but as a guide for life, fuck no. As a source of morality, fuck no. As the literal word of God, come on, that's just retarded.

>>4512396
Now you're simply assuming, as people love to do, that fundamentalists are the only religious people, when they are in fact the dumb minority.
I don't see how the Catholic church would hinder your ability to do science, for instance.

>>4512415
>muh opinions
if I wanted to listen to someone's opinions it would be an available hot chick, get fucked

>>4512418
any deduction that's not based on analysis of inductive evidence is a bad one. religion is a very potent deduction that's not based on an analysis of inductive evidence. so it's not good.

>>4512421
wait you actually listen to what women say?