[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 451 KB, 2559x1609, F-Men.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722025 No.4722025[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's a good argument against Atheism ?

>> No.4722028

>>4722025
too much fedora tipping can give one whiplash

>> No.4722038

No.

>> No.4722070

It can be as closed-minded and arrogant as anything it counters. Take Hitchens, Gillette, and Tyson for example (note how they're all ready to throw some punches in that pic). Ultimately the non-existence of God, just as with existence, is a matter of faith and not absolute proof.

>that pic
>Nietzsche and Darwin as militant atheists
>Sagan that angry
>Philip K. Dick pointing at the vastness of space instead of a divine pink light Yes I know it's really George Carlin

>> No.4722074

Kant

>> No.4722088

>>4722070
Nietzsche was a super militant Atheist. Just read The Antichrist.

>> No.4722119

That's a nice image

>> No.4722127
File: 243 KB, 640x360, 1396029325015.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722127

>>4722025


bananas.

>> No.4722134

>>4722070
>It can be as closed-minded and arrogant as anything it counters.

That's not an argument against Atheism. That's basically an argument by consequence, like Pascal's Wager.

>> No.4722137

Why would Nietzsche ever hang out with pop-scientists and fedora tippers?

>> No.4722141

Stephen Hawking looks so powerful up there, I guess the mountain had a smooth slope somewhere. Imagine if he blinked wrong and missed the reverse gear.

>> No.4722147

>>4722025
There's none it's an unfalsifiable statement. It depends on what you want to beliebe.

>> No.4722167

If we can create our own worlds, from in literature to programmed electronic simulations, wouldn't that be proof of a possibility that we too could have been created by a Greater Power?

>> No.4722178
File: 273 KB, 1200x816, 3vv786H.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722178

>>4722025
If God exists and changes the world, but can't be observed physically, then you have an explosion problem logically: Why can't there be a giant invisible teapot that rapes everyone? Why can't there be X, Y, Z that exists above the physical? The problem isn't whether God exists or not, the problem is, ideas like God are meaningless and lead you absolutely nowhere. So it's not to say, "GOD DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE MY MIND ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING AND I KNOW", it's to say, "God doesn't exist because there's absolutely no convincing epistemiological position for him to exist. If God does exist, then anything can exist. Since there certainly are things that don't exist, God can be placed inductively in the same category as things that don't exist." And yes, it's axiomatic thought, but religion is axiomatic thought that predicts nothing and is entirely worthless for humans. So we can and should toss it out with no regrets

>> No.4722180

>>4722147
I know you're just shitposting but you should stop. Really, stop.

>> No.4722188

>>4722025
Is that Penn from Penn and Teller?
Where is Zizek?

>> No.4722191

>>4722178
Is thta pile of shit?

>> No.4722194

Without religion 90% of the world wouldn't know what the fuck to do in life. Imagine all the freedom..

>> No.4722196

Wasn't Darwin a theist anyway?

>> No.4722197

>>4722025
I don't think there are any legit arguments against atheism. There are those stupid 5 or 10 proofs of god or whatever from some saint in the fifteenth century and they are pretty representative of most arguments of their kind, i.e flawed and confusing to me and other people who are bad at logic. If you're not worried about being correct so much as you are about having an argument, you can try out an appeal to the second law of thermodynamics, but remember that if someone who knows about that kind of thing calls you out on it by saying something like the universe isn't a closed thermal system or entropy isn't the same thing as chaos or whatever then you're pretty much fucked.

i'm not well versed in this topic though so i'd look up the specifics of the argument and its counterpoints online somewhere

>> No.4722199

>>4722167
you don't know shit about atheism do you?

>> No.4722200

>>4722196
He was for most of his life. I think he stopped believing later in life.

>> No.4722211

>>4722167
>proof of a possibility
Sure, but that in itself is not necessarily justification for belief though, and also says nothing about the nature of whatever created us.

>> No.4722221

>>4722025
Atheism is a mental illness like evolution. If you want to stand idly by while good men blind themselves and condemn themselves to hell, go ahead. I know I'm not going to do that. It's your responsibility as a Christian, a servant of god, to save and redeem these poor souls, it's your duty, now, get to it.

>> No.4722225

>>4722167
Possible =/= Probable

>> No.4722232

>>4722088
>>4722188
>>4722199
>>4722200
>>4722211

^explain this atheists, in one thread.

>> No.4722235
File: 30 KB, 400x600, beatthat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722235

>>4722025

Atheists don't go to heaven.

>> No.4722240

>>4722025
>What's a good argument against Atheism ?
Atheism+.

Alternatively, the problem with the burden of proof is that no matter what type of knowledge you present, it can still be denied.

If you ascribe to idealism, you have to acknowledge that all knowledge needs an amount of faith to become such; which would make God possible as long as it's not proved impossible.
If you ascribe to materialism, the world is spooky and everything you know exists just to aid the systems of productions; which would make both God and the arguments against it moot.

>> No.4722246

>>4722232
explain what? i dont get the question. are you just shitposting again?

>> No.4722258

i believe in believing

>> No.4722260

>>4722246
He probably is, I'm the guy who asked if that was Penn, it has nothing to do with OP's subject, I just want to know about the pic.

>> No.4722271

>>4722196
Nah, he wrote stuff in his autobiography on that matter.

>> No.4722290

>>4722240
>Alternatively, the problem with the burden of proof is that no matter what type of knowledge you present, it can still be denied.
Same can be said for Norse myths, but we can say with some degree of certainty that Odin doesn't exist because norse myths don't offer a good model of reality, while we have much better alternatives that make good predictions.

>> No.4722299

>>4722025

>trying to make stephen hawking look badass

my fucking sides. amazing guy, but he can't move.

>> No.4722296

>>4722235

Liam Neeson is a muslim now

>> No.4722309

"Atheism" shouldn't even be a word. You can't define yourself by what you DON'T believe. That's like saying "I define my identity by not believing in ghosts". Right, we don't even have a word for people who don't believe in ghosts.

>> No.4722312

>>4722070
>non-existence of God, just as with existence, is a matter of faith and not absolute proof.

Nonsense. Non-existence of God requires no leap of faith. The facts are evaluated and come up wanting.

>> No.4722319

When you can clearly define and explain the workings, in non-abstract terms, of whatever it is atheists don't believe in, then you can make an argument against not believing in it.

>> No.4722391
File: 859 KB, 2559x1609, F-Men.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722391

If evolution is real then why are there still Mankeys?

Creationists: 1
Fedoras: 0

>> No.4722399

Schrodinger's god, also cat

>> No.4722405

>>4722309
That's a dumb notion, why can't we have a word for people who don't believe in any religion.

>>4722391
Well if God's real then wachuka nowunga dooma wabuba?

Jabba: 1
Creationists: 0

>> No.4722411

>We don't know the "Why"
>It's a matter of faith
>you can't prove that god doesn't exist
>i did rather give the benefit of the doubt
>Why not we are going to die anyway
>the bible say so

and many more, while they are not really good they are enough to just tell them to fuck off. I think most people believe in the unique god who doesn't really gives a fuck

>> No.4722416

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ0xoM-n-jo

>> No.4722424

>>4722411
>I think most people believe in the unique god who doesn't really gives a fuck

They only believe it because idiot religious people have caused them to believe it.

>> No.4722434

>have you really gone to the nowhere place God exists that I created in my mind to prove he's not there?

>Christians

>> No.4722448

>>4722070
>Philip K. Dick pointing at the vastness of space instead of a divine pink light
lol

>> No.4722451

>>4722196
1. So what if he was,

2. That doesn't give any credence to Biblical creation

>> No.4722508

>>4722191
It's melted waste from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor

>> No.4722515

>>4722260
>>4722260

Here's who's in the pic as far as I'm aware (L-R):
-John Cleese apparently (maybe because of Life of Brian?)
-Penn Jillette
-Bill Nye
-Stephen Hawking
-George Carlin (next to Hawking)
-Friedrich Nietzsche (above Carlin)
-Carl Sagan
-Christopher Hitchens
-Richard Dawkins
-Charles Darwin
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
-Adam Savage (in bg)
-Michio Kaku

>> No.4722539

>>4722515
>mistaking Einstein for John Cleese

>> No.4722559

The Big Bang proves that there must be a creator.

I have no actual understanding of the concept of the Big Bang

>> No.4722575

>>4722025

Tyson isn't an atheist, he is agnostic.

I don't believe Nietzsche ever claimed to be an Atheist. I think he was a Pantheist?

How come Pen & Teller are in the painting?

What the shit? Is that what Atheist do? This fucking makes me sick. I'm going to go take a shower now.

>> No.4722587

>>4722539
>Einstein
That would make more sense, but he would be about as atheist as a couple other non-atheists there.
Also, does that mean his hair became well-groomed in a strong wind? Relativity is amazing indeed.

>> No.4722602

>Donald Sutherland
>Oliver Reed
>Matthew McConaughey
>Christopher Reeve
>Alexander Solzhenitsyn
>Freddie Mercury
>James Mason
>Jason Segel
>Steven Pinker
>God
>Lionel Ritchie
>Philip Seymour Hoffman
>George Takei

What do these guys have to do with atheism?

>> No.4722597

>>4722587
Einstein was not a fucking Atheist, I think he clearly stated he was Agnostic.

>> No.4722620

>>4722587
>but he would be about as atheist as a couple other non-atheists there.

No shit, bro. Darwin was a theologian and never saw his theory in conflict with creation. When he first proposed evolution, what he had in mind was more akin to intelligent design. Michio Kaku openly promotes all kinds of pseudo-science /x/ nonsense and Neil Tyson publically said he doesn't engage in militant atheism.

>> No.4722624
File: 277 KB, 1180x1204, literarylyf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722624

>>4722025
kekking at Hawking. that image is almost as hysterical as this one

>> No.4722630

>>4722602
You're alright.

>> No.4722638

Who here wants to laugh?

www.reddit.com/r/atheism

enjoy

>> No.4722649

>>4722602
Well, Donald Sutherland is Canadian so he's most likely a run-of-the-mill godless socialist. Freddie Mercury and George Takei are homosexuals, meaning they've turned their backs on God.

>> No.4722661

>>4722649
So that means they're automatically atheist if they're homosexual?

>> No.4722664

>>4722649

>homosexuals
>turned their backs

This probably wasn't intentional, but I laughed anyway.

>> No.4722685

>>4722597
>Einstein was not an Atheist
That was precisely my point, hence the
>he would be about as atheist as a couple other non-atheists there

>> No.4722728

>>4722074
although religious himself to some extent, kant's critiques actually give atheists a lot of intellectual artillery.

>> No.4722742

>>4722416
>>4722416

Why are her tits so mega huge?

Each individual tit has a larger area than her head.

>> No.4722746

>>4722025
those guys know that god's pissing on them, right?

>> No.4722756

>>4722742
I know, it is most likely because she gains a large portion of her viewership from horny kids who aren't allowed to watch porno.

>> No.4722770

>>4722742
>>4722756

Are they real? Or did she invest in ridiculous implants for youtube views?

>> No.4722826
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1336029115845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722826

>>4722575

> I think he was a Pantheist?

Really, dude?

>> No.4722832

>>4722756
>>4722770

I imagine they have the density, weight, and softiness of medicine balls.

Fucking disgusting. Look at all those pressure-strained veins

>> No.4722838

The best and only real argument against atheism is the case your inner will when it first encounters a taste of the divine. Everything after that is denial if you remain atheist.

>> No.4722839

>>4722575
>Tyson isn't an atheist, he is agnostic.
Do you have a source for this?
>How come Pen & Teller are in the painting?
Not sure if Teller's there (far left maybe?), but Penn is an outspoken atheist; it was even the subject of his 'This I Believe' piece on NPR some years back.

>> No.4722843

>>4722838
Haha.

>> No.4722857

>>4722826
Enlighten me then.

>> No.4722863

>>4722843
Am I wrong?

>> No.4722865

>>4722839
> do you have a source for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

>> No.4722880

>>4722865

He's essentially an atheist.

The typical atheist stance relies on the null hypothesis (i.e. I assume be default something does not exist, if I have to evidence or observation to prove it).

I'd say agnostics are agnostic towards the question of gnosticism or the null hypothesis (atheism).

By this definition, Tyson is certainly not agnostic.

>> No.4722884

>>4722025
Prime Mover. And I'm an atheist lol.

>> No.4722891

>>4722880

>He's essentially an atheist

Yeah, no fuck you. Your opinion no longer matters to me. You have gotten rid of any merit you've originally had.

He clearly stated he is AGNOSTIC.

>> No.4722897

>>4722865
He seems like a cool guy.

>> No.4722902

>>4722891

>he thinks atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive

>> No.4722912

>>4722902
I'm not going to bother with you anymore, I'll just let you continue to roll around in your own filth.

>> No.4722916

>>4722912

That was a different guy replying to you, but you could criticize the substance of my argument, rather than throwing feces at my face.

>> No.4722960

>>4722025
i-is that Socrates in a suit on the right

>> No.4722983

Stand up comedians and biologists aren't supposed to deal with religion and theology. They're supposed to be stand up comedians and biologists.

>> No.4722986

>>4722025
>What's a good argument against Atheism ?
I don't like it, therefore it's wrong.
It's not what I was raised with, therefore it's wrong.
And here's the big one for /lit/: There are too many white people on that image.