/lit/ - Literature

>>5127211
0/10 trolling

>>5127211
>All this mentioning of ''we'' as if you feel part of a cohesive community
>Trying to act as a form of authority on an anonymous board

I don't think it's those authors that need to head back to leddit, mate.

>>5127211
>scientism
I always stop reading when I see this.

>>5127211
Nuance of understanding is beyond autist atheists, that's why your troll is so pathetic.
>>>/reddit/

>>5127223
>Nuance of understanding
What's to understand? We are supposed to forget that certain authors are atheists if they wrote pre-1890, or if they don't specificly write books on atheism? It doesn't matter. Have you actually read anything by Houllebecq or Robert A Heinlein? Atheism is woven into their works by default, and they deserve contempt.

>>5127211
>Bukowski
Bukowski said very little on atheism. He saw theology mainly as non issue that other people concern themselves with. On the few occasions he did write about religion, he said things like:

"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can’t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don’t remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” - Bukowski

>>5127286
And Graham Greene was catholic but then you have already lost once you respond to OP's incoherence.

>>5127219

It need scarcely be emphasized that nothing we shall have to say is aimed against the methods of Science in their proper sphere or is intended to throw the slightest doubt on their value. But to preclude any misunderstanding on this point we shall, wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with slavish imitation of the method and language of Science, speak of “scientism” or the “scientistic” prejudice. Although these terms are not completely unknown in English, they are actually borrowed from the French, where in recent years they have come to be generally used in very much the same sense in which they will be used here. It should be noted that, in the sense in which we shall use these terms, they describe, of course, an attitude which is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed. The scientistic as distinguished from the scientific view is not an unprejudiced but a very prejudiced approach which, before it has considered its subject, claims to know what is the most appropriate way of investigating it.

The Counter-Revolution Of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1955)

>>5127314
>And Graham Greene was catholic
Graham Greene was an atheist, he didn't believe in a God. But he respected Catholicism, and after years of regular atheism, labelled himself with the term "catholic atheist".

>>5127211

I support this.

"Master Nietzsche, sir."

"What is it, Gotfried?"

"A telegram has arrived for you. The author is Anonymous."

"Well don't just stand there, Gotfried, read it."

Err, it says you are a retarded, sceintism, euphoric fedora, stop, a deluded, tumblr-tier pleb, stop, you need to return to reddit, stop"

"Well, what the devil does that mean, Gotfried?"

"I can't for the life of me fathom it, sir. It must be from the French."

>>5127458
kek

>>5127333
what does that mean?. how can people believe in disinterested inquiry?, come on, the science have real power in this society. maybe in the beginning of all exist the desinterest, but not now. anyway i don´t understand very well why do you think this reference clear up something. please, explain.

Everybody knows religion is real, therefore we don't need any arguments. People with a different opinions of mine tip fedora.
This is /lit, not /b.

This is fucking stupid.

>>5127211
Eggers is certainly certified Reddit-tier. Not only is he a fedauthor, but he is a SHILL too.

http://www.edrants.com/the-infinite-jest-review-that-dave-eggers-doesnt-want-you-to-read/

ITT: Burning books for Jesus

>>5127352
I find myself in a similar position nowadays

>>5127211

>Writers like Kingsley Amis, Noam Chomsky, and Arthur C. Clarke were self-declared fedora wearers who needed to go back to reddit too. Even Marx and Nietzsche were retarded fedora plebs, and it's time we stopped giving them a free pass.

>>>/pol/
>>>/stormfront/

After we compose this list, will you promise you kill yourself?

>>5127211
The problem with fedoras is that they are still christians and don't realize it.
True atheism is totally another matter: John Gray, Cioran, Brassiers those are the true atheists.

>>5128343
This.

There is now literally nothing wrong with being a fedora.

>>5128477
except being literally unfuckable.

>>5128492
The fedora is not the problem, squire. A lot of girls actually dig that fedora hipster image. The problem is being a fat, socially-inept American.

lmao op thinks its about religion

OP, if you had dropped Marx and Nietzsche, a lot more people would agree with you.

Marx needs a free pass because a lot of the kids on /lit/ identify as communiss, and Nietzsche because he's the average teenagers porthole to philosophy via the existential crisis.

>>5130599
Surely nobody is stupid enough to identify with Marx?

>>5128343
Would you like to elaborate on what true atheism is? I haven't read Cioran, and I'm genuinely curious. I've always thought atheism to be grossly misrepresented by these fedorafags.

>>5127211
/r/nobodyfuckingcares

>>5130587
>its

>>5127211
Nietzsche didn't besmirch the name of Christ. He's one of the only people who sees Christianity and Christ seriously, he just casts it in negative terms. If you translate them all, using Aristotle's method of labeling virtues, into something positive, you'll see this.,

>>5127211

I don't understand this. I thought the OP was trying to discredit labelling atheist authors as fedora via basic first degree irony.

Isn't that what he did? Isn't the part about "besmirching the good name of JC" a very obvious sign? Did everyone else also see what he was insinuating and just decided to ignore it?

Why would you even call this trolling? I'm feeling that I have completely lost track of what irony is at this point.

I vote that we disqualify Penn Jillette from any fedoracore credibility because, while his book titles are usually about atheism and while there are some snippets/chapters about atheism, Penn usually writes about more esoteric things, like:

>Sock monkeys
>Magic tricks
>Song poems
>Stories involving celebrities (encounters, rants, etc.)
>Getting your dick caught in a blow dryer
>Other weird, unrelated musings

>>5130639
And he is a liberal, so he is alright in my books.

OP, you are proposing that
>If A = atheist, then fedora = true.

It's more like
>If A = atheist, and A = contemporary, and A = famous for atheism, and A = discussed for atheism, then fedora = true.

>>5130641
He's actually a libertard.

>>5130716
Outside of the US liberal means 'libertarian'.

>>5130727
thanks

>>5127211
Thank you for shitposting.

>>5130727
It really doesn't.

>>5127333

daaaaaayuuuum

pwn't/9001

shots fired

thanks, reading this so i can jerk off on it and smack scientists with daddy issues over the head with the thus produced cum-stained tome

>>5130727
bullshit

>>5130782
Yes it does. What do you think it means outside Amurrica?

>(or, as I like to say, "fedauthor")

>>5130914
*tips fedora*

>>5127333

Absolute twaddle. At no point does this wall of text demonstrate anything of value. It's just meaningless jargon shoved on a pile without anything useful to say. This sounds like the ramblings of some post-modern 'theorist' who criticizes science for not being 'genuine' and 'meta' enough.

How much of a euphoric fedora do you have to be to dislike Dawkins?

>>5127333

Hhheehehehe

I can see this being a good argument on such fields as the study of consciousness, etc.

I hope this essay wasn't about god, though.

>>5130925

That's clear as day, sweetheart, please to learn to read, it's obvious from your response that you're lacking substantially in that department.

Who's paying you, anyway?

Your samefaggery is becoming increasingly apparent.

Why are Dawkins' ideas on god any less valuable to you than literally anything else ever said on god, anyway?

At the most basic level, aren't they all just speculation? Do you not agree that anything that can ever be said about god is bound to remain just that, speculation? Can you provide a 'possibly more appropriate way of investigating the phenomenon of god' than speculating about it?

You are abusing the inherently abusive framework of post modernism to discredit negative speculation about god. What a nuisance.

>>5130966
We can know a lot about God a priori

>>5130981

Dawkins also claims to know something about god a priori

>>5130995
His 'reasoning' is the juvenile dismissal of other arguments.

>>5131077

How is it juvenile and why should that matter? Are you familiar with Kant's critique of judgement?

>>5131083
When does Dorkins use a Kantian argument?

>>5131103

There is no such thing as a kantian argument, strictly speaking. The point I was trying to make was that you're trying to rebut him with 'juvenile', which is meaningless, it's a value judgement.

'Dorkins the juvenile' talks about god as a social construct, basically. His views aren't revolutionary, obviously, but they aren't incoherent juvenile ramblings.

His views on monotheistic religions, while pertinent, are only tangential to his argument.

>>5131077
>>5131103
>juvenile
>Dorkins

What a lovely glass house you have there anon, would be a shame if someone started throwing stones around.

Bumping for Christ,

I fucking hate atheists, they all need to fucking die, now.
None of them can prove that God doesn't exist.

>>5132104
lousy b8 m8

>>5127211

Posting a thread where you list authors against Christianity. Naming Graham Greene as one of them.

0/10

>>5132104
>I fucking hate atheists, they all need to fucking die, now.
So forgive us, o man of faith.

>>5132111
Prove that God doesn't exist.

>>5132125
Easy. "God" is a merely linguistic construct invented by man to describe a collection of linguistic constructs also invented by man.

>>5132125
I can't m8. He's not falsifiable. That's why I neither believe god exists, nor do I believe that he doesn't exist. That's all I can say. Also that god is a boring and loose definition and that theistic gods be gay as phuck.

>>5132136
lel
>>5132141
Then why did you call my post b8?

>>5132125

Prove that fairies don't exist

>>5132184
because I thought you weren't serious.

You're clearly daft as fuck muh nig.

>>5132201
I can't.

>>5132209

I guess that makes them real then, doesn't it?

>>5132136
This. I wish more people actually understood how linguistic frameworks are superimposed to describe abstracted perceptions. It would instantly stop so many atheism vs theology, 'sceintism', and objective morality confusion.

>>5132215
No

>>5130571
The fedora is what ed-hardy was 10 years ago. Girls never found it attractive and a couple of douchy celebs kept wearing it making all boys think it is attractive.
Also hipsters don't wear it, only douchy bros. Trust me I live in north brooklyn.

>>5132224
can you please explain how understanding linguistic constructs would solve scientism and the objective morality conclusion?

>>5130607
As nietzsche points out christianity is platonism for the masses. If you really want to be an atheist you have to tackle the platonism that is intrinsic to christianity and draw the final conclusions from the absence of god.

Instead these atheists keep everything intact of christianity and they just do away with the institution. They still believe in morality, in progress, in real existing mathematical objects, in truth, that we live in the best of all worlds and universal harmony.

>>5132267
Fuck now I have to read this faggot.

>>5132224
atheism is ''not believing theistic gods exist'' which includes 2 possibilities ''neither believing god exists, nor believing that he doesn't exist" (which is the sensible position), or "believing a god doesn't exist" (which is not that sensible since god is not falsifiable and you can throw the god paradigm on any explanation of the universe).

>>5132295 is addressed to >>5132261

>>5132295
>neither believing god exists, nor believing that he doesn't exist
No that's agnosticis m you fucking retard.

>>5132306
no, to this >>5130607

>>5132307
nigguh, alright, I'll do you a solid and explain. agnosticism merely means that no matter what, we will not be able to figure out the truth value of some statements. so granted, an agnostic atheist would say that he neither believes god exists, nor believes that he doesn't exist, but in addition, is sure that no evidence could ever be gathered to prove/disprove god's existence. which is dumb because how can he know that?

>>5130607
>I've always thought atheism to be grossly misrepresented by these fedorafags.
It's not, fedoras are the perfect example of atheism.

>>5132261
>can you please explain how understanding linguistic constructs would solve scientism and the objective morality conclusion?

Sure, Anon. Approach morality from the perspective of General Semantics. You have the abstracted event that you are discussing, say a man kicking a dog, and a second man making the statement "Kicking a dog is wrong". GS digs a lot deeper than moral issues, and will break down the form dog, the concept of kicking, but for our purpose we just need a basic look at the statement.

First, the term wrong is not a property of the Dog, the Kick, or the action. it is a secondary tag applied to the empirical event -- as Wittgenstein would say, a "boo to kicking dogs" tag. The man is giving a linguistic map to describe how he is traversing what he views as his reality - and the use of the verb IS is insinuating to the kicker that his view is portrayed as a truth. Of course, the problem vanishes if the speaker said "It is my opinion that a dog is wrong because..."

If everyone grasped the very basic idea that terms such as 'wrong', 'bad', 'evil' and so on are just descriptive tags to overlay an event with, they could communicate their subjective feelings and play with an inter-subjective framework of mutual notions and conflicting ideas. There is no problem of "objective morality" or "nothing is 'good' in music, art, or other aesthetic endeavors".

It's slightly disheartening that people still feel they need an objective 'good' to slip into a particular book, and even more disheartening when people lay in the quagmire of the relativistic "nothing is good or bad, and everything is equal", when they could both be enjoying an inter-subjective grid of shared ideas, free from the burden of misused linguistic constructs.

>>5130571

>fedora
>hipster

hipsters are the antithesis of fedoras

>>5132374
That hipster-with-fedora look is called atheist-chic

>>5132338
And even when it's inaccurate it's a useful stereotype to perpetuate in order to discourage atheism.

>>5132397
>Sped all day bitching about "the jews" and "degeneracy"
>Jew as hard as possible and shitpost memes

No /pol/ you are the degeneracy

>>5132363
oh yeah I completely agree. i've always said that it's inter-subjectivity that we should strive for in the field of ethics.

looking at this through the lens of GS definitely clears it up even more.

[btw, I meant explain how linguistic constructs would solve scientism and objective morality confusion, not conclusion]

>>5132338
>discourage atheism.

"Today's young people are, apparently, uniquely godless. Studies released this week by the Pew Forum have revealed that 25% of young Americans born after 1980 self-define as "atheist", "agnostic" or "nothing in particular", as opposed to 19% of the previous cohort. A similar decline is taking place in Britain, with the British Humanist Association reporting a 10% decline in religious faith among young people in less than 10 years. Across the west, fewer young people than ever are attending church services and other religious ceremonies. This reported lack of formal religious belief chimes with the dominant stereotype of the millennial generation as amoral, directionless and self-obsessed – but my generation is nothing of the kind.

In fact, I would argue, those of us who are reaching adulthood in the 21st century are in many ways more conventional than our parents. Generational theorists Strauss and Howe have identified the millennials, born between 1980 and 1999, as a "hero" generation: orthodox, driven, a little boring, and with a deep desire to save the precarious world that we are about to inherit, as opposed to the more chaotic and cynical adults of "generation X". The last batch of "heroes", according to Strauss and Howe, was the "great" generation who fought the second world war. A hero generation comes into its own in periods of social crisis, and the shadow of global recession and climate change has convinced today's young people that it will be down to us to fix the mistakes of our parents and grandparents. We just don't require God to help us do so."

--Laurie Penny

>>5132421
>"we don't need God to be good people and improve the world"

Everything that's wrong with atheism right there.

>>5132421
>This reported lack of formal religious belief chimes with the dominant stereotype of the millennial generation as amoral, directionless and self-obsessed – but my generation is nothing of the kind.
>not being a Hedonist

>Generational theorists Strauss and Howe have identified the millennials, born between 1980 and 1999, as a "hero" generation: orthodox, driven, a little boring, and with a deep desire to save the precarious world that we are about to inherit, as opposed to the more chaotic and cynical adults of "generation X". The last batch of "heroes", according to Strauss and Howe, was the "great" generation who fought the second world war. A hero generation comes into its own in periods of social crisis, and the shadow of global recession and climate change has convinced today's young people that it will be down to us to fix the mistakes of our parents and grandparents. We just don't require God to help us do so."
Fuck that, I'm not saving shit, I'm just grabbing what I can and telling everyone else to fuck off.
I didn't fuck us all over so I'm sure as hell not fixing anything.
Fucking baby boomer pieces of shit expecting us to fix their mistakes, I hope SS shuts down so they rot on the streets.

>>5132437
You are too stupid to function in modern society. Organized religion should be recognized for the schizophrenic idiocy that it is and your influence on the public sphere and access to weapons stripped.

>>5132451

>>5132437
>Everything that's wrong with atheism right there.

Exactly. People wanting to be decent, honest, caring people of their own volition need castrating. What monsters. They need to do it out of being terrified of eternal damnation.

>>5132463

>>5132451
>access to weapons stripped.

I agree that most governments should be secular, but I don't see many archbishops terrorizing their congregations with assault riffles.

>>5132458
Oh man you sure disproved me. Your religion totally isn't rightly dying out anywhere where people don't regularly get their heads chopped off and stopped being a bunch of illogical bullshit, all because you can post images of fat virgins who probably post on /pol/ with you. You did it champ, you fucking did it.

>>5132475
Swing and a miss

>>5132467
>>5132458
"Mom, look, come quick. I couldn't discuss a topic so I posted the hat again."

"Oh, well done, Sebastian, I'm so proud. Have a gold star."

>>5132473
>He doesn't live in America

>>5132481
Oh I can discuss it, and we likely agree on the majority of the topic, but I just enjoy pissing off die-hard anti-theists by posting this special hat.

>>5132479

>>5132488
>He thinks it "pisses people off"
Actually it's more than delightful that literally none of you have anything else. I'm not surprised you are blissully unable to perceive yourself. I get that you may not even be christian and just "don't like anti-theists" but that's idiotic as religion is not a regular opinion, it's accepted mass hysteria.

>>5132497
>it's accepted mass hysteria.
*tips fedora*
Honestly I know that you're shitposting but this whole thread is a shitpost.

>>5132502
No I'm just not pulling punches.
>People done did it fer a long time so it's fine
Well then lets bring back slavery, it's okay with Adonai so it should be good enough for you.

>>5132511
>Well then lets bring back slavery, it's okay with Adonai so it should be good enough for you.
sure :^)

>>5132488
an article with memetic quality has a very short lifespan. The more people post the hat, the quicker it's demise approaches. Once the 'fedora reddit pleb' meme dies in 6 months to two years, then the only thing theists have now - ridicule of their opponents -- dies too.

In all seriousness, the fedora meme is holding back the flood gates and dissuading a generation of young teens from identifying as free from theology, but every fedora posted is a step closer an overwhelming atheist majority.

I like how religious people are trying to take advantage of the fedora meme when it's not godlessness per se that is made fun of but pretentious neckbeards.

Either way, I'm a symbolic christian meaning I believe the superficial should be preserved, but not more than that.

>>5132497
>I get that you may not even be christian
4chan theology threads are always agnostics trolling anti-theists.

>>5132517
>Once the 'fedora reddit pleb' meme dies in 6 months to two years
People have said this 6 months to a year ago
It's not going away
>but every fedora posted is a step closer an overwhelming atheist majority.
lol
>>5132519
But I'm not religious.

>>5132519
No, you're just new and have a bunch of hot opinions about things you barely understand. It began directly making fun of atheists. Dumb faggots like you who didn't get the joke turned it into what we have today, which is arguably better as fedora is shorter than both "neckbeard" and "basement dweller".

>>5132523
>People have said this 6 months to a year ago
Exactly, and lolcats, breading, planking, rickrolling, Ayn Rand, and every other meme fell. fedora is a new meme, but it's already hit it's peak.

>>5132533
Everything will be okay, Anon. I mean that. Tell your mother that you love her and give her a hug. She'll really appreciate it, and the joy in her eyes will warm your heart too. You're a good person deep down, just let go of your anger and smile more.

>>5132545
>Waaaaaahhhhhhh he pointed out that I don't know what I'm talking about!
>I know, I'll throw an overly sarcastic fit, that's sure to prove I'm not from reddit

>>5132533
>It began directly making fun of atheists.

Err, no. The fedora was first used to make fun of 'neckbeards'. Sometime after that 'eurphoric' quote, the fedora merged with the neckbeard.

>>5132567
Your post doesn't make sense and you are wrong in any case.

>>5132549
Anon, try looking in the mirror and reading what you just posted to yourself. Then ask yourself if you really want to be the type of person who writes things like that. And no, my post wasn't sarcastic. I genuinely would give you a warm embrace if I could. I know how much better people feel after a hug. Seriously, go and give your mother a hug and tell her you love her. You'll be surprised at how much your posting will change. The world isn't cruel and evil, anon, it's filled with laughter, joy, and love too.

>>5132534
Nah

>>5132593
Now that is neither a fedora nor a trilby. It's a pork pie hat. I guess the next logical step is to call a top hat a fedora.

>>5130571
i like how you posted three mediocre celebrities wearing plebeian outfits to demonstrate your perceived epitome of fashion
please stop asserting your ignorant opinions :o)

I agree and support OP. The only difference between the old fedoras and the new ones is that the old ones looked stylish in their fedoras, whereas the new ones just ridiculous. That's it, that's the minor discrepancy, and it's an aesthetic one.

>>5132590
>I know, I'll prove his point as hard as possible!

>>5132615
Just let it go. You're bigger than this adolescent hostility. Be the person you know you are inside.

>>5132618
Try taking ten deep breaths. Breath in through your nose, and then out in three steps, pausing slightly after each one. Think about the people in your life, the family that you have who do love you. It's true. There are people in this world who love you. Try to be happy, Anon, and shed the angry and hostile bitterness you have. You no longer need it.

>>5132635
*le wind up*

>>5132437
this

"wanting to improve the world" is the same as saying "I want to be the Messiah". Wanting to improve the world usually ends in massacre, see: every revolution.

>>5127823
>/lit
>/b
Go back to reddit.

>>5132641
>Someone out there made this post and might have been serious

Disappointment.

>>5132641
>Wanting to improve the world usually ends in massacre

My brother volunteered to help build an orphanage in Botswana during his gap year. As far as I know he didn't massacre anyone. I'm studying medicine because I have a desire to help people too, and I have no inclination to massacre either. Perhaps the desire is within you, no?

>>5132267
This. As a theist, I really respect Nietzsche because he took Christianity real seriously and lead his reasoning to the logical conclusion of moral nihilism.

>>5132681
>Because I'm a christian faggot that means anyone who follows basic morality like "don't rape and kill your sister for her belongings" is actually just a secret christian
>If they were REAL atheists then they'd be apathetic shut-ins with monstrous fantasies like my epic maymays

I honestly wish I could come through the computer and punch you and that other guy

>>5132681
I hate Nietzsche because he's plebbit's favorite philosopher.
That's why I refuse to read any of his works.

>>5130571
There is nothing wrong with being a fat, socially-inept, American, or any combination thereof.
Fat people are instrumental in agribusiness.
The socially-inept are equally important in online commerce.
Americans keep the world safe from the ravening hoards of Russians,Kebab, and Chinamen.
You have those three groups to thank for a great many things you take for granted.

>>5132731
>We should encourage self-perpetuating cycles because they perpetuate themselves

Literally cancer

>>5132700
Nice projecting. I'm still right, though. Without the platonism, there is no basis for holding any kind of objective morality or the belief in Truth. Nietzsche correctly saw this. I don't think that atheists are bad people or anything, we're talking about philosophy here.

>>5132759
>Blah blah blah objective morality *chews on own turd* you just have to follow it to it's logical *sips own semen* conclusion, you know?

NAP. What now?

>>5132766
What now? Now you just outed yourself as a retard. The NAP is completely divorced from reality. Have a nice life.

>>5132796
So you're saying aggression is inherently legitimate? Oooonwards christians sooooldiieers <3

Faggot

>>5132806
cool false dichotomy.
"aggression" is legitimatized by the population on the part of the state to keep the population non-aggressive. Any system which depends on acceptance of a principle is doomed to fail, not only is it an absurd attempt at controlling others thoughts, it's also unenforceable. It is vague enough to allow for interpretations which could easily constitute aggression in the mind of another.

>>5132956
>A system where people don't impose their will on people is imposing on people

This is some next level question begging and I really shouldn't expect more from some pseudo-intellectual 19 year old with an HD full of Nietzsche images

>>5132974
>people don't
...and they spontaneously don't impose their will on people out of their inherent beneficence and rationality, amazing. Demanding that people not to impose their will on people for the sake of your system, or basing the entire foundation of your system upon the assumption that they will not do so is imposing your will on them, and not only that, it's against human nature. Systems require participation and participation itself is a surrender of will by the participants.
You've also neglected the points I raised about the unenforceable nature of the NAP along with the vague nature of it's terms, I see.

>>5133047
>Expecting someone not to assail you is imposing your will on them!

You are a putrid excuse for a human. Your entire argument is retarded anyway, christian morality is also unenforceable as evidenced by the modern world. You're just autistically mad that someone isn't a faggot commie like you.

>>5133058
>expecting.
Taking it for granted and commencing social interaction with them based on the assumption that they will not assault you is imposing your will on them, especially if in the case that they do assail you, you will respond with deadly force in self-defense (or call the cops :^) amirite?). You are forcing him to choose between assailing you and the preservation of his life. Since he wants to assail you but also wants to preserve his life and you would have him choose, you are thus imposing your will upon him by limiting his. Imposing your will on people really isn't all that bad, you do it whenever you go out to eat, or purchase a product. It is necessary that man's freedom must be curtailed, especially if you consider that there is a difference between positive and negative freedom.

>>5133137
>Someone might murder me so the legal code is meaningless

I understand why authoritarian regimes cleanse academia now.

-the materialist/reductionist/empiricist position is very misunderstood both by the people who claim to espouse it and the people who disagree (like all positions, when you get down to it).
-natural science only observes and reports phenomena, it analyzes and orders them, reduces them to applicable paradigms. we never observe "the power of causation". I am not speaking of merely "correlation does not equal causation", but rather no matter how strong this correlation is, no matter how you test it against different controls and find this correlation never fails, that in itself is no rational reason why it should happen the same way again in the future (the problem of induction)
-why does salt dissolve in water, water is polar and separates the ions of the salt, why is salt ionic? sodium tends to gravitate toward a +1 charge and potassium a -1 (or something like that, dont remember), why do these elements do this? it's a harmonious orbital distribution for the electrons, why? because electrons have very precise values at which they can absorb photons and change their energy level, and so on.

but none of these really get down to the question of WHY these things happen, all they say is, in newer and differently quantified ways, WHAT has been observed. and what "has been observed" is determined individually through controlled experiements, and collectively through the method of detailed lab reports and experimental repeatability

it is that last part that brings in the materialism. materialism is just the premise that "existence" means "has some observable effect on something, somewhere in the universe"

there may be other things out there that exist but can't be observed to exist for some reason, not even dark matter qualifies, because we do notice it, even if thats inferentially, even if we cannot see it because it does not give off light, we still observe its effects in an empirically verifiable way and thus is worth making part of your empirical theory. this emprical theory is, I must emphasize, not a theory of why these things happen, full stop, with no room for any more explanation, it is a theory of what and ho these things happen. "why" things happen is much more complicated, causation is contextual, and it is always shorthand, as well as "fictional".

it is just we got tired of qualifying everything we said with "oh and this may not hold forever but so far it seems to hold" and "you may hold other interpretations of the facts dear, and thats fine so long as we are clear that our interpretation is what has come from the method required to produce practical results"

the latter does not need to be repeated, science has unquestionable value. but when you're in philosophy, people get pissy about "truth", everybody has a different idea of truth and their all wrong according to a good number of people. Maybe materialism and science cannot acquire all the "truths" that are there to be found, but these other truths would be truly NO-Magisteria, cont-

>>5133173
Kant pls go

>>5133173

so if these other things out there that are immaterial are going to "exist" in some way, or be believed in, then it must be practical advice, something you can "believe in" by trying, because propositions cannot be willfully believed in my opinion. however, you can come to believe them through a process that includes willful action.

no reason a materialist cant go to church and experience unverifiable perceptions and just chalk them up to shit that makes you feel funny, so you *believe* in it enough to keep coming here with these smelly people and singing songs and talking to yourself"

how often people honestly come to belief from "the evidence" ??

just about none. lee strobel is a liar.

and how often do people become atheist when they are active in a church and truly intimate with the community and enjoy it?

more often, but still not very much. people should try to connect with the churches of their family and friends, thats real shit guys, the kind of shit that inspires novels.

skepticism is good but we want open-minded skeptics who are affably sequacious in regard to things they have no experience or education concerning. smug skeptics are not serving anybody, even though they feel justified by "the truth", of which they had no part in discovering, but leisurely read the painstakingly crafted layman's version

>>5133188

hey kant was pretty right on in some ways

who is your preferred metaphysician?

>>5133206
Kant

aw man, I really thought you were going somewhere with this >>5133173, but then it went downhill and hit this >>5133198.

You need to define belief in the second part. I for one, define it as something that I experience as true. Being a rational person, I only believe in things that are proven to be true. That does not mean I only act based on things I believe in. For example I neither believe god exists, nor do I believe he doesn't exist, yet I act as if he doesn't because I consider theistic gods and religions demonic faggots and non-interventionist deist gods boring and with no political influence over my life even if they were to exist.

By saying that experiencing something unverifiable in a profound way makes you believe it(the stuff that makes one feel good in church is observable and deterministic, but who the fuck is gonna allocate resources to study cretins?), I take it you mean something else by the term 'belief'. Something that is more closely related to 'experience' rather than truth values. Which is fine. However, it's clearly not related to anything you mentioned in your first post. It's almost like two different people wrote your posts.

>>5133151
>ctrl+f
>legal code

Notice how I did not say anything about a legal code? The statement was intended to validate the claim that expecting someone not to assail was in fact imposing your will on them, which was what you believed represented;
>>5133047
That statement was intended to assert that in fact, contrary to your claim that I was saying in
>>5132956
that a system where people don't impose their will on people is imposing their will on people; a system where people "don't" impose their will on people is in fact imposing on people.

If under the NAP, people "don't" impose their will upon others, it requires a reason why they do not do this, if this reason is because it's illegal than the NAP is not necessary. Initiations of coercion via threats and force are necessary on part of the judicial system and law enforcement to ensure that illegal activity is punished and that this punishment exists to discourage illegal activity. The NAP as a principle does not adequately punish and discourage, the only punishment one could conceivably incur from breaking the NAP and getting away with it is guilt at having broken a principle, this threatens neither the wrongdoer's life nor liberty. It is not unlike allowing a criminal to decide their own sentence. Law enforcement, requires aggression in the form of a tacit but substantial threat that if they break the law they will be subject to force and deprived of liberty, so if the NAP is to be applied universally (as an objective principle of morality), it precludes law enforcement.

>self-defense
>defense of others

Violence must be used against non-aggressors in the form of threats, for they are all potential aggressors alike. It is a preventative measure, and hence more effective than a defensive one. As a preventative measure it allows both the potential aggressor and the potential victim to keep their lives, but as a defensive measure it would endanger either the potential victim in an unsuccessful application or the aggressor in a successful one.

>>5132533
I wrote that. Just checking in to say you're wrong and possibly autistic.

>>5132742
No, I encourage those things because they perpetuate the greatest civilization in the history of the planet.

Do you think the chinese, the russians, or kebab are going to care about self-perpetuating cycles? No, they are going to slaughter and enslave you.

The fact that you can say this without fear on a free anonymous image board is the reason I support and valorize fat, socially-inept Americans. They are supporting the worlds most devastating nuclear arsenal, which is the cornerstone of the peace we enjoy in our haven of liberty.