/lit/ - Literature

Sure, but can I bring the fedoras?

>>5900133
give me some examples of new-atheist lit, OP.

>>5900144

Hitchens, Dawkins etc.

Fedora, edgy, euphoric, muh science, tippity tip, neckbeard, superior-

I prophesied the vocab list for this thread.

>>5900133
Terrible. Russel ain't die for this shit smh

>>5900154

I was about to accuse you of being a mindless slave to bandwagon, but then I read on.

>>5900133
>anti-theist

You sure are sad when you define yourself as the antithesis of another.

Pro-religion atheist reporting
Can't wait for another Christian renaissance

There are ultimately only two religions: Christianity and Satanism. Either you are a Christian, or you serve Satan, unknowingly or otherwise. Thus atheists, who rather than disbelieving in God substitute themselves as gods, are consummate Satanists. Atheism is nothing more than intellectualized impiety to the point of hubris. They are beyond the pale of humanity and should be burned at the stake for the sake of social wellbeing. Any society that adopts atheism en masse has doomed itself to destruction. The West has forsaken God and is in a general state of collapse, the local population being replaced with Muslims in many countries. Such is the fate of nations who turn their back on Christ. Atheists are complete failures of human beings. They are the opposite of everything a human being should be. They are the unmen, the antihumans. Do not tolerate them among you. Cast them out. Cast them into the flames.

>>5900154
I will add "tip-top".
Recalls "tip fedora" and "be tip-top" is a slang used in 1800 for denoting something cool/excellent.

>>5900144
The End of Faith is probably the best "new atheist" book.

>>5900133
People who claim that religion is sole cause of wars. Or that, as that picture illustrates, the current trouble in the middle east is solely due to religion have completely ignorant of politics, economics and wider social relations. It's just fucking idiotic.

Ask an atheist anything

>>5900257
Are babies atheists?

I read four of Christopher Hitchen's works, I think he makes valid points in that lack of transparency in religious institutions really discredits the entire belief system

I am an ex-catholic turned atheist, and I believe that throughout the next few centuries, the world will see a gradual shift towards total agnosticism/atheism, with only the very secluded being left as religious. Then people will finally realize the objective vacuousness of society, and there will be a turning point -- will we choose to face our reality? Or will we delude ourselves into thinking life has a premeditated purpose?

>>5900266
They're atheists like how rocks and cats are atheists.

>>5900267

>with only the very secluded being left as religious.

highly doubt this. Hereditary tradition is a powerful thing.

>>5900376
this argument, which I've heard far more than I ever assumed I would, always makes me laugh

>>5900251

This. There are a variety of causes, although you can't say religion isn't a major factor.

oh sweet i don't need to make a thread.

i'm looking for any resource that would cover how pagan religions got pushed out for abrahamic religions, and how the first abrahamic religion was created, and also how it split into multiple abrahamic religions which now encompass the majority of the people who practice faith. is there anything like this?

i mean i heard, from people only, of how the tale of moses basically insults the pagan gods of egypt, and how the Kaaba was originally pagan but was converted to be for muhammed's word of islam.

is this true and if so, what would cover this? i'm really hung up on this because of how it basically snuffed out polytheism and pagan worship, and all historical information. i know there's a good amount of testaments which would cover the scriptures that are claimed to be words of god from each patriarch, but the problem is how people tied them all to abraham's god.

>>5900387
Sure, but it even being a fact is also an amalgamation of other factors. That of course, doesn't lesson its impact, but those outside influences and their political/social ramifications, leading to the rise of politically motivated religion deserve discussion - which new-atheists are unlikely to do because it doesn't suit the narrative they have created for themselves.

>>5900404
The Jesus Mysteries
You're welcome

>>5900445
i just find it hard to believe that people will kill themselves and others for a place in paradise and not have it intimately related with their beliefs about reality. I don't think anyone can deny that with religious people their particular belief influences their life to the degree to which they are devout, especially when it comes to morality.

I have been studying, researching and meditating throughout the year. I have tasted all major religions.
They all teach different parts of the same story. The story is a broad understanding of the universe, its structure, and the human's place in it.
I came across a series of essays and articles that contained overwhelming evidence for the existence of afterlife, God, reincarnation and karma. I was shown that all prophets of all countries were messengers of God — all of the prophets have had enormous influence on a global level. I am a kinder person now.

Now I ask you, why have you not tried? Don't lie, you have not tried to believe in anything higher than yourself — in your universe, you are God. Are you too selfish to even attempt to find a higher power? If I have found God simply by looking for the evidence, what stops you from doing the same?

The reason so many of you are not willing to seek the evidence is because God seems ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense, that some bearded man up in the clouds created Earth. I ask you to see past this, because the people who wrote all of the ridiculous stuff about God, wrote it TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

We are now in the year 2014. I believe in mainstream science, and I believe in an all-powerful God.
Religion is not the end of civilization. It is the saviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_science

>>5900133

4chan is for people above the age of 18. Please leave.

>>5900266
Babies are polytheists.

>>5900533

>Baha'i
>Iranian rebel movement started by guy who appropriated a bunch of Sufi ideas and declared himself Muhammad 2.0

>>5900477
That's not what I'm arguing. If we're going to specifically talk about political/radical islam we're really talking about a political ideology that is fairly recent in origin - sure, it's based on historical influences (most of which are debatable and misrepresented). My wider point on this is that if we're to take radical islam as a fairly recent phenomena we're going to have to discuss why and where this ideology came into being. And from the point of view I'm putting forward here is that there is a clear political, economic and social context for this specific strain of politically motivated radical islam to come into being and it is that point, which is not discussed enough, at least by people putting forward the "religion causes all the worlds evils" argument.

Arguing about their views on morality or a world view that allows them to rationalise blowing themselves up and taking that action as something that occurs in a vacuum is not only ahistorical, it is itself a political act because it whitewashes the reasons behind such an ideology coming into being.

>>5900404
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-paganism_policy_of_Theodosius_I

sums it up

>>5900533
dude grow up, buddhism is literally 9 billion times more intelligent than your christian bs, and preceded it by hundreds of years ... and it is atheistic to the core!!!

>>5900550
They're neither religions nor non-religious, surely? How can one be one or the other with no conception of either position? If one can be deemed one or the other without having any conception of the divine or lack thereof then that leaves the door open to naming pretty much anything religious or not. Hence we get people putting forward the absurd notion that rocks or horses are atheists.

>>5900564
Just because they don't have complex conception doesn't mean they don't have any. You forget that the idea of god as an onmipotent creator of everything is not involved in most polytheists conceptions. Gods were just awesome entities with mysterious powers. Certainly that is how a baby perceives its parents.

>>5900533
Thanks based retardbro.

>>5900133
>new atheist"
What's old atheism, and what time period did it switch from old to new? :)

>>5900533
0/10, bring better bait next time

>>5900551
>>5900558
>>5900587

You have all missed my point. All religions teach lessons, and all of these lessons are from God. Humans were still able to make mistakes of course, so the lessons have been divided into religions.

>>5900654
The lessons were divided because different gods were the ones teaching, bright boy.

>>5900672
>there are multiple all-powerful Gods that contradict each other

>>5900644
>I can't refute your claims so I'm just gonna claim that you were trolling

>>5900654
No I got your point, your point is retarded. There's no reason to believe any of these "lessons" were divinely inspired and even if they were these lessons are retarded.

>>5900697
Only fate is all-powerful.

>>5900702
>think people have to refute your claims

All you did was assert that this retarded idea is true. Show us that there is reason to believe in the validity of that post.

>>5900640
Guys, please answer :/

>>5900195
Why?

>>5900726
prove it (even though you'll try, you can't)

>>5900950
You want me to prove determinism?

>>5900195
I'm anti-theist, but I don't define myself solely on this aspect.

It is surely sadder to be one who defines oneself as a theist of any sort. They have not grown up yet.

>>5900730
To a Christian an old atheist stayed quiet or burned on a stake.

The term "new atheist" is just a buzzword.

>>5901010
New Atheism means proselytizing atheism.

>>5901001
>>5901010
please stop shitting up this thread like you always do

>>5901116
Like I said. Merely speaking up as to why we don't believe is considered an affront or attack. So be it.

>>5901125
Please use proper caps.

>>5901207
>Like I said. Merely speaking up as to why we don't believe is considered an affront or attack. So be it.
No, that's not what new atheism is. New atheism is about actively trying to convert people to atheism. Sam Harris and Dawkins are a couple of good examples.

>>5900214
>2014
>this person exists
this is some good bait

>>5900535
no, no, you got it backwards

>>5900267

I'm not sure this is correct. Counter culture and atheism are becoming very mainstream, hence counter-culture is moving towards traditional religion.

I was an atheist in high school, I went to Catholic school but only because they had a fine arts program, by the time I was 12 I was a dedicated atheist and by 14 I was an anti-theist. At 18 I started moving from being a proto fedora due to doing a Philosophy degree, the more intelligent I got the more I could see that what I thought were contradictions in Christianity and other religions were actually easily resolved and intellectually on the dot. Everything people have tried to replace God with has been disastrous morally and socially. So far it has turned out that all of the worldviews we've tried to replace the Christian one with have more flaws or at least as many flaws as any religious worldview has . Not that it is infallible or that God is a sure thing, but anything outside of a simple mathematical or analytic truth is going to have a degree uncertainty attached to it. It's mostly hilarious when Fedora's think they have any understanding of science, we can hardly justify induction rationally, and Quantum and Relativistic Physics are at major odds with one another. The Christian viewpoint is quite defensible and has great minds doing so to this day, Alvin Plantinga is a great modern one. The New Atheists are just embarrassing, Hitchens condemnation of Christian Metaphysics can be boiled down to " But who made God? No one EVER has given an answer to that". He claims that his children know more than Meideval Theologians, yet first year philosophy students have more intellectual rigor than he does.

Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism ect all are solid belief systems and I think that the future will show the intelligentsia and the religious reconciling with one another. Where thinkers like Hume pushed intellectuals away from God, idiots like the New Atheists can only push intellectuals towards him.

>>5900214
Jonathan Edwards please go

>>5901296
>went from fedora to philosophy
Are you me? I now respect those systems as well, but I can't make the leap from hesitant to skepticism to actual belief. I guess I can't go full Kierkegaard...

>>5901485
>problem of evil
Fixed
>determinism
Fixed, god is subject to it same as man
>omnipotent paradoxes
Fixed. God is not omnipotent
>Contradictory ideas of ideal morality from god
Fixed. Each god has a different ideal and morality to impart

>>5901496

No no no, you misread. I said I'm no longer a fedora. Also those have all already been fixed by philosophers who subscribe to actual religions of worth.

>>5901503
Dismissing a faith like this is pretty fedora, which is what you're doing, not I.

>>5901296
>Hitchens condemnation of Christian Metaphysics can be boiled down to " But who made God?

Hitchens' rhetoric whittles down to "man created the concept of God within the same linguistic framework man created to describe the rest of reality, yet makes the mistake of treating the concept as if it's external to the framework."

>>5901485

Actual guy you responded to speaking.

I've actually had some religious experiences that have helped me out in the "belief" department. One involved Hindu Priests and Yoga, the others were less surreal but were on my own, more or less with Christian prayer. I am really leaning towards Catholicism, since It carried on everything good about European culture with it and perfected it. Still I don't feel that I'm quite " Religious",intellectually I'm on board, volitionally I'm not entirely on board.

As it stands I just think that there is a much high probability that the core aspects of the Religious Worldview are correct, most Materialist Atheistic views just fall flat in terms of rationality, hardline empiricists tend to be excessive dogmatic. I'm always willing to listen to legitimate criticisms and I love the Philosophy of Religion for getting to read the views of intelligent atheists and Theists duke it out in a serious, but respectful way.

>>5901296
>we can hardly justify induction rationally
> thinkers like Hume pushed intellectuals away from God,
Then why are you using the most important aspect of his philosophy as an argument for God? Hume's examination of rationalism was was part of his major argument against God: that assuming had to "cause" the universe is just that, an assumption, because causation itself is nothing but an assumption.

>>5901527

I was going off his chapter in " God is not great" on Christian Metaphysics, that seems to fit with his views though. That book is an abomination, seriously, no citations, endless strawmen, not a single coherent argument. BLEH

>>5901547
>assuming something had to "cause"

>>5901553
>assuming assume has any meaning

>>5901547
I never gave a proof for God in that post ( though my main one does have to do with causality, I think Hume can be overcome on that front). My whole point was that Hume giving accounts like what you just explained was a legitimately intellectual defense of atheism, which is part of why intellectuals moved away from God. The New Atheists have nothing like this and are quite antithetical to that level of thought, opting for Dogma instead, so they will push intellectuals away from atheism.

>>5901562
It means to take something for granted without any logical justification.

>>5901563
New atheists appeal to people who don't actually read philosophy, so not really any way to compare.

>>5901572
>implying your words have any meaning in my solipsistic reality
checkmate

I'm currently thinking of writing a comedy novel about a man who is talked into writing a holy book by an alien existence, and the hardships and consequences that would entail.

How good/bad of an idea is this?

>>5901296
>Hitchens condemnation of Christian Metaphysics can be boiled down to " But who made God? No one EVER has given an answer to that"

The thing is that generally (not all) theologians have a terrible understanding on the many and the finite, and the singular and the infinite. This becomes an issue when the subject of the Trinity is brought up; how can God be singular and infinite when he's multiple (the trinity).

Other religions deal with this is better ways than Christian, but I think Hitchen's attack on Christian metaphysics is more nuanced than you're presenting.

Also, lots of New Atheists don't have a problem with religion or even religious people; that have a problem with a religion's morality having a monopoly over the public's morality.

At least a State's morality can be repealed/amended. How can one repeal or amend the morality of God?

>>5900533

>I came across a series of essays and articles that contained overwhelming evidence for the existence of afterlife, God, reincarnation and karma.
>and I'm not going to present them to you, you should just assume that I have them

>>5900195
>>5900214
>>5900220
>>5900535
>>5901526
Hey now theists, let's use the golden rule here. I would rather the atheists not shit up our threads, so let's do the same for them, yeah?

>>5901845

>theists
>familiar with the morality they shove down people's throats

>>5901851
Some of us actually try.

I think part of the problem with the common criticisms of the new atheist movement I've seen (using strawmen, not understanding modern theology, etc.) misses the goal of new atheism, which is to target the faith of the average unsophisticated religious American/brit.

A new atheist might say something about the absurdity of belief in an omnipotent god or a young earth, and how these things fly in the face of reason/modern science etc. An academic/theologian/relatively intelligent christian etc. can easily dismiss this saying something like "well, no one actually believes that anymore," (e.g. the catholic church has accepted evolution for some time, and most other christians choose to interpret large chunks of the bible metaphorically) but the problem isn't those people. The problem is the fundamentalists who do.

Another common criticism is that, when there is a valid point to be made, new atheist literature tends to overreach. It starts with a reasonable argument, then extends it to ridiculous proportions, or coats it in hyperbole. I generally agree with this. God is not Great was particularly bad for this. In general, new atheism attacks a simplified version of religion with a simplified version of atheism, and hypes it all up to maximal rhetorical effect. This is because it's target audience is a simplified person.

Another criticism I'm aware of: new atheism is often thinly veiled racism or islamophobia. I don't buy this in general, but there are certainly points where people like Dawkins have ventured into a "this might be coming from some unaddressed biases the speaker has"-zone. This is unfortunate when it happens.

The last criticism I can think of is that atheism is somehow a privileged position to take, and the fact that it's main proponents are all straight white males with big educations is evidence for this (this also explains why the criticisms in new atheist literature can tend to be culturally myopic from time to time). The logic is that if you have had enough free time to think about your religious beliefs in some depth, consult books, follow debates/philosophy, attend college courses etc. before choosing to be atheist, then you have a privilege that a lot of poorer people with bad educations probably don't have. This is undeniably true, but it's just shameful anti-intellectualism. An atheist worldview not somehow inherently wrong because it entails a privilege that others don't share. We should be focusing on bringing society to the point where everyone has these opportunities.

>>5901880
>it's okay because their ignorant shit is flung at ignorant people!
Yeah nah

>>5901885

I think the goal is still admirable.

>>5901880

>thinly veiled racism or islamophobia

I'm not fond of Sikhism or Hinduism either :^)

>>5901894
How is what amounts to lying admirable? If they don't even understand the theology how can it be called admirable?

>>5901894

i feel like new atheism was a good idea with bad execution. There needed to be some kind of popular campaign against fundamentalism, but the way they went about it is far to polarizing to do any good.

>>5901902
The problem is that, being uneducated in the humanities (with the exception of maybe Dennett) they really couldn't see a difference between fundamentalism and the rest. They honestly can't tell Plato and Aristotle influenced thinkers from Westboro.

>>5901527
>"man created the concept of God within the same linguistic framework man created to describe the rest of reality, yet makes the mistake of treating the concept as if it's external to the framework."

This is probably the best atheist argument.

>>5900133
>monkeys evolve into humans
>humans develop intelligence
>eventually become highly self-aware
>world is too confusing
>decide to create some elaborate story that isolates us from nature
>giant man in the sky controlling our everyday life
>science comes along
>debunks everything religion taught us
>most people accept this, and become atheist
>large amount of people in denial, deluding themselves
>refusal to accept that life is the outcome of probability over billions of years, and is therefore pretty meaningless

>>5902065
>giant man in the sky controlling our everyday life

that's where u went wrong

>>5901902
>There needed to be some kind of popular campaign against fundamentalism

Why? Fundamentalism was only ever a very small minority.

>>5902068
Well then replace that with whatever said religion believes the purpose of god is...

>>5902065
>giant man in the sky controlling our everyday life
You seem to have skipped the abstract reasoning-part.

>>5902065

>>5901296
Atheist here

I am really curious... How can a person make a jump from materialism back to faith. I can't imagine it. I approached this from every possible angle i could think off but the more i explore the more it becomes obvious to me that cold, rigorous rationalism is the only logical mindset for a thinking human being and anti-theism is a direct result of adopting that approach.

How have you been moved to "believe" again. What sort of idea it took. I really want to try for myself, althrough i really doubt you can deliver since you use the word "fedora" to describe a type of person which is pretty fucking pathetic.

>>5902258
>I approached this from every possible angle

Except for the angle which places human rationality underneath faith.

>>5902265
That's not really an angle, more like psychological breakdown.

>>5902324
this
>>5902265
Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.

You just chose not to follow reason and go with what feels good to you. Congratulations on becoming subhuman.

>>5900214
You're a bitter troll of an account, too talentless to create anything of merit on your own, and furious with your own lack of direction and ability. So you turn your rage outward, trying to bring others down to your talentless level. Because in your own ego, you are the grandest writer of this generation, so how can anyone else compare?
The problem is you can't even commit to a project, and have no decent vision in you for a story. You are a born editor and critic, but not even a good one. Your destiny is not to create something beautiful, but to hate miserably from the shadows. Can you feel it? I'm about to do something amazing, and I'm going to create something incredible. While you swim in your anal blast of butthurt at the possibility that a writer could possibly be arrogant and good, I'll just be over here making history.
Because unlike you, I believe in what I do. And that's why I'm going to succeed, while chumps like you continue to miserably shit on everyone else.
Even when the ads for my book are plastered all over Reddit, and people are saying, 'Hey, this is actually pretty good' you'll still hate and hate some more.
Because the true talentless hack here is you. I know what I am. I'm an author and an entertainer, and really fucking good at it too

>>5902258
>how can a person make a jump from infinite resignation to being a knight of faith

>>5901296

>This is what college undergrads actually think

>god is universal, everyone has a chance to get into heaven
>woops you were born in Scandinavia in a 99% atheist town, looks like you're going to hell
seems legit

>>5900558
confirmed for knowing nothing about buddhism

dude, travel more. go to thailand or somewhere, and i don't mean just to fuck ladyboys

(although do that too, if you want)

>>5901296
>The Christian viewpoint is quite defensible and has great minds doing so to this day.

I would counter that all the great Christian apologists have accomplished is proved the utter folly of reason. If anything, using reason to justify faith is as blasphemous as using faith to justify reason. Clearly god does not and cannot exist, yet there are a nearly infinite set of rational arguments that supposedly prove that he must exist. In my view, rather than proving the existence of god, this merely proves the futility of reason and rational argument.

>>5902065
underrated post

>>5902065
>monkeys evolve into humans
actually we evolved from apes

>>5900640
I've heard "new atheist" used to refer to the brand of slightly political atheism that started cropping up in the 90s and 2000s. It's not really about philosophy so much as it is "why are people still theists?" and other radical coolkid questions we're having.

I actually legitimately an unironically enjoyed this and it's sequel. I highly recommend the audiobook, it's hilarious.

>>5902258

Reason led me from materialism towards God after being an atheist my whole life. Try looking into the philosophical problems of materialism, and don't stop when you hear something comforting that conforms your worldview, try to uncover every which way that you could be wrong and keep going. I was an atheist for emotional reasons personally.

>>5902572

> Clearly god does not and cannot exist

Please show me what makes God's existence impossible.

Without using reason, since it's supposedly useless.

>>5904016
What is this? Trash for ants?

I'm really interested in how today's atheists (atheism+) pick up their morals.

(Their morals being that sexism/racism/homophobia are the unholy trinity and that non-violence is the key to the kingdom of Heaven)

If you're a natural atheist these things are natural feelings, so denial of them is pretty much learned.

I would also say that cultural Christianity is an aspect, but not ultimately responsible for it.

I'm inclined to say it is just a safe space for people who are euphoric and beta as well as another front for people with agendas. (the ones profiting from selling t-shirts to them)

>>5904385

You really don't understand either atheism or morality at all, do you?

>>5900558
>buddhism is literally 9 billion times more intelligent than your christian bs,
buddhists are retarded, especially white buddhists. they are just eastern fetishists. just get over yourselves and start fucking aids-ridden ladyboys

>and preceded it by hundreds of years
so did religious infantacide, worshipping dungheaps, etc.

>and it is atheistic to the core!!!
worshipping nothingness is not atheistic

>>5900558
>atheistic to the core
>to the core
Holy shit, what kind of redditpleb shit is this?

>>5901845
>all theists are christian and believe in the golden rule
ayy lmao

>>5904331
God cannot exist, since god is regarded a conscious and immaterial being. Since consciousness is a direct result of processes between material objects, god cannot exist.

>>5904385
>I'm really interested in how today's atheists (atheism+) pick up their morals.

Same way every conscious mammal does

>>5901880
>not understanding modern theology

As if that's even possible when modern theology is little more than a semantics bullshit bingo

>>5902340
>You just chose not to follow reason and go with what feels good to you
choosing what feels good to you
>not some kind of reason

ok

>>5905699

Feelings and intuition have a very specific function, one that is only useful in day to day situations, mostly social situations. On the other hand, that function is stunningly useless when it comes to describing complex processes in reality

>>5905699
You are replying to a rebuttal smartass

>>5901880
>new atheism is often thinly veiled racism or islamophobia

This is completely bullshit. Please enlighten us as to how criticizing a religion is ever racism?

>>5900133
Ya'll should read up on Quantum Physics.

>>5902340
Man's reason has limits.

>>5905794
>bringing up quantum physics in a religious conversation

I thought we got rid of all of your type.

>>5905798

And your point is...?

>>5905802
>implying there aren't parallels between religion and quantum physics

>>5905819

There aren't

>>5905821
Ok then.

>>5900554
Theres plenty of counter-examples to the point that religion causes wars (such as the world wars)

>>5905821
Some food for thought: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/894003

>>5905805
If man's reason has limits, man's reason cannot be relied upon as the ultimate arbiter of truth (since there will forever be truths inaccessible to man's reason). This isn't a rejection of reason, just an acknowledgment of its limits.

Hence, certain matters can only ever be matters of faith and never matters of reason. The existence of God is one of those matters.

>>5905875

>Thoughts = energy
>Energy = matter
>Thoughts = matter
>therefore God dun did it

Great logic

>>5905877
>If man's reason has limits, man's reason cannot be relied upon as the ultimate arbiter of truth (since there will forever be truths inaccessible to man's reason).

It isn't. Fallibility is one of the core principles of science

>Hence, certain matters can only ever be matters of faith and never matters of reason. The existence of God is one of those matters.
>can only ever be matters of faith
>and never matters of reason

Both absolute statements that require justification

>>5902258
Realizing problems of reductionism in science. Theres always a point where, if you take a purely materialistic viewpoint, youll have to be an eliminivist. Its a rather obvious fact that beliefs exist, but how are beliefs reducible to the physical? If two people share the same belief, will an analysis of their brain reflect it? We have no evidence of that, yet we frequently speak of shared-beliefs as an accepted fact (for example, you differentiate between theists and anti-theists). Furthermore, some religions hold for a belief in the unseen to be a fundamental part of reality, which isnt too contentious if you take "unseen" to mean whatever is ultimately beyond our potential for empirical study.

>>5905886
If that's what you extrapolated, the. The problem lies with your logic

>>5905896
>Furthermore, some religions hold for a belief in the unseen to be a fundamental part of reality, which isnt too contentious if you take "unseen" to mean whatever is ultimately beyond our potential for empirical study.

Again, how do they know it is 'ultimately' beyond empirical study? Radioactivity was once beyond empirical study, and we still eventually figured out that it's partially the reason why the sun shines. Why not simply say 'I don't know', instead of assuming that some god did it for no good reason?

>>5905908

Then explain how you get from quantum physics to 'the universe was made a conscious entity who wrote a book telling you how you should live your life'

>>5905912
I'm not trying to say that quantum physics can be used to explain God, more that it can explain how the human interpretation of the world (as seen in religion) has come about

>>5905933

That's not what you first said. You said there were parallels between religion and quantum physics

>>5905910
I chose to use the word 'ultimate' because I believe that one ought to be a realist concerning physical phenomena. If something is observable, then theres likely an observable reason for it. I admit that theres an issue with my stance, in the sense that I have no "reason" to believe in the unobserved. I guess it just comes down to intuition. We intuitively believe in a lot of things that we can't (at present) reduce. Im going a few steps further, and be a bit pessimistic in saying that theres some facts that well never uncover, or even sniff. Now that I think about it, this is pure conjecture, but I think that its something that a lot of people would confess about feeling

>>5905948
Apologies for not making myself clearer. It just interests me when you delve into the realm of quantum entanglement and the ideas surrounding time and choice.

only 8% of wars are caused by religion. if islam is responsible for the terrorist groups, they're also responsible for the other 99% of peaceful muslims.

i mean, most wars are just little disputes about the plutocrats' property fought by their little workers

>>5905977
>>5905910
Sorry, reread your post and realized I did not answer the second part of your question.

Im not going to anthropomorphize God and give him 'reasons'. Im assuming that, as a sentient being, he far outstrips me in terms of how Im able to understand him. Furthermore, Im not ever very ready to say that God does things. I think of the world as a thing hes created, but whose happenings he doesnt interfere with much. Were like sea-monkeys, basically, except he steps in to tell us when were being retarded and doomed to failure.

So I will say 'I dont know,' and go on to say 'but Im sure that it makes perfect sense to someone who understands it'.

>>5906004
This. Religion is frequently used as a masking agent to disguise wars for profit and control, as has always been the case.

I would argue that the "religion causes wars" people (like Bill Maher) are sort of useful idiots to the people in power.

>>5906016
If you look closely, you can see him anthropomorphizing God.

>>5902065
>pretty meaningless
This feeling only comes from the hole religion has left. Higher meaning is fallacy and anti-nature

>>5906019
Agree. Hardcore atheists are just apologists for neoliberal wars in the Middle East.

>>5906031
Now, that's unfair.

I believe that you can definitely be a sincere hardcore atheist. Why not? People can be sincere in other beliefs.

But it really makes me uncomfortable to see people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens taking their atheism, which has made them sort of guiding lights, and using it to essentially become cheerleaders for US foreign policy. I've always believed that if your religion (or lack thereof) aligns too closely with the dominant power's wishes, you're doing something wrong.

>>5906031
I mean, Hitchens did support the wars in the middle-east simply because it killed Muslims. However, I actually believe he was deluded enough to believe that stopping militant Islam was the Unite States' main purpose. Fuckin' neoliberals.

Let us all return to a primitive lifestyle of nomadic egalitarianism and worship whatever idols we so desire, regardless of the epistemology of the whole damned thing.

>>5906003
The way that I see it is that every organism exhibits behaviours. They differ in degrees of consciousness, for example a protozoan bacteria engaging in feeding behaviour differs from a toger engaging in feeding behaviour, in the sense that the tiger can think of numerous alternatives to its actions, whereas the bacteria cannot. As humans, were even better than the tiger, to the extent that we are sometimes willing to not act upon our desires. Because we have brains that allow us to think abstractly, we can think along numerous directions, too. However, there's only so much that our brains can comprehend. To a higher being, we must certainly resemble the distance between us and them as akin to the difference between us and the tiger. However, like the tiger, were not bound towards their will. To transcend our human limits, and to act according to our highest potential, is a choice we make. Its a choice to purge our shittiness and to act according to what we think is best. Sadly, theres no wide-spread religious movement preaching this, but it is preached in other ways. In my opinion, to refine ourselves is to exercise submission to God, in the sense that it involves trying to act better than we think that we are.

>>5906043
Interesting. I thought about this a lot while reading VALIS (Phillip K Dick) when he talks about how there could be beings of a higher nature living within our planet, capable of fooling us through mimicry.

>>5904385
Okay theist, answer me this.
God is the creator of everything, as is all knowing. When god tells us how to live, is he telling us how a just human being is according to ultimate truth, god being the key to that because he is all knowing? Or, did god create morals?
Philosophically, the latter is impossible. Morality goes into philosophical ideas like plato's forms or things in themselves; so to speak, true morality is truth, and truth isn't created - truth isn't a tangible thing.
Thus, it has to be the former. Now, if you take the stance that god simply knows morality, rather than creates it, but atheists have no morality at all, you become an effective nihilist/hedonist, because the only morality for you is getting into heaven.
However, if as a theist you accept grounds for morality as simply existing, and god being a speaker of them, atheists still have a basis for morality.
So really the only reasonable stance is that. One may say that atheists can never know morality like the religious, but only insofar as faith is supposedly valid, a debate for another day.

>>5905679
>consciousness is a direct result of processes between material objects

How?

>>5906254
Physics

>>5906600
Oh of course

>>5906254
>>5906608
Your brain consists of matter. If some part of the brain is damaged, you will experience changes in your cognition.

Since all consciousness is a result of chemical reactions occurring between matter (synapses, electrical impulses and hormones interacting). There is no reason to believe consciousness or anything for that matter can exist outside of...
matter.

>>5906680

None of this explains HOW consciousness issues "directly" from "processes between material objects."

But you probably knew that when you posted it.

>>5906886
Of course neuroscience is a young science and brain is astoundingly complicated organ.

In principal we know however that it is pretty much billions of organic logic gates, that react and morph based on the environment.

Think of brain as of an organic computer so complicated that it is capable of running an AI program. No matter how advanced you need a medium for storing (eg. hippocampus) and manipulating data. Those are the basic properties of a consciousness.

>>5906680
>Since all consciousness is a result of chemical reactions occurring between matter (synapses, electrical impulses and hormones interacting). There is no reason to believe consciousness or anything for that matter can exist outside of...matter.

Naive materialists are best materialists.

Someone call a Wittgensteinian to mend these sophomoric conceptual confusions.

>>5906680

matter is only the vehicle for essence, where it is compossible. obviously where the matter is lost or distorted the essence will suffer even greater privation than is usually felt in this world.

>>5907023
>Of course neuroscience is a young science and brain is astoundingly complicated organ.

And yet here you are talking about the 'nature of consciousness' as if the matter had been settled ages ago.

>2015
>still discuss atheism and Christianity like it's the only opposite thing to atheism.
Guys all religions in earth are not true, it's a fact now.
Please read books and stop being selfish and thinking everything happens for a reason.

>>5907330
/lit/ is slowly coming to the light of Hellenismos

>>5906036
Too bad Sam Harris opposed all intervention in Iraq. You're delusional if you think all "New Atheists" like american foreign policy

>>5901880
holy shit you're such a fucking disgusting subhuman faggot piece of shit

>>5905679
You just used reason.....

Also that's unfounded, consciousness itself is not quantifiable, even if it resulted from material objects it is not reducible to material objects, if it was then we should be able to make conscious AI.

You also have to show how those material objects necessarily cause consciousness to emerge from them, just the fact that we see consciousness involved with matter ( because we are human beings and we only "see" consciousness insofar as we are conscious, and we are semi-material beings) does not mean that consciousness and matter arising together is necessary as opposed to contingent. The fact that matter can be totally unconscious or have consciousness interacting with it shows that the union is not necessary, but only contingent. You have to account for how consciousness emerges from these material processes, and what is it that can only be found in these material processes which excludes something immaterial from giving rise to consciousness.

>>5905910

If something doesn't have empirical properties we cannot study it empirically.

If you claim from the outset that only that which is empirically verifiable can be said to be real, it would be begging the question to try to prove this through empirical means, since empirical means will always result in empirical results. Hence we need a means to judge that statement beyond empiricism, and a means by which we can judge empiricism, so there are methods of judgement that supersedes empiricism. Due to this, some things are not empirically grounded or able to be studied or justified by empiricism and the statement is false.

The best work to look at is the 17th century, questions about why we have the physical laws we do instead of other ones?, how to explain causation?, and the like. Often these questions get explained by God not because: "we don't know, must be God", but because an all powerful, conscious being who wills things to be tends to fill the holes and makes the most sense as a hypothetical entity.

In Philosophical work on causation activity theory is still a contender, people don't like it- but entailment theory and regularity theory aren't getting us anywhere. A will can decide between two possible results or that one event results in another, where if things work as mechanical causes with no will involved then everything that is an effect must have been fully present in potentiality in it's cause, or else it could not have happened.

When coming to a crossroads you either need the path to be determined causally by other things so that it goes one way or another( or else it would not go either way), or you need a will who can select between the two paths. If the world is like the former then everything is determined from it's onset because all instances of causation are present in the first moment in potentiality ( human will can perhaps alter things a bit if it is not causally determined)- and yet we can scarcely understand why it is that our physical laws work the way they do, we only ever see that A results in B because in general things like A result in things like B, we do not see necessary entailment in the causation of things in the world, so there should be no reason for us to have such consistency. If a will is involved then we can understand why causation is never logically necessary but is consistent, because a will forces causes and effects and keeps them consistent.

1/2

>>5906207

>God is the creator of everything, as is all knowing. When god tells us how to live, is he telling us how a just human being is according to ultimate truth, god being the key to that because he is all knowing? Or, did god create morals?

God's essence is ultimate goodness itself. God may have inspired ethics that allow human beings to act in a way closer to God's essence and therefore improve themselves.

>Philosophically, the latter is impossible. Morality goes into philosophical ideas like plato's forms or things in themselves; so to speak, true morality is truth, and truth isn't created - truth isn't a tangible thing.Thus, it has to be the former. Now, if you take the stance that god simply knows morality, rather than creates it, but atheists have no morality at all, you become an effective nihilist/hedonist, because the only morality for you is getting into heaven.


Epistemically “truth” is : I propose x and x obtains, if we are talking about “TheTruth”= reality, the object of the epistemic operation, then Truth is that which is most real.

Material reality is constantly shifting, if I give an identity statement : material object is x , it will always be incomplete because all material things are transitory and change over time, and the limits of were a material object begins and ends is not objective, it is constructed by us in the way we experience the degree that particles hold together under certain amounts of force.

No material object could possibly satisfy the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, that : If X=Y, then all properties of X and all properties of Y are identical, and all parts of x and all parts of y are identical”, the single removal of an atom is enough to ruin the identification. Further more we ought to take mind of the Ship of Theses: if two ships change one part with each other a day until they have exchanged all parts: then at what point did each ship stop being itself? When did they become themselves again, etc ? Outside of I.O.I every other account is arbitrary if we only account for individual parts, something non-empirical is required to ground identity,

Forms of virtues are that which material things or empirical situations involving them, mixed with the will of conscious beings- embody or resemble in a way. Every time a being in an empirical situation is “courageous” they take part in the ideal virtue of courage, for all these instances to be “courageous” then there has to be an objective standard that they all obtain to, if there is no objective standard then the definition of courage can shift and there is no reason why something cowardly could not be called courageous, because the category would not be based on real thing, but on a human construction.

>>5907397
2/2

Atheists have an unacceptable account of objective morality, because without objective forms of virtues, categories like “courageous” are just mental constructs. To explain each virtue, we need to account for what makes them a virtue, so virtue or goodness itself is required- goodness as a being must take part in universal being itself so to qualify as being a being, God is universal being and all the virtues and qualities are derived from him. Hence when you say that courage exists but God does not you are left only with a human construct, instead of an objective virtue.

If morals are like the forms then they are virtues (the things that the Forms were first meant to explain) so courage, benevolence, ect, are all objective things that people take part in when they do right action. The more people embody the virtues ( which are aspects of God) the more moral they are because they become like God.

True morality is the object of truth, God and his virtues, the epistemic operation has no being, but it is only an operation used to reach the moral- which does have being, it is not morality itself.

Before you ask about evil ( are'nt evil qualities forms in God as well ?) No, evil is only the privation of good. Evil is simply that which has less reality and is lacking in a place where something more should be there, hence humans are evil for raping because it is less godlike and more animal like and it goes against our real supernatural nature, where animals are not evil for raping because they are meant to be on that level.

>However, if as a theist you accept grounds for morality as simply existing, and god being a speaker of them, atheists still have a basis for morality.
So really the only reasonable stance is that. One may say that atheists can never know morality like the religious, but only insofar as faith is supposedly valid, a debate for another day.

Atheists can be moral, no one would deny that. But atheistic morality( if it is objective) is irrational and incomplete and requires supplementation.

>>5907406
Good points, the way I think about it is like this
Through some basic theological calculation, God's first few properties can be discerned.
I ask myself 'what characteristics would be required for there to be God?' and the answer is infinity. God would have to be infinite, or else all of his major properties would be impossible — omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are impossible without infinity.
Then I ask, 'what did God do with his infiniteness?'. Love. He chose love, and this answer can be seen everywhere in the universe, as growth — wanting to flourish, wanting to exist, to expand, that is love.
So now I can translate God's first properties into my own morals. Through my questioning, I can clearly see that the highest virtue is love. That is how I should act.

The atheist has no moral relativity, no model. To say that there is atheistic morality is to accept that the self is the pinnacle of existence, and that the self is somehow virtuous by only consulting its self. I don't believe in Satan, but that kind of thought is very very similar to Satanism.

>>5907406
> Atheists have an unacceptable account of objective morality, because without objective forms of virtues, categories like “courageous” are just mental constructs. To explain each virtue, we need to account for what makes them a virtue, so virtue or goodness itself is required- goodness as a being must take part in universal being itself so to qualify as being a being
You could always accept that objective "courage" or "goodness" exists without deriving it from God. Or, of course, you can not like Plato and define "good" some other way than "that which partakes in the 'good.'" Either way, I disagree with you, in that I don't believe it is any more arbitrary than deriving it from God. You have to accept something without logical grounding ("on faith") in order to derive anything, of course (otherwise Baron Munchausen comes and eats you, children). Given that, it doesn't seem to me to make an enormous difference on the "validity" of your morals whether you accept morals themselves or an entity with the ability to decide morals in this way.


Also, are you that guy I was talking to in the thread yesterday about contradictions and God transcending logic?

>>5908274

Why do you assume that I accept God on Faith alone?, or that one can only come to supporting the idea of God on Faith ? The platonic account I just gave logically requires a God for it to work ( God is universal being it'self). I personally find the existence of a Theistic God to be the most rational ontological account of the universe as far as our knowledge of it goes, while employing the least diverse means. I'm not going to give my full account of why I think God is neccesary, because that is extremely long, but I did highlight a part of it in this post >>5907390

On the other part I doubt it, I'm a pretty staunch Neoplatonist/ 17th Century Rationalist for the most part - though I do dabble in some German Idealism, Buddhism and Asian thought like Nishida, he did believe that God's essence( and the essence of the world and existence was actually based on contradiction) - I'm also quite willing to admit that Buddhist views of causality and the logic employed in eastern religion is fairly incommensurable with my views and extremely dangerous to them so the idea that God transcends western logic may be correct, it's not the way I personally tackle the problem, and I'm not sure how to argue between the two positions coherently.

What is a rational meta-ethical position that is athesitic and also involves moral realism?- I see no problem with atheists embracing a non realist position, many have done a great job of that.

>>5907969

This is nice because it explains the "why" part of existence as well, parts of God's infinitude requires infinite love- love requires other beings hence creation is a result of God's power in a very necessary sense.

Of course then we must ask " then does God lack the power to not create?" - but a negation is not a power, like to ask if God can negate his power and make a stone he cannot lift. If he cannot in both cases all we are saying is that God's power is so unlimited that nothing can infringe upon on it, not even the most powerfull thing in the universe ( it'self).

The best atheistic attempt I have seen was Richard Hare, used the logico-linguistic features of moral language to ground what we can and cannot sensibly hold as a moral principle. But it also admits that at the end of the day two contradictory moral principles can be equally acceptable, we can just be sure that people stay consistent with their root principles.

>>5900558
direct quote from Schopenhauer ackshually

>>5901485
but remember even Kierk couldn't go full Kierk.

like two guys ever went full Kierk and they're not even real

>>5908415

>Of course then we must ask " then does God lack the power to not create?" - but a negation is not a power, like to ask if God can negate his power and make a stone he cannot lift. If he cannot in both cases all we are saying is that God's power is so unlimited that nothing can infringe upon on it, not even the most powerfull thing in the universe ( it'self).

Exactly right. And I think an interesting question is 'how can growth (love) be possible if infinity is the starting point?' I think the answer may simply be that God cannot even be confined by limitlessness. He is powerful enough to create a stone too heavy to lift, but he could still lift it anyway.

Now the big question is WHY is God growing? The universe has teleology, but does God have it, as a stable being?

>>5908392
> Why do you assume that I accept God on Faith alone?
I put "on faith" in quotes and parentheses because it isn't exactly what I meant but seemed useful for clarification, but it seems to me that the assumption of an ordering form does not differ significantly from the assumption of objective good. On the one hand, you have "Good is objective" and on the other, you have "Good is objective because it partakes in universal being, as all things must." The first is irrational, because if I ask "why is Good objective?" the only answer contained in that "theory" would be "Because it is," but "Why does objectivity follow from universal being?" would get a similar answer from the second - "Because it does." And if you say, "But no, I could answer that question!" then assume that I just keep asking "But why?" like a five-year-old ad nauseum et infinitum. Eventually, you would have to say "Because, that's why." We may have our own reasons for designating a certain thing as transcendental, but that thing can never justify its own transcendentalism, so it always comes down to fiat.

> On the other part I doubt it
Oh, you'd probably know if you were. I was just wondering, because they also brought up identity theory briefly, and it seemed odd to encounter two Christ-/lit/-anons with such a specific interest in two days.

a good thing to do is read vonnegut again instead of new atheist garbage

namaste

epic tipping on facebook today

>>5908644

Ok, I think I understand what you mean. Ultimately unreason baptises reason and what ever first principle we are compelled to start from. The way reason works is that one clarifies why their position should be accepted due to one being able to derive a truth that both members of a debate believe. But you can continue to deny each reason I give until there is nothing left, so ultimately we could just be left with incommensurable viewpoints due to having contrary first principles. Is that what you are getting at ?

If so that is certainly true, but it wouldn't discredit my stance, or yours- it just shows that epistemically we have no way of communicating with one another, we would be in separate intellectual universes. You could use that argument against any other theory.

The theory I gave about Platonic Morality was derived from the assumption of the objectivity of morals, I mentioned earlier that I think that atheists have no problem creating decent moral theories that do not claim to have objective validity.

Through that kind of continual deference though we do have the capacity to shake each other up, if I can point out why my theory is required for something that you also believe and is a part of an opposing claim you've made, then I could show that you were being inconsistent, and you could do the same to me.

>>5908685

lol, thats just bad. Most of the scientists who made that medical care possible were Scientists and Christsians.

For fuck's sake, modern science is based on theologically influenced metaphysical stances- most of the main contributers to the scientific revolution were insanely pious.

>>5908737

that's just because everyone used to be christian. soldiers, scientists, artists, farmers, prostitutes. I'd bet many modern scientists are pretty disgusted by religion

>>5908685

That medical care rebuttal is a fair point.

>>5908685
>science and religion are mutually exclusive
It's like they don't think things through and see the world in black and white

>>5908787
>>science and religion are mutually exclusive

what a sample of village atheist vulgaris

None of you guys are legitimate christians right?

>>5908793
>didn't know what village atheist was
>look it up
Pretty good, is Edgar Lee Masters worth reading?

>>5900654
So if I were to just make up a new religion right now, this new religion would be inspired by God merely because I am referring to it using the word "religion"?

I think you are underestimating the scale of the disagreements between different religions.

>>5900730
"New atheism" is just a buzzword the media made up to scare religious people into thinking that atheists are taking over.
"New atheists" don't actually refer to themselves as such.

>>5901503
>those have all already been fixed by philosophers who subscribe to actual religions of worth.

Go on...

>>5908754

No you don't get it, there were theological assumptions that had us transition from having tons of metaphysical entities all over the place in our description of the natural world-, to basing everything on empirical instances of motion and matter. It was grounded on theological ideas that God being omnipotent would need no intermediaries in his design, that having all those Aristotelian metaphysical entities was a kind of intellectual paganism, and that due to his perfection God would pull off all the diverse operations of the worlds with the simplest and least diverse means- hence people start looking at the natural world through empirical instances of motion and matter and their regularities that were willed by God ( the "laws" of nature) instead of attributing things to substantial forms, weird pansypchichistic properties, vegetative souls, etc. From this we have the metaphysical basis of our Scientific Revolution in the 17th century.

Seriously, give Robert Boyle's works a read some time.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/boyle.html

>>5904016
Jillette is one of those people to whom I can listen to speak for hours, even though I disagree with a lot of what he sais. He's just so God damn sincere about his beliefs, that you can't help but love him.

>>5908802

Of course they are. /lit/ is filled with average, boring people. Religion is their way to revolt against the inherently elitist way of thinking that is science and philosophy. /lit/ can't handle the fact that only the best is accepted in science and philosophy, so religion is used to deny science and philosophy altogether.

It's a classic revolt of the cattle. /lit/ needs someone to tell them how the universe ought to function, and that someone is a priest

>>5904385
>equating modern day atheists with the atheism+ people.

That's like saying that all modern day religious people are jihadis

>>5908860

>>5908732
I agree with basically everything you're saying here, and I don't mean to discredit your moral stance. I'm only disputing your claim about objective, atheistic morality being irrational by pointing out that the justification it seems to lack (as to WHY it's objective) isn't really present in any other theory, either.

>>5904385
>equating modern day atheists with the atheism+ people.

That's like saying that all modern day religious people are jihadis.

>>5900133

So who here in this thread has done LSD, DMT, or Ayahuasca?

>>5908863

It's objective insofar as I can identify the source of morality with something which has being, aka God. To be moral is took take part in virtues- which are aspects of God- who in this theory has being because he is universal being. If the existence of God holds ( which is a different proof) then the existence of the virtues hold, and hence we have something objective which we can base our morality on. Being "Good" has a solid, unshakable definition ( because the forms do not change like material objects do), and insofar as you take part in them more than your neighbor does, you are objectively being more moral than he is.

If an atheist is a naturalist they have to show what objective morality would look like in their theory. How do you objectively claim that one man is "good" where the other is not ? I spent years trying to do it and I got no where personally, and the current canon of Meta-Ethical literature in the Anglosphere is in the same state.

>>5900382
>Hereditary tradition
cool oxymoron

>>5908891
>How do you objectively claim that one man is "good" where the other is not ? I spent years trying to do it and I got no where personally, and the current canon of Meta-Ethical literature in the Anglosphere is in the same state.
Well, I don't honestly believe you can - I'm personally in a state where I cursorily acknowledge the arbitrariness of morality but just don't bother with it because it's a totally un-constructive piece of information - but I'm not really persuaded by the anchoring of values in God, either. An atheist could, in theory, adhere to the exact same morals as any Christian and just say that those were the way morals were, instead of saying that they were mandated and/or revealed by God, and I don't think it would be much less subjective, except that the Christian would have a generally-accepted text to appeal to in conversations with like-minded folk.

>>5908914

It is' significantly more subjective, because the atheist has to identify the nature of what those morals properties are and how they can be accounted for in their naturalistic worldview. The Christian Platonist can say " Alright I can account for morality as being taking part in these objectively existing things, thus we have an objective standard to judge by that is not subject to our whims", but "courage" does not exist in a naturalistic worldview beyond a human evaluation of certain events which he arbitrarily calls courageous, there is no objective point to compare different acts and determine which ones are more courageous than others.

You can have a definition like : Most humans are wired to support this kind of behavior as being "moral" , which results from a state in the brain. Insofar as you correspond to a normal human in your moral cognition you are being moral. In the naturalistic case our morality still comes from something inside us, it is the convention of our own programming, God's morality in comparison holds regardless of which actors are involved. No one can give you an unescapable reason to act according to either sets of standards.

You could be a non naturalistic atheist and claim that there are objective virtues, and a form of universal being, but that universal being is not God, has no will, ect. This is just intuitionism more or less, which was huge in the 20th century. But with intuitionism we have to account for how supernatural entities emerge from natural situations and peoples, or if they don't, what makes them supervene over the situations that they do supervene over and the way they do.

>>5908890
>being this much of a pleb

>>5908973
>implying
I bet you think rationalism is infallible

>>5908971

>God's morality in comparison holds regardless of which actors are involved. No one can give you an unescapable reason to act according to either sets of standards.

Just to supplement these last two lines. I'm saying that one can deny that they should be moral in both cases ( irrationally in the case of God's morality because of his omnipotence and the potential for punishment, but nothing is contradictory in doing so), but in the atheistic case the morality is just a function of human beings and what they typically do. God's morality is external to all beings other than himself- so it still has a broader scope.

>>5908979
No rationalism is unfalsifiable. Only the Scientific method is infallible.

>>5908986

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science

>>5908990
Unfalsifiable garbage.

I chose to believe that's how most atheists thinks

>>5909000

Kill thyself

>>5908973
kek
e
k

>>5908990

>criticisms of science
>all done by postmodern hacks who've never produced anything of value
>and feminists

Way to debunk your own point

>>5909007

>hasn't read feyerabend

>>5909008

I read Fashionable Nonsense, that's all you need to read on him

why do these antitheists talk about god as much, if not more, than christians?

if their position was the falsity of the physical reality and even concept of god, why would they even acknowledge it?

i know that werewolves arent real. i dont go around saying, "werewolves arent real guys, seriously," even to people who vehemently believe that they are real, or that they themselves are even werewolves. werewolves matter so little to me that i dont even think about them unless they come up in a work of fiction (or bad analogies that i make), and even then, i know they dont exist. i dont think that or believe that, i KNOW that.

>>5909016
Popper appears in Fashionable Nonsense? I haven't read it but it has been on my to-read list for a long time. As far as I read Popper, his points make mostly sense (sometimes only from a 1950s standpoint)

I don't really see Popper as a "postmodernist" who just waffles on endlessly about nothing

>>5909060
furthering this thought, some portion of their personal identities are based on the concept of god, whether they are refuting it or not. they would cease to be who they are without the concept of god. the books they write, the discussions they have, the protest they march in, the petitions they sign, would all be for nothing if mankind didnt have the concept of god.

>>5909060
>>5909070

because they're position is almost always an emotional one based on some event or sequence of events in their past that led them to hate God. i vaguely remember a study where 80% of participants, atheists, were found to held their beliefs based on emotional reasoning. when i was an atheist i know that that is why i disbelieved, it was an emotional reaction driven by my own ignorance as a child.

>>5909060
Why do doctors talk about viruses and disease as much, if not more, than people who like disease?

>>5909016
>Fashionable Nonsense
lol

>>5909327
>I'm an atheist, we are the doctors of the mind!

this wins the "most deluded post" award

>>5909330
>projecting

Who even said atheism is like being a doctor of the mind? The point which you fail to miss is that people like to talk about problems and how to fix them.

Let me give you another example since apparently that was to deep for you. Why do exterminators like to talk about insects?

>>5900133
the answer to your question is, "apparently not, if this shitty thread is anything to go by"

Atheists and Theists are stupid. I'm so much superior to both.

Question for atheists

When the universe began, the very instant it came into existence, what was it?
Were there 'limits' of the universe when it began?
If laws were created, how is it possible for God not to exist?
If the universe is infinite, how could God not exist? And if the universe is finite - why?

>>5909060

If christianity was still some obscure cult I wouldn't worry about it but christians have a tight grip on political power and their irrational beliefs affect everyone eg women in missouri may soon need a man's permission to undergo a legal medical procedure

>>5908848

that is some kind of reverse genetic fallacy

nylon and blood transfusions were invented because of and during war that should not be a compliment to war

I just don't get you fags. There's thousands of religions and cults in the world. there's only a small chance you picked the right one - you are statistically likely to end up in some pagan hell

It's just stupid. Fags only believe in this crap because:

a)they were indoctrinated into it by their parents

b)they are scared of dying and not going to heaven or have some other intellectual feebleness

c)mentally ill

d)forced to by society

nobody smart would fall for this bullshit

>>5912855
I'm not that guy but

>a)they were indoctrinated into it by their parents
Nobody in my family is religious, they are all atheists.
>b)they are scared of dying and not going to heaven or have some other intellectual feebleness
You don't know that, and I'm not.
>c)mentally ill
I have never been diagnosed with a mental disorder. I am emotionally and mentally stable.
>d)forced to by society
I live in Australia, 22.3% of people are non-religious. I'd say around 90% of my friends do not believe in God.

Give up. I was an atheist for the majority of my life, and I am now a theist. I simply found enough evidence to support the existence of God.
By the way, I believe that all religions are just different understandings of the same God, nobody is going to hell. Every single person on Earth worships God, they just don't know it.

I'll see you in heaven, brother.

>>5912855
You misunderstand religion.
Your opinions about abortion are clearly bad if you don't think it makes sense for the father to be involved in the decision.

>>5911421
>When the universe began, the very instant it came into existence, what was it?
>Were there 'limits' of the universe when it began?
Scientists are working to figure that out.

>If laws were created, how is it possible for God not to exist?
I'm actually really interested in this question. It's kinda similar to 'was mathematics created or discovered?' So if it was created mathematics (and physics by extension) are just a ways for us to try and explain how the universe works. If there were absolute mathematical truths you could probably use it as a justification of a creator but as far as we can reason mathematics is just a way to explain, not conclude indefinitely.

>If the universe is infinite, how could God not exist? And if the universe is finite - why?
Not necessarily and the infinite universe concept is bound by the expansion of space time, there are no technical limits. Therefore a figure we might equate to being 'god-like' probably exists, but an absolute power? Impossible to prove or disprove.

bump :^)

>>5913076

giving birth is a lot more difficult for the woman than the man

there's also no guarantee that Johnny Chad is going to stick around while the woman is stuck with the child for 18 years

if childbirth was equally painful and dangerous for the man as it is for the woman I'd understand but it's not the case.

>>5913005

Do you know how boring christian heaven is? All you do is sit around basking in god's glory. You don't get to see your dead relatives, you don't get to sleep or rest, you don't get a pool table, all you do is pray. Screw that.

>>5915216
There's more to it than pain and danger. There's the fact that the child is the child of two parents, not just the mother, and the fact that life is inherently valuable. If a man wants his child to be born, why is that less important than a woman's desire for an abortion?

>>5915235
Explain how life in inherently 'valuable'? The value of anything is relative therefore nothing can be objectively 'of value.'

>>5900214
Yo same

>>5915216
There's also no guarantee that the woman is going to stick around after the birth either. You never answered why a man is not as important as a woman in abortion. You just gave disconnected ideas on why you think women are better than men.

>>5915242
God exists and has placed a particular value on life. All values are relative only to the absolute goodness of God and the value He has placed on His creation.
I'm completely serious.

>>5915216

>Do you know how boring christian heaven is?
You do not understand God. I'm sorry but if you're going to criticize religion you need to broaden your research.

Heaven is where we live. Our life on Earth is temporary, whereas our life in heaven has always been, and always will be. When you die, you will not only meet your deceased loved ones, but friends of yours that you have only known in heaven. In fact, your best friend is probably not even on Earth right now.
God loves you a lot. You will go to heaven, but you will regret your disbelief. Just make sure you live with lots of love and growth.

>>5915739
>You will go to heaven, but you will regret your disbelief.

repentance is impossible after the death, it's a universal christian belief since the early church fathers

>For, just as there is no repentance for men after their death, so is there none for the angels after their fall
^ st. john of damascus

dante even mentions one person, emperor trajan, who was revived by god to repent and then died again to get into the heaven

>For one from Hell, where no one e'er turns back
>Unto good will, returned unto his bones,
>And that of living hope was the reward

swedengborg even tried to explain the metaphysics why it is so

so you won't go to heaven if you don't believe, unless briefly so you can suffer in the hell more later remembering the hell

>>5915451
Show me proof of god.

>>5915908
do your own fucking research. it's not hard to find a logical argument for a god. I'll give a few because you're lazy:

-kalam cosmological argument
>ontological argument (not the original one, it's been btfo many times, look for something less outdated)
>epistemology argument
>teleological argument
>argument from morality

and so fourth

>>5915903
you can't repent after death, no. but I following Christian doctrine only is myopic, if you want to speak with philosophical accuracy. I think any good Christian should look to philosophical theism for objective truth before any emotion support the scriptures would supply. It's commonly agreed upon, among the theistic philosophy academic scene, that one repented sin isn't worthy of hell. It's more so if a person in the right mind consistently acts evilly. Additionally, God, as it is forgiving, would forgive people persons misguided by civil power structures that are often deterministic. I think that God, as it is omniscient, would understand that people who steal are conditioned by capitalism, and have been robbed of the privilege of living in a sustainable culture.

>>5915386

a man is less important than the woman in abortion because the woman has to bear the child for nine months, endure the pain of childbirth, risk dying from complications of childbirth, endure post postpartum depression, morning sickness, etc etc

all the guy does is get laid. that's why it's the woman's choice whether to have a baby or not. If a man wants a baby he has to find a willing woman to bear it. I thought that was pretty clearly implied in my first post, maybe you should work on some reading comprehension instead of just praying and going to church all day.

This politician who introduced the bill doesn't care about men's rights he just wants to reduce women's reproductive autonomy due to his religious superstitions and let's be realistic, probably some misogyny (all too common in american heartland christfags)

>>5915235

>the child is the child of two parents

it's only a child once it's born, no one should be held hostage by some unthinking little fetus

>fact that life is inherently valuable
>fact

that's an opinion not a fact

google "Biafran Children" or "Rape of Bangladesh"

>>5916263
>religious superstitions
Human life beginning at conception is a scientific fact. The only superstition here is that the baby doesn't deserve legal rights until the mother moon touches its brow with her magic light or whatever shit you retard feminists push to justify baby killing.

>>5916021
"And God said, Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness"
'Our' is plural, God is 'we'. Everything is God. We are God. There is no damnation.

>>5909060
>i know that werewolves arent real. i dont go around saying, "werewolves arent real guys, seriously,"

I have to remind some of my occultism obsessed friends frequently that ghosts and psychic powers aren't real. Needless to say, they think i'm a shit for it.

>>5916335

well maybe it is alive. doesn't change anything. if christians are so concerned about life how come they happily tolerate the death penalty but then have a conniption fit when someone aborts a fetus? Why are we supposed to pray for the troops aren't they killing people?

oh right because killing alleged criminals is manly and godly but women wanting to choose whether to have a baby or not is evil feminism

>>5917040
>oh right because killing alleged criminals is manly and godly but women wanting to choose whether to have a baby or not is evil feminism

Err yes exactly. Killing criminals and enemy fighters is just while killing innocent unborn babies is sick. How is this hard for you to understand?

>>5917204

But I thought all life is inherently valuable?

Was the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden just?

I thought the bible says "Thou shalt not kill" I might not have the most up to date translation but I'm pretty sure it's not qualified - it doesn't seem to have any exceptions in a footnote or anything.

By your logic the Nazis were being just at Babi Yar or Auschwitz, after all, they were killing their political enemies!

I don't get you people.

>>5917254
You don't want to get them. It's actually really simple. Do not kill is not the correct translation, it is do not murder.

>>5917254
Also where does he claim or even imply that killing political enemies is ok? I mean when is the last time you read something on Christian beliefs?

Why is it that mankind's saviour had to be born amongst the only people on Earth who'd have him crucified?

>>5917293
Nobody knows for sure. Well outside of carrying all our sins for us and giving life eternal.

>>5917254
The commadment is "Do not muirder". KJV failed there.

Killing happens. Tons of it even inside the Bible itself. Also, we kill animals to survive.

>>5917298
If Christ had given man eternal life he would have deserved being crucified.

>>5917307
And that he did.

>>5917314
Oh please, I know he didn't. You trash deserve the same fate of your false Christ.

>>5901908
'le external concept warrior'

>>5901790
>that have a problem with a religion's morality having a monopoly over the public's morality.
which is to say any other attempt at establishing morals have been superior...