/lit/ - Literature

science books

"Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell. My friend gave me The Case for Christ and I gave her that. She said it seriously messed up her ideas about faith. Case for Christ was just an interesting read for me.

>>674988

thanks!

Accepting two possible terms: The existence of God Vs. The Absence of God.

In the situation of the Absence of God all religions are false and there is no purpose in participating in them, nor to worship an absent God.

In the situation of the presence of God his knowledge and love is all encompassing, God has empathy for all things, and Gods authority over everything and involvement in all things provides that he is aware of you and has empathy for you regardless of your actions, your beliefs or your heritage and God is personally involved in every aspect of your life. That being, all religions which obstruct your direct association with God remain meaningless.

science books + anthropology/sociology stuff.

The Bible.

No one who's actually read it can take religion seriously.

I AIN'T AFRAID OF NO HOST

>>675009
I lol`d uncontrollably.

Have you ever met a 600 year old man?

If you ever did meet a 600 year old man would you rely on him to build the largest wooden sailing vessel ever constructed?

Would you attempt to fit two of every species of land-dwelling creature on earth on any sailing vessel in the world?

>>675001

not that I exactly disagree. but the latter scenario is pre-supposing a certain kind of God.

god doesn't give a shit 'bout this thread 'nuff said

Seconding Bertrand Russell.

>my face when people think you need a guide to become an atheist

>>675035

Some people need convincing.

I realized there wasn't a God younger than 13, on a swingset.

You actually require books?

>>675039

a truly religious person would just call bullshit on everything the book says

>>675025
So much for the argument God is omnibenevolent. One down, two to go...

>>675043
Everyone has different paths. Surely you can understand that.

>>675043
I never thought there was a God. It never occured to me even though I have attended church since I was 3... I never understood that.

>>675002
>>674987

all you need nigga

>>675018

My assumptions are that a deist God is still technically an absent God, and that Omnipotence, Omniscience, and infinite wisdom, thereby rules that an involved non-deist God is inherently just.

this is awesome
La Bible amusante

>>675061
by leo taxil

my teacher told me that there's no god and just one thing called omega point where all energy goes qhen people die because overybody is made of energy.

read about that OP

Science has no bearing upon the argument of God. Anyone who thinks so clearly does not understand Deism or pantheism. Science either explains how the universe works without a deity, or explains how the deity went about its work.

>>675067
it allows you to have an alternative, and far more sensible and intelligent view of this human thing.

>>675067
I like how you think.

>>675067

While Science does not provide an argument against God science does, however, have a bearing against religious Dogma, and literal translations of mythological texts.

>>675067

I will have to agree to disagree there. I can't put my finger on it, but something about that statement reeks of fallacy to me.

>>675058

>Omniscience

If there is an omniscient God, how can you have free will?

>>675067

remember laplace's demon? even science has it's deity

>>675079
You missed your commas and you fucked up your sentence.

>>675086
wat

Hi I am Christian and what is this?

I have actually read Russell's book about 8 years ago. Don't remember much about it anymore but found it an intriguing read even if I had problems with some of his conclusions. I definitely think Atheists need to go the Russell route as opposed to the Dawkins straw man route in framing their arguments.

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent--it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills."

-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love

Plato made me a theist and Christ made me a Christian for the rest of my life.

I don't think you can give something to read that would change that.

>>675082
There is no fallacy. Are you familiar with Kant's separation of noumenal and phenomenal? I completely agree with it. Reason has no place in the theological debate. Belief in a deity rests solely upon faith, anything beyond that is wordplay and arrogance. Some of the world's brightest scientists, including the man who played a significant role in mapping the human genome, are religious.
I'm an atheist, but I'm read up on philosophy, and there were very, very brilliant minds with very convincing and logical arguments for God. The problem is that logic cannot lead you to either conclusion, it will have a completely equal ability to pick apart and poke holes through each position, atheism or theism.

>>675113
Have you read the bible?

>>675126
Parts of it, yes. Like I said only Jesus parts.

God didn't wrote no book, the only bible I know is the universe and reality. That's God legacy, not a book.

>>675085

Maybe I don't have free will. Maybe this universe is nothing but a dream that God is dreaming.

If God is that totally Omniscient, and I don't have free will, then God has the responsibility for my actions, not I.

If God is Omniscient, yet restrains himself from forcing his will upon me then I am responsible for myself.

If there is no God, then there is no will, only a passing illusion of a mind that gazes into the void for a glancing second and then is no more.

>>675116
so, what is your god. noumenal or phenomenal

god is not transcendent and whatnot. it's an ordinary metaphysical object, like an apple or a rock. except people don't have a well formed idea of what it actually is so they give it this transcendence etc crap. it's incoherent, and it doesn't need to be coherent to serve its function in deistic thinking.

>>675131
>God didn't wrote no book
Is it wrong that I pictured God as a gangster black dude right then and there?

>>675131
Read it. All of it. Then consider that this is the series of texts that Jesus believed in and which his followers claim to believe (in spite of the fact that most of them who've read it have really only read "parts of it, yes"), then consider your belief system again. After that, come back and let /lit/ know where you stand on that whole unshakable belief thing you think you got going on.

Click on my link.
http://www.razerzone.com/getimba-share-n-win/uc7fd4v

>>675113
Wow, Plato's arguments convinced you? Plato's cosmological argument is terrible.

>>675134

wow! you made me cry anon

>>675140
Are yoy saying that God equals religion and that religion equals Christians?

My belief system comes from Plato and other philosophers, not the bible. The bible is religion dude. Learn the difference.

>>675144
It's not if you read it carefuly and didn't let your mind wander while doing so.

>>675113

What works of Plato made you become a Theist? Just curious.

>>675147
No "dude", you're laying claim to being a Christian. The Bible is the Christian text. If you don't know what's in it, or if you want to claim it has no bearing on what you believe then you, my boy, are not a Christian. You something else entirely. Now then, you may return to your regularly scheduled head up your ass.

>>675158
*ARE something else

>>675154
reproduce it here and let's see

who won in this thread? just curious

>>675154
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

This is it right? This crap convinced you?

>>675158
I believe in Jesus and his teachings, however I can't hide the fact that religion was perverted after ages.

I don't really feel like reading the old testament at all.

Mein Kampf.

>>675178
But Jesus and his teachings are part of the BIBLE. And Jesus refers to the old testament.

>>675178
Do you accept that Jesus is God born on Earth? That he is the son of God?

>>675182

Yes.

>>675176
Pfft...

Is that all you get into it?

What about the immaterial? What about recollection? What about the indivisible?

>>675178

Jesus never refuted anything in the old testament. You should give it a spin, it's pretty epic.

>>675191
I'm asking about the cosmological argument. That is the cosmological argument.

>>675182
No, and I mean not much more than I am right now. We are all sons of God after all.

The holly trinity is a perversion of modern religion, Isaac Newton said it.

>>675188
Why not the other Messiahs of the time? Jesus probably the most likely? He is the most popular...

Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" haven't aged much.

>>675198
>Isaac Newton said it.
He said that fossils grew out of the earth and couldn't possibly be remnants of living creature, then he went to his basement and tried to convert lead into gold.

I don't think there is any single book that will convince you. But you can Look in to comparative religions since having more than group claiming to have co-exclusive world views and both seem to have the same authority seems to demonstrate that Claiming to know based on any authority is seemly questionable.
Also you can look at books that teach critical thinking, most of them will give you the tools necessary to start to deeply question religious claims.
Then you can start looking at well known Atheist groups, the brights(dot)net is a one such group they should have a pretty good reading list.

J. L. Mackie's The miracle of theism arguments for and against the existence of god

Very very good.

>>675197

Yes I think that's a good argument that can stand by itself. Even if we don't add the rest of thing he said about that matter.

If everything has a cause; it's impossible there isn't a first cause that doesn't have a cause at all.

>>675214

Mackie was a hell of a philosopher and a legendarily good guy. I second this recommendation.

Physics.

Here is a cool video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huYvSvN05mQ&feature=related

>>675208

Also he invented calculus.

The Razor's Edge by Somerset Maugham. It may not make you an atheist, but it'll make you question your faith as Larry concludes that all western religions are misconstrued extensions of the human ego.

>>675067
You have to explain this claim
It seems that If there is any test possible that could in principle prove or disprove the existence of God then Science would seem very relevant Likewise if there is no test possible then that would seem to suggest something as well. Also if science can ever explain everything in such a way that leaves no explanatory room for God then it would also seem very relevant to the debate.

>>675188
Then how can you justify not wanting to read the Old Testament? The Old Testament is the story of God and the history of his behaviour and relationship with people as Jesus understood it. That doesn't make sense to me.

>>675116
If reason has no role to prove or disprove a claim, they how does that claim have any meaning at all.

>>675134
I don't think you are correct.

>>675216
You realize that every professional philosopher reads that and most of them are atheists... it's for a reason.

This guy tries it on the Atheist Experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQbSBAWtw0
Theoreticalbullshit debunks it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU

Fuck man, even the amazingatheist debunked it.. and he's an idiot..

>>675233

The Lord works in mysterious ways, brah. To try and comprehend his plan would be foolish hubris.

>>675241
But to believe in somebody else's imaginary friend just because he said its real would seem very silly.

>>675231
That's not my reply, mine is: >>675198


>>675228
I see you are no familliar with the allegory of the cave, and this one part of your post:

>Also if science can ever explain everything in such a way that leaves no explanatory room for God then it would also seem very relevant to the debate.

Basicaly this says "If there is no god and we can prove it, then we will know it" which is right, but it's also circular logic.

I'm going to have to stop posting here. I left the conversation for a minute to help a negro out, and now I don't know who's talking to whom. Sad, really.

Oh well, going for a London Fog at Waves...

In the meantime, want to create an atheist? Have 'em read the Bible, as I said in my first post.

>>675261

>help a negro

Shame on you.

>>675245

Oh, yeah? Well, YOU seem really silly.

for tha lulz

Whenever the issue of faith and God and all that heavy stuff weighs down on you, Some good advice comes your way from Albert Einstein:

"You can live your life like everything is a miracle. You can live your life like nothing is a miracle."

>>675261
While I'm sure you intended that to be a pithy bit of satire to show everyone how oh-so-clever, the Bible is the reason Western civilization is so heavily Christianized.

>>675252
>Basicaly this says "If there is no god and we can prove it, then we will know it" which is right, but it's also circular logic.
I don't think i'm guilty of circular logic
My claim is just that if X can fully explain Y then why should I consider an explanation for Y that is X and Q

>>675280

>>675237
I couldn't stand this guy

>Theoreticalbullshit debunks it here:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU

Basically first of all he starts showing how butthurt on an atheist he is and then he claims he can disprove god, and he means the christian god. Honestly I stopped there.

I'm, sure he's gonna say something about how can not be moral blah blah. And he probably doesn't now even what good or morals are.


Good ater all is the end of all things, as plato and aristotle showes, god can only create good things.

>>675296

Oh, the spelling.

>>675298

>God can only create good things.
>He supposedly created Man
>my face

>>675282
This is basically just a restatement of Occam's razor. If "X" completely explains "Y" then that is automatically a simpler explanation than "X+Q" to explain "Y"
"X" would represent some Scientific Theory of everything
"Y" would represent everything that exists
"Q" would represent God.

>>675315

>>675315
Also If i want to make a stronger claim
if X then not Y
X
so not Y
this is actually a valid deductive argument. I didn't use it because all scientific theories are always taken as being subject to being replaced if new evidence shows the explanation to be wrong.

>>675296

>> 33 AD

>>675341

i loved that movie!

>>675298
>Basically first of all he starts showing how butthurt on an atheist he is
You know nothing about the man, he is probably the nicest person ever and constantly complements theists and people who disagree with him.

>then he claims he can disprove god, and he means the christian god.
He said he was going to try to by using the kind of logic the cosmological argument does. He realizes that both arguments don't prove anything.

Basically you are a terrible judge of character and won't listen to people who have different ideas.

>>675296
There are many different responses to the problem of evil. None of them is entirely satisfactory alone, but together they do cast doubt on whether the existence of evil disproves the claim that God exists.

The first response to the problem of evil is the free-will defence. Much of the evil in the world occurs only because we choose to create it. The greatest evils in the world are those inflicted by man upon man. In making the world, God faced a choice: he could create free agents like us, or he could create automata, robots, without the ability to make choices of their own. God chose to create free agents, and he made the right choice; a world containing free agents is clearly more valuable than a world of robots. The pay-off for this is the abuse of freedom that we see around us. Free agents sometimes choose to abuse their freedom, to do wrong. The wrong that we do, though, the suffering that we cause, great though it may be, is a price worth paying for something that is profoundly valuable: genuine freedom. Though God could have prevented evil by creating a world of automata, it is a good thing that he did not.

>>675357
The free-will defence is, I believe, a partial success. I believe that it is correct to say that it is better that the world contain agents with significant freedom than that it contains only automata, and I believe that much of the evil that we see around us is a consequence of the abuse of this freedom. Not all evil, however, can be explained in this way. There is much evil that is not inflicted by man. Natural disasters, for example, cause great destruction, but there is nothing that we have done that causes them and there is often nothing that we could have done to prevent them. This brings us to a second response to the problem of evil.
The second response to the problem of evil is that the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain kinds of good. There are a number of character traits that are valuable only if evil exists. Compassion, for instance, is of great value, but can only exist if there is suffering. Bravery, too, is a virtue, but only if we sometimes face danger. Self-sacrifice is another great good, but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some people find themselves in situations where they need help from others. God created us in such a way that we would depend upon one another, that we would be drawn together to form a community. If each of us were self-sufficient, safe from suffering, then the great goods that come from this would not have been possible.
Again, I believe that there is something to this response to the problem of evil, but that it does not resolve the problem entirely. Though it is clear, I think, that much suffering is justified, that the world would be a worse place without it, it is still simple to point to specific examples of suffering that appear to serve no greater purpose. Each of us has tragedies in our lives, and it seems to us as though the world would have been a better place without those instances of suffering.

>>675363
The problem of evil, then, must be recast as the problem of unjustified evil. It is clear, for the reasons described above, that not all evil is unjustified. Some evil is brought into the world not by God but by man, and it is better that free agents and some evil exist than that no free agents and no evil exist. Some evil serves a greater purpose, making it possible to see why God allows it to exist. The existence of evil is therefore not evidence against the existence of God; it is only the existence of unjustified evil, evil that serves no greater purpose, that presents a problem for theism.
This revision of the argument from evil, however, introduces into it a point of weakness: though it is obvious that some evil exists, it is less obvious that any unjustified evil exists; unexplained evil, yes, but unjustified? Every event has unforeseeable consequences; a butterfly flapping its wings on one side the pacific can cause a hurricane to strike on the other, and a single word of encouragement or rebuke can make or break someone’s life. It is impossible for us to know, in our finitude, the full consequences of any given event. It is therefore impossible for us to know, with any degree of certainty, whether any given instance of suffering is unjustified, or whether it serves some greater purpose.

>>675298
>Good ater all is the end of all things, as plato and aristotle showes, god can only create good things.

No they don't. Just because you accept everything on authority with taking any scrutiny.. Have you learned anything from studying philosophy?

>>675367
This points us to a third way of approaching the problem of evil. The problem of evil argues in one direction, from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God: If there were an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God then there wouldn’t be any evil, but there is evil, and there therefore can’t be an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God. Those who believe in God, however, can argue in the opposite direction, from the existence of God to the non-existence of unjustified evil: If there were an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God then there wouldn’t be any unjustified evil, there is an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God, and there therefore cannot be any unjustified evil.
This will not persuade the atheist, but it shows that discussion of the problem of evil at best results in a stalemate. It is impossible to prove that unjustified evil exists, and it is therefore impossible to use the existence of unjustified evil to prove that God does not exist. Those who believe in God can comfort themselves with the thought that all suffering serves a purpose, that, though it may be impossible for us to fathom the mind of God, God works all things to the good.

>>675357
my response to the idea that we are responsible for most evil is: why are there parasites in drinking water that make children go blind?

also, what about Phineas Gage? he was a sober, church going, nice guy until a work accident blew a spike through his skull. it didn't kill him but it damaged his frontal lobe, which we now know is associated with decision making and other traits. the accident changed his personality...he started swearing, stealing, drinking, being cruel to others, all kinds of sins. so where is free will there? why did god allow him to lose his ability to refrain from sin?

>>675370
there therefore cannot be any unjustified evil.

only an innocent child or remorseless sociopath could believe this. let's say that some child getting beaten to death by her parent isn't actually unjustified evil, either because it's justified or because it's part of some master plan. ok, so why did this plan have to include getting her getting raped before the fatal beating? what purpose did the rape mere hours before her death serve?

>>675357
btw I'm not the same poster.
I don't think this is true, and if it was it really only would explain human evil not natural evils like tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, cancer, disease, and so on.
But as for moral evil, surely any being worthy of calling himself God could have created a world where its possible to choose to do evil but it just wouldn't ever happen. He is god, Also how is it even conceptually possible for God to be all knowing and for us to have Freewill.

>>675376


i hate the word sin.

itt middle school kids who say they're atheists for attention.

>>675392

That's a sin, brah.

>>675406


let he without sin cast the first stone amirite bro

what a nice thread

>>675401
When I was in middle school I was a catholic lol.

Sure is "christian" in this thread, what about skihism? geez

Nietzsche.

>>675504
No one asked about ragheads. OP asked about Christians.

Good ol' Christianity!

>>675012

I troll to please y'r likes broski, 'tis AWL GOUD

Let's start defining “good”. To its roots.

What's good for matter, what's valuable for it? Simply, what helps it exists. As long as matter exists, it's good for it.

But matter then rearranges in superior orders and goes so far as humans. And the same principle applies, what's good for a human is what help him keep going with his existence, food is good, a stab in the chest is bad.

But then it goes as far as humanity, good and evil remain, if war helps human to exist it's good, if overpopulation brings humanity down is evil.

And then there’s god and his universe. Do we really know what makes them exists? What's good for the Everything. Do we humans even know that?

Then how can you claim there's evil just because something affects you? If after all, you are part of the universe.

>>675608
>Let's start defining “good”.

Anyone not a member of a visible minority.

>>675623
WHAT

>>675216

I'm confused, it sounds like you're arguing for the existence of a god/cause to start it all, but you just said yourself that nothing can be exist without cause, so there can't be a cause that isn't also an effect.

The only solution is eternity and/or causes that exist independent of what we know as time, which proves nothing. Eithe way you're going to run into an infinity paradox - there's either a universe with no creator that has existed always or was created by some non-sentient time-independent event, or you have a sentient creator that has always existed

>>675315

People put far too much weight into Occam's razor, imo. The simpler explanation is GENERALLY the better one, but that is very different than being always the correct one.

It's a good thing for theories to strive for, but shouldn't really be used to decide between theories over any other way of determining merit.

tl;dr Just because something is nicer doesn't mean it's correct

>>675671

First of all let's define something: universe, with current rules, can't create itself.

Now, with our current rules a cause is required for things to be how they are through time. This is impossible unless something broke the rule and eternity is not possible as it wouldn't explain why things have causes at all.

Then we know something created the universe, something that was DIFFERENT from the universe, ith another rules of everything.

This we can't and I repeat WE CAN'T know, remember the human condition and the Plato's cave allegory.

God if exists is perhaps eternal, but we don't now.

>>675701
>First of all let's define something: universe, with current rules, can't create itself.

Actually, it may have. Ignore Dawkins at the first, he isn't the speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>675701
>This we can't and I repeat WE CAN'T know
Why can't we?

>>675716
Because we don't even know what we are not able to know, better explained in the cave allegory, how can explain to a man that has lived in shadows what the real world is? How can he understand 3 dimentions when his world is only 2?

>>675700
Occam's razor isn't simply that the simplest explanation is the best. It's the explanation with the least unsupported assumptions.

>>675701

If I had a penny for every time somebody says that a logical universe requires a cause to exist, I would probably have about... ten pence I guess. There is no logical reason to assume the universe needs a cause just because it's rules within itself follow causation. Existence does not require a cause. There is also no reason for the universe not to have existed in an infinite regression. All of this stuff about how the universe could be created stem from religious insecurities, they aren't based in reason.

>>675733
>Existence does not require a cause.

So your "scientifical" explainatios is that just poof, things were. I think you are forgottinf the opossite, there could be non existance at all.

Non existance by the way is beyond reasoning, you can't imagine it at all.

Oh and those are not religious argument, they are logical arguments, and still for you, a reason where "There is no logical reason to assume the universe needs a cause" is more logical?

>>675733

Also on the Christian God side, you can simply prove that the universe which affects us is absolutely logical metaphysically, then subject God to the logical problem of evil, or illogical/transcendental Gods to their inability to affect a logical world, thus a human morality.

Camus.

>>675743
He affects it on the beggining. Eternity can't exist within the infinite, but infinity can exist within the eternal.

God can't afect things from the inside, but from the outside, in other words: He can affect all of the universe, but not parts of it.

>>675741
Did you watch the physics video where the physicist explains how the universe came from nothing via quantum flux?

>>675712

>>675741


Missed the point. The universe we understand cannot have come from nothing, or come from something we cannot understand, but then here we are trying to apply constraints within our universe to where they do not apply. There is however no reason that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, with no initial cause. It's just rather peculiar to conceive of.

>>675741
>Non existance by the way is beyond reasoning, you can't imagine it at all.

Who says? Just you wait. The physicists are hard at work, the math is coming together. Don't tell me your crap about Plato either, that guy has been dead for 2300 years.

>"There is no logical reason to assume the universe needs a cause"

Sure, it's the uncaused cause. What? You want an infinite regress?

>>675751

0/10

>>675752

A quantum flux is logical, therefore part of our universe (defined as everything we can perceive/understand). how did the quantum flux arise?

>>675729

Yeah you're right, but I hear it used in the sense I described to justify theories over others, and it sometimes bothers me

>>675758
I already posted the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Once again, ignore Richard Dawkins.

>>675752
For quantums to create the universe, they had to be something first right?

Plato said:

I don't want science to explain we are here having this conversation because there are muscles, bones and nerves.

I want to know the real reason why are we here, not how.

>>675768

Yeah I know, I saw it. My point was that the explanation only details how our universe became what it is, as opposed to what caused it.

>>675757
How can physists and math understand something withour matter or math at all?

Pic related it's la condition humaine.

>>675777

That picture is misleading. It's saying that we cannot truly understand the universe, and disregarding that only what we can conceive/perceive of is the universe. Also inb4 Wittgenstein T L-P pseudophilosophy quotes.

Read the bible. It's a heap of shit filled with contradictions.

>Only what we can conceive/perceive of is the universe.

WHAT.

No seriously, WHAT.

How did you came to that conclusion? Are you saying when men could only conceive/perceive the universe as flat, it was like that?

sure is humanity majors regurgitating arguments from 2300 year old mystics in here

>>675773
Nothing caused it. It's quantum mechanics. They don't give a fuck about your logic.

>>675790
So, "It's magic, I ain't gonna explan shit". Well, that's cool by me.

>>675789
My thoughts exactly. Don't they know we have supercolliders now? The man and the cave didn't know shit, but he didn't have a supercollider.

>>675789
And still you can't refute any of it.

>>675792
>Implying we are somehow near the truth now.

>>675782

I'm talking about the universe which affects us, which is quite obviously subjective. Why would anything else matter?

>>675793
Just popped in to say: They've been refuting it. Over and over.

>>675793
Refute what? Refute speculation? Why even?

>>675793
Such as?

>>675795
We don't know if we are yet, but we may be. You can't say we aren't, that imply you know where the truth is, OH BUT YOU JUST SAID.. BAM!

>>675801
Human condition for one. World of the ideas and abstractions. Eternal uncompound things...

Okay guys, you ruined the thread and I MAD now. Fuck you, you don't even know what science is.

>>675805
Plato didn't know shit about shit. Forms is fucking stupid. He hated science and tried to stomp out people who were trying to actually learn shit. He did well at that. The reason you don't have a flying car right now is Plato.

>>675805
Elitist assumptions assuming elitist things so elitists can be elitist and justify some of their political beliefs. It's like the classical equivalent of what libertarianism is today.

Didn't refute btw because it's so obviously based on false axioms, pretty much all of /lit/ can refute that stuff, as can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms#Criticisms_of_Platonic_Forms..

>>675805
You mean their assumptions based on nothing that what we see isn't the total reality?

What use is thinking about it? All you can do is work with what you have currently, anything else is pure speculation.

>>675808
>Plato didn't know.
Yeah, he said so himself.
>Forms is fucking stupid.
No.
>He hated science
He loved science and truth more than you ever will.
>and tried to stomp out people who were trying to actually learn shit.
Aristotle didn't agree with him and they were still friends.
>The reason you don't have a flying car right now is Plato.
Yeah, because he died. Should he have not died we'd have dimensional travel by now.

>>675805
The majority of it is elitism and having contempt for people who aren't as 'enlightened' as them.

Even though they're no closer to a truth than anyone else.

>>675821
>truth
>platonic solids and trying to hide the dodecahedron from people
Pick one.

>>675821
>Should he have not died we'd have dimensional travel by now.

>philosophy
derp

>>675820
Math only exist as abstractions in the world of the ideas not in the material world. Are they speculation too.

>>675831

I saw that episode of Cosmos again the other day. Plato was a goddamn asshole.

>>675831
>Disregarding his entire work.
>Picking a random argument people speculate about.

>>675840
WHAT. We can derive the mathematical axioms (addition, multiplication, calculus, integration, etc.) from propositional logic, which is self evidential in our universe.

>>675381
So you can accept that there's a God even if there's some shittiness in the world, but there's a limit at which it becomes too much? It's all or nothing buddy.

Evil is really not a problem for religion imo, here's an explanation of a form of Christianity where this is the case (Mormonism, fyi. Yeah, I know, stfu):

So there's this God (actually probably many gods, as in God was once an imperfect child of another God and then ascended to godhood), he takes a bunch of these "intelligences" and gives them structure in the form of "spirits," and we're all together in heaven (meaning with God). However, we are just children, innocent and powerless.

God says "aight, I'm creating this earth, I've got this one son here who wants all of you to follow him, without knowledge of good/evil and therefore without the capacity for sin, so you'll stay innocent but not progress or gain any power or glory (basically what bitter world-weary god-haters seem to wish had happened). I've got this other son who wants to give you all the ability to sin which means you're going to have to be punished, but he's willing to take the beating for all of your shit, so all you've gotta do is listen to him." So the first son is Lucifer, who it turns out is wrong and bad and loses all the glory he had, and the 1/3 of us spirits that followed him go down with him and never get bodies and come to earth.

>>675847
The 2/3 of us that follow the second son, Jesus, come to earth fallen and imperfect, with free will but tempted by satan, to be tested. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit speak to people along the way who write shit down until Jesus gets there, tells everyone the deal, and suffers infinite pain to atone for all of the evil men have/will do, as well as breaking the bonds of death so that we can be reunited with our bodies again later (bodies are important in mormon theology for some reason).

Shit continues for a while, then Satan is imprisoned while Christ reigns for 2000 years while everyone who didn’t get a chance to be born or have the plan explained to them fairly and accept Christ and whatever else they have to do to go to heaven get to. Then comes judgement, after which people attain glory according to what they've proven themselves worthy of handling, the best ones becoming gods themselves and being able to create children of their own, and so on for eternity.

So the evil and suffering that people have to endure in this world is necessary for maturity and progression, and in the end is an impossibly small price to pay for an eternity of godhood for those that prove themselves worthy, and even the ones that don't are all much much much better off than they were before or during life.

I'm an atheist btw

>>675844
Adittion: One plus one equals two.

One wallet plus one wallet is two wallets. Now you can give me your wallet and I shall give you mine because obviously we will have what we had first...

Or maybe, we extrated the property of quantity to the wallets, send them to the world of the ideas add them and bring it back to the real world.

One plus one not equals two on the material world, one atom plus another atom is atom a and atom b.

>>675852
If the atoms are of the same element, then yes you will have 2 atoms indistinguishable from each other.

>>675852
What you will do today:
Step 1: learn how to understand/manipulate propositional logic.
Step 2: read Principia Mathematica.
Step 3: stop trying to discuss shit you don't have a clue about with the pretence that you do.

>>675859
Wrong. That's just a property, let's add another one and see what happens.

Atom and Atom = 2 Atoms (or so you think)

But let's quantity is just an accidental property and we add another.

Atom with a vector to north, plus atom with a vector to east.

Do we have two atoms or do we have an atom going to the north and another to the south?

>>675864
Funny how you mention Principia, when Newton was clearly on of those Mystics you mention.

In words of Adam Smith, the last of the great magicians. Funny.

>>675866
You just gave the atoms different properties. They are now not the same. Well done.

>>675866

I see what you're saying but it's a pretty invalid point.

People categorize things, we call things with certain properties wallets and sticks and rocks and pigs and atoms and whatever. 1 thing of some predefined set of properties + another of the same set of properties = 2 things with the same set of properties, no one said they had to be identical

>>675873
I just proved quantity is an accidental property of the sustance and not sustance itself. What I was trying to do.

>>675866
You're combining things with two different properties.

Thanks for that.

>>675872
HAHA oh wow, this really proves Step 3. PM by Russell and Whitehead, you silly!

>>675866
>But let's quantity
derp

>>675881
I'm writting fast because I am mad now.

>>675884
Why? Just realising that your philosophy degree is worthless?

>>675880
All you have been doing now is posting reaction faces and replies like "Your argument is so false I can't believe it".

Do you really want me to take you seriously. Honestly.

>>675890
I'm an economist.

>>675878
>Do you really want me to take you seriously.
I don't really mind if you do or not, but you are, so it doesn't matter :)

>>675897
So you are onay with your arguments being reactionfaces; "lolyurstupid" and out of context, random wikipedia links?

>>675896
My condolences.

>>675903
*okay

>>675896
Fellow Economist here, please stop bro :/

>>675906
You are not my bro.

Why would you want to try to ruin someone's faith? That's a pretty mean and arrogant thing to do.

>>675903
That's a retarded question. If I wasn't okay I wouldn't have been doing so, it's self evidential.

I understand why you're wrong but I'm not interested in whether you do or not. I'd rather sit here entertaining myself via you. It would be against my wishes to explain all of this stuff to you.

Wow, the guy's name is peskymystic and you still fall for it.

>>675916
Why would you want to try and ruin someone's faith of ruining other people's faiths?

That's a pretty mean and arrogant thing to do.

>>675896
No wonder all the banks failed.

>>675922
I'm not american and I'm from a country where banks stood solid.

>>675008
This actually.

There is no greater argument against Judaism or Christianity than the texts themselves.

this is what happens when you don't science.
>:(