/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10450917]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Anonymous No.10450961]

Any evidence to back that claim up?

[Anonymous No.10450965]

>>10450961
Your mom sucks big nigger dicks. Since I don't nees to provide evidence, it's true.

[Anonymous No.10450981]

>>10450965
You're not smart

[Anonymous No.10450988]

>>10450981
I am because I say so. You also suck dicks you faggot.

[Anonymous No.10451057]

hmm

[Anonymous No.10451077]

>>10450917
*Teleports behind you and recites the Oxford Dictionary for every word you say in an argument*
Heh, nothing personal kid.

[Anonymous No.10451080]

>>10450917
That was a pretty good saying he came up with there. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't something someone else came up with much earlier in philosophical history.

[Anonymous No.10451107]

>>10451077
>recites the Oxford Dictionary for every word you say
I don't get it. Are you saying definitions in a dictionary count as proof for your words taken individually?

[Anonymous No.10451117]

>>10451107
define "proof"

[Anonymous No.10451128]

>>10450917
>reddit

[Anonymous No.10451130]

>>10451107
No, it was a habit of Hitchens to simply look up the definition and parrot it as if it would be a huge truth bomb.

[Anonymous No.10451142]

Evidence in what sense? Carbon dating, infrared photography or fingerprints? Or do we allow verbal argumentation and intellect/reason to enter the equation?

Is a creation not logically evidence of a creator? If there is a world, then there must be a world-maker, no?

[The project of new atheism is to create concise, easily repeatable pre-made arguments to advance a factory-produced ideology that pretty much already exists.]

[Anonymous No.10451153]

>>10451130
Makes sense.
I have nothing against Hitchens despite the more recent anti-fedora train everyone hopped on, but when I tried watching some videos of him I couldn't get very far because his voice was just weirdly boring to me. Like it wasn't unpleasant, but his accent was enough to where I didn't understand everything he said immediately and his tone was kind of depressive and plodding so it wasn't even like I could just enjoy the aesthetics of his speaking in the absence of clear understanding for the meaning of his speaking.

[Anonymous No.10451160]

He was a great man, but a tremendous bore on the topic of religion. It's a shame that that's what his legacy is mainly reduced to.

[Anonymous No.10451167]

>>10451160

It's his own god damn fault that he got so lazy as a thinker. He deserves all the shit he gets.

He went from being a seething critic of US foreign policy to being a cheerleader for George W. Bush. I'm glad he's gone.

[Anonymous No.10451172]

>>10451142
>Is a creation not logically evidence of a creator?
The trick is having evidence that the thing you're talking about is a creation in the first place, which in the case of life on Earth I don't think there's a scientific consensus that it is. Maybe it is in reality, but you certainly wouldn't be honest by trying to pretend everyone just accepts it as a creation to begin with.
>If there is a world, then there must be a world-maker, no?
Probably depends on what you mean by "maker." If there's a world and it had a beginning, then there would probably need to be some sort of circumstances / events which caused that beginning.
Now "maker" implies anthropomorphism / conscious intelligence, but there's no reason to assume these circumstances or events would have any traits like that. In fact, there's reason to assume the opposite because we're trying to explain more complicated / built up phenomena in terms of less complicated / less built up phenomena, and of course intelligence is something that emerged later in evolutionary history rather than sooner. Intelligence depends on a lot more prior physical scaffolding existing than photosynthesis or simple cellular locomotion does for example.

[Anonymous No.10451176]

>>10450917
Prove this statement wrong soyboys

[Anonymous No.10451181]

>>10451142
Hahahaahhaahhaah

What flawed logic soyboy

[Anonymous No.10451183]

>>10451167
I'm glad I stopped drinking.

[Anonymous No.10451187]

>>10451176
I don't think it's the sort of thing you prove or disprove, it's just an observation about what's fair. If you bring up some ridiculous claim and then start insisting I need to prove you wrong, something along the lines of that quote would be a good thing to mention in explaining why others shouldn't be bothered to assemble evidence against your claim when you haven't even begun to show any evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.10451191]

>>10451181
ahhhh, honeypie, don't be so bootybothered you itsy little boompkin :)

[Anonymous No.10451196]

>>10451172
>Now "maker" implies anthropomorphism / conscious intelligence

The idea that the God who created the universe we inhabit is shaped like a human being or possesses anything like physical form (or mass, location, velocity etc.) is outrageous enough to disregard immediately.

It is a sign of the times that nonbelievers actually think believers imagine God anthropomorphically. Nothing could be more vain or ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.10451199]

>>10450917
>le empirics and reason xddddddddd

[Anonymous No.10451205]

>>10451199

[Anonymous No.10451209]

>>10451196
Anthropomorphism isn't limited to appearance. Note that I never once even mentioned anything about how this cause would appear. I think you know that already though and were just trying to score a lazy objection to a strawman argument.
If your idea of God involves intelligence, that's anthropomorphic too.

[Anonymous No.10451210]

>>10451205

[Anonymous No.10451216]

>>10451210
4/4

tldr hitchens is retarded

[Anonymous No.10451218]

>>10450961
well, it's obvious, really

[Anonymous No.10451220]

>>10450961
This is the actual answer.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Says who?
Hitchens, and all atheists, have no basis for their moral and rational claims. They left with a totally circular worldview where they use reason to justify reason.
When deciding ones worldview one must pick and justify it without appealing to standards within that worldview. Atheists and rationalists cannot do this.
And yes, this is different from a Christian saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because that is openly circular statement. That type of argument makes sense within a worldview in which the Bible is the truth. The atheist doing the same thing with reason does not make this sense.

[Anonymous No.10451222]

>>10451176
Should all witness testimony be dismissed?

[Anonymous No.10451223]

>>10450917

"What is asserted by euphoric men in trenchcoats can be dismissed without evidence."

[Anonymous No.10451256]

>>10451223
Ad hominem

[Anonymous No.10451354]

>>10451209

I'd rather argue about God than nitpick a context-tailored definition of "anthropomorphic." That's not my hope for that post or this one.

I picked this as a point of response because it indicates the difference of worldview more than others. It is very important to clarify that God is not a thing in the world, and that God is like man only in the sense that we have some morsel of God's intellect operating in our bodies.

We are not moving backwards, applying our self-understanding onto an imaginary being. We are using an intellect gifted to us by God via the cosmos to search for God outside the cosmos. Man is made in the image of God, not vice versa. This is the disagreement between the religions and the secular studies of religion (from sociology/anthropology/philosophy, exg. Comte, Marx, Freud or Bertrand Russell)

[Anonymous No.10451409]

>>10451354
>It is very important to clarify that God is not a thing in the world, and that God is like man only in the sense that we have some morsel of God's intellect operating in our bodies.
>We are not moving backwards, applying our self-understanding onto an imaginary being. We are using an intellect gifted to us by God via the cosmos to search for God outside the cosmos. Man is made in the image of God, not vice versa. This is the disagreement between the religions and the secular studies of religion (from sociology/anthropology/philosophy, exg. Comte, Marx, Freud or Bertrand Russell)

All of this is sounds nice and deep, but is pure conjecture, equally good as any other conjecture.

[Anonymous No.10451445]

>>10451409

>conjecture

What is conjecture and what is an example of an argument which is not conjecture?

Does science operate on the level of conjecture when it proposes theories based on observation?

[Anonymous No.10452306]

>>10451220
Hard to believe you wrote so much and said so little.

[Anonymous No.10452332]

>>10451220
>And yes, this is different from a Christian saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because that is openly circular statement. That type of argument makes sense within a worldview in which the Bible is the truth. The atheist doing the same thing with reason does not make this sense.

Imagine being this dumb

[Anonymous No.10452347]

>>10451142
>Is a creation not logically evidence of a creator? If there is a world, then there must be a world-maker, no?
No. It isn't.
You're making a non-sequitur (the world is created and so a Creator must follow even though there is no correlation).

[Anonymous No.10452367]

>>10451153
>he accent was enough to where i didn’t understand everything he said immediately
are you a non-native speaker? if not you’re a really stupid, sheltered, fucking waste of stem cells and neurons

[Anonymous No.10452369]

>>10452347

I'm the guy who said:

"If there is a world, then there must be a world-maker, no?"

I think a more serious critique of this would involve some of the following:

1. proposing a world that is cyclical or infinite (it has always existed and always will).

2. arguing that if a creator exists the creator must have a creator and so on

3. noting that ideas like "creation" and "beginning" (which indicate dynamisms) are impossible prior to the existence of time

The criticism you offered:

>"No. It isn't. You're making a non-sequitur (the world is created and so a Creator must follow even though there is no correlation)"

is complete trash. It's not a non-sequitur to say a creation has a creator. That's the definition of creation. A creator creates a creation. I think what you mean to say is, "How can you assume the world is a creation?"

[Anonymous No.10452381]

Yeah but "The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

[Anonymous No.10452383]

>>10451216
is this Kantbot?

[Anonymous No.10452425]

>>10452369
Those arguments would accept your bullshit premise as axiomatic which nobody will do. I'm not going to get that involved with a faulty intellectual substratum, but here:
First off, you're framing the earth as "a Creation", which is intellectual dishonesty in its pursest form and a linguistic trick. Earth isn't a creation, it is simply a heavenly body.
Secondly, a Creator implies a caricature of some sort—a second dishonesty. For whatever reason the universe came into existence, it did; but this doesn't imply an explicit act by a Creator.
You're begging the question by presuming something was ever created in the first place.

To say the statement of yours I quoted was non-sequitur was true, because it was a bunch of begging-the-question bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10452443]

>>10451080
He didn't come up with it, its an old latin phrase. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

[Anonymous No.10452466]

>I went to the store yesterday.
>DO YOU HAVE A SINGLE FACT TO BACK THAT UP?
>W-what do you mean? I go to the mall every oth--
>WHAT CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE REJECTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
>But why would I li--
>YOUR BELIEF THAT YOU WENT TO THE STORE YESTERDAY IS A DELUSION AND YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL.
>But I was there! Here I think I can find a--
>WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
>Here! Here's a receipt!
>THIS SAYS THAT IT WAS A TOYS R US! EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
*crumpled up receipts and throws it in face*
>YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

Atheists are fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.10452479]

>>10452425

fuck off brainlet, I ate your lunch

[Anonymous No.10452487]

>>10452443
Not quite as old as you make out, only really popular in the 1800s.

[Anonymous No.10452490]

>>10452479
same poster as in the other threads, are you a grad student yet?

neuroscience, CS or what exactly?

[Anonymous No.10452504]

>universe is a Creation and thus needs a Creator
>universe needs to be cleaned and thus has a Cleaner
>universe is a tv show and needs a director

What's the difference between these statements? They're all vaguely defining the universe using human concepts and then assuming a deity-like figure must exist.

[Anonymous No.10452505]

>>10452490

Math/religious studies double, no grad school no thank you

universities are in a state of severe decline

[Anonymous No.10452506]

>>10451153
echoing the other anon, oxford accent is not difficult. you must be a little-brain.

[Anonymous No.10452514]

>>10452504

More like:

>universe is a creation and therefore has a creator
>universe has been cleaned and therefore has a cleaner
>universe has been produced for television and therefore has a director

The form of all three is the same without assuming any premise. It's just a simple grammar relationship.

A thing that's created has a creator. A thing that has been cleaned has a cleaner. A thing that has been Xed has an Xer.

[Anonymous No.10452524]

>>10452505
how will you get hired/where will you be hired? i thought maths niggers need grad school or you’re basically just a hs teacher, no?

[Anonymous No.10452540]

>>10452524

I work for a major package delivery company doing blue collar work and I like it that way for now.

[Anonymous No.10452556]

>>10450917
>>10452381
woah

[Anonymous No.10452562]

>>10452540
hmm

ok anon bye for now

[Anonymous No.10452568]

why tho

[Anonymous No.10452660]

>>10452466
Well, I have this book that says a magic Pringles tin traveled bwck in time and created the universe. There is no evidence that anything in this book is true, but we should all believe it anyways!

[Anonymous No.10452680]

>>10450917
*Supports mass immigration*

*Spends the end of his life telling you about how bad those Muslim immigrants are*

Wow what an amazing thinker.

[saucy No.10452692]

>We have art in order to not die from the truth.
>If truth is a woman, what then?
>Can you conceive a god? Then be silent about all gods, but you could very well create the übermensch!

[Anonymous No.10452696]

>>10452660
>replying seriously to that low effort bait

[Anonymous No.10452709]

>>10452466
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.10452888]

>>10451167
he spent his entire life worshiping people who were more talented than him, dead, and religious.


this is like a gay dude secretly jerking off to straight porn only to look at the girls face when she comes and whispering "i love you"

[Anonymous No.10452893]

Did Christopher Hitchens ever comment on miraculous healings and apparitions?

[Anonymous No.10452906]

>>10452893

A lot. God is Not Great covers it in a couple chapters, along with The Missionary Position.

[Anonymous No.10452946]

>>10450917
>Of the global atheist and non-religious population, 76% reside in Asia and the Pacific, while the remainder reside in Europe (12%), North America (5%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), sub-Saharan Africa (2%) and the Middle East and North Africa (less than 1%).

Are Asians the ultimate fedoras, lads? Maybe we could've sent the Four Horsemen xD to PRC.

[Anonymous No.10453040]

>>10452946
If this were the good old days we'd be aggressively evangelizing in Asia. Christianity's spreading pretty well in China even with persecution, but there needs to be an active war by the Church against all atheist regimes. Not a war of bullets and soldiers, of course; rather, a war of ideas.

[Anonymous No.10453045]

>>10452906
Let me guess: he dismisses them without bothering to examine them closely? I don't know how you employ sophistry to get around someone miraculously being cured of their cancer.

[Anonymous No.10453059]

>>10451220
>And yes, this is different from a Christian saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because that is openly circular statement
hahahahahahahaah that made my day anon thanks a lot

[Anonymous No.10453060]

>>10451220
>as long as the worldview starts with magic it's fine
amazing

[Anonymous No.10453063]

>>10451445
anon is saying pick your poison
its cool to be a fedora or a christfag until your not a dick about it in my opinion
also these discussions never get from point A to B

[Anonymous No.10453065]

>>10453040
le the free market and theocratic war of ideas *tips cardinal hat*

[Anonymous No.10453066]

>>10451142
Is it not a flaw of human thought to assume a guiding hand where there is none? And what logic is there in applying the argument to the existence of a potential conscious creator or divine supernatural power to prove one specific faith on Earth? Through this reasoning, I could invent a religion right now and have an equal chance of being correct.

[Anonymous No.10453067]

>>10452514
thats all nice
but when religion fags try to use this for their own gain pretending like they know wtf the creator is even up to by coming up with horseshit to manipulate the masses is not cool

[Anonymous No.10453071]

>>10451222
The evidence required depends on the gravity of the claim, and how much I am asked to partake in the consequences of the claim.

If John says he saw a duck fly by this morning, I'll take him at his word.

If Muhammad says we should worship an all powerful divine being and slice off our foreskins and follow every specific rule he lays out or we'll burn forever...well...burden of proof and all that.

[Anonymous No.10453074]

>>10453045
>I don't know how you employ sophistry to get around someone miraculously being cured of their cancer.
its not a miracle anon because then why not cure everyone with cancer ?
that would be a miracle

[Anonymous No.10453078]

>>10453065
All genuine Catholics dislike the free market. Capitalism is as much of a mistake as communism, if not more.

[Anonymous No.10453082]

>>10453078
yet they will gladly take their money

[Anonymous No.10453085]

Evidence depends on an axiom.

[Anonymous No.10453088]

>>10451223
>demands evidence for atheism
>worships an invisible supernatural being without a shred of evidence besides the pure popular appeal of the idea
Cool. Cool cool cool.

[Anonymous No.10453091]

>>10453088
Appeal to authority. Ad hominem. Red herring!

[Anonymous No.10453094]

>>10452381
>Rumsfeld
Fucking kek. If only I could've been a fly on the wall in the weeks following the invasion, listening to live updates on the search for WMD's.

[Anonymous No.10453096]

>>10451445
How about an argument based on the text in which your belief is founded and not making massive changes to it for the sake of self-consolidation.
>I'd rather argue about God than nitpick a context-tailored definition of "anthropomorphic."
He is anthropomorphic. We are in his image, he shares being with and is the father to something who lived a supposed human life and took a human form, and
>God is like man only in the sense that we have some morsel of God's intellect operating in our bodies.
is a complete fabrication made to survive in a world that passed beyond the acceptable nature of these beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10453104]

>>10453091
no its not
your just fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.10453106]

>>10453091
What authority did I invoke?

[Anonymous No.10453124]

>>10451220
>basing a worldview on reason is bad
>basing a worldview on someone's magic system is good
We should implement Eru/Iluvatar worship worldwide. Or at least heavily amend the current texts if we're openly admitting the belief in magic/the supernatural as a purely logical validation point for a circular worldview.

[Anonymous No.10453146]

>>10451216
fuck off kantbot

[Anonymous No.10453207]

>>10453096

I'm not here to evaluate the claims of Christianity.

This conversation began in a very metaphysical domain and I don't see why we should depart it just yet.

The idea of "image of God" is, I admit, an unintentionally particular phrasing. I believe there are analogues to this idea in at least several of the "world religions."

There are many ways of approximating the idea, although none seem to quite capture it exactly. The Buddhists refer to the potential of all humans to reach enlightenment (tathagathagarba) although from what I gather this is emphasized in East Asian Buddhism. The Muslims describe the inherent moral dignity and moral potential of all persons. Similar ideas exist in Hinduism and elsewhere. My own understanding I would phrase as follows:

"Human life possesses and is essentially characterized by a relationship to god, inexpressible in language and approached by metaphor, but, so far as the world is concerned, constituting a distinction from material."

I suppose even terms like "soul" have overtones of this idea.

[Anonymous No.10453233]

>>10450961
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html
>>10451220
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

[Anonymous No.10453248]

>>10451220
Wtf I'm a Greek politheist now. By the way, Christians are politheistic too, they just don't want to admit it.

[Anonymous No.10453321]

>>10451220
Don't worry I get you bc I'm not a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10453396]

>>10450917
Ok. but what is evidence, like, if I say the sun is hot, the evidence consists in it being palpably hot and able to be felt on the skin. ok. If I say that the input M_n simply-connected of a full braid group upon N elements is a n-tuple cover of a certain N-particle quantum configuration space Q_n, then this is no less true than the simpler fact that the sun is hot, but not everybody can understand this proof, yet it's still fucken true. If I say God exists (and I do), I can give you what in my mind constitutes proof, but all you can do it look back at me and say "that ain't proof."
The only difference between my mathematical proof and my proof of God is this: the former you are willing to take on authority, the latter you are not. This fact is at best a consequence of being raised under a secular capitalistic prison in which you are conditioned to believe in the eternal supremacy of STEM or the supremacy of philosophy which is closer to STEM over those that are farther from it. The only difference from me to you, Christians to atheists, is that the former are able to extend their intellects much farther because they are willing to take more on authority. It's symbolically the same as a person who enters buildings and a person who does not. The former walks through the door first, accepts everything presented to him for what it is, and then engages in discovering the nuances therein. The latter simply does not go in, he is a fussy person who believes that the only buildings he should go into are the ones that he is absolutely sure will not surprise him with an aesthetic that he does not already know the ins-and-outs of. Or, at the very least, the ones in which he need not accept anything before learning about it. Those however do not exist buy my mix tape.

[Anonymous No.10453440]

>>10453396
The only difference from me to you, Christians to atheists, is that the former are able to extend their intellects much farther because they are willing to take more on authority

The more bullshit you believe, the smarter you are, sounds alright to me

[Anonymous No.10453595]

>>10453233
>aynrandlexicon
fucking lol

[Anonymous No.10453615]

>>10451199
>>10451205
>>10451210
>>10451216
Is there a reason you posted this? I regret having read all of that.

[Anonymous No.10453633]

>>10450917
There's no such thing as "evidence".

[Anonymous No.10453636]

Who here mad lmfao

[Anonymous No.10453665]

>>10453396
Holy shit this is no good mate
It's a bad comparison because whatever your talking about wrt the brain is something if other people learned about they would invariably agree with you, since the world over we have a uniform conception of scientific method and proof. I don't accept on your authority, but on the authority of this method.
Your idea that the more you accept on authority the further you can extend your intellect is probably true, given the infinite domain of sophistry you could open up to yourself.
When you talk about the nuances of christian theology available only to people who 'fully' enter into the subject, you can't be talking about reason or logic or conclusive discourse because obviously these would be (and are) available to non-christians interested in the it - i suppose you're actually describing the play of christian ideology on your soul, your soul's response to it and communication with it. And this is where religious people, as far as i make out, are too naive, too childish, too credulous: they are unwilling really to auto-interrogate and get to know their souls properly; too willing to take themselves and their desires at face-value and not dig any deeper; i suppose being human, all too human

[Anonymous No.10453693]

>>10453396
>>10453665
Sorry that was all a bit rushed but yeah your comparisons and analogies are bad, your argument about proof is specious at best.
if you wanna stop being religious you gotta work out why you don't want to stop being religious - which obviously is the difficulty and bind you find yourself in

[Anonymous No.10453719]

>>10453396
>>10453693
>>10453665
maybe it's the idea that all authority is the same or equivalenty valid that's a bit suspect. Scientific authority has consensus, religious authority doesn't. I can actually go out and do science, i will never be able to go out and do your faith. Obviously we need a philosophy of science to interpret and contextualise the scientific method - but it's different again - it's a universal fact to be interpreted. The religious impulse is another universal fact to be interpreted, as is the presence of religious ideology, but your particular religious sophistries aren't.
Possibly you're being half-perceptive half-blinded in highlighting the epistemological difficulties of authority - highlighting the affinity of naive scientism to faith, but not seeing that faith is exactly what needs to be overcome, interrogated, questioned relentlessly.

[Anonymous No.10453799]

>>10453066
How, would you do that?

[Anonymous No.10453812]

>>10450917
>"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
It would be sort of ok if taken literally. Of course fedoras like Hitchens understand "should be dismissed" instead of "can be dismissed", which is a very different and completely retarded claim.

[Anonymous No.10453833]

>>10453088
"A new thing cannot come into existence without a cause.
The would is an originated new thing and it did not come into
existence without a cause. That a thing cannot come into
existence without a cause is clear, for such a thing belongs to a
certain definite time and it also comes to our intellect that it
comes at a fixed time without precedence or subsequence,
because of the urgency of its fixed time. The world is a new or
orginated thing. Its proof is found in the fact that it is not free
from motion and rest which are the character!tics of every new
material thing. Even motion and rest are two new orignated
things not free from changes. The world and whatever exists in
it are originated things. There are three matters in this
argument. Firstly, a body is not free from motion and rest. It
requires no meditation.

Secondly, motion and rest themselves
are originated things. Its proof is that one comes after another.
It is found in all bodies. What is static can move and what is
moving can become static according to the dictates of intellect.
If any of the above two things is predominant over the body, it
becomes a new event. A new thing is originated because of its
emergence an old thing is distant because of its extinction. If
the eternity of a thing is established, its extin ction is
impossible as we shall prove it by the subsistence of the
creation .

Thirdly, what is not free from changes is an
originated or new thing or whatever is not indepedent of
originated things is itself originated. Its proof is that if it were
not so, the world before every new thing may change which
has got no beginning and unless these new things come to
nought, the turn for the-present new things to come into being
would never come. But it is impossible for a thing which has no
end to come to nought"

[Anonymous No.10453848]

>>10450917
>asserted without evidence
There is equal evidence fort he existence as there is for the non-existence of the divine - none. No evidence either way, but we'll still be arguing about it until doomsday.

[Anonymous No.10454147]

>>10450917
How can gaytheists explain reason and mathematics in the context of a universe of material flux? Let alone morality...

This argument is retarded, there is evidence for God's existence, it's just that no matter which of it you bring up, the gaytheist always results to using naturalistic explanations for it, because somehow naturalism is the default way man thinks despite the naturalist fallacy. Arguing with gaytheists is like arguing with a clogged toilet, no matter how many times you flush it just keeps overflowing with shit.

Can we just put all gaytheists in camps and be done with it?

[Anonymous No.10454155]

>>10451222
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[Anonymous No.10454160]

kuso thread

[Anonymous No.10454170]

>>10454147
notsosubtlebait

[Anonymous No.10454175]

>>10450917
>Except Trotskyism, of course.

[Anonymous No.10454197]

>>10454147
Perhaps there's evidence for Somethings' existence, but then christfags start claiming properties which are completely disconnected from that evidence.

I mean, like, universal love. Really?? War and atrocities, yeah, Universal Love, yeah. Bullshit property of God, that.

[Anonymous No.10454201]

>>10452466

[Anonymous No.10454204]

>>10454197
>problem of evil
Tired old meme, BTFO by just about everyone, read a book.

[Anonymous No.10454226]

>>10452680
Hitch didn't support mass immigration

[Anonymous No.10454228]

>>10454204
Uh huh. You're ok with evil because God couldn't get it right. All-powerful, all-wise, and somehow he fucks it up.

Not much of a god desu. The Quiet ranks him.

[Anonymous No.10454231]

>>10454170
notanargument

[Anonymous No.10454238]

>>10454228
Satan is the reason evil exists. After The Fall, we are an extension of that, all the evil in the world is a result of our choices.

[Anonymous No.10454252]

>>10450917
>>10450961
>>10451107
>>10451130
>>10451172
>>10451220
>>10451409
>>10451445
>>10452347
>>10452369
>>10452425

I'm glad to be on a board filled with people that have this much passion for the truth.

[Anonymous No.10454253]

>>10454238
Nup. First mover, being all-powerful and all-wise, made this happen.

Or was he just too dumb to see lucifer would turn? Shit, Lucifer isn't even human so party to the free will business.

Either God intended it or he was a dumbshit. Not much of a god desu.

[Anonymous No.10454270]

>>10454253
No God did not make this happen you drooling retard. WE did, he gave us a choice and we chose this. Lucifer and the angels have free will, they just don't have a material body.

[Anonymous No.10454281]

>>10453833
These statements ring true for things inside the universe. Why would they apply to the universe itself?

[Anonymous No.10454284]

>>10454270
Yes He did. He had perfect information because He was God, and ~~somehow~~ he made Lucifer.

Or perhaps He didn't have perfect information? Perhaps 'God' is not the highest?

Wouldn't be a shock desu, and we're back to my point; either God intended it or he was a dumbshit.

[Anonymous No.10454285]

Is there a SINGLE worthwhile argument in favour of God that isn't just "muh feelings", "muh it's obvious"?

[Anonymous No.10454311]

>>10452466
>be me
>be accused of murder
>'no I have an alibi I was at a mall'
>'can you prove it?'
>'what are you an atheist'
>'tips fedora'

[Anonymous No.10454317]

>>10454284
No, he didn't, I know it's hard being a retard, but he literally had nothing to do with Lucifer using his free will to defy God.

Because he is omnipresent, that would mean that he knew Lucifer would defy him. What does this have to do with beings using their free will?

In order for this problem to be avoided, there would have to be no free will. Do you wish you had no free will?

[Anonymous No.10454332]

>>10450961
This is a disingenuous reply since it's obvious the OP quote is talking about factual assertions, not normative ones.

[Anonymous No.10454354]

>>10454317
>free will

Oh sorry, I have news for you...

[Anonymous No.10454361]

>>10454317
>Because he is omnipresent, that would mean that he knew Lucifer would defy him.

And yet he still made him. Why? When Satan is supposed to be the reason we in turn do evil?

The fault of evil still rests at Gods' feet, even allowing your theological apologia.

[Anonymous No.10454364]

>>10454354
So you don't think you have free will? Then why are you here attempting to make an argument? The very act of making an argument implies free will. You don't actually act like you have no free will.

Even more so, if we have no free will, why the hell do you care if God made evil or not, since "evil" is meaningless distinction in a determined universe.

[Anonymous No.10454381]

>>10454361
God made Lucifer with a pure and good intention and purpose. Why is he at fault because he choose to defy him?

Satan is the reason Adam and Eve were tempted, but ultimately they chose evil.

God will use Satan's rebellion to BTFO evil forever.

In the end it doesn't even matter because God still allows salvation for every single human who ever lived or will live.

Do you, or do you not think free will is a good thing? That's ultimately what you have a problem with, not God.

[Old Ritualists No.10454401]

>>10454285
You can't really argue against intuition and faith.

[Old Ritualists No.10454445]

>>10454361
Why does the presence of evil discount God's goodness? Even knowing there would be evil, He created free beings, likely because He knew we could overcome it and choose God's light instead. Some will be damned and some will be saved, all through their own choices. If you think that's wrong, then I don't know what to tell you. You can work towards your salvation and question God's plan, but that doesn't save your soul.

[Anonymous No.10454452]

>>10454381
The defiance by Satan was in lucifer from the beginning, any God with perfect information would have seen it. Either he did see it and was ok with evil existing, or he didn't and God himself was less than almighty.

After all, if I have my Christian theology right, God stands outside of time too. We don't even need to query 'free will' (as though it's a magic sweep it under the carpet, God has no clue argument) to see that God made the biggest fuckup in the universe with full knowledge of what would happen.

[Anonymous No.10454462]

>>10450917
>as he asserts something without evidence

right up there with sam harris tbqh

[Anonymous No.10454490]

>>10454445
Because God created evil m8. I mean, I know you guys have become experts at cognitive dissonance and games of hiding Gods' hand behind a puppet, but yeah, an all powerful god would never have created evil. Keep up.

[Anonymous No.10454501]

>>10454490
yes they would have you pathetic worm

[Anonymous No.10454519]

>>10454490
>thinking god is capable of the logically impossible, like creating a round square or allowing people to have free will without the possibility of evil

[Anonymous No.10454538]

>>10454452
Once again, no. Lucifer was created perfect. I know it's difficult following basic sentences, but pay attention: Lucifer was literally created perfect. God also knew that evil would happen, and planned for it, and then subsequently through that plan will BTFO evil forever.

Once again you aren't actually addressing the problem, which is that God created being with free will and they chose evil. What are alternatives? A meaningless universe where we are all basically robots in a sort of slavery of the will?

How about a universe where we are created to choose either good or bad, and those who choose good get eternal reward, and those who choose bad get eternal punishment.

[Anonymous No.10454542]

>>10454519

God stands outside logic, and indeed has to, otherwise it is fairly easy to disprove God.

[Anonymous No.10454556]

>>10454542
no he doesn't. god can't do the logically impossible, because that would create a contradiction

[Anonymous No.10454561]

>>10454542
Actually, God IS logic. The word the Apostle John used to describe God was Logos.

[Anonymous No.10454572]

>>10454538

Your arguments are awful.

>>10454452

Your arguments are better than his but still silly. If we hypothetically accept that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then it follows that he knows better than us what good and evil are. Thus when you perceive evil in the world, it is because of your limited and incomplete understanding of what evil is, and not because the world is in fact evil. In my view, the world is perfectly just.

[Anonymous No.10454582]

>>10454556

God is Omnipotent. Not just logically omnipotent. That means it's within his power to create contradiction.

>>10454561

Which in concept is more like "the word" than formal logic and means something totally different, usually pertaining to the nature of Christ.

[Anonymous No.10454593]

>>10450917

>"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Yeah, it CAN be, but should it? Should the question of God's existence be written off simply because He can't directly be examined? I think that would be setting undue limitations.

[Anonymous No.10454637]

>>10454556
>assuming an entity as powerful as God could be bound by human concepts

[Old Ritualists No.10454649]

>>10454582
Maybe He can do the logically impossible from our perspective. But our logic is bound by laws that make sense for us. Perhaps God can make round circles or whatever, but that wouldn't help us understand anything since our logic is based on certain axioms. Our logic works with cause and effect, consistency and non-contradiction, among other things, but those laws don't necessarily restrict God, they just work in our world. As for Lucifer, yes he was created good. He didn't "become evil" like it happened to him through some external force. He chose to usurp God, His creator, and so he fell. Now the most fitting punishment for him would not be restricted in Hell without any will or movement, but allowing him to try and spite God and His creation, yet have the fruits of his labor work towards God's plan anyway.

[Old Ritualists No.10454665]

>>10454582
Logos is also "the truthful word" tho

[Anonymous No.10454669]

This saying can be dismissed since it relies on there being a common notion of realism. Many people would find it natural to believe in a deity, and therefore to state that there is none is the claim that requires evidence. To theists, it is realistic for there for be a creator, and it is unrealistic for there not to be.

[Anonymous No.10454677]

>>10454593

You miss the importance of evidence. If something can't be evidenced in any way, shape or form, especially anything concering an all governing power, then it should be dismissed. You're liable to be wasting your time otherwise. The only thing that would warrant talking about any topic without direct evidence, is having a model with evidence of other things that suggests the existence of whatever it is that you're looking for. The usual comparison of deities to unicorns highlights the problem with obsessing over an idea without evidence of any sort. If what you're interested is in some a priori value system to help you live the world without questioning it, then you should probably stop seeking to increase your intellect.

[Anonymous No.10454699]

>>10451256

Claiming that anon makes fallacies such as ad hominem is an ad hominem in and of itself.

Ad hominem.

>>10453104

Ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.10454705]

>>10454490

>Keep up.

This never fails to cause a wave of euphoria to wash over my body.

[Old Ritualists No.10454706]

>>10454677
You don't have evidence for a lot of things that you take for granted. Evidence isn't required since there will always be times when there is no evidence for something that is true. There's also the problem of how much evidence is required to show something as true. I could take the universe and my existence as evidence for God. There is also faith and intuition.

[Anonymous No.10454715]

>>10454677

Not him

It depends on what you define evidence as. Most atheists say they want empirical evidence, but that is impossible - and not only in the case of God. There are many things that exist and exert an all-pervasive influence on us for which there can be no empirical evidence, beauty being a prime example of one such thing.

[Anonymous No.10454719]

>>10452466
:D

[Old Ritualists No.10454734]

>>10454677
Can you show evidence of how you're right? :^)

[Anonymous No.10454773]

>>10450917

Notable gaytheist intellectuals, thinkers and writers through time

>Dawkins
>Dennett
>Harris
>Albert "#YOLO, just imagine Sisyphus happy, LMAO" Camus
>Jean Paul "shittily digested Heidegger regurgitated" Sartre
>Bertrand "the literal cuck" Russel
>Ayn Rand
>literally no good novelist

Notable religious intellectuals, thinkers and writers through time

>Heidegger
>Kierkegaard
>Schelling
>Hegel
>Kant
>Leibniz
>Descartes
>Spinoza
>Aquinas
>Augustin
>Tolstoy
>Dostoevsky
>Gogol
>Joyce
>Eliot
>Shakespeare
>Milton
>Cervantes
>Melville
>Goethe

[Anonymous No.10454972]

>>10453665
>>10453693
>>10453719
The fact that you see religious authority as inferior to the scientific kind proves my point. What happened to all those years of patristic and medieval philosophy, scholasticism? Ofc you will say it's not the same since it can't be demonstrated, but there is consensus. Consensus isn't supposed to serve in lieu of evidence but as temporary scaffolding that we can trust until we wrap our minds around the evidence. You keep using the phrase "Christian ideology" but Christianity is not an ideology nor does it contain any consistent one throughout its members. At its core Christianity is a two-thousand year old practice of truth-finding, and the reasons for belief are in the quality of the literature it has produced. Consider the quinque viae, to me this proves a deity undeniably, yet there are people (the majority of people) capably of misunderstanding it in such pathetic ways that they think it is special pleading or otherwise constantly saying things like "what if there are two gods?" when clearly it proves that God is one.
You saying that religious people are unwilling to auto-interrogate is absolutely true, but if they did do so they would only become better theologians, not skeptics. Let me give you myself as an example: The reason I say that I'm Christian (Catholic even) is because I have been convinced by literature, regardless of whether it was for or against Christianity. I wasn't always a Christian, but I was never an atheist either, I was a truth-seeking person whose truth-seeking happened to come a head somewhere within the mystical body of Christ. Now, the ACTUAL reason I am Christian (Catholic even) is because perhaps it is normative to me, I had more exposure to it so maybe I do not scrutinize it? Bullshit. I scrutinize it the most of all because as a logician it's the thing I want to be rid of the most, or at the very least, I'd like to work it down to a nub consisting in empirically verifiable facts or formally provable idioms. Unfortunately in formal logic we are not allowed any direct ontology.
>i suppose you're describing the play of christian ideology on your soul
I am. And this is what no unbeliever differs in. This is far as you can come, the statement and perhaps understanding of a soul. But ofc that it is naive to believe in or based on it. This is the lid on philosophy separating it from theology.
I don't know what it is you want me to do to stop seeing the quinque viae as real proof of a creator, after all, I am more capable of understanding it than any skeptic. Coincidentally I am also more capable of understanding physics than most.
Tell me what I should do, I beg you. The only answer you are not powerless to give is the fatal one: stop believing, cut the thread. You can't tell me to accept anything else because I've already accepted everything, I already contain all the conceptual elements of atheism even the most contemporary materialistic theories as practopoiesis yet it's not enough.

[Anonymous No.10455309]

>>10452425
There are some things that confuse me about this post. One is that you claim at some point the universe came into existence, how could this be? Even in the "absence of existence", or the universe being essentially "nothing" these are still forms of existence, things that we can speak of or contrive of. Nothing is a form of existence and therefore universe must have always existed in someway, just in a way that was far more chaotic i guess you would say or in other words nearly completely undeveloped, ordered, complex or knowable. The other thing that bothers me is the idea that something can exist without a "creator" or just some form of reference point. Like if i ask you "what created the universe" and you reply "the universe just came into existence" arent you in a sense stating "nothing created the universe?" This would probably be viewed and argued as semantics but I feel as though youre just stating that literally NOTHING created the universe, that chaos, that which is unknown, pure being, nothingness begot the universe, just as how things of chaos tend toward things of order in this case the absence of creation created creation itself. The absence of being can only exist with the concept of being as well, and this potentiality of being opens the way of all other degrees of being seen in the universe we experience today. The universe coming into existence means that at one point it did not exist. To not exist is a form of existance, is what I am basically trying to get at.

[Anonymous No.10455579]

Maximum autism ITT

[Anonymous No.10455607]

>>10454972
I would say scientific consensus is different from the religious consensus of the middle ages you mention, since it is universal (not limited to christianity, europe etc). Moreover i think its fair to assert consensus in science doesn't get overturned at all, in the same way religious consensus does - and before you mention something like the quantum revolution, i'd say that classical mechanics and physics generally were supplamented, not superseded, by the development of quantum mechanics. Newton's laws still hold as they always did, for billions of years, and always will - we just now understand why they don't hold in all situations, on all levels etc, and we have further scientific consensus on the quantum universe to improve our understanding.
There definitely is a christian ideology, and also thousands of more specific, localised, sectarian christian ideologies subsumed under it - i don't mean to use ideology as a pejorative term, if that's what you thought.
I'm not familiar with the five ways, so sorry can't talk about that; is it aquinas proofs of god?
As a self-styled physicist and logician i'm assuming you know yourself that your religious beliefs are in the end faith based. When you say you know what it is to interrogate and question yourself, and yet still remain convinced and practicing catholic, i'm afraid i have to remain sceptical of that: i think that anyone who really knows the foundation of their religious beliefs to be faith, and pursues assiduosly in the depths of their soul the source of this faith, and finds it to be only human, as it is only reasonable to find, loses the desire for their faith.
The loss of desire for a deity, which is the source also of your religious pain, fear, longing and joy, is the loss of your faith.
Sorry i haven't addressed all your points, but maybe we haven't talked at total cross purposes

[Anonymous No.10455628]

>>10454637
>implying contradiction is a human concept

show me one place in the universe where there is an explicit contradiction, like something being entirely red and entirely green at the same time

>>10454582
>God is Omnipotent. Not just logically omnipotent. That means it's within his power to create contradiction.
that is not true according to many contemporary theologians. if you want to create your own concept of God that's fine, but I'm trying to engage with a realistic portrayal of Him

[Anonymous No.10455629]

>>10455579
Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[Anonymous No.10455635]

>>10455579
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10455807]

>>10455607
>i'm assuming you know yourself that your religious beliefs are in the end faith based
Yes, although we have different definitions of faith. Popularly, faith is to believe without evidence or in spite of evidence. But this understanding of faith is a product of renaissance humanism and the enlightenment and imo it is a wrong definition. The original definition that was more or less known to most ppl from roughly 150-1789 is: Fidelity. That's it. Most people did not even think in terms of 'evidence' back then. The illuminists of the late 18/early 19th century superimposed their own evidence-based world view on the past in order to make them look like fools because they believe without evidence.
So yes I agree that religious belief is a matter of faith, but I also defend theology as a science, the queen of sciences to be exact. Theology takes cognizance of every other science underneath of it. Frankly, if we had better theologians, we'd have a better world. Even in today's world, where the ratio of good theologians to good scientists is 1:1000, you could still employ hundreds of brilliant scientists at the projects of a lunatic and only do harm. I speak of consumer culture, all the talent wasted on consumer electronics, marketing, advertising, production of increasingly complex yet harmful things in general. The world would be better if every product had a telos. The best governors in the past were philosopher-kings, not specialists. The french monarchy was far from the "tribalistic" system that our 21st century intellectuals want us to think it was, it was ofc a distributed infrastructure of 66 kingdoms, mostly independent, mostly effective, mostly just, held together by a monarch in versailles, ordained by the pope. When political power extends from apostolic succession in this way the state becomes a spiritual institution and that, in my estimation, is the secret to the artistic fervor of the medieval/renaissance eras, there was not the strangulating bureaucracy of a secular, capital-based, managerial state. The sad reality is that we are closer to the pagans than we are to the Christians, when it comes to government. Who has the right to make decisions? Whoever the people choose. Even if they choose well, if every layman was an economist, it would still not work because the very fact that that authority to decide is up for debate means that there will always be dissent. If smart men elect a capable leader for good reasons, smarter men will tear him down for even better reasons. Reason disseminates authority and the effect is mass division.

[Anonymous No.10456330]

>>10451220
imagine being this stupid

[Anonymous No.10456335]

>>10450917
>dismisses a concept he does not fully understand
Okay bright boy. You're "smart." How's the weather down there?

[Anonymous No.10456431]

>>10453799
Simple. You combine what unites people experiences with an effect you hope it will have. After all we all are at the center of our own universe in a sense. So make a meme and share it. Praise kek. We got an orange president now. Essentially meme magic which has been with us since the dawn of time.

[Anonymous No.10456437]

>>10452466
>THIS SAYS THAT IT WAS A TOYS R US! EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
You don't carry your favorite Bionicle with you everywhere? What a loser.

[Anonymous No.10456488]

>>10450917
That phrase is so stupid, I can hardly believe he didn't come up with it in a drunken stupor.

[Anonymous No.10456603]

>>10452367
>>10452506
Speak regular American English if you want to be understood, this isn't a difficult concept. If the guy from House can do it so can you.

[Anonymous No.10456612]

>>10456335
Why don't you have evidence for this concept?

[Anonymous No.10456815]

>>10451220
>And yes, this is different from a Christian saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because that is openly circular statement.

This has to be bait.

[Anonymous No.10456887]

>>10450917
>political journalist who was active during the era of Islamic terrorism and Catholic child abuse has a negative view of institutional religion

Is this what you guy call objectivity?

[Anonymous No.10456964]

>>10452660
Paul writes pages of theology explaining why Christians don't have to follow Mosaic law. Read Galatians at least

[Anonymous No.10456994]

>>10452332
>>10453059
>>10453060

He's saying that their worldview makes sense in a purely logical manner, that is, their argumentation goes back to a source. He's not saying it's reasonable, he's just saying in their worldview there is no contradiction,

[Anonymous No.10457003]

>>10450917
>*dies from cancer*
where your god now lol