/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11714287]

It's not the most sophisticated philosophical work on the market, but it sufficiently refutes common man arguments for the existence of a god.

[Anonymous No.11714301]

>>11714287

[Anonymous No.11714302]

Its "refutation" of the cosmological argument is unadulterated shit.

[Anonymous No.11714321]

>>11714302
the cosmological argument is itself unadulterated shit

[Anonymous No.11714336]

It really doesn't. The book can generously be summed up as an attack on Pascal with some very wild reductionist assertions with no real justifications. To him everything is chance, the end. Stop questioning it you dunce!

In one single page he attempts to refute the Aristotelian argument but of course he gets it wildly wrong from premise one. He believes guys like Aquinas are saying "everything has a cause" making his refutation a nonstarter. This book will make you dumber.

[Anonymous No.11714342]

[Anonymous No.11714364]

[Anonymous No.11714373]

>>11714287
Please don't let this bait thread spiral into 100+ replies.
When you say "common man" you mean "the absolute antithesis of anything related to academia." Why are you engaging with actual retards and npcs in the first place?
Saged

[Anonymous No.11714385]

>>11714287

[Anonymous No.11714452]

>>11714287
>it sufficiently refutes common man arguments for the existence of a god

>I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist

It's not even scientific desu.

[Anonymous No.11714504]

>>11714287
It's utter shit though, the most powerful arguments against God don't need to be explained.

[Anonymous No.11714592]

>>11714301
>>11714302
>>11714336
>>11714342
>>11714373
>>11714385
>>11714452
>>11714504
t. learned christfaggots without any substantial arguments whatsoever, excluding the somehow imperishable 'tip'

[Anonymous No.11714611]

>>11714287

Richard Dawkins invented MEME but that's all of an award he gets, other than that he's an ignoramous about realizing the unknown isn't known until it's known by accidents and cherry pickings by mankind to his own reality perceptions and tinkerings.

[Anonymous No.11714628]

>>11714592
>ooh, my anus hurts
>*tip* *tip*
>*tip*

[Anonymous No.11714642]

>>11714592
>the science is settled
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11714953]

>>11714287
>Scientific evidence is the only way to know things are true
>Provides no evidence that scientific evidence is the only way to know things are true

Also memes failed arguments that have been around for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.11714956]

100 years from now some retard will "discover" Dawkins like they did with Spengler

[Anonymous No.11714978]

>>11714287
I was an atheist but seeing Dawkins teeth and his faggy behavior over time made me do a complete 180. Plus his edgy atheist followers made me not want anything to do with his religion.

[Anonymous No.11715029]

Have you read any serious critiques on him and his book? Answering the New Atheism by Scott Hahn is pretty good. He's coming from an Intelligent Design perspective which I don't agree with but he does a really good job of exposing the ridiculous biological or material reductionism of Dawkins.

There's quite a few responses to Dawkins but my favorite is The Last Superstition by Ed Feser. He a Thomist who rejects both Intelligent Design and Dawkins' materialism and he does a really good job explaining why, and so it also serves as a proper introduction to both Aristotle and Aquinas as well which is something that you're not get from Dawkins who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.11715050]

>>11715029
>Aquinas
>anyone in the modern era believing this credulous old fool
pffffftttt
brb i'm off to fly on my broomstick with my familiar

[Anonymous No.11715061]

>>11715050
Get behind me, Satin!

[Anonymous No.11715065]

>>11714953
you don’t actually have to prove it once the central argument has been put forward

[Anonymous No.11715157]

Doesn't hold a candle to based GK Chesterson desu.

[Anonymous No.11715219]

>>11714953
What pathway to truth is there that doesn't involve some combination of reason and sensory experience?

[Anonymous No.11715254]

>>11714287
A lot of the /lit/ posters who hate on this book almost certainly haven't read it. They are falling for the dogmatic hate for anything "reddit".

If they at the very least read the first chapter they would see that Dawkins may not even be attacking their notion God. He makes explicit that he isn't attacking Spinoza's conception of God. It is clear that the book is dedicated towards the hopelessly naive by-the-book Christian view of God as some personified "sky fairy" (sorry, really gay reddit term, but it gets the point across) that constructed the world in seven days or fucking whatever he supposedly did.

Just in the sense that Peterstein insists that anyone who lives with morals isn't an atheist, Dorkins will say that anyone who doesn't believe in the very literal Christian/Islamic/Jewish conception of God isn't a theist.

Upon taking that point of view you would have to be a complete and utter science denying brainlet to disagree with him. Sure, disagree with his terminology, but that's a different issue entirely, and isn't worth discussing for more than a couple minutes, unless you are a complete and utter pseud.

[Anonymous No.11715262]

>>11715254
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.11715264]

>>11715219
What people normally mean by science are the empirical sciences like observation or experiments and this is the definition that Dawkins and the person you're responding to is using the term. Reason would not count as a science and according to Dawkins it would not be a legitimate path to true knowledge, so your question is inappropriate.

[Anonymous No.11715265]

>>11715254
tl;dr

back 2 reddit

[Anonymous No.11715268]

>>11715262
>>11715265
>dogmatic hate for anything "reddit"

When will you outgrow the childish hive-mind thinking that personifies everything you hate about reddit?

[Anonymous No.11715272]

>>11715268
blah blah blah me smart you stupid

back 2 reddit

[Anonymous No.11715280]

>>11715254
>It is clear that the book is dedicated towards the hopelessly naive by-the-book Christian view of God as some personified "sky fairy"

This is precisely one the biggest problems I have with Dawkins. He isn't arguing against the God of Christians, he's arguing a God of children who aren't old enough to understand the philosophical foundation of their beliefs. He does this because he also has a child's understanding of Christianity. They don't believe in a personified sky fairy.

[Anonymous No.11715288]

>>11715219
>>11715264
This. Dawkins succumbs to scientism. It is axiomatic that everybody has an epistemology broader than scientism. We can know things are true outside of purely scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.11715290]

>>11715280
>he's arguing against a God of children

Fixed

[Anonymous No.11715314]

>>11715280
I don't think anyone can deny that there exist a tremendous amount of Christians who have this childish conception of God. Just how nobody can deny the sheer amount of stupid people that exist.

I agree with your assessment. He attacks a very easy target and in that sense it is not a very impressive read. He isn't breaking new ground, but there are people who stand to learn by reading his book (he has indeed created a lot of converts).

[Anonymous No.11715333]

>>11715254
>>11715280
Interesting observations.
What you're saying is that someone who made a career out of being a spokesman for the masses... resonates well with the masses because he engages on their level of thinking?
Profound.

I understand that most anons here haven't actually read any philosophy, but maybe refrain from making so many threads about nonintellectuals or "pseuds" in the future?

[Anonymous No.11715336]

>>11715314
I don't see how you can place any value in a philosopher who attacks the weakest arguments and doesn't even represent them accurately at that. I've pointed out earlier in the thread one of the ways he misrepresents Aristotle and I've seen countless people with his same misconceptions using his same arguments so if anything his work has a negative value since they actively mislead people. You would do better to unlearn things he write.

[Anonymous No.11715374]

>>11715336
That's the problem though, he's a biologist. Not a philosopher. That's how he gets BTFO by any philosophical apologist who knows what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11715380]

>>11715374
Professionally he's a biologist but when he's arguing philosophy in a philosophy book I'll call him a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11715449]

>>11715380
A philosopher, sure, but one who refuses to debate others because of muh morality
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig
For your viewing pleasure be sure to check out the bugmen in the comments

[Anonymous No.11715532]

>>11714287
>refuses common man arguments for the existence of God

I'm sorry but if you think this even touches on critiquing Augustine or Aquinas you're sorely mistaken.

[Anonymous No.11715541]

>>11714287
>new york times bestseller
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11715552]

>>11715532
outside of academic circles those are by no means the common man arguments for the existence of god. unfortunately, the masses are near-NPCs.

[Anonymous No.11715589]

ITT: posters who never grew out of the fairy tale told to them as children

sad

[Anonymous No.11715599]

>>11715288
this is pure presuppositionalism

what is truth? whatever I make up to be the truth, and since those scientists are doing the same thing we are on even footing!

wrong

[Anonymous No.11715624]

>>11715599
I'm simply disagreeing with his epistemology, and, admittedly, presupposing that we innately know better than to rely purely on evidence. I'm presupposing this because there's no evidence that we should rely purely on evidence. That approach undermines itself.

[Anonymous No.11715690]

>>11715624
with that logic, you open the door to believe literally anything, and thus is indistinguishable from madness

[Anonymous No.11715708]

>>11715690
>implying there is no other epistemological method

[Anonymous No.11715709]

>>11715624
I'd posit you everything Dawkins presupposes, you presuppose. You just add things on top of it.
You two probably have very similar worldviews on how to evaluate claims until religion pops up.

[Anonymous No.11715724]

>>11715690
>>11715624
By evidence he probably means empirical evidence since Dawkins believes that only empirical evidence can give us true knowledge. His point is that there is no empirical evidence to prove that empirical evidence is the only way to gain true knowledge. Dawkins doesn't believe that logical or maybe even mathematical evidence is valid.

[Anonymous No.11715729]

>>11715724
This, thank you.

[Anonymous No.11715755]

>>11715589
>>11715599
Reddit: the posts
>>11715724
unironically solid.

saged this thread

[Anonymous No.11715766]

>>11715724
When you get down to it, every epistemological system has precepts to it that can't be proven.
Even that statement is based on precepts of logic, and you can't use logic to prove logic is true.

So do we just toss our hands in the air, lads?

[Anonymous No.11715780]

>>11715766
it all comes down to utility. Empirical evidence has utility for material problems, faith or religious thinking has utility for emotional problems. You can't live a good life without being able to think in both terms, especially since religious thinking has a lot of interplay with other aspects of being like love and trust which require being able to think outside of empirical terms to fully enjoy

[Anonymous No.11715785]

>>11715766
>So do we just toss our hands in the air, lads?

Pretty much. We can only assume the universe is a consistent and rational place that we can know and wasn't just created yesterday with the appearance of age or whatever.

[Anonymous No.11715814]

>>11715780
Even by that standard, I don't personally find a need to for religious belief. I can pretty much capture everything that matters to me in physical terms.
Plus, I have the extra standard of Occam's Razor, which tells me that a system that's a proper subset of another in terms of precepts should generally be deemed superior.
Religious precepts also aren't suggestive of a method for evaluating truth, just statements of them. So they again serve far less utility to me than an adaptive worldview.

So what I'm saying is, it seems invoking no religious precepts has no downsides, and it just seems obvious to me that religious claims should be subject to the same standards I would apply to most claims.

[Anonymous No.11715820]

>>11715766
keep your presuppositions to a minimum, in this way "scientism" is the most logically sound approach

[Anonymous No.11715845]

>>11715820
Considering most top physicists currently believe string theory / the multiverse is the most likely cause of the universe, scientism by no means has the fewest presuppositions.
The multiverse, being infinite in complexity, is the greatest offender of Occam's Razor to have ever existed.

[Anonymous No.11715870]

>>11715845
The string theory or multiverse or any other similar hypotheses are not causal explanations but are rather hypotheses of what is. String theory and the multiverse can be true but it would still beg for a cause or "why?" and this is something that physicists can't even answer in principle because it's a metaphysical problem.

[Anonymous No.11715881]

Look at all these idiots thinking they can disprove a 400+ book with one pretentious 4chan post

[Anonymous No.11715907]

>>11715845
I'm skeptical of your claim that they "believe" string theory or in multiverses. More likely that they find them promising avenues of investigation.
Until these ideas give fruit to testable ideas in the lab, no one is going to consider these things anything more than very educated guessing.
There's also some confusion here.
Science may come to conclusions about a lot of things, but the point is that the precepts are less in number. Not a perfect analogy, but it's like claiming that something is convoluted about euclidean geometry just because its 10 assumptions (depending on the framework) lead to multiple books of conclusions. That's an incorrect way of looking at it, since everything was a result of the use of those assumptions and logic.
Similarly, the conclusions of science are the result of observation, modeling, deduction, and testing. I.e. it's all an application of the hypothetico-deductive method.

[Anonymous No.11715945]

>>11715374
> implying philosophy is a useful way to describe the world

[Anonymous No.11715947]

>>11715845
this post is genuinely retarded

[Anonymous No.11715976]

>>11714978
what are you now then

[Anonymous No.11715994]

>>11714287
>Believing that a shitty book written by a salty old baby boomer who needs to take the bible out of context and present absurd unrelated analogies to support his existential nihilism ultimately disproves the idea of the existence of a higher presence that engineered life itself

A 14 year old can't use 4Chan

[Anonymous No.11716116]

>>11714287
>refutes conman arguments for the existence of a god
He isn't able to win against people who have studied bits of theology, so he picks the lowest hanging fruits

[Anonymous No.11716117]

>>11715994
*tip* *tip*
*tip*

[Anonymous No.11716124]

>>11715945
As long as you're referring to concepts to frame your own picture of the world, you'll have to accept philosophy as a legitimate discipline.

[Anonymous No.11716302]

>>11716116
>>refutes conman arguments for the existence of a god
To be fair, someone should help out people getting suckered.

[Anonymous No.11717898]

>>11716302
Yeah I agree. And this is coming from a devout Muslim.

You should use reality as your support for Gods existence, with historical support if needed

[Anonymous No.11718026]

>>11714287
Anybody read pic related? Is it good?

[Anonymous No.11718037]

>>11718026
He points out some legitimate problems with modern science but he does believe in some wacky shit without good reason.

[Anonymous No.11718038]

>>11717898
wwhy islam is piss

[Anonymous No.11719224]

>>11714287
>but it sufficiently refutes common man arguments for the existence of a god.

What are these common arguments?

[Anonymous No.11719296]

>>11715870
>>11715907
>t. think they're "science smart" while having never taken more than the 101 physics course

[Anonymous No.11719335]

>>11719296
I don't need to be an expert in any material science to know that it can't investigate metaphysical questions.

[Anonymous No.11719366]

>>11719335
If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. t. Bohr

[Anonymous No.11719391]

>>11719366
It's not shocking nigger, you just don't understand it. All it is is limiting the modes a dynamic system can have (shells,vibrational modes, etc.) and then seeing the harmonics you get and being "woah nigga iz magic an shitee" chaos theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum pseudery

[Anonymous No.11719398]

>>11719366
t. doesn’t know quantum mechanics
>>11719224
Gawd is the prime mover, Gawd must have designed this beautiful orderly universe, Gawd is by definition perfect and the antipode to an imperfect universe, Gawd made the universe for people look!

[Anonymous No.11719404]

>>11719296
So did science stop centering itself around observation, modeling, deduction, and testing?

[Anonymous No.11719420]

>>11719398
I don’t understand the snarky cynicism towards religious believers. It’s almost like you’re some slick unshowered black haired fedora tipping atheist sitting in the corner of your college classes pontificating upon God.

[Anonymous No.11719431]

>>11719420
I have dark brown wavy hair, i sit in the front of the classroom thinking about things unrelated to class or gawd, and i don’t see why giving you the gist of the arguments for Gawd that common christtards preach is demeaning. Is it because i said Gawd?

[Anonymous No.11719455]

>>11719420
ignore them, athiests are living in their own hell or they wouldn't be motivated enough to spout off their bullshit. It's funny how it's usually people who just barely understand midwit science too. When you get to higher levels you don't need to believe cringe ideology to shore up your self confidence in your own intelligence

[Anonymous No.11719462]

>>11719455
how is not believing in god and knowing the arguments against god cringe ideology? how is it even ideology? why does he have to ignore me, can’t he field an argument himself?

[Anonymous No.11719482]

>>11719462
>people who agree with me: smart, well kept, and well liked
>people who disagree with me: dumb, smelly, and cringy

[Anonymous No.11719494]

>>11719462
your type a priori reject anything that isn't objectivist/materialist and then complain when you realize that this strangles you

[Anonymous No.11719519]

>>11719482
this isn’t what i said at any point, my only post was mocking the nigger for not knowing qm and stating the common layman’s arg’s for gawd
>>11719494
there’s nothing strangling about it. i reject it because it makes no sense and has no evidence and requires self deception to avoid thinking about its incoherence and lack of substantiality. Ive never heard god’s voice, seen a divine vision, seen a miracle or seen a prophecy fulfilled that was explicitly religious. I have seen priests turning to pedophilia, mega church scams, theocratic abuses of power and general resentment shown towards thinking by the religious. The only good thing about religiosity is social conservatism and its patronage of the arts.

[Anonymous No.11719534]

>>11719482
What if I disagree with dumb, smelly and cringy people and views?

[Anonymous No.11719540]

>>11719519
>theocratic abuses of power
How can this exist for you? It's just power in different form.

[Anonymous No.11719549]

>>11719519
hence the ignore. religious and objectivist discourse are orthogonal, I can't change you and you can't change me. Salvation has nothing to do with sensory experience and empiricism, and vice versa. I try to integrate both in my life but it's difficult and most people are blind to one or the other, although 95% of people are like you in American society at least.

[Anonymous No.11719561]

>>11719519
>>11719549
case in point, miracles happen in your subjective experience. You can only see things in objective truth so you are blind to that entire system

[Anonymous No.11719614]

>>11719561
Everything happens in our subjective experience that we're aware of. But we value intersubjective verification because it's an indicator that everyone involved was subjected to similar casual factors of the experience - i.e. the cause was external. So when I get high and see things no one else is seeing, my conclusion is that it's likey just me being under the influence, not that I'm actually being surrounded by shrieking bats in broad daylight.

[Anonymous No.11719624]

>>11719614
intersubjective verification as you call if is useful for technique (useful applied knowledge of the kind that lead to the industrial rev), otherwise it has no inherent worth that makes it more important than subjective experience. The visions you have when you are high are just as real as anything confirmed by multiple people

[Anonymous No.11719717]

>>11719624
I wouldn't contest that personal subjective experience can be useful. But the weight I give it in updating my mental model of reality is different than things that can be intersubjectively verified. It's true that my experience of seeing bats is "true" insofar as that was indeed my perception, but I model that in my head as being a result of internal causes: there were no actual bats that were creating an image in my eye; my brain was just whacked out. On the other hand, if other people were there to verify what I was seeing, there'd be a reason to suppose that there was a common cause to all of us seeing it. And assuming at least some of them weren't also high, my conclusion would be that there were actual bats flying around.
Now this isn't to say that I'll never use subjective experience alone to update something I believe about the external world around me. After all, I brought up a special case. But my point is that when we're dealing with something outside the bounds of what at least can be intersubjectively in principle, we should proceed with caution.

[Anonymous No.11719918]

>>11714287
I still haven't read Steve Pinker's book I promised in previous threads...

[Anonymous No.11720202]

>>11714642
>my Christian ass is on fire!

[Anonymous No.11720853]

>>11715333

[Anonymous No.11720870]

>>11715785
>wasn't just created yesterday with the appearance of age or whatever.
what difference would that make?

[Anonymous No.11720875]

>>11719296
>you didn't go to the cathed- I mean university to learn from the pries- I mean scientists so I say to you "nuh uh"

[Anonymous No.11720888]

How can anyone, even religious people, actually be anything other than agnostic?

[Anonymous No.11720895]

>>11720870
History as we know it wouldn't be true, for one.

[Anonymous No.11720898]

>>11720895
How would you know? Why would it matter if the universe suddenly appeared in the same condition as if history was true?

[Anonymous No.11720905]

>>11720898
If the universe was created yesterday with the appearance of age then history wouldn't be possible since there's nothing to tell. Whether the universe was really created in such a way would only matter if you valued truth, but the point that was being made was that history being real or possible is an assumption that we have to make.

[Anonymous No.11720908]

>>11720905
Yeah, that's true. It's a reasonable assumption to make, so we make it, because the alternatives seem to be less likely. I think, anyway.

[Anonymous No.11720975]

>>11715254
I read this when I was 13 or 14 or so. I'm still firmly atheist but to act like it intimately addresses more complex arguements, however flawed they are, is dishonest.

It's a good text for explaining to you why you don't believe some of the more mundane arguements, but avoid extending it any further.

Honestly if you've read more books than the average person you can write fiction and some non fiction, providing you've got the talent. Anything beyond that is a bonus.

[Anonymous No.11721488]

>>11715314
>I don't think anyone can deny that there exist a tremendous amount of Christians who have this childish conception of God.
>tremendous amount
Have you ever met a Christian? Or actually discussed theology with one?
Nobody except children and Mormons believe in the whole "sky fairy" thing.
Atheists always assume this "sky fairy" belief because they never actually learned or understood Christian theology beyond what they understood it as when they were children, which is also why they're atheists.

[Anonymous No.11721494]

>>11719398
How does this book refute God being the prime mover?

[Anonymous No.11721684]

>>11721488
Are you European or something? Most Americans don't get taught sophisticated theology. They get told the bible stories as if they were historical accounts in church, and the result is most Americans take a lot of the bible literally. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/
Richard Dawkins is giving these people the most meta discussions they've ever had on the foundations of their faith, believe me.

[Anonymous No.11721749]

>>11721494
>Who moved the mover lmao
Don't expect anything more from Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.11722262]

>>11719420
>I don’t understand the snarky cynicism towards literal retards who believe fictional characters are real

[Anonymous No.11722394]

It is incredible how much damage the whole "fedora atheist" culture did to secularism and atheism. Look at this thread, full of people that feel smart because they "dare" to hold an opinion that is against this reddit boogeyman. So many people trying to be contrarian in order to fit in the secret club that is 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11722397]

>>11722394
Fedora atheism emerged because it had better arguments than classic atheism.

[Anonymous No.11722441]

Am i the only one who can't help but see religitards as subhumans?

[Anonymous No.11722453]

>>11722441
No, I'm sure there are plenty of people in Hell that held that viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.11722461]

>>11722441
>atheists aren't worse

[Anonymous No.11722489]

>>11722461
>>atheists aren't worse
Atheists > religitards

[Anonymous No.11722516]

>>11722453
>There is a manchild super-being that will torture you, a small and insignificant human, for eternity because you didn't believe he exists
>That super-being touts itself as most compassionate and as above humans, even though he REEEEEEEEs when tiny germs on some space rock misbehave.
It really sounds like the people who invented the Abrahamic God were super upset when people dared to disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.11722534]

>>11722441
I don't know if you're being ironic, but I really do regard them as weaker beings.

[Anonymous No.11722538]

>>11722489
Subhumans>Atheists>You

[Anonymous No.11722541]

>>11722516
>The Lord of all Creation decides to create creatures in his own image, endowing them with a rational mind and soul as well as the ability to participate in his own eternal glory
>Said creatures decide to spit in his face and that they would rather fuck each other in the ass instead
>The Lord of all Creation sends his son as a sacrifice to bear the guilt of his rebellious subjects so that they may be reconciled to their him and forgiven for everything they have done wrong
>No sorry we still just want to fuck each other in the ass
>Also fuck you
>No why are you punishing us why it isn't fair fuck you :(

[Anonymous No.11722557]

>>11722534
>I don't know if you're being ironic
I'm not. I really do see them as inferior beings on par with flatearthers

[Anonymous No.11722582]

>>11722541
>Create an imperfect creature that is MADE to sin
>Oh no it is sinning
>Oh no, it can't see me, didn't have access to the bible because he lives in China or North Korea
>Oh no, it doesn't know for sure if I even exist or not
>FUCK this creature, I will endlessly torture it
Literally a sociopath torturing his pet animal. Where are all the intellectual christfags that are in this thread? Care to explain how Dawkins is wrong in engaging against mouthbreathers like the one I reply to?

[Anonymous No.11722593]

>>11722582
>Create an imperfect creature that is MADE to sin
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.11722595]

>>11722582
>I don't like God therefore he isn't real

[Anonymous No.11722614]

>>11722595
Zeus isn't real?

[Anonymous No.11722619]

>>11722595
So you agree the Abrahamic God is a sociopath. Thank you.
>>11722593
True according to canon Islam, most interpretations of Judaism, and a core belief for the majority of Christians. We are natural sinners. Even if you don't agree with that, it is hard to justify the torture of a sinner. Conservstives always cry about thought policing but are completely fine with ETERNAL TORTURE because of a disagreement in belief?

[Anonymous No.11722625]

>>11722619
Stop anthropomorphising God

[Anonymous No.11722629]

>>11722619
>So you agree the Abrahamic God is a sociopath. Thank you.
Applying that concept to God is nonsensical, but even if I grant it, it has no bearing upon whether God exists.

[Anonymous No.11722643]

>>11722625
I will when you do. Meanwhile you agree he had sex with Mary and begotten a son. God gets irrstionally angry like humans, is vengeful like humans, and created us in his own image (literally confirming that God is anthropomorphic being unless you do some serious mental gymnastics)
>>11722629
It is sensical. It doesn't prove anything sure, but it sure proves the idea to be ridiculous and it also goes against the idea of a rational, all-wise, and compassionate God.

[Anonymous No.11722650]

>>11714287
Logic and fact-checking is human-made-subject
If projecting God reduced by those logic obviously you never find about it

[Anonymous No.11722662]

>>11722643
>rational
I don't think anyone would claim that God should conform to human rationality.
>all-wise
This is like an ant calling a human stupid, also similar to the point regarding rationality.
>and compassionate God.
God is compassionate. That doesn't mean he is compassionate to everyone in the same manner or degree.

[Anonymous No.11722679]

>>11722662
So a human should out of nowhere accept there is a high being that has a superior rationality that is against our own, is magnitudes wiser than us, and is compassionate as long as we believe in him. Why wouldn't you do it for Zeus? Why does it have to be the Abrahamic God? Would you be fine with me worshipping Zeus? Would your God be okay with it? Why or why not? Also remember, I am risking an eternity of torture, which you are somehow fine with. I am sure you are also fine with the tortures and executions of ISIS and the Spanish Inquisition. After all, they are just trying to save us from an eternity of even worse torture.

[Anonymous No.11722724]

>>11722679
I don't think there's a rational answer for why people should believe in a particular god, or any god at all, and I don't think anyone who does believe in God does so for rational reasons. I think it is a suprarational matter. Perhaps I will betray some sort of orthodoxy with this statement, but I don't think that Hell is an eternal state, or even a state of punishment, but rather a purgation; I think a (somewhat) fitting analogy is the difference between taking an antibiotic for an infection, and refusing medical assistance and later having to have the infection burned out of you. The point is that you'll be healed in the end, and God provides the hospital for our souls. So I don't particularly care if you choose to believe in Zeus or not, but I doubt you will find any healing there.

[Anonymous No.11722749]

>>11722724
Oh, glad to see this response. Too bad this >>11722541 type of Neanderthals constitue a majority of Christians and Muslims. I am a Muslim myself and currently not an Atheist, but in any Atheist vs Muslim/Christian argument I find online or IRL, no matter on what level, I just tend to agree with Atheist 90% of the time.

[Anonymous No.11722754]

>>11722441
this. fucking christfaggots ruin this board

[Anonymous No.11722857]

>>11715814
except for your own thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11722895]

>>11715945
Everything is underpinned by "philosophy" even science with has the base assumption that everything in the world is objective and constant.

[Anonymous No.11722901]

>>11715272
Unironically castrate yourself and go back to /b/

[Anonymous No.11722943]

>>11722679
>Also remember, I am risking an eternity of torture, which you are somehow fine with
Maybe hell is something like how you feel really bad when you feel guilty. I mean, maybe hell is a state resulting from a guilty soul?

[Anonymous No.11722945]

>>11719366
Pssst. Bohr was cool and all but his model for the atom was wrong for everything except hydrogen. In any direction, arguments about how "profoundly shocking" and I'd agree in a certain sense that outside of theoretical models, the reality in its scope of existence at an atomic level is complex beyond human comprehension, are not arguments against a higher power. If anything, the sort of complexity and apparent chaos, yet still recognizable patterns of reality argues for some sort of order beyond direct material existence. Whether you call that order God or not is your choice friend, but I don't get my panties in a bunch over people who do.

[Anonymous No.11722957]

>>11722749
Islam - son? huh "He neither begets nor is born"
In his own image- "there is nothing like unto him"
In the Ashari and traditional theology, it is well known that God is not confined to time and space, with means not confined to the 6 directions. Therefore God cannot be conjured in one's mind as he is beyond matter.

[Anonymous No.11722976]

>>11722901
Reddit is literally a refutation of modern democracy and by extension liberalism as workable systems. The normie majority is completely incompetent at leading itself, and when atomized people fracture into exclusionary illiberal niche groups who heavily police eachother and quickly resort to ostracization from the community. Reddit is the microcosm that demonstrates how laughable liberalism is, and how poorly it corresponds with human nature and the reality of human existence.

But other than that, you definitely need to go back. If you haven't pieced together why everyone here recognizes Reddit as a dumpster fire, you most certainly don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.11722984]

>>11715254
God did create the world in seven days and Adam was the first man God created.

[Anonymous No.11722988]

I have yet to hear any solid arguments against this line of reasoning.
Consider the force between two static charged particles. We know from experiment that the force between them is proportional to their charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, but why? Why isn't the force proportional to the square of the charges or the square root? This is evidence that some design choices were made. The very fabric of our universe screams design. Evolution may explain the amazing complexity of organisms, but there's nothing like evolution to account for the fabric of the universe, there can't be. While we discover deeper and deeper causes for the natural phenomemon we see around us (molecules -> atoms -> electrons, protons and neutrons -> quarks), eventually we'll probably find some sort of particle/s that just is and whose properties cannot be explained by any smaller particle. Why is this fundamental particle this way and not another? To me, this kindof proves the existence of a creator.

[Anonymous No.11722995]

>>11722749
>I am a Muslim myself and currently not an Atheist, but in any Atheist vs Muslim/Christian argument I find online or IRL, no matter on what level, I just tend to agree with Atheist 90% of the time.
Haha, I'm the same. I'd really like to believe there's a caring god out there but all religions sound like fairytales to me. At this point I only pray 5 times a day because of Pascal's wager.

[Anonymous No.11722998]

>>11722988
Sorry, silly theist, but
*slides on fedora*
asking the question of "why" something is a certain way
*lightly grips the brim between thumb and forefinger*
assumes there should be a reason at all
*tips*

[Anonymous No.11722999]

>>11715766
I believe what you subectively experience is supoosed to be important here.

[Anonymous No.11723029]

>>11722998
Not sure if serious or making fun of atheists.

[Anonymous No.11723071]

>>11720888
I have faith

[Anonymous No.11723076]

>>11722582
Not made to sin, made with choice. You're misconstruing even fundamentalist christian beliefs

[Anonymous No.11723117]

>>11722679
I feel bad, but "beam in your own eye" and doubt I can convince people online, especially through argument.

[Anonymous No.11723132]

>>11715976
a faggot

[Anonymous No.11723150]

>>11715265
You don't tldr on this board you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11723169]

>>11723117
Yeah, "just look around you bro xD" doesn't work with written words. You need an echoing voice inside a cathedral, or a mysterious and whispering one in a breath taking view in nature.

[Anonymous No.11723188]

>>11723169
I think if people are open to God honestly and try to find Him, they will. Doesn't mean they'll become believers after the first thing that comes to their mind, but if you're not open to it, you'll never change, even if sonething amazing happens to you.

[Anonymous No.11723195]

>>11723076
Not him, but it is legitimately made to sin within the context of traditional christian religious thought. Man can only escape a life of sin by being in God’s light, which can only reduce sin to a “tolerable” amount and can only be achieved by living by a series of specific rules tied to a specific time period and geographic location, and even “choice” is rejected by certain theological schools.

[Anonymous No.11723205]

>>11723195
Then he can argue against those specific schools that don't believe in free will, not misconstrue all Christianity

[Anonymous No.11723207]

>>11723188
The thing is, I am a believer in God. However, the methods used by religious people to convince the non religious are always illogical and irrational. If people are truly open to God, but are not Abarahmic-centric in their world view, there is no reason to choose to believe in God. You can believe in anything else you like to hear or even invent.

[Anonymous No.11723220]

>>11723207
There's some people you can't help because they don't want to be. I agree that a lot of the conversion talk you hear on tv or something is unconvincing, but I think that's partially because it's not what people want to hear or it's not the way to go about it. I'm orthodox though and we don't do a lot of conversions so I'm not sure. People usually convert for marriage, but there are occasionally others that do so out of belief

[Anonymous No.11723222]

>>11723207
You gotta believe in Divine Command. He is the king of kings, God is.

[Anonymous No.11723223]

>>11723222
trips confirms

[Anonymous No.11723243]

>>11723222
I really enjoy Hebrew mythology as well anon, but I don't actually larp and live by it.

[Anonymous No.11723272]

Modern academia is incredibly specialized and you should regard a book by a PhD from one area about something outside of their field of study the same way you would regard such a book by any random layperson.

[Anonymous No.11723274]

>>11723243
Unfortunately you cannot stop the one from existing today, confirming things that cannot be correct by materialistic understanding

[Anonymous No.11723277]

>>11723243
Has nothing to do with the Jews, God appeared for the Jews, and the Arabs, and the Chinese, and any other ethnicity who wrote about him

[Anonymous No.11723302]

>>11723277
And he tells each one of them the other is wrong. Your God is worse than Zeus in the Iliad. He might not be a horny womanizer, but he is indeed a deceiving, genocidal warmonger.

[Anonymous No.11723306]

>>11722619
>We are natural sinners
Try reading the scripture.

[Anonymous No.11723312]

>>11723306
No u

[Anonymous No.11723316]

>>11723302
>And he tells each one of them the other is wrong
HAHAHAAHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHHAHAHSAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

no.

[Anonymous No.11723353]

>>11723316
K.

[Anonymous No.11723505]

Reminder that
>The idea that the bible is entirely literal is a new concept, as opposed to being a large part metaphorical or allegorical.
>We don't know what happened before the Big Bang.
Not trying to argue for religion per say, however realistically speaking the only logical belief system is agnostic atheism. That is "I don't know". Both atheism and theism are based on the same unprovable form of faith.
Also
>A book originally written in two of the most complex and nuanced languages in human history controlled by dogmatic, loosely connected, power craving individuals for thousands of years couldn't POSSIBLY have mistranslations.
Hell doesn't exist, the devil is a lie, and Revelations isn't cannon. Stop complaining or preaching about something you haven't bothered to spend time learning about. It only makes yourself and others who share your belief look bad.

[Anonymous No.11723519]

>>11723505
>the only logical belief system is agnostic atheism

[Anonymous No.11723528]

>>11723505

[Anonymous No.11723550]

>>11723519

[Anonymous No.11723558]

>>11723071
>Having faith in something you don't know

[Anonymous No.11723560]

>>11723550
>c-cringe llllehehehe

[Anonymous No.11723616]

>>11723505
>The idea that the bible is entirely literal is a new concept, as opposed to being a large part metaphorical or allegorical.
I assume you're referring to controversial aspects such as creation, etc., in which case what you are saying isn't true. Augustine refers to the Earth as being several thousand years old as known from the Scriptures; Basil the Great's Hexameron details the 6 day creation period literally; the Byzantine Empire calculated the number of years from the moment of creation, etc.

[Anonymous No.11723732]

I like the part where he fucks the earth

[Anonymous No.11723764]

>>11723132
become a Christian instead

[Anonymous No.11723782]

>>11723616
>Augustine refers to the Earth as being several thousand years old as known from the Scriptures
Augustine says the earth is several thousand of years old not because the scriptures say so but because "science" said so. He even explicitly talks about not believing in 6 literal days.

[Anonymous No.11723792]

>>11723782
>He even explicitly talks about not believing in 6 literal days.
can confirm that

[Anonymous No.11723799]

>>11723782
Augustine, City of God: "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."
(Footnote: Augustin here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagint version of the Patriarchal ages.)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html

[Anonymous No.11723883]

Basically, the Church Fathers (to the extent that they can be classified as a single entity) did not hold to a mutually exclusive literal/metaphorical dichotomy in the manner that modern people do. So if you read in a Church Father that "X is metaphorical" it does not mean they are saying X is not literal. They could interpret something as being literal and metaphorical at the same time and hold that there is no contradiction in this because the text simply has multiple levels of meaning.

[Anonymous No.11724139]

>>11723505
>per say

[Anonymous No.11724142]

>>11724139
Oh. My. God.

Are we supposed to take his post seriously? How old is he?

[Anonymous No.11724250]

>>11722541
God's idea of sin and the consequences of being sinful are bumfuck retarded anyway.
>someone shoplifts
U.S.: misdemeanor; 6 months in prison is what you'll get at worst
God: literally just as bad as murder; you can suffer for eternity if you do this while believing the wrong thing
>someone gets converted to Hinduism and buys a statue of Vishnu
U.S.: You're free to have any religious belief you like without consequence and can express it in any way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others
God: believing in any god other than me and making idols of them is literally as bad as murder; you can suffer for eternity if you do this while believing the wrong thing
>stub your toe and yell "GOD FUCKING DAMN IT!"
U.S.: You're free to say anything you want so long as it isn't specifically aimed at ruining someone's reputation on false grounds or inciting violence
God: saying my name while using bad words is literally as bad as murder; you can suffer for eternity if you do this while believing the wrong thing
>"man, my neighbor has a sick ass truck. I really want it."
U.S.: We don't believe in thought crimes. Further, we are a capitalist society that runs on desires being satisfied by the free exchange of goods
God: You aren't allowed to covet what your neighbors have. Doing so is literally as bad as murder; you can suffer for eternity if you do this while believing the wrong thing

By the by I'm aware that you all have various permutations on what hell is, whether it exists, what makes you go there, etc., but even when you make adjustments, you're still going to make God seem worse at making sound laws than any modern developed nation.

[Anonymous No.11725241]

>>11723558
Yes?

[Anonymous No.11725264]

>>11724250
this was painful to read lmao

[Anonymous No.11725609]

>>11724250
Law and sin are not the same lol why are you comparing them?

[Anonymous No.11726076]

>>11714301
this. dawkins fag boys are so deluded. they barely know how to read and cant understand anything they do.

[Anonymous No.11726119]

that book is only good for people who already agree with dawkins. you have to be very weak on your beliefs to be shaken by it.

[Anonymous No.11726179]

So I guess we’re not actually addressing the book in OPs pic

[Anonymous No.11726721]

>>11725609
And the consequence of living a sinful life without Jesus should be what according to God? What we collectively as developed societies have deemed punishable acts and the magnitude of the penalty associated with such are at complete odds with what God has. We wouldn't find similar acceptable from a government or a parent. Yet for some, God is the special exception. Why? Because he's stronger than us? Because he created us? Because he created morality to be such that he's exempt from its restraints and demands? Or should we actually punish people for relatively minor acts like God?

[Anonymous No.11726766]

>>11724250
>>11726721
>t. has heard secondhand from his confirmation bias sources about the diez Mandamientos
>doesn't understand them in the context of the OT
>doesn't understand them in the context of the NT
Surely you're larping as a 2010 dawkinsfag.

[Anonymous No.11726789]

>>11726721
I personally believe that the collective shouldn't be punshing people for sin by killing or imprisoning or anything (besides individuals ostracizing) because God will sort them out in His justice, whereas men can get it wrong. Of course, if someone is attacking someone else or infriging on them then action should be taken, I believe, but otherwise try your best to peacefully work it out and leave the rest to God.

[Anonymous No.11726814]

>>11714336
>He believes guys like Aquinas are saying "everything has a cause" making his refutation a nonstarter.
Isn't that the case?

[Anonymous No.11726830]

>>11714373
If only you knew how bad this board really was.

[Anonymous No.11726832]

>>11714287
In the final analysis, even Dawkins realises that the dolphin is overtaken by the Kraken:
https://youtu.be/2tIwYNioDL8

[Anonymous No.11726841]

>>11726832
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11726854]

>>11726832
I doubt many Zoomers realise that their favourite dance is just a Mutation In The Mind brought to you by Science.

[Anonymous No.11726856]

>>11726766
Sadly can't know how many people consider the ten commandments to purely be a covenant between the Jews and God that no longer applies to us in the modern day. 'Pologies if this is a position you hold and you feel misrepresented.
>>11726789
By your view though, God inspired a text designed in part to impart knowledge of what he considers sinful so that you can live in accordance with his wishes. If the text is effective at that, you should be able to make mostly sound conclusions as to how God would judge various hypothetical scenarios, since that's how you inform your decision making. If you couldn't, it would seem the Bible is ineffective in that purpose. So assuming instead that it is effective, you should be able to compare how you, most people, governments, or God would judge various hypotheticals, and reason whether you can actually bring yourself to agree with him. Now, if you see a discrepancy, you might decide that God perhaps knows some key fact that we aren't privy to. That's a train of thought to be wary of too. One shouldn’t just a prior accept that God is good; it should actually be demonstrated. So if God would make judgments of questionable morality, his moral character should be under question as opposed to being assumed good as default. And to me, he just doesn't seem all that good.

[Anonymous No.11726866]

What's a good book for promoting critical thinking in adolescents?

I read this book but I don't think it's all that appealing for younger people who don't already have a background in this sort of thing. They probably won't fully understand the arguments given without other material since it's not an introductory book and only briefly touches on some of the counterarguments.

[Anonymous No.11726927]

>>11726856
If you don't see the good in existence itself and even the world we have then I don't know what to tell you. There's beauty, order, and challenges to overcome

[Anonymous No.11726943]

>>11726814
No, not him but they are saying that what we perceive all has a cause so there must be an uncaused first cause e.g. the elements generating much of what you see around you.

[Anonymous No.11727488]

>>11726856
One thing is to deny God as the all-powerful, all knowledgeable and the enitity entirely. Another thing is to accept these things and try to denounce the good part? I do not see the point. For if god created good and evil surely he knows about them both. I see it as people who make the choice of living a way in which they change the soul disposition to fit that of either hell or heaven and it is only by the mercy of the everlasting that one is granted eternal felicity.

[Anonymous No.11727499]

This book barely offers a sound critique of American Fundamentalists, let alone actual arguments for the existence of God and wider Christianity

>>11714302
based

[Anonymous No.11727746]

>>11722557
Another guy here. I don't see them as weak or inferior. I'm just wondering what the fuck? What's with humans?

[Anonymous No.11729426]

>>11719391
>>11719398
>>11722754
Palpable, naughtily delicious rage.

[Anonymous No.11729608]

>>11714287
Ayn Rand btfos god harder and better in Philosophy: Who Needs It

[Anonymous No.11729658]

>>11729608
only men understand philosophy you sillyboy. why do you think there are no famous female philosophers while there are plenty of famous female authors?
unbearably cringe and poopilled.

[Anonymous No.11729765]

>>11727488
>One thing is to deny God as the all-powerful, all knowledgeable and the enitity entirely
I don't see how knowledge or power necessarily correlate with goodness. Men can have both and still be evil. Why is it that when knowledge and power equal infinity, it equals the person necessarily being good? It's easy to conceive of a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, even of matters of good and evil, and nonetheless uses these strengths to achieve selfish ends.
These qualities you mentioned initially are mostly irrelevant.
>For if god created good and evil surely he knows about them both.
You reiterate the knowledge point, which I don't find convincing for the reason outlined earlier. But I do wonder what you mean by him "creating" good and evil? Give me the things in reality he created which are the origin of good and evil. Is the claim meaning to say he gave us our gut sense of right and wrong? Is it meaning to say he created mandates he dictated as rules of behavior? Isn't the result either way that morality is an arbitrary preference of God? In that case, why does God's moral sense get to hold any more weight than anyone else's?

[Anonymous No.11729781]

>>11729658
Ayn Rand is an honorary man though, as Ludwig von Mises can attest to. The formulation of man's first meta-capitalist philosophy deserves special consideration.

[Anonymous No.11729805]

>>11729781
Objectivism deserves consideration, not special consideration. And once it has been considered and dissected it can be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.11729882]

>>11729805
>dissected
I have never seen it "dissected" only maligned through weapons grade butthurt. And I've read all the most vocal attempts. Even the SEP (which at least tried tackle her impartially) failed to address the objectivist theory of concepts or Rand's stressing that the metacontextuality of said concepts matter.

[Anonymous No.11730296]

>>11729882
>some guys failed to rebuttal Rand
>the girl's still rockin'!
You have to be impartial in your ideas, anon.

[Anonymous No.11730302]

>>11714287
classic bait

[Anonymous No.11730341]

did someone say god?

[Anonymous No.11730431]

>>11730296
It's a hell of a lot more than”some" anon.

[Anonymous No.11730978]

>>11714287
god lovers don’t read it.
only fedora atheist read it and quote it

nobody learns from it

it’s a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.11731023]

>>11730431
Consider commas