[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 131 KB, 720x720, 1585588657336.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14983451 No.14983451[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

refute this
pro tip: you can't

>> No.14983455

Osho in an atheist and a theist
best to way to live

>> No.14983462

So it's a deadlock. Who gives a fuck anyway.

>> No.14983463

>>14983455
Osho was bound to his lust and endured great suffering as a result

>> No.14983469

>>14983451
I can’t prove you aren’t gay

>> No.14983478

>>14983451
Oh my god what an incredible observation.

>> No.14983491

>>14983451
It refutes itself.

>> No.14983498

>>14983451
>refute this, prove that
I didn't need to do any of this shit when I was a child. I just lived my life and experienced it. So weird that it was so much better even if I was wrong about a whole many things.
Being wrong didn't kill me.

>> No.14983503

>>14983491
You can't prove that you exist, either. Maybe you're all just projection on my part.

>> No.14983513

>>14983503
I am, actually. Your imagined adversary, the manifestation of everything you are against

>> No.14983523

>>14983451
No-one can disprove that Santa Claus exists. Therefore you should believe in him.

>> No.14983527

>>14983498
Woah... it's like... ignorance is bliss...

>> No.14983540

>>14983451
You can’t refute it but this is an argument for agnosticism.
That piece of ‘cinema’ is pure cringe and a perfect example of the soullessness of Protestantism in comparison with Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Protestants always break down to pure sophistry without any appreciation for beauty.

>> No.14983544

>>14983523
Yes. Human perception is so limited that santa being real and nobody noticing is very much a possibility

>> No.14983550

>>14983451
If you have knowledge you can refute it because transcendental knowledge is like whoa far out bra. Theist believe that they know god is and also sodomites are going to burn in hell. Atheist believe that they know god is not and they have 15 fedoras in their closet. Agnostics do not know if they know if they know yes or no or maybe so I just don't know man I just don't fucking know.

>> No.14983552

>>14983523
But you can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, don't act like this is an apt comparison

>> No.14983574

>>14983552
no you can't. if you can't find him it's just because he's hiding. he can do that with his santa magic.

>> No.14983588

was it kino?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4M_go4nEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPM97OlRReU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hImNXvL7QV8

>> No.14983592

>>14983527
Unfortunately, ignorance is only bliss if someone smarter than you is watching out for you. That's the real lesson of childhood: it's only by your parents' suffering that you could have that bliss.

>> No.14983616

You cannot prove or disprove, only God can. You can try to negate yourself. You can try to do something like Jesus said and keep on knocking. You could believe that maybe we're not supposed to be certain. This lack of certainty could be a nice experience to have. What but an immortal being would desire to experience ignorance? Oh how novel I'm an atheist. Woopie I don't know what the hell's going on. This book tells me how god is like I best start slaughtering them animals and cutting my PP.

>> No.14983626

>>14983552
>But you can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist
so prove it.

>> No.14983635

>>14983588
got to the part where some dumb bithc raises her hand and asks 'what's a theist' and the atheist prfoessor looks at her like 'are you really this fuckin retarded ho' and i lold

>> No.14983648

>>14983463
okay incel

>> No.14983652

>>14983523
I do

>> No.14983655

>>14983626
Whens the last time you've gotten coal or a present nigga wtf

>> No.14983739

>>14983552
>you can prove Santa Claus doesn't exis
We're waiting.

>> No.14983752

>>14983451
MAH GOD'S NOT DEAD

>> No.14983770

>>14983469
kek

>> No.14983774

>No one can disprove the existence of God therefore he is real.

Replace god with anything. Here
>No one can disprove the existence of Santa Clause therefore he is real.

Not so smart now.

>> No.14983781

>>14983451
I can't disprove that you exist either, but given where we are, the wait for proof sufficiently rich in detail for me to imagine intimate congress thereof, is bound to be longer than I can bother with.

>> No.14983792

>>14983451
Nobody can prove numbers exist either, and before people start this ---> 1 is not a number, its a symbol to represent a number.

Numbers dont exist, prove me wrong!

>> No.14983802

The improvability of the counterargument does not prove the argument. It merely suggests agnosticism at the only rational position.

>> No.14983804

>>14983527
No, nervousness and fear of failure is hell.

>> No.14983811

>>14983802
>improvability
inprovability

>> No.14983812

>>14983523
If Santa Claus didn't exist we wouldn't know how to dress as Santa.

>> No.14983814

>>14983552
Santa exists, though. We can't have non-existing things in our minds, since our minds are real to begin with. "Human software" might be a reductionist take, but it's a functional one.

>> No.14983819

>>14983792
Numbers are a formalization of the perception of objects. 1 is a symbol, but what it symbolizes is having (e.g.) one severed human foot in your freezer.

>> No.14983823

>>14983752
God isn't dead. This planet is experiencing a global cultural meltdown due to various factors; for one, a cult of narcissism has been festering for far too long among the upper economic and political classes.

>> No.14983824

>>14983451
You can't prove Ganesh doesn't exist.

>> No.14983826

>>14983451
With the same logic I claim that Thor is now real.

>> No.14983828

>>14983819
>Numbers are a formalization of the perception of objects.
Thus, numbers dont really exist, but we use them to make sense of the world, they work, so how could something only in our mind, work...

>> No.14983829

>>14983824
See >>14983812
Everything we can refer to, exists.

>> No.14983833

>>14983819
Considering that severed foot is made up of an amalgamation of matter with no distinguishable separation from surrounding matter, and that no 'severed foot' can be exactly similar to another, can we assume that all numbers are symbols of an approximate reality rather than reality as it is?

>> No.14983837

>>14983828
>dont really exist
Then what do they do? What are the limits of non-existing-existing interaction? Why the hell are we stuck in this ugly and clumsy world where art and distant nature are the only solace?

>> No.14983845

>>14983837
>Why the hell are we stuck in this ugly and clumsy world where art and distant nature are the only solace?
Is beauty real, or just in your mind, I mean, the moment you start to reject the possibility of God or metaphysics, a lot goes, numbers go, beauty goes, there goes morality, and consciousness, neither of which exists as concrete objects, but as abstractions, yet we use them, get meaning from them, so obviously they are real.

>> No.14983855

>>14983845
>Is beauty real, or just in your mind
All "concrete objects" exist as software in my mind. Existing matter is quite different from the lenses we look at it from.

>> No.14983862

>>14983855
>All "concrete objects" exist as software in my mind. Existing matter is quite different from the lenses we look at it from.
Nope, because mind is an abstraction, why your mind and not the mind of the all?

>> No.14983868

>>14983655
When I was a child. Santa Clause only gives presents to children. Do you even know the basic theory?

>> No.14983873

>>14983451
lmao nobody can "disprove the existence" of something that doesn't exist.

>> No.14983877

>>14983862
Within the perspective given to me, I have seen that 'concrete objects' are illusory outcome of more abstract structures and their linear interaction vectors.
Such as the discovery that humans see things through 'tools'; that is, "concrete objects". This has been important because it has complexified, and potentially removed, authentic AI from the potential field.

Now, I do know God. What goes on in the mind of God? I wonder.

>> No.14983878

>>14983868
Based Santa scholar

>> No.14983879

>>14983478
>Atheists FUCKEN TOLD
>lmao
>WILL TEHY EVER RECOVER???
>(probably not)

>> No.14983884

>>14983655
I got presents from Santa just this past Christmas. Checkmate, grinch

>> No.14983885

>>14983877
You cant prove you consciousness is real, you just assume it is, why is this different from believing in God?

>> No.14983892

>>14983868
>>14983878
So far I've learned Santa's got better chances of being real than God.

>> No.14983895

>>14983451
There are people that really think this is a “gotcha”?

>> No.14983897

>>14983885
>You cant prove
Which is why I let go of the desire to do so. I don't need to prove it to others. I can't even convince others that baby torture is wrong. Others are more like obstacles, really. Portals for useless, or even malicious doubt.

>> No.14983906

>>14983897
>I don't need to prove it to others. I can't even convince others that baby torture is wrong. Others are more like obstacles, really. Portals for useless, or even malicious doubt.
But in reality, you are to weak to actually ignore your moral programming. I know it sounds edgy, but a genuine sociopath would just lie and pretend to be a saint. Thats how I know I am not talking to one.

Discussions over.

>> No.14983917

>>14983906
>But in reality, you are to weak to actually ignore your moral programming.
If you end up digesting filth, throwing up via gag reflex is not 'weakness'.

>> No.14983925

>>14983833
All rational numbers, yes. I would've thought that talking about this in terms of "the perception of objects" would've given away, not just the inaccuracy, but the human-centric character of rational numbers.
For their part, real numbers symbolize relations in the world, like how far apart two places are from each other, or how quickly two places are moving relative to each other. The drawback is that real numbers can't be known, they can only be approximated by measurement. And since the important part of a glass thermometer is the tick marks, and you make a guess at the alcohol's level relative to the tick marks and round to the nearest fraction, you've still only somewhat gotten at temperature by doing that.

>> No.14983950

>>14983819
This doesn't hold up to generalizations. You have no foundational knowledge, and this is the basics.

>> No.14983956
File: 174 KB, 270x292, dorothy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14983956

>>14983812
Fuckkkk

>> No.14984008

>>14983895
Aside from a very naive (read: stupid) minority, not really. It's more like a rallying cry between coreligionists meant to disqualify the notion of debate itself. Religious people are generally not interested in devising scientific proofs for what they believe, nor should they be. The "point" of religion -- and I'm not speaking in defense of this so-called point, really -- is faith for its own sake. I think that's the subtext here.

>> No.14984041

>>14984008
>scientific proofs
What the hell.

>> No.14984077

>>14983451
Based synthesis of G.E. Moore's "here is one hand" argument and William James' Will to Believe, why would I want to refute it?

>> No.14984105

>>14983823
>HE'S SURELY ALIVE

>> No.14984128

>>14983950
Sure it generalizes, just not in the way that modern mathematicians want it to. You simply create a system for tracking objects, then expand it to include ownership claims of objects. You allow objects and claims to be recorded in such a way that balance between them is always maintained, and for changes to be accumulated and reported on.
In other words, accounting comes first, algebra comes second, and "foundations of math" only comes thousands of years later, from people whose heads are lodged firmly up their own asses.

>> No.14984149

>Atheists can be gay, yet Christians can't

How do Christians, in Jesus' name, think they are ever going to be able convert me?