It's time to grow up

[Anonymous No.16329834]

>The doctrine of atonement, which Christians take very seriously indeed, is so deeply, deeply nasty that it deserves to be savagely ridiculed. God is supposed to be all-powerful. He created the expanding universe, galaxies hurtling away from one another. He knows the laws of science and the laws of mathematics. He invented them, after all, and he presumably even understands quantum gravity and dark matter, which is more than any scientist does. He makes the rules. The one who makes the rules has the power to forgive whomever he likes for breaking them. Yet we are asked to believe that the only way he could think of to persuade himself – himself – to forgive humans for their sins (most notably the sin of Adam, who never existed and therefore couldn’t sin) was to have his son (who was also himself) tortured and crucified in the name of humanity. So, although the Old Testament is richer in sheer numbers of horror stories than the New, you could say that the central message of the New Testament is a strong contender for the grim distinction of being the most horrific of all.

[Anonymous No.16329840]

>>16329834
>White guy after 476 AD
>not a scientific work or work of fiction
Into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.16329848]

>>16329834
>Yet we are asked to believe that the only way he could think of to persuade himself – himself – to forgive humans for their sins (most notably the sin of Adam, who never existed and therefore couldn’t sin) was to have his son (who was also himself) tortured and crucified in the name of humanity.

[Anonymous No.16329850]

>white people really

[Anonymous No.16329853]

SEETHING BUGMAN

[Anonymous No.16329859]

>>16329834
Imagine reading Richard Dawkins for anything outside of Darwinian theories of gene mutation

[Anonymous No.16329878]

>>16329834
>If God made the cheetah, he evidently put a lot of effort into designing a superb killer: fast, fierce, keen-eyed, with sharp claws and teeth, and with a brain dedicated to ruthlessly killing gazelles. But the same God put an equal amount of effort into making the gazelle. At the same time as he designed the cheetah to kill gazelles, he was busy designing the gazelle to be expert at escaping from cheetahs. He made both fast, so each could thwart the speed of the other. You can’t help wondering, whose side is God on? He seems to be piling on the agony for both. Does he enjoy the spectator sport? Wouldn’t it be horrible to think that God enjoys watching a terrified gazelle running for its life, then being knocked over and throttled by a cheetah gripping its throat so tightly that it can’t breathe? Or that he likes watching a cheetah that fails to kill starve slowly to death, along with its pathetically whimpering cubs?

>Of course, for an atheist none of that presents a problem because we don’t believe in gods anyway. We are still at liberty to feel pity for the terrified gazelle or the starving cheetah and her cubs. But we don’t find their situations difficult to explain. Darwinian evolution by natural selection explains it – and everything else about life – perfectly well.

[Anonymous No.16329889]

>>16329834
I can't imagine being this devoid of spirituality. I mean, at least read Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. But he literally used a "Nietzsche sexist quote" to refute atheists reading him on twitter.

[Anonymous No.16329893]

White people are from Africa confirmed
Niggersssssss

[Anonymous No.16329917]

>>16329834
Seek Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16329952]

>>16329917
That quote is so good because true theology is so much more nihilistic than we like to imagine. It’s in that space of absolute mindflow that something like a connection can be made. With that in mind you can see how foreign the practice of faith is in our atomized perverted taxonomic world

[Anonymous No.16330030]

>>16329952
Going to have to agree with that. Theology is about your personal relationship with your Creator, and personal spiritual growth. Most institutions are intentionally corrupt and preach false doctrines.

[Anonymous No.16330074]

>>16329878
I read this as
>if god made the cheeto
At first and lmao’d

[Anonymous No.16330077]

>>16329917
I don't really get this argument.
>It's like upsetting a milk jug...
I see this argument a lot, equating evolution to complete random chance akin to shuffling a deck of cards or shaking a bottle of sand or something. But it's not chaos that "just happens" to result in structures like brains. Randomness plays a role in mutations, but which mutations are favored is not "random," there are mutations that are objectively beneficial.

[Anonymous No.16330121]

>>16330077

[Anonymous No.16330127]

>>16329834
He's unironically right

[Anonymous No.16330142]

>>16330121
Exactly, it's not "coincidence". Plus the robotic hand is specifically modeled after the human hand.

[Anonymous No.16330188]

>>16330142
Alright, so you're saying man was intelligently designed. Which is correct.

[Anonymous No.16330198]

>>16329889
How do you define "spirituality"?

[Anonymous No.16330201]

I'm not even religious but Dawkins is soulless

[Anonymous No.16330207]

>>16330188
Based. Not that anon but I would just like to quip that design is inherently intelligent. There’s no question of design but always of an agency of intelligence behind it and whether or not one sees that I think says more about their own reflection

[Anonymous No.16330238]

>>16330188
No, I'm saying "evolution" is not "coincidence". Just because randomness is involved doesn't make the entire thing random.

Imagine you have two players, each with a bowl of 100 marbles. You have a 6 sided, fair die. When you roll the die (random) and it lands on 1 or 2, player 1 takes a marble from player 2's bowl. If it rolls on 3, 4, 5, or 6, player 2 takes a marble from player 1's bowl. Whoever has the most marbles after 100 rolls wins. Player 2 will almost always win, even though the die rolls are random. Just because randomness is involved doesn't mean the outcomes are chaotic.

[Anonymous No.16330248]

>>16330238
Yikes

[Anonymous No.16330293]

I unironically want to have Richard Dawkins's baby

[Anonymous No.16330294]

>>16330238
Imagine God speaking everything in creation in a a matter of 6 days and resting on the 7th.

[Anonymous No.16330296]

>>16329834
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/
>Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

Dont mind me just wanted to shit on Darwinism rq

[Anonymous No.16330300]

>>16330201
I wouldn't go that far; by mistaking the study of life for life itself (God knowing 'all the rules' etc.) he's bound to end up where he has. He just doesn't 'get' religion, nor will he ever.
I rather like his writing style, though. He would've made a fine YA novelist.

[Anonymous No.16330322]

>>16330300
>He would've made a fine YA novelist.
powerful

[Anonymous No.16330330]

>>16329848
Based and breadpilled

[Anonymous No.16330341]

[Anonymous No.16330560]

>>16329834
>Waaaaaa I dont wanna be accountable for my actions

[Anonymous No.16330588]

as an atheist myself, I really don't like him
nevertheless all theists here are literally retarded

[Anonymous No.16331215]

>>16329834
How can anyone miss the point this much?

[Anonymous No.16331318]

>>16330588
Anon, I....

[Anonymous No.16331407]

>>16329834
sooner or later every committed atheist outs themselves as someone who is simply incapable of considering themselves imperfect.

[Anonymous No.16331421]

>>16329834
I like how Dawkins thinks it is preposterous that a being smarter than a scientist could exist.
>le not even us scientist know how dark matter works! BUT GOD DOES? Yeah ok, no way that is true cuz not even us scientists do!

[Anonymous No.16331440]

>>16329834
>Richard Dawkins
The devil is cackling as he prepares a special place in hell for this pseud after he dies

[Anonymous No.16331459]

>>16330198
That's something I'm not going to be able to answer in a 4chan post and which you already intuitively know the folk-designated meaning of.

[Anonymous No.16331466]

>>16329878
This might actually be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

[Anonymous No.16331470]

>>16330198
not him but something which will at least make you understand (or connect you to) spiritual/sacred writings more deeply than the concrete literal words in the texts.

[Anonymous No.16331527]

>>16329878
>Of course, for an athiest
Unintentionally hilarious sentence structure. This guy is just barely a step above the euphoric copypasta. Why do people take Dawkins seriously?

[Anonymous No.16331545]

>>16331527
The only people who take him seriously haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.16331559]

>>16331527
Because he is an actual scientist and a very good one at that. This makes people think his freshman-tier takes on religion are worth listening to, especially since his field is evolutionary biology which is tied in the public awareness to atheism.

[Anonymous No.16331730]

>>16331545
This is both true and false. True if you've read alot of books, false if you're young and impressionable and looking for easily cognoscible talking points.

[Anonymous No.16331744]

>>16329834
This dude's late-game death anxiety is coming out as 12-year-old's first takes on theology lol

[Anonymous No.16332159]

>>16331440
>Typical christcuck power fantasy

[Anonymous No.16332645]

>To the majority of learned men, looking at the living, moral teaching of Christ from the lower standpoint of the state conception of life, this doctrine appears as nothing but a very indefinite and incongruous combination of Indian asceticism, Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy, and insubstantial antisocial visions, which have no serious significance for our times. Its whole meaning is concentrated for them in its external manifestations – in Catholicism, Protestantism, in certain dogmas, or in the conflict with the temporal power. Estimating the value of Christianity by these phenomena is like a deaf man’s judging of the character and quality of music by seeing the movements of the musicians. The result of this is that all these scientific men, from Kant, Strauss, Spencer, and Renan down, do not understand the meaning of Christ’s sayings, do not understand the significance, the object, or the reason of their utterance, do not understand even the question to which they form the answer. Yet, without even taking the pains to enter into their meaning, they refuse, if unfavorably disposed, to recognize any reasonableness in his doctrines; or if they want to treat them indulgently, they condescend, from the height of their superiority, to correct them, on the supposition that Christ meant to express precisely their own ideas, but did not succeed in doing so. They behave to his teaching much as self-assertive people talk to those whom they consider beneath them, often supplying their companions’ words, “Yes, you mean to say this and that.” This correction is always with the aim of reducing the teaching of the higher, divine conception of life to the level of the lower, state conception of life.

[Anonymous No.16333145]

The stones shaped by the river are no coincidence or design, same goes for everything else. It's extremely silly to think God made us certain way just because it works, he could make it work any other way if he wanted. I do believe in tao, unexplainable thing, but even calling it unexplainable is an insult to it in our monkey mouth. Theism is lazy way out for lazy minds, easily destroyed by anything - biology, philosophy, history even.

[Anonymous No.16333742]

>>16329834
Hawkins is a pseud who got "cancelled" by the own movement he helped give birth too lol

[Anonymous No.16333785]

>god is nasty
>by what standard?
and hes btfo

[Anonymous No.16333787]

>>16329917
this quote is so retarded it made me an atheist again

[Anonymous No.16333809]

>>16329917
TL;DR: Design is chance. Evolution is causality.

[Anonymous No.16333821]

>>16333787
Naturalism posed a serious threat to maths in the time of people like John stuart mill. its not that retarded

[Anonymous No.16333836]

>god made the entire universe on day 1
>uses the remaining days to focus on just 1 planet in the uncountable billions of billions
>has to take a break on the 7th
did he burn out at the start? Why did he become so lazy after the first day?

[Anonymous No.16333861]

>>16333821
Are you talking about Godel or some shit? And the logical positivists? I don't really care about fags who equate "God" with "Oneness" like some sort of Brahman hindu or Spinoza pantheist/cosmotheist kind of 'i'm a deist actually' mindframe shit, I actually admire mathematicians like Newton who see the world that way, I just think it's autistically history or reality-denying to insist on creationism or spirtualism, especially given the pseudo mind-body prolem in terms of the "hard problem of consciousness"

[Anonymous No.16333882]

>>16333861
No this is the 19th cent. The realisation that formal logic was merely pschology at the core was a serious issue for people. While husserl started a trend that sorted this out (sort of) it still means the issue was seriously considered and not retarded

[Anonymous No.16333922]

>>16333882
>the realisation that formal logic was merely pschology
What? What have you read to believe this?

[Anonymous No.16333926]

>>16329834
This guy is so fucking obtuse.

Human nature is flawed because we have emotions that can take evil, destructive turns. The 7 deadly sins. The idea that we have original sin that we must atone for means that we have "demons" in us naturally. Emotions, lusts and fears that can take a dark turn. Whether we like it or not, we are flawed. Evil lurks within us. Accepting and confronting this evil is the only way to keep it at bay.
Original sin is much like the Jungian shadow.

>He makes the rules.
The Bible is an attempt at the interpretation of God's laws. God (nature) has laws. If you jump off a cliff and land on rocks you're going to die. Much like how if you sit on your ass (sloth), eat junk food (gluttony), and masturbate all day (lust) you will be a fucking wreck.

I'm going to stop here since I realized I'm dissecting something flawed at its foundation. His argument is based on a foolish and convenient straw-man.

[Anonymous No.16333927]

>>16333882
This isn't what Lewis is saying though. He's conflating necessity of axioms for metaphysical ends with the belief that meaning has to be received in order to be useful.

[Anonymous No.16333942]

>>16333922
Husserl. I think it is his essay philosophy as rigourous science? Basically, if we process everything through our randomly formed and falliable minds, the limitations of what we can perceive and how we can think in addition to the mere facts of brain chemistry render a lot of logic as having faulty foundations.

[Anonymous No.16333954]

>>16333785
Wouldn't God be nasty by most modern ethical paradigms. If you don't buy into his "mysterious ways" he is quite murderous and vindictive.

[Anonymous No.16333957]

>>16333927
Im not sure I agree with his conclusion you need to believe in God to have certainty (especially since belief is essentially trust, you TRUST a living God you feel, not an idea you adhere to for logical reasons). But I would disagree that the word 'useful' and 'meaning' should be used together, I think utility defeats the point of meaning

[Anonymous No.16333966]

>>16333954
>modern ethical paradigms
those paradigms are elaborations from the teaching of scriptures.

[Anonymous No.16333972]

>>16333966
>t. teenager

[Anonymous No.16333974]

>>16333954
Modern morality is all relativist though, if its honest. And you cannot truly call anything cruel in of itself as a relativist, just that you for completely random anthropological reasons find it so. But in the case of God, relativism renders him correct about everything since he is more powerful and intelligent than everyone else

[Anonymous No.16333978]

>>16333942
God made some people crazy and irrational too. So God doesn't necessarily guarantee sound reason either. We could all be in error.

[Anonymous No.16333981]

>>16333972
They really are though. Most modern morality is just Christianity watered down. It has no actual basis in anything

[Anonymous No.16333982]

>>16333972
no.

[Anonymous No.16333990]

>>16333981
You severely underestimate the thought that goes into the ethics of law, medicine, governance, etc. They're not just adopted biblical axioms.

[Anonymous No.16333993]

>>16333978
You could use the old Descartes copout here and just say what he wants to be intelligible to us he will make intelligible, or at least that our minds have been made custom equipped to understand the world. You could still say this understanding is limited, but if God wants it to be limited its better than nothing.

[Anonymous No.16334003]

>>16333990
After virtue BTFO all of this though. Utilitarians, emotivists, the lot.

[Anonymous No.16334009]

>>16333993
Doesn't help he arbitrarily made some people nuts and didn't explain why. This is slightly different to the problem of evil because it's epistemological.

[Anonymous No.16334023]

>>16333974
>relativism renders him correct about everything since he is more powerful and intelligent than everyone else
that's like saying that humans are more intelligent and powerful than dogs, therefore blatantly harming and abusing dogs is fine. and sure, maybe a few dumb edgelords will agree with that, but then you're basically admitting that Christian morality is literally just based around "might makes right." great fucking basis for an ethical system there.

[Anonymous No.16334029]

>>16333993
To put it another way you'd say the crazy people who think they're talking to God are not really talking to God. But God controls the universe so in some sense he really is still talking to them, albeit gibberish.

[Anonymous No.16334030]

>>16334003
Virtue Ethics doesn't really "BTFO" anything, it just outsources the problem to choosing the correct set of virtues.

[Anonymous No.16334031]

>>16333990
>They're not just adopted biblical axioms
the church is shit lmao. Modern ethics was greatly influenced by Muslim philosophers that incorporates rationality into theology.

[Anonymous No.16334037]

>>16334029
sure, you could say that, but then you're just doing mental gymnastics to rationally justify your flimsy pre-existing beliefs in the face of all logic and evidence to the contrary

[Anonymous No.16334045]

>>16334003
No it didn't. People use that book because they believe it's making a very eloquent version of the shitty traditionalist tautology when it's not. "We ought to all believe in received virtue because then we all have the same framework" is not a compelling statement. We are better equipped now to pare down moral systems to their material ends and to move from their in creating frameworks for ethical systems but we don't educate the general populace to that level. A poor moral framework does not work better (or have more integrity) because it is predicated on its own objectivity. Macyntire would agree with this, unfortunately he is co-opted by absolutist morons.

[Anonymous No.16334048]

>>16334037
A theist accusing anyone of mental gymnastics. You people invented it.

[Anonymous No.16334049]

>>16334009
What would insanity even be by the standard of God? We deem someone insane who is irrational by our standard or abnormal. But for all intents and purposes Jesus was both irrational and abnormal. Anyone who would behave like him would be seen as a lunatic through history or dangerous, even after he came to dominate religion.

[Anonymous No.16334050]

>>16334045
*there not their btw

[Anonymous No.16334051]

>>16333974
If you define relativist as "not grounded in divinely ordained axioms" then yes I'd be inclined to agree. And I'm not concerned with calling anything anything in itself. God's is cruel by my standards of cruelty and by my principles, and if I did believe in God I see no reason why I should believe that because he is more powerful and intelligent would align with my own.

[Anonymous No.16334052]

>>16330238
ok but theres still a 1/3 chance that Player 1 wins every time, so evolution is still more random than not and doesnt make sense

[Anonymous No.16334058]

>>16334045
>>16334030
>>16334023
You are saying why virtue ethics is wrong but NOT why his criticism of secular ethics is wrong.

[Anonymous No.16334072]

>>16334058
Virtue ethics isn't right or wrong, it can only be an elaborative framework on top of an existing moral code, because virtue ethics can't tell you anything about which virtues you're supposed to adhere to. that's what religion is for.

[Anonymous No.16334075]

>>16334058
His criticism of secular ethics isn't wrong, it's dominated entirely by emotive terminology that is supposed to be objective but in reality is pictured differently by each recipient. But that does not lead to the conclusion that we ought to subscribe to a system of taboo that is just as lacking in ends-oriented justification.

[Anonymous No.16334090]

>>16334058
>>16334072
the existing moral code can and should be derived from human needs, wants, desires, aversions, and intuitions, which are themselves inherently formed as a result of our innate neural architecture

religion doesn't help with that at all, since religious morals are typically just clumsy grasping attempts at creating the above, filtered through the extreme cultural biases and survival needs of people who lived thousands of years ago under very different material conditions

[Anonymous No.16334102]

>>16329834
He presume good and evil, morality, and valuations to be real things, but for a scientist these should all be either unreal or open to further research.

[Anonymous No.16334112]

>>16334048
and yet >>16334052

[Anonymous No.16334115]

>>16334090
>>16334090
>the existing moral code can and should be derived from human needs, wants, desires, aversions, and intuitions, which are themselves inherently formed as a result of our innate neural architecture
Those are all socially constructed though, just look at the 20th century - people can be made to "need", "want", "desire", "feel an aversion to" or "intuit" anything if the State tells them to

[Anonymous No.16334121]

Litteraly zero arguments in there. At best shitty moralising even to he does not believe in objective morals.

[Anonymous No.16334135]

>>16330121
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.16334143]

>>16333974

[Anonymous No.16334176]

>>16333926
Do you need fables to understand reality?
Are you 5 years old?

[Anonymous No.16334180]

>>16334090
>moral code can and should be derived from human needs, wants, desires, aversions, and intuitions, which are themselves inherently formed as a result of our innate neural architecture

Based

[Anonymous No.16334190]

>>16334143
you *ought* to follow this secular ethical system to die less. I agree that most people are retarded however and require a church authority to be kept in line, so to speak

[Anonymous No.16334241]

>>16334115
you're right, it's very difficult to distinguish between our natural drives and the various drives that are socially and culturally constructed, but that just means that further study is needed. we certainly have a much better under understanding of the human mind than we did 5000, 500, or even 50 years ago, and hopefully our understanding will continue to improve.

there's no perfect solution, we just need to do the best we can for now, and be flexible enough to make changes later as our understanding grows. science can never promise complete and total certainty, just a greater degree of certainty than we have before. but I'd gladly take that over the false certainty that blind faith in religious or ideological dogma offers.

the alternative is to base your morality on what a bunch of violent, desperate, primitive desert nomads from 3000 BC thought, even though they had almost zero understanding of psychology or philosophy and based the entirety of their moral compass around what would help their tribe survive and outcompete rival tribes in a hostile wasteland. but it seems extremely unlikely that a cruel, callous, tribalistic scarcity mindset like that would produce very good values for post-industrial humanity as a whole.

[Anonymous No.16334249]

>>16334102
This is ultimately the failure point of many criticisms of faith.

[Anonymous No.16334253]

>>16334176
I'm human.

[Anonymous No.16334268]

>>16334176
>Do you need fables to understand reality?
>Are you 5 years old?
This is also really funny from a Decline of the West perspective.
Materialist rationality is a sign of the old age of a culture (when young, a culture, when old, a civilization) about to die.

[Anonymous No.16334287]

>>16334190
>you *ought* to follow this secular ethical system to die less
But, you shouldn't care about dying less, so long as you're following God's will! If turning the other cheek means that you, your family, your bloodline, and your entire cultural heritage get wiped from the face of the earth by people who aren't so virtuous, then so be it. Living up to God's virtues is its own reward. At least you can go to your grave secure in the knowledge that you personally didn't make the world a worse place.

Is it righteous to lie in order to save your family from Nazi occupiers? Or to fight back against the Nazis? Of course not. Let them kill you, let them kill everyone you know, let them eradicate every last Christian alive. That way, the responsibility for their evils will fall solely on them, and not on you.

[Anonymous No.16334335]

>>16334287
>you shouldn't care about dying less
OK retard

[Anonymous No.16334453]

>>16329834
>The doctrine of atonement, which Christians take very seriously indeed, is so deeply, deeply nasty that it deserves to be savagely ridiculed.
Very convincing argument. It's not like there's anything deeper to the idea of atonement. It's also not like it could be applied to the modern context, and for example what addicts or other self-harming individuals are going through.

> Yet we are asked to believe that the only way he could think of to persuade himself – himself – to forgive humans for their sins (most notably the sin of Adam, who never existed and therefore couldn’t sin) was to have his son (who was also himself) tortured and crucified in the name of humanity
There's this incredibly funny thing. It's called symbolism.

Dawkins is a retard.
Why did he get into this discussion and stopped sticking to his academy work? I smell money.

[Anonymous No.16334545]

Why don't atheists understand that silly books like these just make us even more proud of our faith?

[Anonymous No.16334577]

>>16334453
>Why did he get into this discussion and stopped sticking to his academy work? I smell money.
I mean, partially, but it was also a response to harassment by dumbfuck literalist Christians who actually think God is an actual bearded dude in the sky who created the universe in a week with a magic wand. He wasn't always this bad, he used to openly describe himself as a "Cultural Christian" despite being an atheist, he just got fed up with all the bullshit.

From what I can tell, it basically went like this:
>Dawkins writes a totally secular book about how evolution works, doesn't mention religion at all
>get a ton of constant hatemail from dumb Ameri-Christians with a 70 IQ interpretation of the Bible because "muh creationism"
>write books and articles countering their arguments
>the counter-arguments go completely over their heads because they're retards, they just send him more hate mail
>he decides to switch gears entirely, writing books and articles about why religion is totally wrong and anyone who believes in it must be retarded like the Amerimutts
>gets more hate mail than ever now, but also wins the admiration of a ton of edgelord atheists (also mostly dumb Amerimutts) who hate their parents
>doubles down and decides to just dedicate his entire career and public persona to being anti-religion so he can keep getting money and applause from fedoratheists
>then 9/11 and the Madrid bombings and the 7/7 attacks happen, and he realizes that as stupid as the Evangelicals are, they're mostly harmless compared to Radical Islamists
>he starts devoting more attention to criticizing Islam, he figures maybe he can finally make common cause with the Christians and stop getting hate mail
>instead, Christians still hate him, but now he gets hate mail from SJWs accusing him of Islamophobia too
>says "fuck it" and just becomes a living parody of himself out of sheer frustration

[Anonymous No.16334725]

>>16334190
Dieing less is a terrible criteria for ethics

[Anonymous No.16334812]

>>16331470
>sacred
No such thing
>literal words
No such thing, language is a meme.

[Anonymous No.16334847]

>>16329878
Based

[Anonymous No.16334883]

If god made us then i don't trust him.
https://youtu.be/wzIXF6zy7hg

[Anonymous No.16334927]

>>16334545
It’s still retarded to be religious. Especially retarded if you are an econvert like most of lit

[Anonymous No.16334939]

>>16329878
>Evolution is part of God's design

[Anonymous No.16334966]

>>16333966
And chemistry started from alchemy, that doesn't mean alchemy is right

[Anonymous No.16334972]

>>16334052
Law of big numbers

[Anonymous No.16335084]

>>16333836
>Creating inanimate matter takes the same effort as creating intricate animal designs
do you even apologist bro

[Anonymous No.16335103]

>>16333954
>modern ethical paradigms
so what they are subjective ? Why will anyone care about them.

[Anonymous No.16335183]

>>16333785
By ours. And we actually exist

[Anonymous No.16335253]

>>16334577
So the moral of the story is "don't get baited"

[Anonymous No.16335273]

>>16329834
>yeah, I grew out of religion when I was in 8th grade, fuck you Dad for waking me up on Sunday mornings

[Anonymous No.16335284]

>>16334287
>Is it righteous to lie in order to save your family from Nazi occupiers? Or to fight back against the Nazis?
No, it's righteous to join them.

[Anonymous No.16335339]

>>16335273
>this is you
wojak tier

[Anonymous No.16335353]

>>16335183
not by my

[Anonymous No.16335370]

>>16335339
>wojak tier
To be fair to wojack, his purpose was originally "this is me", its not his fault newfags ruin everything

[Anonymous No.16335380]

>>16335370
Well, those that use him today not going to know that.

[Anonymous No.16336030]

>>16334966
>chemistry started from alchemy
science is based on empiricism. Ethics is not, it's based on presupposition, and if at the core is the belief in God, then still using it while shoving a bunch of bullshit in the hole will result in a crumbling philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16336051]

>>16334927
>econvert

[Anonymous No.16336160]

>>16336030
Sociology is a science.

[Anonymous No.16336174]

He has a long history of writing about things he doesn't understand so it's nothing surprising.

[Anonymous No.16336182]

>>16334577
You have to remember that most people on 4chan were either not alive during the whole nuAtheism thing, or weren't really capable of being aware of such things. At the time, nuAtheism only really cared (and truthfully, still only cares) about low-church Protestantism. All of the LARPers in here getting upset about their BASED TRAD CATHOLICISM/ORTHODOXY being criticized are fundamentally missing the point, as nuAtheism was never about attacking that.

These people legitimately only know about Dawkins from memes like Tiktaalik or misunderstanding the "my grampa was a monkey because evolution" meme.

[Anonymous No.16336238]

>>16329834
what a sophist
>>16329889
It's English climate. If it's rainy 24/7 you can't look up at the sky

[Anonymous No.16336297]

>>16329834
I always get confused by how low the level of atheist argument is, but that's probably because I always forget that young earth creationists exist and those are the kinds of people they argue with. Its a little baffling that someone apparently as intelligent as Dawkins can be such a midwit and fall in to such basic argumentative pitfalls as he does. You would think he could make some sort of token effort to actually understand what he is talking about.

[Anonymous No.16336306]

>>16329834
>multiple sentences about how God is all powerful, more intelligent than any human being, and created the entirety of the universe
>his argument after this is that God did something which seems illogical to the human mind therefore it doesn't make sense for God to be real

I knew he was bad, but this bad?
>>16333954
Modern ethical paradigms are the creations of the faulty human mind, God is a supreme being and therefore ascends our understanding of morality.
>>16335183
>And we actually exist
This is completely improvable.

[Anonymous No.16336359]

>>16334577
>Gets hated by christians
>Attacks religion in general
Who's the retard now?

[Anonymous No.16336866]

>>16334135
>accepts the mainstream narrative without question
>anyone questioning it must be a retard
>I mean why would they lie?
you retard fucking spineless tool, without a single original thought inside your head
they all have been manufactured for you
wake up from the matrix, you're a debt slave to the NWO

[Anonymous No.16337011]

>>16330077
Your reasoning is circular anon. You can't use evolutionary theory to argue in support of the human faculties of truth-acquisition (reason and the senses) when evolutionary theory itself is reliant upon the veracity of those same faculties. You are effectively saying "our faculties must be true because evolution says they're true, and evolution must be true because our faculties say it's true." You need to go back to the start and examine the faculties you take to be veridical before you can invoke any a posteriori explanation.
In fact if you look at something like Boltzmann Brains, it seems much more likely, if the world really did come about randomly and without purpose, that a brain would spawn in a void loaded with all the experiences you have, replete with all your memories, sensations, beliefs, thoughts, patterns of reasoning, etc., than that the world actually came about and exists as you perceive it. If the atheist model is true, the absurd position of solipsism seems to be the best scientific hypothesis.
I mean, just imagine all of the possible variations of mind that can exist. Even introducing some new chemicals (psychedelics) into our bodies can cause us to have a radically altered state of mind, which is utterly unrecognisable from our standard one. Now imagine the infinite possible ways your mind (and your sensory organs!) could have been structured differently, so that your perceptions, thought patterns, experiences, would all be totally unrecognisable from the ones you have now. Now ask yourself: Is it likely, given that the world came about randomly, that out of all the possible ways our minds and sensory organs could have been structured, we just happened to chance upon the "correct" ones, which always yield truth? This is very, very fucking unlikely in the atheist world, but it makes perfect sense on the theistic view.

[Anonymous No.16337039]

>>16336866
You are right anon. Please don’t vaccinate your kids. Please don’t risk your genetics getting wiped out.

[Anonymous No.16337048]

>>16329834
>which is more than any scientist does.
It’s not possible!!! Scientists are our best and brightest!!!

[Anonymous No.16337066]

>>16337011
Why did you write so much while still not actually reading a word that he said? Micro-chaos results in macro-order. We can demonstrate this empirically. If you want a really simple example, go make yourself a Galton Board. Saying otherwise just introduces completely ludicrous ideas, like energy wells not existing (we know they do, this can be demonstrate empirically), or Yahweh engaging in unintelligent design (human reproduction as a whole is either indicative that Yahweh is a dumbfuck, or that evolution occurs, whether guided or unguided).

[Anonymous No.16337090]

>>16337011
The point is less that "evolution isn't random because evolution" and more that the initial conditions of extremely early evolution were simple. The idea that evolution is so incredibly complex that it must have been intelligently designed is fallacious since it assumes complexity of its mechanisms has remained static over its duration. In reality, the complexity of evolutionary systems is tied to the complexity of the interactions between the organisms driving it, and as we know, life came from extremely simple origins.

[Anonymous No.16337092]

>>16330077
>>16337090
>>16337066
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

[Anonymous No.16337096]

>>16331459

cause you're a scared faggotkike. fuck off

[Anonymous No.16337108]

>>16337066
>>16337090
Are you literally an NPC? I wasn't attacking evolution or anything like that but you jumped instantly to defending it. You haven't engaged with my points.

[Anonymous No.16337122]

>>16330296
>David Hillel Gelernter is an American computer scientist, artist, and writer. He is currently a professor of computer science at Yale University.
Not surprised that he isn't a biologist.

[Anonymous No.16337132]

>>16337090
are you crazy just see what a protein is you dumbo

[Anonymous No.16337154]

>>16337132
>shit builds up over 4.28 million years
Yes, and?

>>16337092
>watch this hour long video by people who don't know what they're talking about
>Comments are turned off. Learn more
Give me the cliffnotes, because if this is just "entropy disproves evolution", then no, you're wrong, the Earth is not a closed system and is constantly receiving energy from the sun.

>>16337108
>defending YEC
>I wasn't attacking evolution
Uh huh.

[Anonymous No.16337162]

>>16337154
>shit build up
that is not how proteins work

[Anonymous No.16337163]

>>16337011
>it seems much more likely, if the world really did come about randomly and without purpose
You're painting a false dichotomy, and painting a total straw man of one "side" to support your own. Either this ridiculous idea of atheistic thought as being "everything just happened randomly" involving completely hypothetical Boltzmann brain thought-experiments is true, or theism is true.
I'm not who you replied to, but it seems that >>16337090 did everything they could to try to salvage a decent discussion from your shitty community college creationist-tier argument.

[Anonymous No.16337171]

>>16329834
Very based. Very based indeed. Allow me to offer a quotation from my favorite New Atheist.

>Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that: created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea.

[Anonymous No.16337181]

>>16337039
imagine being a shamelessly pro vax zombie drone

[Anonymous No.16337191]

>>16337162
Yes, actually, it is. Proteins are made up of amino acids, which have been demonstrated to naturally bind together "in nature" without human involvement to form (incredibly small) proteins. We've actually found amino acid chains on comets and meteors, which is pretty cool.

The argument that proteins are "too complex" to have occurred over 3.28 million years is silly, because as >>16337090 pointed out, the starting point is so simple (look into "RNA world") that it does actually occur all the time. No one believes that one day Titin just appeared out of nowhere from nothing for no reason except Creationists.

[Anonymous No.16337192]

>>16329834
Lame materialist claptrap. Atonement isn't something God needs it is something we need to feel cleansed of our evil deeds. Because we want to be like god, loving and in unity with all things.

Dawkins making god sound like some uber engineer, just shows how limited and laughable he is.

[Anonymous No.16337206]

>>16337096
>>16334812
Sounds like you're scared of reality.

Imagine purposefully ignoring Divine Might because you think the only argument for Divinity is Right.

[Anonymous No.16337213]

>>16337171
The limits of these materialists would be laughable if their pride being so easily manipulated didn't help all of get herded into the abattoir by the oligarchy that wants to convince human beings they are animals and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.16337220]

>>16337090
>The idea that evolution is so incredibly complex that it must have been intelligently designed is fallacious

Hey, I'm walkin here.

[Anonymous No.16337262]

>>16337154
>defending YEC
You do not have thoughts of your own do you? Show me where in my post I even mentioned YEC, or attacked evolution, you fucking braindead bug.

[Anonymous No.16337294]

>>16337262
>Now ask yourself: Is it likely, given that the world came about randomly, that out of all the possible ways our minds and sensory organs could have been structured, we just happened to chance upon the "correct" ones, which always yield truth? This is very, very fucking unlikely in the atheist world, but it makes perfect sense on the theistic view.
You're trying to do the whole WLC "n-no I-I'm not irrational, y-you have to take me seriously, I-I don't actually believe in talking snakes" thing. It doesn't work. If you were arguing for some form of guided evolution, I could see it, but given that you're dropping the shibboleths of "random", don't actually understand what evolution entails, directly arguing against evolution, and are trying to reify a YEC worldview, I think it's fair to say that you're trying to defend YEC, and argue against evolution.

[Anonymous No.16337303]

>>16329848
This—he’s on the nose with what the story is he’s just kinda being obtusely literal about the whole thing. “Adam never existed so could never sin” is a galaxy brain take

[Anonymous No.16337311]

>>16337154
>Give me the cliffnotes, because if this is just "entropy disproves evolution", then no, you're wrong, the Earth is not a closed system and is constantly receiving energy from the sun.
The point is that to build a functioning protein you need the right chain of "code", and that these sorts of chains are very unlikely to occur given only random mutation. It's like having a huge bike lock and trying to guess the solution with a random number generator. Most of the guesses are going to be wrong. This effect is amplified greatly in evolution, with the result that it is overwhelmingly unlikely, through all of the history of the earth, that the random selection process would create even one gene capable of producing one new protein.
Read pic related. It'll explain better than I can.

[Anonymous No.16337321]

>>16329952
It’s no surprise to me that people like Dawkins bring up arguments that Church Fathers have already discussed so many years ago. He’s bringing up theological questions as if they haven’t been asked hundreds of times already

[Anonymous No.16337339]

>>16337311
See >>16337191. RNA world deals with this. 3.28 million years is a very, very long time.

>>16337321
CS Lewis was a children's author, not a Church Father. A Church Father you should listen to, however, would be Augustine, who told people like you that Pride was a sin, and that you should be quiet lest you make Christianity look bad.

[Anonymous No.16337367]

>>16337339
Calm down and read what I said again. I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.16337385]

>>16337303
shut up logo

[Anonymous No.16337400]

>>16337294
There is no evolutionary process which selects for truth. Only survivability. I don't see why we would assume that the most survivable = the most true. In fact it is known that many other species have radically different minds and sensory organs to our own. The same evolutionary mechanism that created their minds and sensory organs also created ours, so there should be no reason to favour the human truth-acquisition faculties over any other species', even assuming that natural selection selects for truth, which is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.16337402]

>>16337385
Am I wrong? Lmao

[Anonymous No.16337426]

>>16337339
>3.28 million years is a very, very long time.
People literally did the calculations for how rare a functioning code is vs how many possible combinations there are and found that it is literally so implausible that even to create one gene by the random selection process is tantamount to impossible. The book very clearly refutes neo-darwinism, just read it.

[Anonymous No.16337448]

>>16337400
>most survivable = the most true
No one is arguing this. This is precisely why I brought up that your beliefs deny the possibility of energy wells, of evolution taking a species (for simplicity) down a path that, while locally maximizes fitness, is in truth absolutely disastrous. Pandas are a good example of this phenomena, in that they're very well adapted for their environment, but in a way that makes them incredibly fragile. We know that these things (energy wells) occur. To say otherwise is silly.

>>16337426
See >>16337191
>neo-darwinism
lol

[Anonymous No.16337501]

>>16337448
>See
Linking your old posts says nothing. It's a mathematical proof against neo-darwinism. What percentage of amino acid codes are going to produce functional proteins? And how many possible combinations are there? Well, the data shows that it's so implausible that the to believe in neo-darwinism subsequently is nothing but faith. It is tantamount to setting up a factory of monkeys on typewriters and hoping to produce the works of Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.16337515]

>>16337501
A bald assertion isn’t an argument. I’ve already refuted your representation based claims. Give me something else

[Anonymous No.16337582]

>>16337448
>No one is arguing this.
Then what are you arguing?
1. Our minds and sensory organs evolved for survivability, not truth-acquisition, on the atheist view.
2. There are extremely many variants of minds and sensory organs which would produce radically different experiences than the current human mind and sensory organs.
3. Of these variants, a great deal are going to be either beneficial or neutral for fitness; and it could be that the human variant is likewise beneficial or neutral for fitness while not beneficial for truth-acquisition.
4. Therefore there is no reason to suppose, on the atheist view, that the human variation of mind and sensory organs is more "correct" than any other.
5. But if this is true, there is no reason to suppose we can get at the truth.
C. Therefore, the atheist's thoughts, reasonings, empirical investigations, inquiries, speculations, etc., are all up for question, including his belief in evolution, and his rejection of God.
This is what CS Lewis was talking about.

[Anonymous No.16337588]

>>16337206
Sorry, i'm not interested in creating a tulpa.

[Anonymous No.16337596]

There are too many repeating patterns and structures in the universe to believe it's all random, also there is an objective evolution of the structures from simple to complex, it makes more sense to believe there is some kind of purpose in the universe compared to believing in randomness and chance, especially because true randomness doesn't exist when all matter responds to some specific laws.

That being said, I still respect skeptics and atheists way more than christcucks and other fundamentalists, while it's arrogant to claim there is absolutely no god it's still more humble than claiming you are certain that you have grasped the sense of all creation and managed to define what God truly is, all based on some shitty myths and concepts told to you by other men, which by nature are fallacious.
Atheists like Dawkins reject God but are still humble enough to find interest in the universe and the material world, religious folk instead love to jerk off on manmade ideas that somewhat claim they are separate entities above all creation, only responding to an intelligent being that posses similar qualities to them.

In short, fuck christcucks, back to /pol/ you niggers.

[Anonymous No.16337614]

>>16337596
A bald assertion isn’t an argument. I’ve already refuted your representation based claims. Give me something else

[Anonymous No.16337616]

>>16337515
You can't refute it unless you show (1) that the possible combinations of amino acids for functioning proteins are in fact more than is supposed in the book, or (2) that the possible combinations of amino acids generally are less than is supposed in the book. That's literally the only way you can refute it, otherwise it is an airtight mathematical case against neo-darwinism.

[Anonymous No.16337641]

>>16337614
This is my first post in the thread. I don't even know what's your fucking argument.

[Anonymous No.16337755]

>>16337501
>mathematical proof
lol. Watch, as I provide mathematical proof of you being a faggot: (Ax+Bx)/Y = C.
See >>16337191

>>16337582
Your problem is you're reading the works of children's authors, instead of actual philosophers. At point 5 you assume that either the human understanding of reality is totally correct, or it's totally wrong. The idea that perhaps humans have some understanding of reality but not all of it is totally neglected. We cannot see in IR or UV (I use "see" in both sense of the word, as our eyes lack the capacity to detect them, but our brains lack the capacity to interpret them as anything other than white and purple, as there are actually imperfections of the eye that allow you to see UV and IR, albeit only slightly), we cannot feel magnetic fields (Ignore those biohacker queers that shove magnets in their fingers, that's something different than what I'm referencing, and we lack sonar. This does not mean that snakes, mantis shrimp, sharks, and dolphins have a more correct view of reality than us, but rather that we are only capable of understanding certain elements of reality.

You're making the "relative = meaningless" mistake, which means that your very argument (everything is relative to God) is also meaningless, and a theist must always doubt their own thoughts, reasonings, etc. It is precisely BECAUSE of that relativity that we can have any knowledge at all. Pride is a sin, anon. You should be more humble. The world does not rotate around you.

[Anonymous No.16337902]

>>16337641
It's a bot

[Anonymous No.16337953]

>>16330198
That's a completely unnecessary question. You know exactly what he means.

[Anonymous No.16337968]

>>16331559
He hasn't held an academic post, or created original research since the 1970's. He's not a scientist or a very good one, he's a professional atheist. In other words, he's as worthless to science and society as the queen of England.

[Anonymous No.16338466]

Does god know every groove of my asshole

[Anonymous No.16338725]

>>16336866
"YES ME RETARRD"

[Anonymous No.16338832]

>>16329834
I fucking hate Dawkins but The Selfish Gene was good.

[Anonymous No.16338839]

>>16337181
You can rewrite any chemical substance to look bad ("dihydrogen monoxide" being the most obvious parody). As bullshit as this is, the government does it too (anti-smoking propaganda indicates they put tar in cigarettes, which is not accurate).

[Anonymous No.16338898]

>>16337303
Whats the meaning behind it and whats the methodology you used to obtain such result?

[Anonymous No.16338945]

>it's just symbolism!

I had no idea /lit/ had so many atheists.

[Anonymous No.16338951]

>tfw christianity is so fucking retarded that once the population generally had the chance to read the actual books it is based on they started to see atheism as reasonable
Are you abraham larpers happy with yourselves? We had perfectly good platonic metaphysics and you neurotic tards just had to staple on your jewish fairy tales and kill anyone who tried to think for themselves.

[Anonymous No.16338953]

>>16329840
you pleb cunt. you never read any philosophy then? any montaigne, hobbes, smith, marx, hegel? suck my tiny dick

[Anonymous No.16339068]

>>16338839
Its unnatural and doesn't belong in your system. Especially when its deliberately weaponized to destroy your immune system.

[Anonymous No.16339081]

>>16338951
Jesus can help you cope. Reach out to Him.

[Anonymous No.16339105]

>>16337968
He contributed important things to his field, he was a good scientist.

[Anonymous No.16339116]

>>16339081
At least one of you is honest enough to admit it's all a big cope.

[Anonymous No.16339288]

>>16329878
You can feel the pretentiousness.....he's saying that since the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and everything isn't easy for everything God must be bad? Where did this "the world doesn't revolve around me or my personal ideals so it must not be a God" come from? It's like wishful thinking at best

[Anonymous No.16339429]

>>16336182
honestly, Americunts were the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity. literally everything about American Evangelical theology is practically custom made to be as stupid and unconvincing as possible, it makes the rest of the Christian faith and religion/spirituality as a whole look completely retarded by association. I find it hard to actually get upset with nuAtheist types, because if I grew up hearing about how the world was only 6000 years old, dinosaurs and humans lived together like on The Flintstones, and all our measurements that say otherwise are just a result of Satan's trickery, I'd make fun of Christians for being retards too.

[Anonymous No.16339439]

The jew on a stick worshipers have the burden of proof that:
1. the Bible which is the ethnoreligious texts of the hebrew peoples as compiled by flawed, mortal men of the catholic church and refined and modified over the centuries since Jesus' death is the perfect word of god,
2. every single person involved in the compilation of the Bible and the production of the christian tradition made not even one single error,
3. god is an anthropomorphic being who is identified with YHWH from those books,
4. Jesus literally bodily rose from the dead after being executed,
5. the individual christnigger's personal interpretation of the previously mentioned books is the correct one that god intended under penalty that they will literally be tortured in the worst possible way for all eternity,
6. every single other religion or tradition on earth is 100% wrong and there is absolutely no other wisdom on earth.

Which group of people seems reasonable? The galileans or literally anybody else?

[Anonymous No.16339470]

>>16339439
4 of these 6 points arent even mainstream christian beliefs

[Anonymous No.16339492]

>>16339470
They are all necessary because of the literal historical truth claims made by christianity and by the exclusive truth claims made by christianity.

[Anonymous No.16339493]

>>16329834
>civil disobedience is wrong
>peaceful protest is wrong
So this... is the power of atheism...

[Anonymous No.16339517]

>>16339439
just make #6 your only point.

[Anonymous No.16339563]

>>16329834
im an atheist but this is next level reddit tier cringe

[Anonymous No.16339565]

>>16339492
you seem to know very little about Christianity apart from what people like daddy dawkins have taught you
perhaps try reading some christian theology before making such erroneous claims

[Anonymous No.16339651]

>>16339565
Which parts aren't true? Is the Bible not true? Is Jesus' resurrection not true? Was the Bible as it is known today not compiled by the catholic church? Was christian tradition not created by necessarily flawed men?

[Anonymous No.16339911]

>>16330077
It's a pretty simple argument.

1. Believing in atheism leads to believing that evolution crafted our brains (Premise)
2. Believing evolution crafted our brains leads to believing in (philosophical) skepticism (Premise)
3. Any belief that leads us to believe in skepticism must be rejected (Premise)
4. Believing in atheism leads us to believing in skepticism (1, 2)
5. Therefore, atheism must be rejected (3, 4)

Premises 1 and 2 are uncontroversial. Premise 2 is argued for by CS Lewis in that picture. Briefly, since evolution is directed at maximizing survival function and not maximizing truth-seeking function we cannot be sure that our brains and sense faculties are directed towards truth-seeking, therefore we must be skeptics as we cannot be sure of anything.

[Anonymous No.16339927]

>>16339911
I mean premises 1 and 3 are uncontroversial obviously. Premise 3 should be uncontroversial since skepticism results in rejecting the original belief in the first place resulting in one believing in P and not-P, and I think it is obvious that this is an undesirable scenario.

[Anonymous No.16340342]

>>16339911
That's a lot of words to say
>don't question my religion

[Anonymous No.16340420]

>>16329889
I've never understood spirituality.
For me, if its not material I have a hard time caring for it in the long term.
Like I can say "love thy neighbor", but only because doing so causes a material gain for everyone involved.
I can say that "We should have intelligent freedom", not because of the idea that we are all equal in the eyes of god, but because history has proven that to be an effective governance structure.

To me, believing in anything that doesn't have to be grounded in reality just doesn't make sense. Its lying to oneself essentially.

[Anonymous No.16340445]

>>16329917
The response to this would be that it is evolutionarily beneficial for the human brain to process things in accordance to actual reality.
When we were barely standing apes having a brain that better represented reality than the guy next to you let you avoid the leopards better for example. Or when we were building the first cities, having a brain that accurately represented reality and having kin-mates with the same traits gave you a step up over the hallucinating madmen down the river.

Essentially, that its evolutionarily advantageous for your brain to think accurately in such a powerful way that it is selected for necessarily.

[Anonymous No.16340842]

>>16340420
congratulations you have the soul of a jew

[Anonymous No.16340847]

>>16333974
>Modern morality is all relativist though

If that is true why were people outraged by OJ getting off free?

[Anonymous No.16340863]

>>16340847
because people hate niggers

[Anonymous No.16340864]

>>16340842
If you are going to be aggressive like that, then I have to say that you have the soul of a fool.

[Anonymous No.16340879]

>>16340863
This. Opposing non-whites isn't some instrumental tactic for me, it's a terminal end in itself.

[Anonymous No.16340906]

>>16339911
This right here is why your pastor tells you to shut the fuck up about theology and let him do the talking, jesus christ lmfao. You aren't even baptized.

>>16340842
That is how most people throughout history engaged with religion, especially in Christian Europe, yes. The idea that religion has no impact on every day life is actually REALLY modernist.

>>16340879
"Moral relativism" is only a problem for cowards too scared to actually believe anything.

[Anonymous No.16340917]

>>16340906
You say that like Modernism isn't a good thing.
Getting rid of romanticism and traditionalism is the one real success of the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.16340920]

>>16340420
>He only decided to have children because of what they can do for him

Total fucking boomer right here

[Anonymous No.16340924]

>>16339068
>appeal to nature
>>16339565
>bible is absolute truth
>except this part, and this, and this, and this...

[Anonymous No.16340936]

>>16340920
Nah, having children is influenced by the Kantian ideal of not treating others as mere means.
And that idea of not using others as tools is informed by the historical evidence that sociopathy is destructive more than helpful.

So that isn't something that follows from my post.

[Anonymous No.16340968]

>>16340420
It's the ineffable magic spice. It's life essence.
How are we alive?
>well, because blood is pumped from your heart etc. etc.
Sure, but how does any of that work in the first place? What is keeping it going?

[Anonymous No.16340983]

>>16329848
Thats patently retarded

[Anonymous No.16340990]

Didn't Dawkins say philosophy was rubbish? Or was that black science man?

[Anonymous No.16341000]

>>16340990
That was Tyson.
Dawkins did say that "We should keep an open mind. But not so open that our brains fall out".
Which is maligned, but I think is a valuable point. There is such a thing as too much credulity towards crackpots.

[Anonymous No.16341003]

>>16329917
>but I will trust the religion I inherited from my parents and believe in purely through faith which could just have easily arbitrarily landed on any other religion
next level genius over here

[Anonymous No.16341007]

>>16330121
This is obviously a troll, but just think, there are people out there who unironically buy into that premise

[Anonymous No.16341011]

>>16340936
>not treating others as mere means.
Why not tho
>And that idea of not using others as tools is informed by the historical evidence that sociopathy is destructive more than helpful.
There's just as much evidence that using others as tools will make you a master of this world.
Why shouldn't I do terrible things for the sake of power if no one would ever find out about it?
If I lived in Hollywood and could coerce sex from aspiring actresses in return for giving them a movie role and use my influence in the media to keep everyone silent, why shouldn't I?
If I lived in China and could make way into Xi's inner circle by lying, backstabbing, treating people as cattle and in doing so, secure the most material benefit possible, why shouldn't I?
If I lived in a world where everyone lied, cheated, and stole and this was openly encouraged and the most celebrated man in the world was the biggest lying, cheating thief, and the most hated man in the world was the most honest, trustworthy, lawman why shouldn't I?

[Anonymous No.16341014]

>>16340906
>"Moral relativism" is only a problem for cowards too scared to actually believe anything.
I'm not a relativist, I just hold opposition to non-whites as the absolute core of my moral code. It's not a means to a more peaceful and less violent society, or to more technological advancement or higher quality of life or whatever, those are just added perks. Opposition to non-whites is my single driving terminal value.

[Anonymous No.16341026]

The amount of misunderstanding of evolution in this thread demonstrates that this is perhaps the most retarded board on 4chan. How can you guys not grasp a concept literal grade school children learn?

[Anonymous No.16341060]

>>16340420
You've become religiously devoted to one aspect of your cognition. The material rationalist in you. You've become an inverse cripple by slavishly devoting all of your attention to one domain of intellect.
>Its lying to oneself essentially.
You are lying to yourself by denying the human in you in favour of the one part of your brain that is robotic, cold, and bloodless.

[Anonymous No.16341078]

>>16341060
You're projecting, anon. There is only one real domain, the material. Spirituality is a coping mechanism for people who cannot honestly face reality as it is, which is fine for those people, but if you wish to be honest, you must dispense with it.

[Anonymous No.16341085]

>>16341011
Because you are making the bet that no one will find out about it.
While there are some that do so, even things like murder have a 60% chance of being found out let alone things like extensive blackmail. Essentially, your chances at success are low in comparison to the chances of failure.
Or for politicking for every guy that crawls his way to the top, far more are left as middling influencers, or totally ostracized for stepping on too many toes.

Additionally, I benefit from a society that is built around cooperation and general constructiveness. Its my job to further that.
If society became too focused around conflict and taking advantage of everyone else, then the consequences of that would be deleterious to me.
Being constructive is good because I am greedy.

[Anonymous No.16341092]

>>16341085
*while there are some that succeed
Mistyped

[Anonymous No.16341103]

>>16341078
You are gimping your brain.

[Anonymous No.16341118]

>>16341103
Tesla was a good engineer, but he was not a great physicist or general scientist.
He was definitely a savant.

[Anonymous No.16341127]

>>16341118
He's not wrong.
Your fanatic devotion to rationality is in itself irrational. Your belief that we,as humans, are capable of pure materialist rationality, or that we are better off with pure materialism, is irrational.

[Anonymous No.16341130]

>>16339911
>Any belief that leads us to believe in skepticism must be rejected
Where did he said that?

[Anonymous No.16341134]

>>16341103
except there have been scientists who've done extensive studies of reincarnation claims, astrology, precognition, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. for about 150 years now, and nothing's ever come of it

[Anonymous No.16341135]

>>16341085
>Because you are making the bet that no one will find out about it.
In the real world, sure, but there are plenty of bodies buried in the desert...
Are you familiar with the Ring of Gyges myth?

Do we do good things for a good reward or do we do good things because they are good?

[Anonymous No.16341143]

>>16341127
What in the world has gone beyond rationality and materialism?
You can make the functionalist argument that spirituality is useful for improving social morale, but if the idea is that there really are amaterial aspects to reality then I'm going to need evidence for that.

[Anonymous No.16341164]

>>16340842
>ad hominem
>>16341103
What separates some material phenomena from something spiritual one? How can we be sure that spiritual subject of study isn't actually material?

[Anonymous No.16341170]

>>16341143
Does a triangle exist in the physical world?
Do thoughts exist in a world without thinkers?

[Anonymous No.16341201]

>>16340968
>what is 2+2 don't say 4
>>16341014
ow the edge
>>16341170
triangle is a social construct =)

[Anonymous No.16341214]

>>16341170
As in the ideal triangle? No. That doesn't exist.
But our conception of that informs the views we have of material representations of that triangle.
The concept is there, but in practice its the material representations that actually matter.

As for thoughts vs thinkers, thats another way of saying do ideas exist independently of people coming up with them, right?
In which case, yeah. Those ideas do exist independently. For example, before Newton (and later physicists that patched up his holes in terms of quantum mechanics), those laws that describe physics still existed.

[Anonymous No.16341221]

>>16341014
You're just demonstrating my point. They're too chickenshit to say "X is bad", even for roundabout reasons. They don't actually BELIEVE, for example, that pedophilia is bad, it's that GOD SAID it is, so we have to do it, because they don't make the rules, but GOD SAID...

[Anonymous No.16341272]

>>16341134
the immaterial =/= debunked pop-spirituality
>>16341143
>What in the world has gone beyond rationality and materialism?
Creativity, ingenuity, ideas, reason, logic, intuition, the words you're using
>You can make the functionalist argument that spirituality is useful for improving social morale
Since it is the most effective route to group cohesion, is there not something to it?
We need a "religion" of some kind or another. You worship at the altar of reason. Others will worship at the altar of lust. Others, money etc.
Whether you like it or not, part of you craves irrationality, demands it of you, knows instinctively that it is necessary for you as a human. The denial of this irrational aspect of your mind/heart/whatever you want to call it is irrational since it exists and it has shown to be valuable. Material based societies fall. Materialist city dwellers are miserable. Materialist rationality is unsustainable because in its blind devotion to rationality it fails to see that we aren't entirely rational creatures.

[Anonymous No.16341283]

>>16341143
Materialist rationality is the hubris of man thinking he has conquered the very nature that nurtured his growth.

[Anonymous No.16341292]

>>16341103
"non-physical phenomena" have been studied for centuries. It's all quackery and charlatanism.

[Anonymous No.16341311]

>>16341292
Placebo effect.
Your mind can heal your body without any outside help. Just by believing it's being treated.
Thought can transcend and influence the material.

[Anonymous No.16341382]

>>16338832
>he cares about stupid worthless nerd shit like biology

[Anonymous No.16341398]

>>16329834
>deeply, deeply
what a shit writer, couldnt think of another word?
His prose is like hemingway but he forgot that he doesnt know how to use colons semicolons and hyphens in a intuitive manner, so he just felt the need to press every key on the board just to let everyone know that be knows where it is
What a retard actually 60 iq

[Anonymous No.16341477]

>>16340917
>You say that like Modernism isn't a good thing.
It most certainly isn't, it's probably the biggest disaster of the human race as of late.

[Anonymous No.16341495]

>>16329834
>invented them

The concept of universal law being divine in nature predates Christianity and is generally a part of all human religion.

>God sacrificed His son because humans broke universal law and the only way to ensure integrity in that law was by a great sacrifice

Yes, this is logically consistent with the system. God is all powerful but his responsibility is upholding the universal law, this is also seen in the Iliad and the stories of Hercules wherein Zeus COULD theoretically just will Heracles' sins away, but because Zeus is responsible for upholding universal law and his son violated the sacred xenia of ancient Greece it means Zeus would severely fuck up the universal balance.

Seeing God as an absolute monarch and tyrant who does whatever He damn well pleases is fucking retarded, it's difficult to tell if Dawkins is actually a moron or if he's merely writing for teenagers who don't know or care about any of this shit and will just accept it blindly like the lemmings they are.

[Anonymous No.16341498]

>/sci/ bugmen come out of the woodworks yet again

[Anonymous No.16341506]

>>16341311
First of all, you don't even understand what you're talking about as the placebo effect REQUIRES outside help (the appearance of it, at least). Second, the effect is purely a reorganization of the body's resources, an entirely material process.

[Anonymous No.16341508]

>>16341085
>Its my job to further that.
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.16341526]

>>16341398
He needs the emphasis or else you might realise that morality cannot be used as a counter argument to the divine.

[Anonymous No.16341537]

>>16341506
You can placebo effect yourself. People who believe they will get better do.
Almost every professional athlete, driver etc. people who do very physical jobs say that most of it is mental. The immaterial thought world can influence the material world in extremely powerful ways. A major reason we as humans are such powerful creatures is because we have access to the immaterial.

[Anonymous No.16341547]

>>16341214
Do you consider thoughts a part of material reality then? In that they are generated by material reality and are therefore material in of themselves?
Or do they exist independent of material reality and are, at best, informed by material reality? Do things have inherent meaning or are they imposed upon by people?

>>16341311
In the way that an idea can inspire a man to overthrow a tyrannical government. Not lay hands on stuff.

[Anonymous No.16341556]

Materialist Rationalists are so fucking stupid. They will jump through multiple hoops to justify their "Morality for the benefit of themselves" ideal, failing to take into account if they wanted the absolutely best Material conditions they would not need to seek to engage the system at all and merely meet their base needs in the most easy, efficient, and pleasurable manner possible. Instead they would rather "move on up the ladder" to fulfill some false sense of purpose in their miserable nihilistic lives, not seeing the irony in having to justify their position at all.

[Anonymous No.16341595]

>>16337039
Idiot cunt

[Anonymous No.16341613]

>>16341537
The "thought world" is material. You can measure thoughts as electrical and chemical processes

[Anonymous No.16341625]

>>16341556
>these idiots try to meet pleasure thresholds set by their personal inclinations!
Yes, and?

[Anonymous No.16341626]

>>16341272
Those concepts are all rooted in material reality.
Its not like they arose ex nihilo, they came from people interacting with our material reality and developing thought processes in relation to it.
Even religion is based on interactions with reality. Its reasonably easy to do things like trace back certain laws to the material conditions of the people groups that lived in the past and their respective material conditions.

Like raising swine in arid environments leading to disease leading to multiple Semetic groups to outlaw pork. Or the idea of kegare in Shintoism being related to professions that dealt with unsanitary things a lot.

As for the efficacy of religion meaning that there is a lot of value to it, yes and no. Yes there is value in the strict sense that it supplies an artificial outside cohesion to society. No in that making it true.
Lying about the past for the sake of inspiring patriotism has benefits in terms of building a more cohesive society, but that doesn't make those lies true in themselves.
Humans being irrational, barely evolved monkey men doesn't make the universe itself amaterial or based in totally irrational concepts (outside of the rather odd interactions involved in quantum mechanics). Our flaws don't give flaws to everything else.
While we can admit that humans have flaws, that doesn't mean that we can't seek to overcome them, rather than reveling in them.

[Anonymous No.16341642]

>>16341508
If I want to take the benefits of society over a longer term, it is.
Acting like a sociopathic asshole typically doesn't lead anywhere good for most people.
Acting in a way that breaks down the society that I live in and benefit from is bad for my future as there will be a point where I lose those benefits.

Being someone that works to perpetuate society benefits me.

[Anonymous No.16341650]

>>16341625
>>these idiots try to meet pleasure thresholds set by their personal inclinations!
And yet you never ask yourselves why these "personal inclinations" bring you ANY sort of pleasure at all! The materialist mindset is utter drivel.

[Anonymous No.16341661]

>>16341642
>Being someone that works to perpetuate society benefits me.
How? You are forcing yourself to engage in tedious 40+ hour labor to acquire more wealth to afford more things, when said things will require to work 40+ hours every single week to sustain such a lifestyle in the first place. You are deliberately trapping yourself in a skinner box.

[Anonymous No.16341689]

>>16340445
>The response to this would be that it is evolutionarily beneficial for the human brain to process things in accordance to actual reality.
why are religious people more successful in a strict darwinian sense? that is, reproducing more than atheists?

[Anonymous No.16341699]

>>16341547
>Do you consider thoughts a part of material reality then?
In the way that you put it, yes.

As for thoughts and things existing independently of humans thats more varied.
Things that are totally material, like water or laptop screens have inherent meanings. No matter what someone thinks about a laptop screen, it exists in a specific manner unaffected by that. A laptop screen 'is' something, and our perception of that doesn't change the inherent meaning of it.
What we think about it of course can vary, someone could say that a laptop screen is a portal to a devil realm, but that doesn't change the actual meaning of a laptop screen.

However, when it comes to things that while rooted in materialism have parts that don't touch on it so strongly, like say democracy, things change. What 'democracy' is, comes from people. There is no material example of democracy, only a bunch of factors that humans string together into something they call 'democracy'. What those factors are can vary totally.
However, that isn't to say that the factors that contribute to what we currently title democracy (average person having a vote to choose a representative or to signify support for a topic that pertains to governance etc,) aren't rooted in material realities. We can trace back the story of 'democracy' and see its material roots.

There is some variance here. I'm a bit tired so I might not be the most coherent. If you need me to clarify I'll do so tomorrow if the thread is still up.

[Anonymous No.16341717]

>>16341689
Because having the ability to perceive reality as it really is, and the thought processes necessary to take those observations to their conclusions, aren't the same thing.
A religious person sees reality with just as much accuracy as an atheist, they just interpret that differently.

[Anonymous No.16341723]

>>16341626
>While we can admit that humans have flaws
You mistake the immaterial for a flaw. It isn't a flaw. This is fundamental.
>that doesn't mean that we can't seek to overcome them
The immaterial was us overcoming the monkey brain. Materialist rationality is a return to monkey, not the transcendence of monkey. That was the immaterial. We conquered the world by thinking beyond the material.
This is a fundamental flaw with materialist rationalist thinking.

[Anonymous No.16341747]

>>16341626
>Like raising swine in arid environments leading to disease leading to multiple Semetic groups to outlaw pork.
This is speculation. Materialism is speculation and empirical habit. Read Kant and Hume, tard.

[Anonymous No.16341806]

>>16341650
Objectively, we know why. It is tied up with evolution. Subjectively, it is by definition desirable, therefore we desire it.

[Anonymous No.16341829]

>>16341806
>Objectively, we know why. It is tied up with evolution.
Evolution also compels creatures to die for the sake of passing their genes on. This would not bring any sort of benefit to the creature itself. Absurd argument.
>Subjectively, it is by definition desirable, therefore we desire it.
So this is the extent of materialist thought.

[Anonymous No.16341836]

>>16341806
>It is tied up with evolution
So you want to return to the lizard/fish days where we had no emotion, no culture, no art.
Immaterial irrationality is a perk of evolution. That's why we, the most evolved creatures, are so in tune with it.

[Anonymous No.16341854]

>>16329848
That "Yes." meme is just an attempt at making biting bullets socially accepted. You aren't impressing anyone by accepting absurd conclusions.

[Anonymous No.16341864]

>>16341854
>accepted
*acceptable

[Anonymous No.16341943]

>>16334090
>he believes he can build an ought from an is

[Anonymous No.16341976]

>>16331466
I don't think it's as stupid as it is willfully ignorant. I think he knows deep down that any rational christian's response would be that the cheetah and the gazette were merely the product of a world god set in motion and that whether or not the gazette died or that cheetah starved made no difference because they have no soul.

[Anonymous No.16341993]

>>16341836
Evolution leads to culture due to social dynamics. Read more.

[Anonymous No.16342002]

>>16339429
Nice and how do you think Evangelical theology in the American West came about?

[Anonymous No.16342013]

>>16337755
>Your problem is you're reading the works of children's authors, instead of actual philosophers.
Actually, what he presented is a very simplified form of an argument by Plantinga, in "Naturalism Defeated":

https://web.archive.org/web/20090930150703/http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf
He defends the idea from a probabilistic standpoint.

[Anonymous No.16342045]

>>16341993
Becoming a Vulcan is not the next step in evolution.
A materialist rationalist world taken to its logical conclusion would have no art and no culture. That type of world is incompatible with humanity. Without our emotional and "irrational" needs taken care of we are dead fish. A mockery of fools desperately trying to mimic machines. It's suicide. It's life desperately seeking death.

[Anonymous No.16342080]

>>16342045
You do not understand materialism. Social dynamics of groups along with the other conditions of human life (sexual selection, amount of care needed for the young, ect.) lead to culture and concepts like fairness

[Anonymous No.16342172]

>>16334052
>theres still a 1/3 chance that Player 1 wins
not after 100 throws lol. The chances of player 1 winning are astronomically small.

[Anonymous No.16342219]

>>16342080
Materialism is the explanation of culture. It cannot stand on its own. No culture is born of materialism. It is incompatible with life.
It's stagnant. It's dead. It's lifeless.

[Anonymous No.16342265]

>>16342219
Materialism encompasses life. It cannot be lifeless, that is only your ignorant perception of it due to the fact that it threatens your comforting delusions

[Anonymous No.16342345]

>>16342265
>that is only your ignorant perception of it due to the fact that it threatens your comforting delusions
Another fundamental flaw with materialist rationalists. You have adopted the narrative of the enlightened. The future. Above such petty things like emotions. You foolishly think intuitive culture is beneath you. That people who aren't bloodless merely lack courage to face the world.
You ignorantly perceive intuitive culture as folly rather than human. You ignorantly assume that shutting off part of your brain makes you smart. You ignorantly assume everyone who adopts rather than rejects the intuitive and the irrational is stupid.
Intuition and reason are not mutually exclusive. By adopting a purely materialist and rationalist philosophy you have limited yourself. You have thrown out the spade in favour of the hammer, when you could have used both.

[Anonymous No.16342386]

>>16342345
Intuition does not have a mechanism for self correction except death. Reason can check itself without needing to experience the direct consequences of being wrong. Intuition is useful in situations with limited time or information, but it is inherently inferior to reason

[Anonymous No.16342431]

>>16342386
Without intuition there is no reason. Without the idea there is nothing to think about.
Becoming an inverse cripple by focusing exclusively on either one is foolish.
>but it is inherently inferior to reason
Materialist rationalist rhetoric. The same old 'we're smarter' propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Fw-YpHoU8

Pure rationality will make you smart, but a fool.
Genius and madness are linked. The highest form of cognition is a brain working in harmony with itself. Using every tool at its disposal.

[Anonymous No.16342441]

>>16342431
I just explained to you WHY it is inferior. Intuition is faulty because there is no self correction, only confirmation bias. Reason is built on self correction. Try to engage with my argument instead of just falling back on to hackneyed witticisms that don't even apply

[Anonymous No.16342453]

>>16342441
>I just explained to you WHY it is inferior
I explained why it isn't. Because without intuition there is no reason. Without the subconscious the conscious is an inanimate rock.
One is not superior to the other, rather they are 2 parts that work best when they are used together.

[Anonymous No.16342647]

>>16342453
Intuition is an unreliable heuristic. Useful when you don't have time or info and are compelled to make a decision, but once you no longer live in a primitive setting it's usefulness drops off significantly

[Anonymous No.16342681]

Rejecting religion is a great, but something that bothers me about these authors is that they never seem to propose what will take it's place. Good, you've rejected religion, now what?

[Anonymous No.16342688]

>>16342647
Intuition sees the possibility. Rationality only sees what is.
Intuition is valuable in any setting because it is the primary creative driver. Rationality is smart, but not creative. It is inanimate, machine-like and lifeless. It does not create cultures, but destroys them. The destruction is necessary for the birth of a new culture, but a culture has never, will never, and can never be created without the creative spark of intuition.

[Anonymous No.16342701]

>>16342681
The absolute state of anomie our societies find themselves in now seem a strong argument that just throwing out religion and expecting the "rational human" to thrive and do great things is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.16342781]

>>16342688
Reason can be applied to potentials. Intuition can give you a false impression of what things are likely or even what is possible. Reason limits this to only what could actually be and can provide real probabilities of what will happen, in proportion to the info available. Cultures arise from the primitive stages of humanity, but the objectively best ones are the ones most shaped by the application of reason and the curtailing of "intuition" as a basis

[Anonymous No.16342788]

>>16342701
The highest rates of teenage pregnancy, drug use, and crime are among Christian demographics. Atheists have much lower rates of these degenerate behaviors

[Anonymous No.16342806]

>>16340842
Jews are spiritual. He has the "soul" of a chink bugman.

[Anonymous No.16342807]

>>16342781
You misunderstand, reason is a means to communicate outside oneself. It has nothing to do with 'real possibilities', a term that means nothing really. It is an established system which we have agreed to in order to relate to those who cannot experience our intuition. Intuition, however, is the language of the self that has to be bottlenecked through reason to make sense to other. Sometimes it cannot be and that intuition remains internal. Some of the greatest gains could not be 'reasoned' in a way that would satisfy anyone but the individual except in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.16342815]

>>16342807
Complete gibberish. Reason is a process to reach conclusions, not a method of communication

[Anonymous No.16342828]

>>16342788
It wasn't argument for keeping religion, but rather that I think humans need SOMETHING more than just cold scientific reality.

[Anonymous No.16342829]

>>16342815
Not really, reason is not a method of inquiry. We already have a conclusion and we validate it through reasoning as a means to make it more concrete within and shareable with others.

[Anonymous No.16342838]

When I post this book evolutionist start screeching and have 0 argument to defend themselves. It's really good.
Even biologist form the royal society the biggest propagandists for evolution are giving up on it.

[Anonymous No.16342869]

>>16342838
state the thesis of the book, I've never heard of it

[Anonymous No.16342969]

>>16342829
>start from the conclusion you pick and work backwards until you find enough evidence to justify your predetermined conclusions
bruh

>>16342788
>correlation does not equal causation

>>16342828
You know if atheism tried to answer any questions like 'What is the natural function of human beings' or 'What is goodness and why pursue it', they'd just become another religion, right?

[Anonymous No.16342992]

>>16342838
If you want a good one look how shitter shattered the answerer to this was
https://www.quora.com/Does-Haldane’s-dilemma-disprove-evolution-If-not-why

[Anonymous No.16342999]

>>16329834
This is haram. There is no 'outgrowing' God because He is everything.

[Anonymous No.16343008]

>>16342869
It has a bunch of examples and things that can't be explained by incremental functionalisum

[Anonymous No.16343012]

>>16342969
A majority of atheists are already religious in their beliefs about atheism, science, and reason. Science and reason are these end all be all means to utopia and enlightenment. Science all powerful, reason all knowing.
Their views of science and rationality become unscientific and irrational.

[Anonymous No.16343039]

>>16330296
Darwin frequently refers to some sort of Divine Protection - I believe he uses word Providence but I read him in translation so I can't be sure.

[Anonymous No.16343040]

>>16343012
Sounds like a caricature, most atheists I know follow the model of "proportion your belief to the evidence", science reliably provides results, therefore it is most relied on. For most people who are raised in an atheist setting, it's just a given, it tends to only be people who were raised in a strict religious setting who are then "freed" by atheism that tend to get an irrational attachment to it, for understandable reasons

[Anonymous No.16343050]

>>16334031
Proof?

[Anonymous No.16343054]

>>16329834
Its symbolical :(

[Anonymous No.16343075]

>>16335253
No, it's Death to America

[Anonymous No.16343123]

>>16343040
It's the materialist rationalist viewpoint. The dogmatic rejection of the metaphysical and the intuitive is religious.

[Anonymous No.16343200]

>>16343123
Thats wrong. Rejecting what is not supported by evidence isn't "dogmatic". If any religion could provide verifiable proof, the rational materialist would accept it. If a Hindu approached you and told you all about his religion, you would likely dismiss it all as false, or at best metaphorically true. The fact is that there are thousands of active religions and they are pretty much all mutually exclusive. The reasonable stance is to consider them all false until such time as one can prove to be true. This is not dogmatic in the slightest

[Anonymous No.16343231]

>>16343200
This is so tiresome and keeps going in circles. Please just read Kant, Nietzsche, Spengler, Jung etc.

[Anonymous No.16343288]

>>16343231
I have. They fail on the topic of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16343290]

>>16329917
Another one who hasn't understood that evolution is not random. The appearance of mutations is, but which of those get to stay around is ordered.
Thought is nothing but a tool by which some living organisms interact with the world. The evolutionary advantages of thought are immediately apparent.

[Anonymous No.16343343]

>>16343288
I find that extremely hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.16343432]

>>16343123
Don't mistake "can't be justified 100% by reason alone" with "must be a religion".

[Anonymous No.16343519]

>>16343343
Maybe you should read them then, it's pretty clear they fail on metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16343525]

>>16343432
That's my whole point. Their view of reason is one that is unreasonable and religious.
Pure materialist rationalism is self defeating. It cannot exist under the very conditions that it proposes.

[Anonymous No.16343574]

>>16343519
I have. They don't.
Materialist rationalism is unsustainable. It's fundamentally flawed. The theory that rationality is superior to intuition and to reject intuition entirely is an intuitive hypothesis.
To reach the conclusion of materialist rationalism an intuitive irrational impulse has to emerge. It defeats itself by the very nature it was birthed. Without intuition there are no hypotheses, only skepticism. There is no art left, no life. There is only bloodless death.

[Anonymous No.16343597]

>>16340924
Who created nature and gave it such a specific design and function?

[Anonymous No.16343758]

>>16340924
>bible is absolute truth
Yes
>except this part, and this, and this, and this...
No

[Anonymous No.16344005]

>>16343050
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263525231_The_Vital_Roots_of_European_Enlightenment_Ibn_Tufayl's_Influence_on_Modern_Western_Thought_by_Samar_Attar

[Anonymous No.16344109]

>>16341723
>It isn't a flaw.
Sounds like cope.
>>16341747
>Kant
Yeah, he knew much about speculations.
>>16342688
Probability theory is pretty rational.

[Anonymous No.16344187]

>>16343574
I don't think you understand what intuition is.

[Anonymous No.16344195]

>>16340342
>>16340906
>>16341130
you are all too stupid to discuss this, for different reasons, kindly refrain from posting again

[Anonymous No.16344390]

>>16329834
>outgrowing
I might not be religious. But the mere concept of "outgrowing" is both a pretentious and restrictive concept that is part of the reason why Lolcows and the entire state of the modern zoomer generation of imbeciles exist today. Mental immaturity is not the sign of attachment towards certain concepts/object, but rather the idea that someone wishes to stay in a constant simplified state and to not think or do outside of that. Saying that something should be "outgrown" is a sign of mental immaturity in and of itself. I've met both mentally mature religious people and mentally immature atheists and the inverse is true. Outgrowing a concept will not make someone any less or more intellectually mature.
I speak this from experience. I converted a friend from another political belief to another, and I initially assumed his stupidity and immaturity was based on the political belief he was part of. Turns out, converting him did not change his intellectual immaturity. He was still a reactionary and literally nothing changed, only difference is the extremes he leaped through and the aesthetic of what he believed in, but his way of thinking did not change.

[Anonymous No.16344414]

>>16343597
https://youtu.be/v8mJr4c66bs
>>16343758
So, everything in bible is a factual retelling of events that happened?