/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19522501]

Why do atheists bother reading books and learning anything when they believe it will all be for moot when they die and their consciousness blips off?

[Anonymous No.19522517]

>>19522501
It's mentally stimulating. Nothing more than that.

[Anonymous No.19522521]

>>19522501
how does believing you're eternal solve the problem of mootness? how is anything you do significant next to infinity?

[Anonymous No.19522523]

>>19522501
Atheists aren't exactly good at keeping their actions consistent with their professed beliefs. In fact you might even say it's the essence of atheism to say one thing is true then act as if another thing is true.

[Anonymous No.19522525]

>>19522501
Why do Christians bother reading books and learning anything when they believe it will all be for moot when they gain access to God's knowledge after achieving theosis?

[Anonymous No.19522528]

>>19522523
>wrong people are wrong and so live under wrong assumptions
very smart anon. lots of gass

[Anonymous No.19522559]

>>19522501
Why do you bother reading? You'll have plenty of time to read when you're dead.

[Anonymous No.19522564]

>>19522501
what's even the point of remaining alive as an atheist? like, just kill yourself bro, nothing matters anyway lmao

[Anonymous No.19522581]

>>19522528
Wrong. Atheists could be completely right about everything. That's not the point. Whether they're right or wrong atheists do not act according to what they say is true. No providence, no inherent telos in creation, a dark cold, indifferent universe where all things can ultimately be explained in terms of their smallest constituent parts. This leads to obvious logical conclusions in ethics. But atheists refuse to actually follow their claims to their logical conclusions and only go half way

An atheist is one who intellectually denies God exists but lives as though He does. I have never met an atheist who acts consistently with the ethics that logically follow from naturalistic materialism

[Anonymous No.19522594]

>>19522581
Well presumably there's no telos then instructing anyone to act consistently

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19522601]

>>19522501
Because we’ve found a reason to live

[Anonymous No.19522632]

>>19522501
Why do believers bother reading books and learning when they believe all is a Godly plan and everything is vanity except God and they will gain immortality after death by just believing in God?

[Anonymous No.19522654]

>>19522501
My real question is how can they enjoy intellectual happinesses such as reading, meaning, well being and intelligent reasoning, withthout beliving in God, a higher conciousness

[Anonymous No.19522681]

>>19522654
The two are totally unrelated, even contradictory to eachother if anything.

[Anonymous No.19522744]

>>19522581
>This leads to obvious logical conclusions in ethics.
and this is where you're wrong. you're welcome to try and demonstrate these "obvious" conclusions, if you can.

[Anonymous No.19522755]

>>19522744
Moral Nihilism is the only logical endpoint from materialism and naturalism, and if Moral Nihilism is true then Egoism is the only rational position to take given the facts of how reality is. Relatively simple.

[Anonymous No.19522759]

>>19522564
If you think that believing in God is the only way to enjoy life, and that people who think that nothing matters in the long run should kill themselves due to their nihilism, there is something wrong with the way you're living pal.

[Anonymous No.19522760]

>>19522501
Because I had better attain as much awareness of the world and its horizons as possible before that point. Why bother reading if you will have eternal life? You can just read in heaven if you want.

[Anonymous No.19522775]

>>19522755
Mayve if you think morality only counts if it is created by a magic skydaddy.

[Anonymous No.19522776]

>>19522759
You can enjoy life, but you can't live a rationally justified life. Isn't that the whole point of your atheism in the first place? You think it's the most rational position? It comes undone when you realize you need to live a profoundly irrational life to reconcile your beliefs about how the world is with your actual lifestyle.

He's right, what do you have to gain by living 10, 20 or even 50 more years? You're going to end up as atoms scattered across the cosmos, your consciousness will be wiped out and every pleasurable experience you've had amounts to absolutely nothing. In fact in the grand scheme of things there is no difference between yourself and a person who never existed at all, your endstate is exactly the same.

All you can muster in defense is platitudes about feelings and sentimentalities about how you can "make your own meaning" (you can't) and you've given up the ghost of rationality at that point. You can live a fulfilling life as an atheist but you can't live a rational life and if you're not living a rational life your reason for being an atheist in the first place is gone

Theism is the ONLY way to rationally live and that's precisely why all the ancients understood God exists. You simply cannot have a logical and rational worldview without the understanding God exists and guides the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.19522779]

>>19522755
>Moral Nihilism is the only logical endpoint from materialism and naturalism, and if Moral Nihilism is true then Egoism is the only rational position to take given the facts of how reality is. Relatively simple.
Many philosophers have solved the problem of morality without taking help of an external source of it. There are even evolutionary explanations as to how and why we think morality should be the way it is.

[Anonymous No.19522786]

>>19522779
>Many philosophers have solved the problem of morality
No they haven't. Camus took up the fight and completely fucking failed because his "embrace the absurdity" was just a big fucking cope. There is no way to justify continued human existence without an ultimate purpose. It really is that simple and every single atheist philosopher in history has failed at the task of trying to disprove that simple fact.

[Anonymous No.19522798]

>>19522776
It doesn't rationally lead to suicide though. If I don't believe that there is meaning or a point of living, there is not any justification for killing myself either.
If we see it through a materialistic point of view- I 'feel' happy today while continuing to live. It wouldn't matter if I'm dead or alive, it's just that the biological situation of mine entails that I feel good while remaining alive. If I would've felt depressed or my circumstances are awful (and they would remain such in the future as well), I would've committed suicide, nothing wrong in that.

[Anonymous No.19522808]

>>19522798
>there is not any justification for killing myself either.
There's no rational justification for ANYTHING which is the point. You can continue to exist sure but you have no REASON to continue living and the whole point of atheism is supposedly to believe in truthful things that are rationally justifiable and if you can't even justify waking up every day then your worldview is a complete and utter failure.

[Anonymous No.19522813]

>>19522776
I don't see how that follows, you are proposing that meaning only exists if what you do has eternal significance, but you haven't justified that.

[Anonymous No.19522817]

>>19522786
Kant?

[Anonymous No.19522823]

>>19522817
Hm? Kant says it's a matter of practical reason to believe in God to avoid the issues I just outlined. Kant of course was a theist and he was a theist because even though he believed you couldn't prove God as a matter of pure reason it was necessary to acknowledge God for practical reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

[Anonymous No.19522827]

>>19522501
Wait, do Christians read books so they can talk about them with Jesus? I never heard that one before.

[Anonymous No.19522829]

>>19522813
Meaning only exists where there is purpose and without God there is no intrinsic purpose in reality meaning all things within it are purposeless (including you and this implies and inability on your part to imbue purpose or meaning into anything else as you're trapped within the same system as everything else, no transcendents for the materialist to escape from here) and hence meaningless.

No telos = no meaning. Period.

[Anonymous No.19522832]

>>19522786
>There is no way to justify continued human existence without an ultimate purpose
Your nihilism is showing

[Anonymous No.19522837]

>>19522581

Neither do theists (actually fully live their beliefs at all times) , you're just picking on atheists for the sake of picking on those you dislike, and not out of any respectable intellectual reason that you pretend. Humans are finite animals and frequently hypocrites, a general condition cutting across all cultures and worldviews.

You yourself have also never met a theist who acts consistently with the ethics following from their specific theism, at all times and in all places. Oh, you'll pretend that you have in order to draw the meaningful distinction, but you really haven't.

To the first conceit in your second graph, it isn't god (do not capitalize that) which governs the atheist's social conduct, you're getting it backwards. For all their faults, the new atheists are quite right on this one, and obviously so: you don't need a god to understand that attacking your fellows is often a bad idea. Morality flows from the intersubjective understanding that other actors possess like moral imagination and long memory-they can get back at you if you wrong them, and they may be nice to you if you are nice to them.

[Anonymous No.19522839]

>>19522832
>My nihilism
No? I'm a theist. It's the nihilism of those who cling to a materialist metaphysics and empiricist epistemology.

[Anonymous No.19522850]

>>19522837
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the masses who will live out their lives without thinking about any of this. I'm addressing anyone who wants to live the examined life, understanding their beliefs and seeking truth in such a way that their life is in harmony with what they understand to be the truth.

>You yourself have also never met a theist who acts consistently with the ethics following from their specific theism, at all times and in all places
They're much closer than any atheist since being a theist includes the ability to rationally justify ones continued existence, something an atheist cannot do. The atheist can't really get off the starting line so the fact a theist might act contrary to their professed belief from time to time is inconsequential compared to the fact the atheist cannot do anything at all that is rationally justifiable in the final analysis.

>Morality flows from the intersubjective understanding
No it doesn't. It's either intrinsic to reality or it isn't. Intersubjective understanding according to a materialist is chemical brainstates, utterly worthless and meaningless tripe and ultimately this is sentimentality, not rationality. Subjective ethics are no ethics at all.

[Anonymous No.19522853]

>>19522786
Schopenhauer and Hobbes

[Anonymous No.19522857]

>>19522808
Same reason why all believers don't become monks.

[Anonymous No.19522865]

>>19522501
why do theists bother reading books and learning anything when they believe it will all be for moot in the after life

[Anonymous No.19522901]

>>19522850

The only sentimentality is yours, in these generalities which again reduce to "atheist bad theist good" only because you say so, and without actual justification. Clause by clause, your entire worldview is false, unthought (the worse for you since you value the examined life), and unwarranted.

You pretend that a theist rationally justifies his continued existence (an afterlife)-an intellectual feat which does not take place-and attempt and fail to banish the finite atheist as irrational.

Morality is easily understood as "intrinsic to reality" in the contingent, materialistic way which wrongfully worries you so much. Even theologians demonstrate the moral imagination to suppose other ethical systems in principle, undermining your unitary thing. The only "utterly worthless and meaningless tripe" (keep seething) is to invoke some god for all this.

[Anonymous No.19522902]

>>19522829
why does existence of God imply purpose?

[Anonymous No.19522924]

>>19522839
The world is inherently meaningless, we need an external entity to give us meaning
That's nihilism

[Anonymous No.19522933]

>>19522501
I enjoy life as much as I can because I can't believe in an afterlife. I firmly believe that life is precious and we all deserve a chance to experience it, because there's nothing after death.

[Anonymous No.19522940]

>>19522902
it's a tautology, that's how they define God. being eternal makes any particular action of yours meaningless against eternity, so you can't really pretend that's why God gives purpose, so eventually you just regress to
>God gives purpose because... well it just fucking does okay???

[Anonymous No.19522945]

>>19522933

>I firmly believe
(shut up, SHUT UP, you're giving them AMMUNITION)

[Anonymous No.19522955]

>>19522523
Every professed atheist I know is a passionate defender of human rights, as well as rights for gays. They also believe that humans can be ‘born in the wrong bodies’ but I don’t see how that fits in with their materialist worldview. Another thing that I find funny about atheists is their need to spread atheism, and the belief that the world would be a much fairer, more equitable place if no one was religious. From an atheistic standpoint, there is nothing objectively wrong about a ‘might is right’ worldview where one person exploits others for his personal gain. Also, they see the non aggression principle as some universal rule they can’t really justify it.

[Anonymous No.19522962]

>>19522940
so is the thought-process that existence of God prevents nihilism is flawed?

[Anonymous No.19522982]

>>19522755
>Moral Nihilism is the only logical endpoint from materialism and naturalism.
This idea that a rejection of all kind of meaning and absolutes is a logical conclusion from materialism is absurd, and, quite frankly, is baby-first-take tier. There is no need for an ultimate, unfathomable cause to everything for order to arise. This is like saying that I "logically" shouldn't be able to enjoy music if I know it's "just" air vibrations.

[Anonymous No.19522988]

>>19522955
I want retards like you "arguing" with boogeyman twitter screenshots to leave and jump from a cliff.

[Anonymous No.19522991]

>>19522955
Your arguments -- while being generalizing -- also equate physicalism with egoism, which is not the case. Someone who thinks that there is nothing immaterial like God/souls may or may not believe in things like non-aggression, self centric morality or such.
There's also the fact that many theists too believe in non-aggression principle. And the Catholic Church is gradually recognizing LGBT marriages and all.

[Anonymous No.19522999]

>>19522991
Those things are spooks if God isn't real. Opinion, nothing more. Subjective ethics are non binding and are defeated by "I disagree". They cannot save the materialist from nihilism.

[Anonymous No.19523003]

>>19522991
>And the Catholic Church is gradually recognizing LGBT marriages and all
No they're not and cannot as a matter of dogma. Amy Catholic who recognizes a gay marriage is anathematised and defacto excommunicated

[Anonymous No.19523014]

>>19522988
Show me 1 (one) atheist that doesn’t affirm that women can have penises.

[Anonymous No.19523027]

>>19522999
Meanwhile
>god says thing is wrong
>my book disagrees

[Anonymous No.19523030]

>>19523014
me. lmao

[Anonymous No.19523061]

>>19523030
Kek

[Anonymous No.19523064]

I feel the constant urge to learn things

[Anonymous No.19523067]

>>19522999

[Anonymous No.19523075]

>>19522525
reading books can aid in achieving theosis

[Anonymous No.19523081]

>>19522601
whats your reason to live? i really can't see how an atheist can justify living besides embracing the absurd. theres no reason to die either, of course. there's just no reason at all. genuine question
t. former eastern orthodox christian that accidentally became a nihilist

[Anonymous No.19523087]

>>19522581
i agree. atheists are willfully unaware of the inherent nihilism looming over them

[Anonymous No.19523158]

>>19522955
Literally compares a phenomna that has happened on the last 5 years comparrd to literally tens of thousands of years where lots of people were atheist
Back a century even a millenia ago, atheist were the most strict for having good moral character an living your life to the fullest while having freedom and not being controlled by anything
Atheists admit you have one life therefore live it entirely

Religious people literally believe Life has meaning because you are going to heaven, isnt that a huge contradiction?
You are literally sayig life has meaning because you live even after you die but by that thought it means that this life is worthless and the afterlife is the true life and the better one
For me it looks religious people are the true nihilistic ones.

[Anonymous No.19523164]

>>19523075
Bullshit materialistic cope. Just contemplate God and pray you filthy hylic.

[Anonymous No.19523178]

>>19523164
Kys you filthy slave
Imagine wanting people to become slaves their entire life and sacrifice it entirely for the afterlife, go fuck yourself
You only live one, you will fucking die and fade out of existence and thats the truth
Stop coping with death, and face it while moving forward
People die and people are born, thats the balance of life

[Anonymous No.19523180]

>>19523158
>atheist
>”””moral”””
What is moral? A man decides to kill an old pawnbroker and he believes it is moral to do so. Is this moral?

[Anonymous No.19523182]

So like if I could prove God wasn't real, the Christians in this thread would kill themselves?
Give me a break!

[Anonymous No.19523189]

>>19523180
That which people point at and call "moral"
that's how words work, lmao

[Anonymous No.19523190]

>>19522501
>>19522517
>>19522521
>>19522523
>>19522525
>>19522528
>>19522559
>>19522564
>>19522581
>>19522594
>>19522601
>>19522632
>>19522654
>>19522681
>>19522744
>>19522755
>>19522759
>>19522760
>>19522775
>>19522776
>>19522779
>>19522786
>>19522798
>>19522808
>>19522813
>>19522827
>>19522829
>>19522837
>>19522850
>>19522901
>>19522933
>>19522940
Literally compares a phenomna that has happened on the last 5 years comparrd to literally tens of thousands of years where lots of people were atheist
Back a century even a millenia ago, atheist were the most strict for having good moral character an living your life to the fullest while having freedom and not being controlled by anything
Atheists admit you have one life therefore live it entirely

Religious people literally believe Life has meaning because you are going to heaven, isnt that a huge contradiction?
You are literally saying life has meaning because you live even after you die but by that thought it means that this life is worthless and the afterlife is the true life and the better one
For me it looks religious people are the true nihilistic ones.

[Anonymous No.19523200]

>>19523189
So anything and everything is moral? If I point at a horse and call it a spade, is it now a spade?

[Anonymous No.19523206]

>>19523178
Filthy hylic is seething. Contemplate, pray and move to desert.

[Anonymous No.19523209]

>>19523200
If you get a bunch of people to go along with you, sure
Do you seriously not know how language works?

[Anonymous No.19523217]

At what age did you realize that believing in supernatural things (ghosts, demons, god, heaven) is an attempt to cope with the fact that atoms and chemical reactions are all that our existence comes down to?

It's not like I enjoy that. I wish there was a god. I wish there was an afterlife. I just cannot trick myself into believing things like Santa or heaven anymore. If I could be brainwashed into believing that, I would accept that. Nihilism is killing me and there's no way out

[Anonymous No.19523232]

>>19523217
>chemical reactions are all that our existence comes down to?
This isn't nihilism, it's just materialism.

[Anonymous No.19523235]

Why does Christians think claiming they can "ground" morality in this absolute thing somehow fix this?
When they got no way to go about determining what that morality is, if a thing is moral or not
Like, is eating shellfish immoral? All that OT stuff that Jesus did away with? How you know? What about blood transfusions?

Even if you look away from all that minor stuff even people in the same churches can't figure out is right or wrong?
Apparently "minor" disagreements are okay, this is the cop out answer I always get
They got the BIG THINGS figured out, like killing people is not okay, wow, good job, no other moral system could ever come to this conclusion.
What about killing Canaanites, though, is that okay? How the fuck does that work.

[Anonymous No.19523242]

>>19523232
you can be both materialistic and nihilistic

[Anonymous No.19523244]

>>19523235
Yeah after 2000 Christians still can't figure out whether divine command theory is true or not

[Anonymous No.19523274]

>>19522501
Why don't theists kill themselves for being dumb fucks that assume atheism is a philosophy rather than a position. I'm an atheist and I am not a materialist.

[Anonymous No.19523283]

>>19523232
materialism inherently implies nijilism

[Anonymous No.19523286]

>>19523283
Why?

[Anonymous No.19523292]

>>19523274
explain how you are simultaneously an atheist and not a materialist?

[Anonymous No.19523293]

>>19522501
Why aren't christians satisfied with the rewards offered on this earth?

[Anonymous No.19523301]

>>19523293
Many are. What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.19523306]

>>19523292
I believe in Ghosts (because of several spooky encounters), but not God

...How is this hard?

[Anonymous No.19523310]

>>19523190 (You)
>>>19522501 (OP)
>>>19522517 (You)
>>>19522521 (You)
>>>19522523 (You)
>>>19522525 (You)
>>>19522528 (You)
>>>19522559 (You)
>>>19522564 (You)
>>>19522581 (You)
>>>19522594 (You)
>>>19522632 (You)
>>>19522654 (You)
>>>19522681 (You)
>>>19522744 (You)
>>>19522755 (You)
>>>19522759 (You)
>>>19522760 (You)
>>>19522775 (You)
>>>19522776 (You)
>>>19522779 (You)
>>>19522786 (You)
>>>19522798 (You)
>>>19522808 (You)
>>>19522813 (You)
>>>19522827 (You)
>>>19522829 (You)
>>>19522837 (You)
>>>19522850 (You)
>>>19522901 (You)
>>>19522933 (You)
>>>19522940 (You)
>Literally compares a phenomna that has happened on the last 5 years comparrd to literally tens of thousands of years where lots of people were atheist
>Back a century even a millenia ago, atheist were the most strict for having good moral character an living your life to the fullest while having freedom and not being controlled by anything
>Atheists admit you have one life therefore live it entirely
>Religious people literally believe Life has meaning because you are going to heaven, isnt that a huge contradiction?
>You are literally saying life has meaning because you live even after you die but by that thought it means that this life is worthless and the afterlife is the true life and the better one
>For me it looks religious people are the true nihilistic ones.

[Anonymous No.19523316]

>>19523200
Yes, that's why the Germans were okay with genocide because they thought it was a moral thing to do, just like having slaves until the majority of people said it is not "moral".

[Anonymous No.19523317]

>>>19522501 (OP)
>>>19522517 (You)
>>>19522521 (You)
>>>19522523 (You)
>>>19522525 (You)
>>>19522528 (You)
>>>19522559 (You)
>>>19522564 (You)
>>>19522581 (You)
>>>19522594 (You)
>>>19522632 (You)
>>>19522654 (You)
>>>19522681 (You)
>>>19522744 (You)
>>>19522755 (You)
>>>19522759 (You)
>>>19522760 (You)
>>>19522775 (You)
>>>19522776 (You)
>>>19522779 (You)
>>>19522786 (You)
>>>19522798 (You)
>>>19522808 (You)
>>>19522813 (You)
>>>19522827 (You)
>>>19522829 (You)
>>>19522837 (You)
>>>19522850 (You)
>>>19522901 (You)
>>>19522933 (You)
>>>19522940 (You)
>Literally compares a phenomna that has happened on the last 5 years comparrd to literally tens of thousands of years where lots of people were atheist
>Back a century even a millenia ago, atheist were the most strict for having good moral character an living your life to the fullest while having freedom and not being controlled by anything
>Atheists admit you have one life therefore live it entirely
>Religious people literally believe Life has meaning because you are going to heaven, isnt that a huge contradiction?
>You are literally saying life has meaning because you live even after you die but by that thought it means that this life is worthless and the afterlife is the true life and the better one
>For me it looks religious people are the true nihilistic ones.

[Anonymous No.19523326]

>>19523293
I'm agnostic and your question made no sense. Greed is a sin and most people are greedy.

[Anonymous No.19523327]

>>19523306
Why do you believe in Ghosts but not God? Why not rather be an agnostic? If you believe something as fantastical as ghosts to be real, why could God also not possibly be? Do you believe all currently unexplainable observations, theories and hypothesis are supernatural, transcendent or immaterial in some way simply because we cannot concretely, verifiably and empirically explain. Is everything you don't know or understand supernatural akin to your 'spooky encounters'?

[Anonymous No.19523335]

>>19523292
Okay, serious answer.

Literally all you need to do, is be unsatisfied with physical reductionism, don't believe the mind is reducible just to the physical. Experiential reasons.
maybe soul-stuff is a thing. Finding dualism more plausible.

While also being unsatisfied with Theists answer to the problem of evil, how the Bible is a poor basis of epistemology, etc

Where does that put you?

[Anonymous No.19523340]

>>19523301
>Why do atheists bother reading books and learning anything when they believe it will all be for moot
The assumption here is that "if it doesn't last, it's not worth anything".

[Anonymous No.19523346]

>>19523327
>If you believe something as fantastical as ghosts to be real, why could God also not possibly be?
I've seen a Ghosts
I've never seen a God
I don't think we need 100% certain knowledge to not believe in things with no empirical basis (not that such a thing can be had)

(I'm joking) see >>19523335

[Anonymous No.19523349]

>>19523326
See>>19523340
I'm throwing OPs question back at him.
I see no reason for a reward in heavens for my acts and doing. Why should we ask for a reward from up high? Is the world not enough?

[Anonymous No.19523360]

>>19522501
They don’t actually, really think about these things. It’s why they are the way they are.

[Anonymous No.19523363]

>>19522501
first your poet has nothing to do with books
second if you believe in heaven why are you still living? just die already and get the eternal life faggot
oh, wait your system has loopholes too what a shame

[Anonymous No.19523367]

>>19523363
*post

[Anonymous No.19523368]

>>19523335
With all due respect, it seems your unsatisfaction with physicalism is a cope against nihilism, similar to me with my hope of returning to moral realism, idealism and/or religion. It seems you recognize the absurdity of your existence yet you rebel against it by clinging to some kind of hope and faith akin to theists.
>>19523346
How do you know that it was a ghost and not something else? Why can't it all be reduced to atoms in the void, in flux? I feel for you though so im not attacking, im simply curious of your mindset. Im a former christian that unwillingly became a nihilist

[Anonymous No.19523373]

>>19523363
Creating offspring, maybe? Allowing more people to live and come into existence? Being life-positive, which is innate to religion?

[Anonymous No.19523386]

>>19523373
>Creating offspring,
Why? God should be enough to fill the void you filthy hylic

[Anonymous No.19523397]

>>19523349
its not for the "reward" per se. It is an orientation towards the objective, transcendent and idealistic. The world alone (materialism) is suffering and purposeless. One can't justify prolonging ones existence from this nihilistic standpoint except from a point of blissful ignorance or embracing the absurd.

[Anonymous No.19523414]

>>19523349
For them, Jesus died for their sins and he carries all of their sins. Humans are sinful therefore they can only improve on themselves, not get rid of their sins entirely. I'm saying that it's part of their belief and they already have an explanation for it. OP's question is an assumption towards atheist, saying that they have no purpose therefore they're nihilist, which is wrong since they can make they own purpose of living (like taking care of their family).

[Anonymous No.19523422]

>>19523368
It's not a belief I hold. I'm just trying to outline how one could (reasonably) hold such beliefs

[Anonymous No.19523432]

>>19522559
But I believe in eternal recurrence. This is eternity.

[Anonymous No.19523434]

>>19522501
If something is worth having for an eternity, it's worth having for a while too.

[Sage No.19523446]

>>19523414
How do you quantify and qualify any value to your created purpose? Why should you have one purpose over any other? Why not have your purpose be a murderer or rapist? It's all relative, right? Also deterministic. All you have to act on is your will to life, hedonism and empathy. You cant qualify a critique against anything

[Anonymous No.19523451]

>>19523446
Accidentally put my name as sage lol sorry

[Anonymous No.19523597]

>>19523317
all me

[Anonymous No.19523716]

>>19522501
Reading is fun and God hates fun things. Enjoy it while you can.

[Anonymous No.19523822]

>>19522850
>something doesn't make sense? just assume this imaginary premisse to be true and then you don't have to think about it!
Why are theists so retarded

[Anonymous No.19523848]

Why are the anti-atheists of /lit/ so childlike? Everything is either 'based' or 'cringe' to them. They're like a parody of Nietzsche's view of Christians. I won't call them theists outright since I suspect they are larping nihilists who think admitting to atheism is cringe.

[Anonymous No.19523859]

>>19523848
>I won't call them theists outright since I suspect they are larping nihilists who think admitting to atheism is cringe.
It's crystal clear that OP is a coping sociopath. He can't understand human empathy so he needs a set of ethics from above to not kill and rape other people

[Anonymous No.19523861]

>>19523335
>Where does that put you?
Spinozism, Paganism, Dharmic religions, Neoplatonism, New Age, etc. Lots of options for people not raised in a barn

[Anonymous No.19523871]

>>19523859
>can't understand human empathy so he needs a set of ethics from above
Well Oedipus is blind

[Anonymous No.19523895]

>>19522501
Just because life proper doesn't have any inherent meaning doesn't mean your life doesn't.

Not to jack the stiff, but it's one of the most liberating aspects of atheistic notions, provided you're capable of self-motivation. To be your sole arbiter, determiner of one's course of action, free of a prescribed ""greater purpose"".

WE make our lives worth a damn by choosing to do what we please with them, doesn't matter if there's a god or not, I'm going to live my life to the fullest, ain't letting an opportunity like this pass me by

[Anonymous No.19523956]

>>19522501
Athiests are dishonest most of all with themselves that's all really
They don't believe in god but they by and large still believe in some kind of vague "destiny of humanity" or some such thing
Deep down I think they simply still harbor some hope that they will somehow see their legacy and the "advancement" of humanity after their death
They cope in a very roundabout way

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19523987]

>>19523081
If one considers love, happiness and ataraxia as “absurd”, I think that one has been led down the wrong path to understand the world. Life is like an odd gift.

[Anonymous No.19524029]

> uhhhh without the immaterial panopticon i would rape, murder or just kill myself, explain this atheists? checkmate!
anon's not christian or even religious.
he's just a nigger

[Anonymous No.19524032]

>>19523956
oh fuck off man

[Anonymous No.19524048]

>>19523956
>They don't believe in god
This is the only attribute of atheism. Anything else is you preening yourself for being an anti-atheist

[Anonymous No.19524085]

>>19522501
Humanism, a belief in a vaguely defined progress (both moral and scientific); this is enough to constitute a religion for me. It’s not rational, it’s emotional. Everything is, in the end.

[Anonymous No.19524115]

>>19523397
I ask why the world is not good enough, and you say that the world is not good enough. Or "The materialistic world alone is suffering and purposeless"
That's a laugh. How much suffering is in a rock? How much purpose is in a rock? It seems to have none of both. Where do they both come from, then? Must come from you.

[Anonymous No.19524139]

Why do theists not just kill themselves as fast as possible since this life is just a test for the real deal?

Also, why are they crying during funerals? Shouldn't they be filled with joy?

[Anonymous No.19524145]

>>19523446
I have a value black box in my head that does it for me.
Yes, I can be a rapist. Social evolution has seen fit to demote that, so I probably won't. I'm still a firm believer in consequences.
Of course I can qualify a critique. I judge things as good or bad then try to make others agree with me, exactly the same as you do. Every ideology, opinion and philosophy does this.
Generally we find that some things tend to provide value for their believers. Generally we can see that some facts of life are the same to us all, and we can derive some consequences. But the rest is baron munchenhausen in a fancy hat.

[Anonymous No.19524160]

>>19524139
the catholic church banned offing yourself. Proties haven't really updated that shit because most of their preachers are grifters who want to bilk their flock

[Anonymous No.19524168]

>>19524160
So Jesus is a sinner, then?

[Anonymous No.19524181]

>>19522501
why would immortality, whether of the soul or body, make anything more meaningful? maybe you should read the makropulos affair.

[Anonymous No.19524189]

Communist do it because they want to believe in a god (the state) and morality (political correctness) and therefore books on such topics are considered holy text that will one day save us all

The based and red pilled due it for the constant striving on our journey to become Super men

[Anonymous No.19524201]

>>19524189
Bro you're retarded

[Anonymous No.19524203]

>>19524181
It wouldn't, the christcuck just lives by coping and lying to himself. His entire life revolves around wearing a smile on his face, while deep down inside, he knows that what he believes in is all nonsense. This causes in immense hatred towards a world that forces him to pretend, and this hatred he projects outwards, towards his enemies, those who differ from him, and everyone who reminds him of the tragic charade he's lost himself in.

Only in a broken mirror, the christcuck can be alone with his quiet desparation

[Anonymous No.19524225]

>>19524139
Catch 22 nigggaaaaaaa u Gon go to hell if u do it all quickie

[Anonymous No.19524238]

>>19523064
found the incel guys

[Anonymous No.19524243]

a whole thread of atheists just taking an attacking stance because they literally cannot sit down and actually explain how morals are real

[Anonymous No.19524253]

>>19524243
Morals give us the ability to cooperate, amd thus an enormous advantage for survival

[Anonymous No.19524289]

>>19524243
what do you mean "real"? what does a deity have to do with ethics? maybe you should read the Euthyphro dilemma.

[Anonymous No.19524290]

>>19522501
Because the foundational sin of Atheism is pride.

[Anonymous No.19524346]

>>19524168
You're allowed to sacrifice yourself for the greater good, otherwise we'd have trouble going to war LMAO

[Anonymous No.19524363]

>>19522501
Because if I don’t I get bored. It’s for the same reason I jack off and do coke. It has nothing to do with thinking anything I do means anything and everything to do with the fact that I was born and don’t have the courage to kill my self.

[Anonymous No.19524415]

>>19524243
Why do anti-atheists assume rape and murder is the opposite of theology? Aren't the religious countries the most violent?

[Anonymous No.19524535]

>>19524289
You mean the thing plato literally addresses himself in the timaeus? “The one” is identical to good, it doesn’t choose what is good or bad. Finish reading the dialogues maybe

[Anonymous No.19524545]

>>19524253
Yes but there are wildly different interpretations of that. For example, china is extremely cooperative and efficient as a nation. Yet people have disagreements about their ethics and how the CCP runs the country.
>>19524415
This isn’t what I mean. I’m saying that relativism is an inevitable consequence of taking a secular approach to morality. And if relativism is true, you are basically calling your own moral assertions meaningless.

[Anonymous No.19524662]

>>19524535
I don't know if you're retarded, or just coping, but
>it doesn’t choose what is good or bad
is the entire point being made.

[Anonymous No.19524687]

>>19522776
BASED. I like your prose btw.

[Anonymous No.19524696]

>>19522501
Atheists are generally prideful and reading can be a self-centered activity undertaken by someone who wants to consume in order to increase their sense of self.

[Anonymous No.19524714]

>>19524662
You are just wrong so I don’t know why you’re arguing with me. Plato himself created a dialogue which answers the earlier dilemma. Divine simplicity is the thing you want to look up.

[Anonymous No.19524716]

>>19524545
Relativism is also a consequence of a religious approach to morality. In religion, morality is relative to god and his whims.

[Anonymous No.19524727]

>>19524716
No, that is one stance. Most catholics for example would follow the thomistic doctrine of divine simplicity as someone just mentioned above me. God is identical to good, and something is good because it is of God or synonymous with his action or essence. Your view is the one a lot of protestants have, and I agree it is relativistic

[Anonymous No.19524729]

>>19524545
> And if relativism is true, you are basically calling your own moral assertions meaningless.
Saying that morals are not absolute is not saying that morals are absolutely meaningless. They're meaningful to those who find meaning in them.

[Anonymous No.19524746]

It's a travesty. Why do you pour salt in the wound? It's like asking why you theists put on your seatbelts or cry over dead loved ones. We're all in this together, I wish i could still cope with a belief in God. I can still cope without it but it's getting harder and harder. Who in their right mind WOULDN'T want an immortal soul? Who can honestly belief in it? Unfortunately I cannot anymore. I doubt most concepts of heaven and divinity, if true, would be to my exact liking, but I'd take fucking anything, even eternal damnation before oblivion. I really only have two options and this path at least makes me still be able to enjoy life somewhat, but the other becomes more enticing day by day and I may yet prove to be a perfect atheist in the end.

[Anonymous No.19524752]

>>19524729
You have to admit that’s an irrational statement though. That meaning doesn’t correspond to anything except the unreasonable feelings of people. They may feel that their ethics are superior to a despotic regime, but in reality there is no such thing as superior or inferior ethics because none of it correlates to any actual metric. I don’t think an atheist has to see morals as meaningless, i’m saying that if they’re honest they will admit moral preferences outside of totally utilitarian means are irrational

[Anonymous No.19524754]

>>19524714
if i was wrong you would be able to address what is being discussed. instead, you are adding nonsensical layers to the discussion, "even though you can make moral judgements independently of god, actually god is indistinguishable from the good, so checkmate athiests, he is still necessary"
it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19524772]

>>19524754
Like i’m sorry but you are just incorrect. Plato, again, wrote what i’m saying in the timaeus to solve the is something good because gods will it dilemma he thought up in an earlier dialogue. It isn’t a nonsensical layer, you are citing that dilemma as an argument and i’m telling you it has been a theological dead end for centuries because plato and later aquinas formulated divine simplicity as a concept which nullifies it. I’m not embarrassing myself at all, you are clearly not well read

[Anonymous No.19524790]

>>19522786
Camus isn't a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19524800]

>>19524772
it is "solved" in the sense that another layer of abstraction was added over top of it to try to salvage an a ridiculous stance. there is a reason theology isn't discussed often
by philosophers, because it's a joke that will continually take the ball and go home whenever things don't go its way. "we don't have to worry about the implications of moral judgements being independent of god, because we'll just say that god IS good, and then it doesn't matter, because all the moral reasoning just ends up being whatever god is anyway." you're a joke.

[Anonymous No.19524801]

>>19522501
Could as well sit down not do anything else and also kill myself, right? The fucking state of religious people.

[Anonymous No.19524808]

>>19522501
OP be like "when I's in heaven then I's be like discussin' Finnegans Wake wit da other ghosts n shiet."

[Anonymous No.19524820]

>>19522955 has never been refutes. Only insulted but never been refuted. He is right, and consequently, Based.

The thread has ended.

[Anonymous No.19524823]

>>19524800
Right except you aren’t actually engaging with me at all. You said morality is relativistic under theism because God chooses what is and isnt moral. I gave you the stance a lot of theists actually take in real life, which is that morality is part of the essence and nature of God which he enacts by existing. Aquinas says the same about logic, it is fundamental to what God is and so it couldn’t be different, 2+2 being 4 is something God doesn’t choose. That is a valid riposte to what you said earlier. If you don’t want to engage in it, fine, but don’t sperg out when you hear something that contradicts your assumptions.

[Anonymous No.19524845]

>>19524823
>You said morality is relativistic under theism because God chooses what is and isnt moral.
This is NOT what I said. Another anon may have this, it was not me. I was responding to the theist who said how is morality possible without god. There is a very big difference, you retard. I was making the point that morality is possible WITHOUT god, not that morality is relativistic WITH god.

[Anonymous No.19524847]

>>19524845
>>19524662

[Anonymous No.19524849]

>Be a christian
>Read the wrong books
>Go to hell for it

[Anonymous No.19524864]

>>19524752
I think my statement itself is rational but are morals based on irrational feelings? Perhaps. It could be argued that feeling empathy, from which morality arises, had evolutionary benefits for the survival of individuals and groups, which would make the feeling somewhat rational. Do you think the feeling of empathy only arose in people after Moses came down from the mountain with a couple of stone tablets? If we didn't feel empathy our moral philosophies would be way different. Why would God inscribe the feeling of empathy into us if all we needed was absolute authority?
>there is no such thing as superior or inferior ethics because none of it correlates to any actual metric.
Cogency of arguments seems like a good metric. Who decides what is a good argument? People who are both rational and have empathy.

[Anonymous No.19524873]

>>19524847
what point do you think you're making? if god's judgement is irrelevant to determining the good, we can arrive there independently through our own reason. morality being relativistic under god is a related but different point that I am not arguing.

[Anonymous No.19524899]

>>19524864
Cogency of arguments for what? How does someone under the assumption of materialism define what good is, and defend that stance invoking only empirical data? Someone else could make a totally cogent argument that empathy is a meaningless evolutionary impulse that came about so that monkeys wouldn’t self destruct their little tribes or whatever. But why is their survival good? What’s objectively wrong with them self destructing and going extinct? Obviously the monkeys don’t want that to happen, but they don’t want it to happen because chemicals in their brain want to endlessly replicate genes for no actual reason. Where does someone start constructing a material, rational basis for good or bad with this? If one society thrives by slavery and cruelty, in an evolutionary sense it is as justified as one which thrives on freedom and cooperation. Happiness might not be valued by the despotic society, and you can’t really make a rational argument refuting their stance. Our current set of moral intuitions is based on centuries of conditioning, there is genuinely no reason why we couldn’t have a totally alien set of ethics, still based on the phantom of “empathy” in 200 years that would disgust people living today.

[Anonymous No.19524917]

>>19524873
Oh ok, I misunderstood. I would say in this case that morality is not actually correlating to anything real then, or anything that exists outside of a certain cultural world view. It’s like beauty. We have a sense of more and less beautiful, which implies some kind of metric we judge beauty on, is this because beauty corresponds to some transcendental objective category or because we are conditioned by our culture and society to find certain things beautiful? In this case, why is someone eating human shit less beautiful than a sunset if the shit eater finds their subjective experience to be profoundly beautiful? I feel like materialism crates the same issue for ethics. If we can’t point to something objectively real about any of it, it slides into relativism.

[Anonymous No.19524927]

>>19523987
>It's up to youuuuuuuu
Existentialism is individualism to its extreme.

[Anonymous No.19524928]

>>19524746
help

[Anonymous No.19524946]

>>19524363
Keep being a pussy.
Hope you experience ego-death or something to snap you out of it, though it seems maybe physical in nature.

[Anonymous No.19524961]

>>19524545
>relativism is an inevitable consequence of taking a secular approach to morality.
No it's not. I can say I believe all religious people are subhuman and deserve to be treated as absolute inferiors because of their persistent defective cognitions, much like how children are treated as minors in the legal system unless they do something exceedingly violent and are nearly of age. There could very easily be such laws written up against members of religions were there a popular demand to persecute them in the culture. And religious people, when they are given power, also treat their outgroups as second classes. So the laws governing relations among men and societies, whether legally or culturally, which are indeed morals, are not inherent to theology, and your god does not even have to be real for you to believe he is the reason you believe in your morals.
>And if relativism is true, you are basically calling your own moral assertions meaningless.
Relativism is not meaningless, it means there is no absolute meaning which would be transcendent to those who evaluate meaning. You're basically an idiot if you claim you can demonstrate otherwise; by all means feel free to believe there is such a meaning, as of course that belief is relative to you and your cognitive situation, but never have you ever both extracted yourself from that situation and been able to show you have done so to everyone else. Now, if you are planning to start a cult around your apparent gnosis, I wish you much sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and you may carry on. If you are just sneering at secular culture for not providing you with a wife too afraid to divorce you then you should give some weight to the cult suggestion.

[Anonymous No.19524964]

>>19524917
I disagree. you might be interested to read someone such as a contractualist like T.M. Scanlon.

i'm not sure what you mean by objectively real, and if you investigate it, you probably don't either.

[Anonymous No.19524982]

>>19524961
>never have you ever both extracted yourself from that situation and been able to show you have done so to everyone else. Now, if you are planning to start a cult around your apparent gnosis
Think about that for a second.

[Anonymous No.19525011]

>>19524982
I have thought about it, which is why any theology short of Spinozism is pure mentation

[Anonymous No.19525049]

>>19525011
Do you embrace determinism?

[Anonymous No.19525061]

>>19523987
"The meaninglessness of life is what forces man to make his own mea ing"
This is a platitude and a bad one

[Anonymous No.19525069]

>>19525049
I more follow Bergson on the question of free will insofar as there is a creative range of choices available to us moment to moment. Or you could think about in the sense of Uexkull and umwelt—those choices are based on what we are looking for, and why we are looking for those things has a certain determination, the tick lies dormant until it senses blood

[Anonymous No.19525111]

>>19524899
>How does someone under the assumption of materialism define what good is, and defend that stance invoking only empirical data?
Most people want to avoid suffering and be happier, and they define those things as good, that's an empirical fact. If your morality is built upon improving those things then most people would agree that it's good. Is the morality of outliers equally as valid in universal terms? Yes. Is it equaly as valid to humans? No. Can I convince them? No. I can't convince someone who doesn't want happiness or doesn't want to avoid suffering or has no empathy.
>But why is their survival good? What’s objectively wrong with them self destructing and going extinct?
Nothing. But if they believe that it's bad then it's bad for them.
>Happiness might not be valued by the despotic society, and you can’t really make a rational argument refuting their stance.
And I wouldn't even try. We're human, not klingon. We have, for the most part, chosen freedom and cooperation because it agrees with us. A species that has empathy and wants to be happier can't convince a species that doesn't to feel empathy or to be happier. I as an individual can't convince a psychopath or a sociopath to have empathy, and neither can you. Most morality is a call to empathy, even the bible evokes it.

[Anonymous No.19525438]

Because Atheists actually know they are damned, like the devil God occupies their thoughts more than the most fervent intellectual. They are afraid of meeting God.

[Anonymous No.19525447]

>>19525438
>intellectual
Meant to say evangelical.

[Anonymous No.19525461]

>>19525438
>the demons... are in YOUR head, not mine

[Anonymous No.19525531]

>>19525111
>Sam Harris argument
You know this made him a laughing stock right.

[Anonymous No.19525576]

>>19522501
Simple. I love mankind, and I am concerned for its posterity.

[Anonymous No.19525614]

I still would like someone to sketch an outline as to how Theist's God claim fixes all the problems Atheists are being accused of having in this thread

[Anonymous No.19525635]

>Moral relativism
On materialism, how can morals be subjective, it's all in people's mind, right?
Minds being entirely emergent from the physical brain, or even synonymous with it. Just atoms and stuff
There's no subjectivity here..
How's this not objective? If reality is objective

[Anonymous No.19525756]

>>19525531
I'm not too familiar with his argument, but I doubt it. I'm not trying to present a purely intellectual case to convince a hypothetical Ted Bundy. And I'm not set on convincing you either. If you personally derive meaning only from divine instructions then by all means. I just find it funny that "treat others like you'd like to be treated" becomes irrational if you don't preface it with "god said".

[Anonymous No.19525797]

>>19524290
>implying the Christian life isn't literally just 24/7 congratulating yourself for picking the exact right interpretation of the exact right denomination of the exact right religion

lol

[Anonymous No.19525822]

the eternal recurrence, bitch

why do theists read books when they believe they will achieve omniscience when they die?

[Anonymous No.19525831]

how come your eyes are real if mirrors aren't real?

[Anonymous No.19525854]

>>19522564
The Species matters. Sentience matters.

[Anonymous No.19525867]

>>19522581
>But atheists refuse to actually follow their claims to their logical conclusions and only go half way

And theists don't even BBQ their own sons any more. How far they've strayed from the path of God

[Anonymous No.19525869]

>>19522501
>Why do atheists X?
I don't need a reason. I just like it, simple as.

[Anonymous No.19525879]

>>19523081
How is God supposed to give you a reason to live? Even if God were to exist, the universe could still be meaningless. After all, what's the meaning of God's existence? He seems to solely exist to just load the question of meaning onto his shoulders so that you never have to think about it

[Anonymous No.19525882]

>>19522523
Yikes, what a massive projecting cope. Why are fags like you always so insecure?

[Anonymous No.19525892]

>>19522523
And yet I've yet to encounter a single christlarper on here who's given away all his possessions like Jesus told him to

[Anonymous No.19526110]

I've yet to encounter a single christlarper on here who's gauged out his eyes like Jesus told him to

[Anonymous No.19526216]

>>19525756
Justify how treat others the way you want to be treated is more rational than pure egotism and using people as a means to an end given the presumptions of naturalism

[Anonymous No.19526295]

Why does moot always win out?

[Anonymous No.19526297]

>>19526216
>You mean justify feeling empathy to someone who doesn't? Didn't I just say I'm not going to do that?

[Anonymous No.19526304]

>>19526297
keep fucking mistyping, accidental greentext

[Anonymous No.19526312]

I'm an Atheist -- or, more specifically, an Agnostic Atheist, I suppose -- but it's just that I have zero religious feelings.

I don't think there is reconciliation with being a materialist and having a moral foundation that doesn't reduce to emotional argument. I don't see it as possible. One would have to accept that morality isn't there and whatever "system" they support has no backing.

[Anonymous No.19526418]

>>19526312
Why exactly can't morality be objectively grounded in something physical, IE: Human biology?

[Anonymous No.19526423]

Imagine believing that your own existence is a meaningless accident and that you have no free will, then turning around and telling Christians how they ought to live.

[Anonymous No.19526430]

>>19522501
What do you think will happen when you die even if you aren't an atheist? Do you think all your book-learning will remain with your spirit as you ascend to heaven?

[Anonymous No.19526438]

>>19522501
I am a kind of semi atheist. I dont believe in God, as in I dont believe there is a conscious entity who created reality, but I do believe in a vague metaphysical force of "good"(it is not really good; it's a more subtle concept). I dont think this force is reality itself though, only something in it. I dont think we can grasp what reality itself is in its deepest nature, it has to be left as a kind of Noumenal x.

Anyway the point of life for me is engaging with this force thing. I will die and cease to exist but the thing itself never dies, and the thing is inside of us, so in a non-literal way a part of us lives on.

[Anonymous No.19526452]

>>19526423
imagine equivocating libertarian free will (magic nonsense) with compatibilist free will, then shitting on the floor

[Anonymous No.19526457]

>>19526438
>I do believe in a vague metaphysical force of "good"(it is not really good; it's a more subtle concept
Why?

[Anonymous No.19526470]

>>19526457
Because I experience it, and it is my answer for why creation happens at all

[Anonymous No.19526479]

Imagine believing that your own existence is a meaningless act of creation that you merely exist to glorify God the most and that you have no free will as elect are already predestined for heaven, then turning around and telling Atheists how they ought to live.

[Anonymous No.19526481]

>>19526457
because it makes him feel better

[Anonymous No.19526488]

>>19523316
>confusing Fichte/Hegel German Nationalism with vox populi ingroup bias
>confusing chattel slavery as a concept independent of economy and location with anti-abolitionist sentiment
Do atheists really?

[Anonymous No.19526594]

>>19526312
>I don't think there is reconciliation with being a materialist and having a moral foundation that doesn't reduce to emotional argument
why? there can't be good and bad unless there is an authority to reward or punish you? god is completely irrelevant to morality and no theist here will even attempt to make the case otherwise because they can just skate by on the fact that most people make this assumption and are as morally advanced as a toddler, having have never done any meta-ethical thinking in their life.

[Anonymous No.19526659]

>>19526594
Care to enlighten me, wise one? If this is just recycled theory from Moore (1903), spare me the linguistic relativism, but I am interested otherwise.