Isn't atheism a religion?

[Anonymous No.20636084]

Believing there is no reason why we exist certainly is irational...

[Anonymous No.20636086]

>>20636084
You want >>>/his/ if you want to discuss religion. You haven't referenced a single book.

[Anonymous No.20636109]

Agnostic chads win again

[Anonymous No.20636150]

>>20636084
Why does God exist? Remember it's irrational to say something exists with no reason.

[Anonymous No.20636158]

>>20636150
The only way to put an end to your fallacious logic that ends on an infinite loop(Even your precious Big Bang requires a reason to exist, and so do all the scientific explanations that you have been fed in academia) is simply to admit there is something above reason. That is to say, God.

[Anonymous No.20636164]

>>20636158
>is simply to admit there is something above reason. That is to say, God.
Or you can just say the existence of the universe is above reason. Don't need to add God in and Occam's razor says the simplest solution is the best.

[Anonymous No.20636171]

>>20636084
/lit/ - literature
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.20636172]

>>20636150
>why is being being

[Anonymous No.20636180]

>>20636172
This guy gets it. Asking why the universe exists is like asking why existence exists. The universe is everything that exists its tautological that it exists.

[Anonymous No.20636181]

>>20636164
The universe evidently exists within reason. Therefore what is above reason would not be the universe. Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.20636183]

>>20636158
Something that always confused me about prime mover arguments.

If cause need always precede effect, and that's an axiom, then didn't the axiom itself precede the first cause? And if its not axiomatic, then why do we need a first cause?

[Anonymous No.20636187]

>>20636181
>The universe evidently exists within reason
And something reasonable cannot come from that which is unreasonable. Therefore a God above reason cannot have created the universe. Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.20636198]

>>20636084
It isn't a religion because there's no community, no history, no doctrine, and no liturgical practices.
Atheism is literally just believing that no gods exist. You can believe in supernatural things and be an atheist, you can even have an atheistic religion.
>Believing there is no reason why we exist certainly is irational...
This doesn't have anything to do with atheism.

[Anonymous No.20636246]

>>20636187
>And something reasonable cannot come from that which is unreasonable.
Doesn't follow. All sorts of opposites come from opposites.

[Anonymous No.20636259]

>>20636246
>Doesn't follow. All sorts of opposites come from opposites.
Ah so your assertion that the universe evidently exists within reason doesn't follow since the universe could be unreasonable and still produce reasonable measurements. And we're back to just saying the universe is unreasonable and throwing God out.

[Anonymous No.20636284]

>>20636259
The universe's substance is reasonable measurements, anything which cannot be measured is not the universe. The point is that which can be measured, the universe, could come from that which is without measure or reason, which would not be the universe because it is something we can't come into contact with within the universe by its very nature.

[Anonymous No.20636288]

>>20636259
If you assert that there is a part of the universe which is above reason and measure and produces another part of the universe which is within reason, then you are simply playing word games. In this case I would redefine the first half to be "God", and the second half to be "universe proper", which has been the point from the start.

[Anonymous No.20636290]

>>20636084
It's not a religion, it's not a system of religious beliefs. It is a religious belief though.

[Anonymous No.20636292]

>>20636284
>The universe's substance is reasonable measurements
But you've admitted that something reasonable can come from something unreasonable. So the universe could be unreasonable and produce reasonable measurements.
>could come from that which is without measure or reason, which would not be the universe because it is something we can't come into contact with within the universe by its very nature.
It could come but it could just as easily be the universe itself is unreasonable without having to add God in. And Occam's razor prefers my simpler solution.

[Anonymous No.20636293]

>>20636086
/his/ is infested with Christcucks, I'm afraid posts like this is just another way for them to generate fatigue and drive off users from /lit/

[Anonymous No.20636296]

>>20636158
gahd is just a language game acted out by authoritarians, to show others how they should simp for them

[Anonymous No.20636297]

>>20636296
Fr fr

[Anonymous No.20636302]

>>20636288
>If you assert that there is a part of the universe which is above reason and measure and produces another part of the universe which is within reason, then you are simply playing word games.
That's what all arguments for God are silly word games. There is zero logic in any of this just goofy twisting of vague definitions.
> In this case I would redefine the first half to be "God", and the second half to be "universe proper", which has been the point from the start.
And I would just redefine God as something that doesn't exist. So by definition God doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20636323]

>>20636292
>But you've admitted that something reasonable can come from something unreasonable.
Yes.
>o the universe could be unreasonable and produce reasonable measurements.
Doesn't follow because the universe is not unreasonable.
>It could come
How would you know it? You wouldn't, because it is beyond measure. The universe only exists to us as a measurable (= reasonable) thing.
>That's what all arguments for God are silly word games.
You're the one playing word games by conflating terms. Being purposefully obtuse and neglecting to use words properly is what atheists do to make people think everyone is as stupid as them, and therefore that nothing can be known.
>And I would just redefine God as something that doesn't exist.
And you would have to justify that definition, which you haven't been able to do. Meanwhile I justified mine by showing that the universe is measurable, whereas that which is not measurable cannot be found in the universe, therefore the two subjects are ontologically distinct.

[Anonymous No.20636345]

>>20636323
>Doesn't follow because the universe is not unreasonable.
How do you know?
>The universe only exists to us as a measurable (= reasonable) thing.
Again how do you know an unreasonable universe isn't producing reasonable measurements?
>Meanwhile I justified mine by showing that the universe is measurable, whereas that which is not measurable cannot be found in the universe, therefore the two subjects are ontologically distinct.
You fucked up even worse here. If the universe is only that which is measurable you've eliminated the possibility of God acting unreasonably within the universe since it can't be measured. And if something unreasonable can be measured your back at the measurable universe possibly being unreasonable. Face it your argument is goofy. There is a reason scholasticism of this type has been laughed at for hundreds of years

[Anonymous No.20636371]

>>20636292
>So the universe could be unreasonable and produce reasonable measurements.
An opposite cannot be itself, by the way. Opposites can produce opposites, but they cannot be the same thing. Not sure if you're even aware of that distinction. It means that the universe cannot be two opposite things at once.
>>20636345
>How do you know?
Because it is rational and measurable due to our common experience, it follows the arrow of time, principles of causality, etc.
>Again how do you know an unreasonable universe isn't producing reasonable measurements?
Because these would be two ontologically distinct beings as I just said.
>If the universe is only that which is measurable you've eliminated the possibility of God acting unreasonably within the universe since it can't be measured.
Another non-sequitur. All it means is that God's action cannot be measured in the universe, or in general. That he is the ground of measurement but not measurable or measurement itself.
>God acting unreasonably within the universe
What I've said the whole time is that nothing acts unreasonably within the universe. The universe only contains reasonable/measurable things, therefore God does not "act in it."
>Face it your argument is goofy
Your understanding of basic principles of logic like LNC seems goofier to me. You've constantly generated generation (x coming from y) with predication (x being y) in the previous posts which has led to marked conceptual confusion.

[Anonymous No.20636375]

>>20636371
>generated generation
conflated generation*

[Anonymous No.20636391]

>>20636371
>An opposite cannot be itself, by the way. Opposites can produce opposites, but they cannot be the same thing
An unreasonable universe producing reasonable measurements is two different things. You want to say the universe is just the measurements and I've pointed out how that eliminates God being able to effect the universe unless something unreasonable can produce a reasonable measurement. Saying an unreasonable universe produces reasonable measurements is exactly the same as you claiming a unreasonable God produces a reasonable universe especially since you claim the universe is just the reasonable measurements of it.

[Anonymous No.20636413]

>>20636084
>there is no reason why we exist
Atheists generally do not believe this.

[Anonymous No.20636436]

>>20636391
>I've pointed out how that eliminates God being able to effect the universe
God does not affect the universe in a measurable way, but that has never been part of my argument. God is the principle of it, but he does not affect it as just another measurable thing. In that sense what is rational comes from what is not rational.
>Saying an unreasonable universe produces reasonable measurements is exactly the same as you claiming a unreasonable God produces a reasonable universe
It's evidently not, because a thing cannot be the opposite of itself.

[Anonymous No.20636439]

>>20636084
the difference between left and right is narcissm

[Anonymous No.20636445]

>>20636158
And what would falsify this?

[Anonymous No.20636457]

>>20636436
>God does not affect the universe in a measurable way
The creation of the universe is pretty fucking measurable. Existence existing is about as basic a measurement as you can get.
>It's evidently not, because a thing cannot be the opposite of itself.
Again this is just you saying that the universe is just the measurements of it. There has to be something being measured separate from the measurements. That can be unreasonable by your own argument. You've backed yourself into a corner but you shouldn't feel too bad since no one has ever got a rigorous logical proof of God to work.

[Anonymous No.20636552]

>>20636084
"For Quentin Meillassoux, atheism is complicit with religion in accepting and thereby ‘ratifying the religious partition between immanence and transcendence: for atheism consists in being satisfied with the unsatisfying territory that religion cedes to it. Atheism is a strategy of the besieged’.9 In the rejection of religious transcendence the atheist also ‘devalues’ the world of imagination and its desire to transcend the ‘misery of the condition of immanence’.10 But that does not therefore imply a return to God, or to the God who sits at both the origin and the promised end of the misery as its ultimate justification. As such God is simply a figure representing the desire for consistency that atheists seek in scientific reason. This is a God that even God, if He existed, would fail to believe in, in fact could only rage against since it reduces His sovereignty to a servile construct of the limits of human rationality. This essential loathing of God, then, in which God Himself if he actually existed could only partake paradoxically opens up a more radical, even divine space for atheism in the form of a void filled with ‘His horrible absence’ rather than his imbecilic, stupefied presence.11
A radical, paradoxically divine atheism that loathes God and thereby embraces Satanism opens itself to such a world of transcendent imagination that Meillassoux argues secular atheism precludes. Indeed, Nick Land maintains that this kind of satanic blasphemy is precisely what atheism must sustain if it is not to subsist in miserable banality. For Land, the fact that ‘God has wrought such loathsomeness without even having existed only exacerbates the hatred pitched against him. An atheism that does not hunger for God’s blood is an inanity’.12 Proving himself a direct contemporary of Norwegian black metal and a black metal theorist avant la lettre, Land goes on, ‘anyone who does not exult at the thought of driving nails through the limbs of the Nazarene is something less than an atheist; merely a disappointed slave’.13
Satan’s role, as it has been handed down from Romanticism, is to sustain a trace of the divine in the wake of the death of God. As such, the Prince of Darkness, in the playful gravity of his perpetual insurgency, is of course a negative support of modernity’s Enlightenment project, both as its defining obscurantist opposite and its very impulse as a mode of transgressive negativity. Satan, as the untenable metaphor for nonknowledge, marks the boundaries of being and nothingness, joy and the abyss, centre and margin, life and death, man and beast; as the demonic figure of paradox, possession and the impossible, Satan threatens the undoing of these distinctions, holding them both together and apart, the locus of desire and imagination in a Godforsaken universe."

[Anonymous No.20636558]

>>20636552
>In the rejection of religious transcendence the atheist also ‘devalues’ the world of imagination
So God is made up. Got it.

[Anonymous No.20636726]

>>20636084
Atheism is the lack of faith in God's existence, not the faith in the absence of God's existence. The latter is a special case of the former, but not a necessary one.
>inb4 agnosticism
Despite of black science man's flawed explanation, all agnostics lack faith in God's existence, making them atheists.
>believing there is no reason why we exist certainly is irrational
It is. Atheists instead lack belief that God specifically is the reason for mankind's existence.

[Anonymous No.20636742]

>>20636084
Some atheists don't treat it like a religion or it's actually part of their religion which doesn't have a God. I've seen now that most athiests treat atheism like a religion. At least you only can when you seriously think about atheism instead of not bothering to think about anything metaphysical at all.

[Anonymous No.20636746]

>>20636198
>community
>history
>doctrine
It literally has all of these.

[Anonymous No.20636755]

>>20636296
This guy doesn't cap.

[Anonymous No.20636838]

>>20636180
>The universe is everything that exists its tautological that it exists.
This. No need for God, thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous No.20636871]

>>20636742
>I've seen now that most athiests treat atheism like a religion
you haven't met "most atheists" and if you had you would probably realise that everything is down to the individual atheist
well you might if you weren't completely stupid

[Anonymous No.20636968]

>>20636726
>all agnostics lack faith in God's existence, making them atheists
If somebody is agnostic but there's still one specific god they're agnostic about then I'm not sure I would call them an atheist. They do have a god.

[Anonymous No.20636987]

>>20636457
Nta but lmao you're a fucking retard. Measure the creation of the universe for us and post pics. Looks like you've backed yourself up into a corner huh? Don't feel too bad, retards like you are doomed to act like niggers.

[Anonymous No.20636995]

>>20636457
>>20636987
Are these the measurements that prove God doesn't exist?