/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2074698]

>2011
>still thinking you have any rational basis on which to believe that atheism makes more sense than theism
I seriously hope none of you guys do this

[Anonymous No.2074704]

It does logically:

Person makes claim X(in our case god)

They have to prove that it's true and if they don't then there's no reason to believe it is.

[Anonymous No.2074706]

It does if I affirm that it does

[Anonymous No.2074711]

>>2074704
But that's not how logic works you stupid fuck.

[Anonymous No.2074713]

>>2074706
/thread

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2074715]

>>2074704
That's where this whole faith thing comes in and you have that circular logic that works because hell this is god we're talking about here, so you leave the christians be and keep your atheism inoffensive and unmilitant.

That's the point of the thread...

[Anonymous No.2074716]

>>2074711
I don't even agree with him, but why is he wrong there?

[Anonymous No.2074725]

I'd say they're about even. I can't say I know God exists, I can't say I know God doesn't exist.

I believe God doesn't exist, but I can see why someone would believe God exists. I can't stand organised religion and anyone who says they know for definite that God does or does not exist is a fool.

[Anonymous No.2074727]

>you will never see Dawkins debate Craig

[Anonymous No.2074736]

>>2074727
I wouldn't really care to,, honestly, though I do recommend checking out his debate with agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman over the historicity of Christ's resurrection. It's pretty entertaining

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2074739]

>>2074727
Dawkins would be left spluttering much in the way that Hitchens was. It would be a travesty.

There's no thought that can really go against a Spinozan type deity and a spinozan type deity can be reconciled pretty easily to the Bible and its thought.

[Anonymous No.2074745]

>mfw even without creationism, humans think they're hot shit and the lords of creation and think that their tiny brains can know if god exists or not.

[Anonymous No.2074764]

>>2074745
but you can you know that we can't know

[Anonymous No.2074784]

>>2074711
Why am I wrong fruit bowl?
>>2074725
By that reasoning we should assume everything exists

[Anonymous No.2074788]

>>2074764
no he doesn't

[Anonymous No.2074791]

>>2074788
Wait. I mean to ask how he can know that we can't know. Whoops.

[Anonymous No.2074801]

>>2074784
You are wrong because it is completely reasonable and rational to believe in a ''watchmaker'' with acknowledging the established scientific facts. So it is upon you to prove that ''there is no god''.

[Anonymous No.2074820]

hey
hey guys
let's just appreciate each other for who we are regardless of our personal beliefs
i love you guys anyway

[Anonymous No.2074822]

>>2074820
Fuck that shit. We are what we believe you faggot.

[Anonymous No.2074832]

There is no reason to believe a god exists, therefore why believe in a god? If everything in the universe can be explained without the addition of a deity, why add a deity to the explanation for no reason? It's Occam's Razor. If you're going to believe in one thing without any reason or evidence, then why not just believe in anything that could potentially exist maybe? Invisible Pink Unicorns and Russel's Teapots and all.

also: "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-Asimov

[Anonymous No.2074833]

>>2074822
possibly but that doesn't mean we need to be so rude to each other
if i believe in god and you don't that doesn't mean that i'm better or vice versa
no matter what we believe, we're still both people
i respect your opinion though

[Anonymous No.2074840]

>>2074820
:)
>>2074822
i love you too faggot

[Anonymous No.2074848]

>>2074791
there is a limit to what we can know. after a certain limit thinking becomes anthropocentric, about the purpose of life for example. we can know about knowledge because knowledge is a human thing.

[Anonymous No.2074854]

Ofcourse God exists. But I don't definitely know this - I can only believe, that's why I'm a believer - because I can't know for sure, I can only believe that what priests are preaching (THOSE particular priests, that is) is true. Living in this material world, we can never be sure, because the existence of God can only be empirically checked after death. Obviously, if there is life after death according to Catholic views, I win. If there is none of it - I lose, and someone else wins, may it be Buddhist, or Hinduist, or Atheist, or Dudeist. But for now, I'm more concerned with living a good life and believing what I can thanks to our beautiful, liberal tolerance laws in Western World. If I'm wrong, then, well, I won't acquire my 72 virgins, or I won't be reborn as a prince, or there will be no actual punishment at all. But that's none of your business, because you too can't KNOW anything, you can only BELIEVE that you're right, and being at any level of militancy (for instance the one that teenage internet atheists display towards anyone else at all) is just being stupid.
quid pro quo

[Anonymous No.2074866]

The existence of God is immanently perceivable for those who have have not blinded their souls with egotism. Not all truth is communicable through language and logic.

[Anonymous No.2074868]

>>2074848
but that doesnt' explain how you know. and how do you know god isn't a human thing. how do you konw there is a limit to what we can know. how do you konw that after this limit things become anthropocentric. and what makes you think that's a problem. etc.

[Anonymous No.2074869]

>>2074854
faith is for faggots bro. gnosticism and mysticism is for the real guys like myself

[Anonymous No.2074870]

>>2074832
>If everything in the universe can be explained without the addition of a deity, why add a deity to the explanation for no reason?
>If everything in the universe can be explained without the addition of a deity

Sorry, I must have missed the global memo explaining why the universe sprang spontaneously from nothingness and how infinity can coexist with the finite.

jk, I did read that memo; it's called the Bhagavad-Gita"

[Anonymous No.2074876]

holy shit
this thread has not turned to shit
yet thank you lit

[Anonymous No.2074877]

>>2074869
have luck defending those statements; also, what's the difference between mysticism and faith? can't one coexist with other inside an individual?
also, gnosticism is religion, man, and really amalgamated at that

[Anonymous No.2074880]

God is an utterly unfalsifiable, completely undefined concept that boils down to a human face on our laws of physics, despite the complete lack of any logical or empirical evidence for this "irrefutable fact".

Oh, and William Lane Craig is the biggest charlatan in philosophy since Hegel. He is in the redundant business of proving logically what has already been shown by experiments to be complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2074887]

>>2074877
i was being silly for the most part, sorry. mysticism is more on the direct experience and complete gnosis of god rather than faith, i also meant gnosticism as knowledge of the existence of god rather than the gnosticism that is kinda like early greek fused christianity stuff.

[Anonymous No.2074888]

>>2074880
>Hegel
>charlatan
Why do you think that is ?

[Anonymous No.2074892]

>>2074880
That's, like, totally your opinion, man.

[Anonymous No.2074895]

>>2074801
The watchmaker analogy is a load of crap. The reason one can distinguish that watch is designed is because watches don't naturally appear in nature. You can't compare the universe to itself and declare it designed, that is irrational.

[Anonymous No.2074904]

>>2074895
Why do you think it's impossible that the cosmos as in we perceive it was designed/created ? Human perception is limited, realize that, our empirical observation of nature can only get us so far, the rest is up to rationale.

[Anonymous No.2074908]

>>2074888

because the whole philosophy of Hegel is nothing but deduction. If you read Hegel, which in itself is a feat which requires Herculean concentration, you notice that the only criteria for a true idea to Hegel is that an idea needs to be consistent with itself. Hegel doesn't actually bother to check whether the idea is consistent with reality.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2074911]

>>2074880
what the fuck kind of experiments disproved the existence of god?

Also, Hegel's boss, you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.2074914]

kongregate.com/games/Leviathan278/never-mind-v0-1

[Anonymous No.2074921]

>>2074904

>Human perception is limited, realize that, our empirical observation of nature can only get us so far, the rest is up to rationale.

so you've perceived that perception is flawed?

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2074922]

>>2074908
>thinks that Hegel's ideas weren't consistent with reality when that was all they really were and consequently they've aged terribly
>thinks deduction is inherently wrong when it's actually the most precise logic operation in the book.
>doesn't hermeneutics with any subtlety. of course, an idea has to be consistent with the interpretative methods that construed it.

[Anonymous No.2074927]

>>2074911
Not even that guy but,
>human face

[Anonymous No.2074934]

>>2074904
It's not that it's impossible. It's that I have no reason to believe that it is created. Even if I did concede that it was created how do I determine what did create it? Was it the jolly green space giant that sneezed it into existence, the magic dragon, the giant fish man that shit out the universe, or do I just have to go with the all too ambiguous christian god?

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2074936]

>>2074927
Yeah, well do you know this mysterious experiment that disproved god. i mean i'm an atheist sure, but I'm almost aware that this is a belief of exactly the same value as christian faith. It's simply a requirement of not being a bigot

[Anonymous No.2074939]

>>2074921

Not sure if troll.

If not: read Descartes, Hume, anyone.

[Anonymous No.2074943]

>>2074704
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.

[Anonymous No.2074960]

>They have to prove that it's true and if they don't then there's no reason to believe it is
>If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.2074966]

>>2074704
>They have to prove that it's true and if they don't then there's no reason to believe it is.

>As Carl Sagan explains:
“ "Appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist – and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."-The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 – The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)

[Anonymous No.2074975]

>>2074939

>Descartes

again, I go back to falsifiability. I don't consider the external world to be missing, because there is not good reason to assume that it is

>Hume

he just got rid of certainty, and this has been replaced with probability

[Anonymous No.2074980]

>>2074943
>>2074960
I'm asserting that a proposition isn't true because of a lack of evidence which means my belief falls under > third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.
There for I am literally an atheist which in Greek means without god.
Game over, I win.

[Anonymous No.2074984]

>>2074911

That's the point. Why should I even consider that anyone can know anything about a concept which no one can test, or even perceive?

And Hegel is utterly revolting shit. Unreadable gibberish. For instance, name one thing that we can use practically that we've gained from his philosophy

[Anonymous No.2074985]

>>2074704
And atheism is the assertion that nothing spiritual exists at all.

Do you have anything to back it up?
Atheism is JUST as much a religion as anything else.

Further they pretend it isn't a religion and they pretend they don't follow thw whims and dictates of their masters!
The promoters of atheism today, promote it not because they think it makes sense or is correct, but because they HATE everything about white christian traditional society.

This is the same with all these fucking philosophers who don't affirm the importance of traditions.

[Anonymous No.2074989]

>>2074980
>Game over, I win.
Nope, you just continued to assert that atheism is correct using the same fallacy you were called out on. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You state that you are an atheist but your argument only supports agnosticism. Read through this a couple of times then read through your posts before you make a reactionary leap in logic like you just did.

[Anonymous No.2074990]

>>2074985
Atheists only share the common belief that they reject the existence of god.

[Anonymous No.2074995]

>>2074985

>And atheism is the assertion that nothing spiritual exists at all.

>Do you have anything to back it up?

Are you fucking retarded? I don't have to "back it up" as much as I don't have to "back up" that leprechauns don't exist.

Not proven, no reason to believe, perfectly logical to not believe.

[Anonymous No.2074998]

>Not accepting strong agnosticism as the only rational system of belief

People still do this?

[Anonymous No.2074999]

>>2074980

>I'm asserting that a proposition isn't true because of a lack of evidence which means my belief falls under > third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.

if by "satisfactorily" you mean "absolutely", you would be right. And this is why most philosophies on science factor in probability

[Anonymous No.2075000]

>I believe in Atheism

[Anonymous No.2075004]

>>2074989
It's not the same fallacy that I was called out on. I reject the proposition that god exists. Maybe if you had read my post you would have realized that doesn't mean that I'm saying one doesn't exist. Agnosticism is the claim that it's impossible to know if god exists. Which in itself is ridiculous because you can't know that something is unknowable. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Because if it wasn't then the government should be aloud to go into every bodies house at anytime to look for contraband.

[Anonymous No.2075006]

>>2074998

yes, because agnosticism only says something about epistemology. It has nothing to say about theology

[Anonymous No.2075008]

>>2074995
How is it "logical" that it doesn't exist?
Wouldn't logic be agnostic and not deciding either way until some evidence convinces you?
>>2074990
Atheists are anti-christian. Most of them actually believe in some form of mysticism. They just hate christianity.
>>2075000
remember, he's right and we're wrong, just because you know!

[Anonymous No.2075014]

>Are you fucking retarded? I don't have to "back it up" as much as I don't have to "back up" that leprechauns don't exist.

>Not proven, no reason to believe, perfectly logical to not believe.

You hear that astronomers the stars you are looking for aren't proven to exist yet, so they don't. Hey, biologists, those new species you are looking for in indonesia don't exist because you haven't found them yet.
Hey Romans, America doesn't exist.
Hey Newton, gravity doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.2075027]

>>2075014
It is logical to believe something doesn't exist without evidence. What reason do you have to believe?

[Anonymous No.2075030]

>>2075014

Are you a troll or just extremely stupid?

[Anonymous No.2075042]

>Are you a troll or just extremely stupid?
This is what happens when someone on the internet gets their ass handed to them.
>It is logical to believe something doesn't exist without evidence. What reason do you have to believe?
Without evidence it is unknown.

[Anonymous No.2075053]

>>2075042
If someone presents you with the proposition "There is a flying hippo in my backyard". Is not believing the same as saying there isn't? Also would you believe them. If you were to investigate if a hippo was in the back yard they would say it is invisible and constantly moving. Still grounds for saying "It's just unknown man".

[Anonymous No.2075063]

>>2075053
if he has a history of being a teller of tall tales, then naturally one wouldn't believe him.

If he's an honest man, then while holding suitable disbelief of such an implausible occurance, i would go see.
Naturally one needs evidence to settle in a belief.
Solid evidence seen with ones own eyes.

Atheism has no evidence, however atheism also abandons thousands of years of tradition and common sense which has accumulated over the centuries and served us well.
Atheism is cancer.

[Anonymous No.2075071]

>thousands of years of tradition and common sense which has accumulated over the centuries and served us well.

argumentum ad populum. Pedophilia was accepted in ancient Greece, should we legalize pedophilia? Eye for an eye law was acceptable to Hammurabi, why's it not instituted under Obama. And most importantly, China slaughtered millions of its own citizens during its cultural revolution; why shouldn't we do the same, since China's doing so great nowadays?

[Anonymous No.2075072]

>>2075063
Disbelief requires no evidence. Why do you not understand that?

[Anonymous No.2075074]

>>2075042

Hey, I have some news for you
ignoring when someone calls you out on your bullshit = \ = handing someone's ass on a silver platter

let's get back to your 'points':

>the stars you are looking for aren't proven to exist yet, so they don't

eh, no. Those stars that your astronomers look for are nothing but meaningless speculation until it is proven otherwise.

>Hey, biologists, those new species you are looking for in indonesia don't exist because you haven't found them yet.

Yeah, if you haven't found something yet, it's kinda hard to say anything about it. This includes details about their existence.

>Hey Romans, America doesn't exist.

You're actually right here, when the Romans were around, the country America did not exist. Also, they had no hard evidence to prove that the continent existed, so that would have been a pretty hard one for Cicero as well

>Hey Newton, gravity doesn't exist.

Newton didn't invent gravity. He invented the theory which explained the natural phenomenon of gravity, which, before any empirical facts were in, was utterly meaningless

[Anonymous No.2075084]

>>2075014
>>2075042

Why do you keep posting Roman busts? do you think it will add some platform of credibility to your statements?

[Anonymous No.2075087]

>>2075014

so we agree that probability of god existing = probability of fairies existing

actually we don't, because when you add in the logical fallacy of eternal punishment based on actions that are deterministic, the probability of any specific religion's god tends to 0

[Anonymous No.2075090]

>>2075074
You're responding to that post as if it was promoting believing without evidence, when actually it was pointing out that assertions something doesn't exist due to lack of evidence willl often be wrong. It's a fine distinction.

'>Hey Romans, America doesn't exist.

>Also, they had no hard evidence to prove that the continent existed, so that would have been a pretty hard one for Cicero as well.'

So what you are saying is that even though they didn't have evidence that the continent existed, it still did? In that case you have just agreed, the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence.

[Anonymous No.2075102]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2075110]

>>2075008

>How is it "logical" that it doesn't exist?

I never said that. I said that it is logical to not believe.

>Wouldn't logic be agnostic and not deciding either way until some evidence convinces you?

You are probably a christfaggot which such closed mentality. I don't give a fuck what it is, I believe in what there is evidence for, and I don't believe in what there is no evidence for, once evidence has found, then I believe in it.

Jesus fucking Christ is not rocket science.

[Anonymous No.2075112]

>>2075071

>argumentum ad populum.
No, it isn't.
argumentum ad populum would be saying that because so many people believe it, it's correct.

What i am saying is that our societies founded upon certain christian beliefs are the finest in the world and we would do well to hold to the original intentions and concepts which built the countries rather then throw it all to the wind and hope things work out.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2075121]

>>2074984
The argument from ignorance fallacy says you can't deny something that other can (as of yet) not find any proof for and it's pretty strong sawce.

His hermeneutics in general and specifically his diachronous and his attention to holism within logic. These are technical points of argument but they have pushed philosophy in the right direction, without the phenomenology of spirit, no existentialism really, since it was almost the first work to consider the individual as an entity that requires direction etc. Also, that the free market is the best way to actualize the individual into a community. His aesthetics were the first rigorously crafted set as was his historicity. His philosophy frankly continues to be relevant however hard you find it to read.

I mean, saying that Hegel said nothing, is just looking at something and not bothering to understand it. It's a sign of a really stagnant thinker.

Those who believe this, those who worship these basest of lies, they are not fit for discussion. They are fit for consumption. When I turn on the television and see the right wing condemn the paralytics, the malformed, the half-dead, the born-crushed, to an undignified death that could have been prevented but for their superstition, I do not become angry.

I become hungry. I think of boiling their fat jowls down for dinner. I dream of eating their quadriceps with drooling pleasure, thinking about how satisfying a delicacy their testes will make in stew. I view them as the Chimpanzees of the Gombe view the Red Colobus monkeys. They may look like my people, but they are not my people. They are my people’s food. I extend to them no rights, no recognition of personhood. I would happily forego a plate of the finest Angus beef for plate of their haunches. A Steer has at least the decency not to defame or inform on its own kind.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.2075130]

>>2075121
>>2075121
A modest proposal at the bottom of the post there for all the morally indifferent, bigoted, ignorant and adventurous thinkers who populate this board and obfusticate the thinking of the enlightened with poor argument and the lies they would tell themselves for cowardly and egotistical comfort. (curteisye of adaptive systems).

[Anonymous No.2075133]

>>2075090

>So what you are saying is that even though they didn't have evidence that the continent existed, it still did?

No, what I'm saying is that you can't draw any conclusions before the facts are in, and we get to facts by establishing a testable proposition and then exposing this proposition to this test. For a proposition to be testable, it needs to be falsifiable; you need to make clear beforehand in which case you would be completely wrong. You do the test, and if you falsify the proposition, it is absolutely false. If you don't falsify your proposition, you can say that there is a certain level of truth to it, but until you test a proposition, there is nothing meaningful you can say about it.

So, to answer you question, the last part of your question ("it still did") is a statement which is based on the result of testing the proposition and finding out that it hasn't been falsified, while the first part of your question ("they didn't have evidence that the continent existed") is a statement based on the knowledge before the idea was even proposed, much less before it could even be tested.

Therefore, "even tough" is a deceptive phrase

[Anonymous No.2075136]

>>2075112
Generally, religion has not one ounce of common sense that can't be found elsewhere, and without the whole "slaughter the Amorites" or "slaughter the Jews" or "slaughter the heathens" rhetoric.

Modern society WAS NOT founded on religious principles. Educate yourself. It was founded on an Enlightenment philosophy of human rights, various freedoms, equality, and respect for fellows. If you disagree with these ideas then that's fine, but don't tell me they have anything to do with religion except by the most tenuous of connections.

[Anonymous No.2075164]

>>2075136
Enlightenment philosophy is founded on christianity.
And our problems are caused by this abandonment of reason and tradition.

[Anonymous No.2075170]

I'm of the opinion that a deity does not exist, but I'm also willing to concede that I could be wrong, as there is no irrefutable evidence one way or the other.

Either way, I think there are better things to concern oneself with. The existence or non-existence of a deity doesn't have much to do with my life, unless of course by some stroke of luck, the beliefs of a particular religion actually turn out to be true and their deity is planning to roast my soul for all eternity once I die. I'm willing to take my chances, though.

>>2075112
>our societies founded upon certain christian beliefs are the finest in the world
Does this mean that only societies founded on Christian beliefs can be any good? I think we're confusing morality with theology here.

[Anonymous No.2075181]

>>2075164
>Enlightenment philosophy is founded on christianity.
And Christianity is founded on Judaism, and Judaism is founded on the ideas of some older religion, and so on and so forth.

It's meaningless, because the ideas hold up on their own without having to assert the existence of Yahweh.

[Anonymous No.2075184]

>>2075164

and most of the central philosophical tenants of christianity were based on the thoughts Greek pagan philosophers.

[Anonymous No.2075188]

>>2075181
His point is that mankind's station has been vastly improved by our history-spanning search for the divine, and that to ignore this is to forget what made past societies strong and viable.

[Anonymous No.2075202]

>>2075184
yes and so our philosophies and thinkings evolve and improve.

This post modernist or modernist TRASH is a regression, not improvement.

You can see how our western countries are quite literally falling apart.
America has survived for over 200 years and within our lifetime we will witness it's breakup.

[Anonymous No.2075205]

I'm a theist.

[Anonymous No.2075213]

The notion of god is built on ignorance. God exist, you can't disprove it. Therefore there must be a god. Generally, this is clearly fallacious.

Other problems arise if god is all knowing. You have no free will. If god creates the universe and knows what you'll do. You don't have any free will and thus life is determined.

Also, more clusterfucks include "can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it"?

Craig isn't a good philosopher anyways. He was the one who came up with "Kalām cosmological argument". God must exist since the universe must of had a first cause. Totally blinded towards the view that the universe could be eternal.

His silly argument which he lives his life to is this:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Yet, what created god? Since god would of had needed a beginning.

[Anonymous No.2075218]

>>2074869

The seeker's path is arduous. Gnosis is the station only of those privileged few who reach the end. Faith is a recourse for everyone else.

[Anonymous No.2075219]

>>2075181

How would an atheist demonstrate that there is a good moral basis for universal human rights, and not just arbitrary, relativistic rules to which we are subject?

[Anonymous No.2075222]

>>2075164

>Enlightenment philosophy
>Influenced by Christianity

NOPE. Not even close. The Enlightenment challenged Christian dogma, so much that Revolutionary France banned it.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2075223]

>>2075218
yo islamicguy hows it? what do you think of kabir?

[Anonymous No.2075224]

>>2075213
>must of
>of
>'ve

YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOW INVALID.
ALSO I'M AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST.

[Anonymous No.2075226]

>>2075213

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a necessary being and a contingent being. Until you grasp the difference it's very unlikely that you're going to understand any variation of the Kalam cosmological argument (which Craig didn't "come up with").

Unfortunately for dim-witted atheists, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing your opponent's position is not a way of refuting it.

[Anonymous No.2075227]

>>2075224

I'm French. Thank you for correcting my English. It's still not perfect.

[Anonymous No.2075236]

>>2075219
Same way the Christians and every religion and society dating back into antiquity rationalized it, minus the God's disapproval part - empathy.

Try it. The Golden Rule holds up on its own, I promise you.

[Anonymous No.2075237]

>>2075226

>dim-witted atheists

Argumentum ad hominem.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2075239]

loveguy are you still here?

[Anonymous No.2075242]

>>2075222

Er, what? How exactly did Revolutionary France "ban" the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment refers to a disparate series of intellectual flourishings in any number of European countries and also in the United States of America. Did France also "ban" the works of Hume, Smith, and Mandeville?

Given that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most cited thinkers in speeches given in the National Assembly (before, during and after the Terror), it's not really clear what you mean by this. Or do you think that Rousseau was not a significant Enlightenment thinker?

There is a debate over whether the philosophical luminaries and the high culture-types writing in the ancien regime had a large effect on the revolutionaries, or whether low-level scandalous literature played the bigger role, but there's certainly no debate about whether the Revolution was influenced on some level by "the Enlightenment" (which itself is a term too vague to be helpful).

While it's true that there were some notable Enlightenment thinkers who were deistic, and one or two who were explicitly atheistic, this was by no means true of the majority of the work produced during that period. Of course, challenging 'dogma' is not even close to being the same thing as challenging Christianity; most challenges to dogma came from fellow Christians.

[Anonymous No.2075245]

>>2075219

You act as though being a theist gives one a "moral basis" for universal human rights, but atheists and theists alike have historically sacrificed human rights without regard for their beliefs. Moral basis does not come from, or have to come from, God.

Universal human rights should come from two things: the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and acknowledging that all humans should be treated with dignity.

[Anonymous No.2075246]

>>2075236
um, empathy has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.2075249]

>>2075242

France banned Christianity and planned to replace it with the Cult of the Supreme Being. Nice misreading, my friend.

[Anonymous No.2075254]

>>2075236

I'm not sure that you've addressed the question at all. Are you suggesting that you, as an atheist, nevertheless hold that there are objective moral truths to which all human beings are subject?

In a Christian worldview, it makes sense to say that there are inalienable rights which every person possesses because they are God-given. A vague reference to the concept of empathy doesn't seem to be any sort of objective foundation at all; it's just arbitrary. It would make as much sense to say that we're all granted moral rights because we possess opposable thumbs. I'm looking for the ultimate foundation for your moral rules, not a prima facie reason for accepting moral rules.

[Anonymous No.2075262]

>>2075249

Oh, you're just illiterate. Any literate person would have to have read your sentence as suggesting that Revolutionary France banned the Enlightenment.

Of course, the reality is that the worst excesses of the French Revolution were not Enlightenment projects at all. Broadly speaking, we can say that the Enlightenment promoted various freedoms: speech, thought, religion. The persecution of a religion is not an Enlightenment idea, I'm afraid. Still, if you want to claim Robespierre for your side, you're welcome to him.

[Anonymous No.2075263]

>>2075254

Totally disregard the part about the Bible saying slavery is A-OKAY.

GOOD JOB!

[Anonymous No.2075266]

>>2075262

>The Enlightenment challenged Christian dogma
>Revolutionary France banned it

Only someone who is totally ignorant of the French revolution would suggest that they banned the "Enlightenment". Enjoy your autism.

[Anonymous No.2075267]

>>2075237
It's only ad hominem if you base your argument around the name calling or slander.

>>2075245
No such thing as human rights. Further what "atheists" like to call human rights are an absurdity.
Right to internet connection, and so on.

[Anonymous No.2075268]

Yeah, I know that feeling. I've argued with dozens of atheists, and it really amazes me how entrenched they can be.

Accepting that human beings should act within the bounds of scientific rationality and that there is currently no compelling evidence for a godlike entity DOES NOT mean that you can definitively say a godlike entity cannot exist.

The entertaining thing is that I've had atheists admit this while at the same time still claiming atheism on the basis of current evidence- Despite the fact that we can never be sure of the situation and cannot ever prove something to not be.

Admitting that a godlike entity might exist while still accepting that we need not accept unprovable claims is not really that far a jump from atheism, but it's amazing how many people refuse to see this. Reactionary sentiment towards organized religion creates idiots.

[Anonymous No.2075276]

>>2075245

The actions of men in the world have no bearing on the philosophical basis for moral rights.

It seems to me that atheists can only ever employ circular logic when they try to establish an objective basis for human rights.

>Everyone should be treated with dignity.
Why?
>Because of the Golden Rule.
And why should I follow the Golden Rule?
>Because everyone should be treated with dignity.

This doesn't provide an objective morality, but an intuitively good reason to behave well. That's not the same as having a solid foundation on which to build though. This is not to say that atheists will behave badly, of course. It's only an academic point.

[Anonymous No.2075285]

>>2075266

I didn't suggest it. Whoever I was quoting (probably you) suggested it without meaning to suggest it. I can't be held responsible for the illiteracy of my interlocutor.

Also, you seem to still labour under the delusion that the Enlightenment was anti-Christian. Either that or you think that Christianity and certain dogmatic practices of the Universal
Church are identical. Either way you're a moron.

>>2075263

Oh, wow, good point. Of course nobody has actually mentioned the Bible as an objective basis for morality. I talked of a monolithic deity as the foundation. Thanks for demonstrating the inability of atheists to bring any nuance to a discussion though.

[Anonymous No.2075290]

>>2075254
>Are you suggesting that you, as an atheist, nevertheless hold that there are objective moral truths to which all human beings are subject?

I'm actually an agnostic atheist, but that's an irrelevant detail.

To get to your question - no, I don't think there are objective moral truths - just rules that we as human beings need to agree to abide by if we are to live together.

I understand that when I strike another person, they feel pain the same way I'd feel pain when I'm struck. Therefore, I think it's within our interest to come to an accord to not strike eachother. This is the basis of law based on empathy - we understand how it is to suffer pain at another's hands, therefore we come to an understanding to not cause pain to one another, and those who violate this pact are punished in accordance to the severity of their trespass.

[Anonymous No.2075292]

>>2075223

Doing well, yourself?

Kabir is a bit too heterodox for my liking. I generally don't have a problem with ecstatic verse, but from what I understand he was more vedantic or Hindu than Muslim in his actual religious practice.

Apart from the very well-known awliyaa' like Imam Ghazali and Shaykh ul-Akbar, I guess I tend mostly toward the Shadhili tariqah and toward really early figures like Dhu'n-Nun and Hasan al-Basri.

[Anonymous No.2075313]

>>2075290
>agnostic atheist
durggghh can you BE any more pretentious?

>>2075285
your*

[Anonymous No.2075316]

>>2075290
also is
>I understand that when I strike another person, they feel pain the same way I'd feel pain when I'm struck.
Similar to
>"The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you." -- Polish proverb
?
What gives you the right to lay punishment, do you have no empathy for the supposed criminal? Who is to say that the other person wasn't justified in striking whoever?

[Anonymous No.2075322]

>>2075276

Why do we need an "objective" morality? Besides, the Golden rule *does* provide some objective things (i.e., "I would not want to be murdered, hence I will not murder.") so isn't that enough??

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2075323]

>>2075292
i'm good :) you manage to read any borges yet?
I thought you wouldn't like him because of that lol I think he's more bhakti but he was raised by muslims and taught by hindus and in the end didn't like organised religion, i just wanted to know because he was kinda universal in his approach and he is pretty revered by sufis, i'm not necessarily equating them, but i do think that it shows sufism does have a universal side?

[Anonymous No.2075331]

>>2075322
Seems like the golden rule completely breaks down in situations of self-defense or defense of your property.

[Anonymous No.2075341]

>>2075331

How so?

[Anonymous No.2075342]

>>2075313

It also breaks down after only a second of reflection, since it demands that we assume that everyone wishes to be treated in the same way. That does rather ignore the individual differences between human beings.

>>2075322

That's not an objective morality since it depends for its force on the individual decision of a human being.

I have not suggested that we need an objective morality in order to behave well, so I don't know why you would ask me such a question.

[Anonymous No.2075447]

>>2075342

The Golden Rule is actually entirely about individual differences and it does not tell everyone to act the same way. It is simply a personal ethical guideline for how to act. It says that YOU should act as YOU would treat others. If you lie to others, you invite them to lie to you. If you would kill someone, then you invite yourself to be killed. It does not intrinsically prohibit anything. I also acknowledge it doesn't cover everything (such as, for instance, incest which is universally a taboo but fails to be addressed by the golden rule... it is merely an ethical guideline)

Also, you brought up "objective morality" >>2075276
even though I had not mentioned it... I honestly think searching for objective morality is futile.

[Anonymous No.2075462]

>>2075323

No :-(... I've been really busy with school lately. Any recommendations though?

I'd completely agree that tasawwuf and Islam in general are fundamentally universal. Islam to Muslims is the primordial servant-Lord relationship that has defined our existence since its inception. All pre-Qur'anic religions began as iterations of the same truth, but their scriptures were altered and ignored over time and ultimately became superseded by a final revelation delivered through Muhammad (s.) Belief in this final revelation, therefore, is the only means of attaining salvation and gnosis.

There are individuals and groups who proclaim belief in Islam while maintaining that other religions also can serve as paths to salvation, but it becomes more and more clear that this position is untenable as one becomes more familiar with scripture and tasawwuf. Perrenialists like Guenon, Schuon, Chittick, etc. have made invaluable contributions to Islamic studies and to the revival of the ancient sciences, but their writings are permeated by this incorrect belief and must be taken with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.2075469]

>>2075313
>durggghh can you BE any more pretentious?
I could be an atheist or a theist and pretend I know all the answers. If it's pretentious to admit that I may be wrong, I guess I'm pretentious.

>>2075316
>What gives you the right to lay punishment[?],
I believe a citizen living under the protection of the law should be subject to the law's punishment if they happen to break the law. It's a give and receive agreement.

>do you have no empathy for the supposed criminal?
Of course I do, but this extends only so far as treating them humanely in their punishment. Having empathy for a criminal doesn't mean they didn't break a law of the society in which they are part of.

Note that Scandinavia, the most atheist region in the world, actually treats their criminals in the most humane manner. I guess "punishment" shouldn't be the goal here, but reformation.

>Who is to say that the other person wasn't justified in striking whoever?
Self-preservation or the protection of an innocent is a justification that I think anyone can get behind. All other situations can be solved non-violently and within a society's legal limits. We're not savages.

Law, of course, varies from place to place, and I think that's a good thing, as long as the people it governs are able to collectively shape their law, or freely leave the place which said law governs.

[Anonymous No.2075500]

>>2075469
Agnostic means you can't know anything.
Atheism means you KNOW god doesn't exist.
They are contradictory.

[Anonymous No.2075515]

>>2075500

[Anonymous No.2075524]

>>2075515
OK, well I am a 17 headed Velocidragon.
What does your religion say about that?

[Anonymous No.2075577]

>>2075524
Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are simplified highschool-level given definitions.

>religion
re·li·gion
noun /riˈlijən/ 
3. A particular system of faith and worship

That aside, I'm reasonably certain you are not a 17 headed Velocidragon, but I don't have irrefutable evidence that you are not so I cannot say for certain. However, I'll carry on with the assumption that you are not a 17 headed velocidragon, and if it turns out that you are, that's just fine and I was wrong to doubt your claim.

[Anonymous No.2075593]

>>2075577
If it turns out you are wrong, i will bite you into 17 different pieces.
Kinda like if you are wrong about god you burn in hell forever.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2075602]

>>2075462
Definitely check out the aleph and other stories. I got Chittick's self disclosure of god: cosmology of ibn arabi, and am gonna read it pretty soon. I don't really understand how that last paragraph and the preceding one are compatible really, maybe i will check out the quran, I generally don't like scripture though. thanks for your post.

[qball !!hVxuk25wyZX No.2075611]

>every atheist itt