/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22161701]

>2000 years of autistic 'scholarship' and mental gymnastics
>still no answer to this

[Anonymous No.22161712]

>>22161701
it's pretty sad that when atheists are tasked with conceiving of a higher power, all they can imagine is a literal, corporeal entity sitting in some physical cloud realm. It's such a juvenile interpretation of spirituality. Tho to be fair, the modern church isn't much better.

[Anonymous No.22161720]

>>22161701
Defaulting to an ad hominem instead of actually refuting the point. Unsurprising.

[Anonymous No.22161722]

>>22161712
It was a mistake depicting the Father in iconography.

[Anonymous No.22161772]

>>22161701
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intellectual LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weakpoint is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

[Anonymous No.22161791]

obvious bait is obvious

[Anonymous No.22161799]

Very interesting that no one has been able to actually address his argument

[Anonymous No.22161830]

>>22161799
not even a little interesting; argument's founded on a strawman thats been torn to pieces so many times so thoroughly that theres no sense in having to explain that God, in any religion, isnt Human-Plus.

we can see that the extent of your theological knowledge is that you saw a medieval painting of God once and you also have fanatical senpai members and just reddit-brained your way to a half-baked opinion because you're not actually curious but you also don't know how to shut off the "I am smart and right" egoic subtext in your mind so you compulsively create answers for yourself, true or untrue.

ideally, no one addresses the argument.
ideally, you read a book

[Anonymous No.22161831]

>>22161799
>God is equivalent to a monster living in your closet
It's just atheistic pride, anon. Only the Dunning Kruger choir to which he's preaching find a strawman like that thoughtful.

[Anonymous No.22161844]

>>22161830
>>22161831
There's no evidence of either God or the monster living in someone's closet. There's equal basis for believing or not believing in either. Yet only one has been accepted and worshipped by billions.

[Anonymous No.22161875]

>>22161844
>>22161844
yeah man, we can read.
i assure you that didn't go over anyone's head, you don't have to reiterate.

maybe try Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil, idk

this conversation is too dumb for me to engage with without punching down so im out. i hope that someone kinder than myself jumps in

[Anonymous No.22161881]

>>22161844
There’s also no evidence of you existing either other than possibly being a bot

[Anonymous No.22161908]

>>22161772
Is the pig a guy? If you jacked off to animal people, why the fuck would you jack off to pig people? The animal most often compared to fat middle aged men?

[Anonymous No.22161919]

The distinction comes about because having blind faith in an omniscient entity fulfills people's psychological needs. But a living, breathing nutter next to you, who says he has someone locked up in his closet, doesn't exactly fulfil people's psychological needs. Makes it go on alarm mode, more like.

[Anonymous No.22161954]

>>22161919
>having blind faith in an omniscient entity fulfills people's psychological needs
obviously untrue considering the number of religions lacking a conventional Godhead e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, animism(s), and the advanced forms of the religions you're insisting you've got all figured out despite, judging from your rationale and verbiage, have done little to know honest study of, e.g. Qaballah, Christian Mysticism, gnosticism, Sufism, Vedanta and all that.

you're tripping over the welcome mat in the rush to insist that you're Right™

[Anonymous No.22161969]

>>22161954
>Buddhism
Millions of people pray to Amitabha in hopes of being reincarnated in his pure land.
>Taoism
Jade Emperor.
>the advanced forms of the religions you're insisting you've got all figured out
Even if some scholars and mystics are able to dispense with the need for a personified omniscient God, the vast majority of people converge on anthropomorphized representations. How does that not support the assertion that "having blind faith in an omniscient entity fulfills people's psychological needs"?

[Anonymous No.22161975]

>>22161712
Most atheists are childish. They never moved on from edgy teenage atheism. I'm not religious, but i'm not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.22162027]

>>22161969
>Millions of people pray to Amitabha in hopes of being reincarnated in his pure land
not in the way that you're suggesting and definitely not in accordance with bhuddist teaching. now you're speaking from the position of a shitty guru and im curious how long you'd be willing to stand on this "Buddhism is when people pray to Amitabha" hill
>Jade Emperor
you just googled that with now actual follow-through study which is pretty consistent with your intellectual rigor
>Even if some scholars and mystics are able to dispense with the need for a personified omniscient God
they are not "dispensing of" anything any more than you dispense of any rudimentary understanding for a more complex and fully-realized understanding.
>the vast majority of people converge on anthropomorphized representations
when vast majorities of people converge on any idea, that idea inherently reduces to the lowest common denominator, that is true for anything. complexity does not proliferate.
> How does that not support the assertion that "having blind faith in an omniscient entity fulfills people's psychological
it does, but that's an incorrect answer to an incorrectly posed question.

1. work on de-anthropomorphizing God in your understandings. God's not an entity, no matter how often we make it sound like he is. we're the entities.
2. those pursuant of spiritual or religious truths are not operating from a place of necessity. we are not putting out some inner fire or scratching an itch, not running away from the idea of no-God or hell or whatever it is you're projecting. im sure plenty are, but by selecting them as your point of reference, all you're doing is establishing your intellectual weight class

[Anonymous No.22162047]

Anon you know full well we can address this question with numerous miracles, healings, apparitions, and fulfilled prophecies that have largely affirmed what Christianity, specifically Catholicism and Orthodoxy, teach. They have happened over and over across the centuries and still happen to this day. But that's too /x/ for /lit/.

Hell, they just found the incorruptible body of a nun, recently. Less than a month ago. It was in the news.

[Anonymous No.22162104]

>>22162047
>miracles, healings, apparitions, and fulfilled prophecies
Frauds, mental illness, and coincidences. No falsifiable proof

[Anonymous No.22162154]

>>22162104
>show me the world but im not leaving my couch
to be fair he did say that's to woowoo for this discussion but the consistent obstacle in this conversation is that you're either lazy or uninspired so i dont know what you expect to gain from this

if you want some debatelord pitterpatter you know where to find it, that does seem more your speed.

[Anonymous No.22162991]

>>22161701
>grey scale
>that "deep" pose
>seth macfarlane
>atheistrepublic.com
these pics are just too funny for me

[Anonymous No.22163034]

>>22162104
>Frauds, mental illness, and coincidences. No falsifiable proof
By similar logic you can discount the moon landings or WW2.

[Anonymous No.22163130]

>>22161712
the argument still stands, you are trying to get someone to believe in something that cannot be perceived and that there is no conclusive evidence of.

[Anonymous No.22163138]

>>22161830
there isn't a counterargument in your post, though. you say it's so easy and been done a million times. if true, say it.

[Anonymous No.22163139]

>>22163130
the spiritual cannot be perceived by the spiritually dead
It's like asking a blind man if the light is on

[Anonymous No.22163140]

>>22163034
well have you seen the ludicrous numbers associated with the treblinka concentration camp? mathematicians nightmare trying to figure out how all of those bodies were processed in that amount of time on that amount of land with their amount of resources.

[Anonymous No.22163145]

>>22161712
this is how the majority of the world's religious population conceives of it too. most people have never been spiritual at any point in time.

[Anonymous No.22163155]

>>22163139
funnily enough I agree with you, spiritualism can be killed and is much easier to kill than restore. that's why religion is collapsing so dramatically especially among western youths. humans have never had so much access to information and old jewish desert myths start to look extremely ridiculous, thus killing their spirituality and making it almost impossible to believe in such extreme fairy tales. for better or for worse.

if an angel came down to me in a pillar of light and told me god was real I would be more likely to come to the conclusion that I'm being fucked with by something I don't understand than to start believing in jewish fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.22163160]

>>22161701
Is this actually something you believe? The fact is that I have no evidence for a monster, the monster didn't leave a doctrine nor followers, the monster hasn't been spoken about by all the greatest mystics and philosophers, the monster is not even localized but universal, and consciousness itself does not depend on this monster. This isn't /lit/ nor is it even passable as a thought.
>>22161919
>The distinction comes about because having blind faith in an omniscient entity fulfills people's psychological needs
This is why it has been consistently believed throughout all time by all peoples - oh wait, there are many people who prefer misery to it and also who never discovered it.

[Anonymous No.22163195]

>>22163155
>fairy tales
They aren't "fairy tales" that's the problem
People get caught up in the control system that they confuse it for the spiritual, they throw the baby out with the bath water.

Strictly speaking when I say they aren't "fairy tales" I mean that people have been conditioned to dismiss the idea of the fairy folk as merely fantasy instead of looking into their real nature of what they actually are and why real old school fairy tales are freakish and terrifying unlike the disneyfied modern interpretation.

[Anonymous No.22163205]

>>22161701
>still no answer to this
You know why? Because there is not one passage in the Bible whwre it says "God sits on a cloud".

[Anonymous No.22163209]

>>22161772
the amazing atheist still exists?
i actually wouldn't have been surprised if he was the amazing trad catholic nowadays

[Anonymous No.22163243]

Not really a good example by Seth since "in the closet" can be "verified," whereas God, et al., are outside of what we're able to verify.

I hesitate to say verify due to Wittgenstein's rhinoceros, but it's understood what's meant.

[Anonymous No.22163244]

>>22161701
seth could write the bible but god couldn't write family guy

[Anonymous No.22163253]

>>22161712
kek this
Total brainlets.

[Anonymous No.22163268]

Isn't atheism just a modern form of gnosticism?

[Anonymous No.22163273]

>>22163268
you can't just phrase a weird statement as a question to avoid having to explain it

[Anonymous No.22163291]

>>22161712
That's how religious people imagine it too dude. Do you think some 17th century austrian farmer who went to church every sunday was some deeply spiritual, philosophical individual? or some housewife from virginia? their view of their religion is just as shallow as a 2010 internet atheist's.

[Anonymous No.22163298]

>>22163273
Watch me?

[Anonymous No.22163299]

>>22161701
>We're surrounded by people who don't make that distinction. If you say to them "there's a law living in my closet, you can't see it, but you gotta have faith that it's there" people would say....well..uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.22163316]

>>22163130
>the argument still stands, you are trying to get someone to believe in something that cannot be perceived and that there is no conclusive evidence of.
>there are these small things called semiconductors that allow for operations to be made in your computer
>most of them are produced on this tiny island taiwan, thousands of miles away from united states or europe
>no you can't visit it, the manufacturing method must be kept secret and the area must be cleen
>if it was lost to china we'd suffer a technological collapse because apparently we can't set up a manufactory quickly...
so, do you believe in semiconductors then? Seem to fit your definiton of not perceivable

[Anonymous No.22163350]

I do not remember the source completely but a guy was talking about courses to teach children how to visualise their psychic perception, he said that there was a worrying observation that children raised on video games were unable to develop the skill properly.

Maybe we've become numb?

[Anonymous No.22163356]

>>22163350
some charlatan was saying some charlatan shit?

[Anonymous No.22163368]

I’ve decided there must be a god or at least some unknowable cause but I hate it and don’t think it matters whether you kneel to whatever it may be or not. Giving yourself over to something that isn’t living is stupid, human worship is ridiculous, organized religion won’t ever not be silly to me. And god has nothing to do with humanity.

[Anonymous No.22163407]

>>22163291
No. Even in the children's version God is "everywhere", never a physical thing in the universe. The idea of a physical God that's inside the universe and subject to the same rules is the dumbest shit ever thought up. No Austrian farmer that went to church believed that. America is the only place on the planet with people independent and dumb enough to subvert understanding of history like that.

[Anonymous No.22163421]

>>22163356
Charlatan?

[Anonymous No.22163555]

>>22163407
People are incapable of conceptualizing the whole "God is everywhere" thing. I guarantee you that almost everyone can only imagine God as a huge, semi-transparent face covering the sky, looking down on everything.

[Anonymous No.22163562]

>>22163421
yes i'm pretty sure someone teaching courses about childrens psychic perception is a charlatan

[Anonymous No.22163591]

>>22163562
Go do even a little research on something like remote viewing before you just casually dismiss anything related to psi.

[Anonymous No.22163604]

>>22163591
ok man i'm sorry you're actually right, i was just testing you.
now that you passed the test, i would like to introduce you to my course where I teach you how to create forcefields with your mind so you basically become invincible. it's 400 dollars a month and you can pay via paypal.

[Anonymous No.22163608]

>>22163291
It really is not. You ought to stop imagining the people you disagree with as caricatures.
It seems leftists and progressives can literally only conceive of others this way, and it betrays both their arrogance and their stupidity every time

[Anonymous No.22163622]

>>22163555
It is super basic sunday school type lessons that teach you God is more than a physical being. I pinky promise you are not as smart as you think you are, and those you disagree with are not as dumb

[Anonymous No.22163628]

>>22163608
>You ought to stop imagining the people you disagree with as caricatures.
i'm not doing that and I didn't even mean it in a mean or negative way. Most people don't have time to think about spiritual things. they have time to think about how nice it is that their loved one is in heaven with god and the angels now

[Anonymous No.22163652]

>>22163622
They also teach you, quoting Genesis, that God made us in His image and Likeness, (καθ' εικόνα και καθ' ομοίωσιν). Now take an average human that doesn't have deep theological and philosophical thoughts about God and ask him how he imagines God.

[Anonymous No.22163655]

ITT believers think atheism is a monolith while also explaining how their belief system isnt a monolith

[Anonymous No.22163667]

Atheism is not a religion. If I choose not to believe in a system where rabbi mutilates my dick and then kisses it and it's a very important part of the religion, does that make me an edgy atheist? No it doesnt

[Anonymous No.22163669]

>>22163628
You're only reinforcing the point. Those idiot farmers and poor little Virginian housewives sit there and contemplate everything from the nature of God to their place in the world while doing their menial tasks more than you ever have in you stimulus-addicted life.
I pinky promise the religious are not as stupid as you imagine them to be

[Anonymous No.22163677]

>>22163669
>more than you ever have in you stimulus-addicted life.
who's incapable of not imagining the people they disagree with as caricatures now?
i don't think they're stupid. i think those people are better and more valuable to society than those of us who have time to post on /lit/

[Anonymous No.22163692]

>>22163652
And then that 7 year old kid will ask questions like "where does God live?", and "What does he look like?", and his Sunday school teacher will explain that things like heaven are beyond human comprehension, that although he can appear as man his existence is much greater than that, and he is beyond physical as we understand it.
The kid can grasp that there are things beyond what we can learn, because there are a lot of things beyond his understanding as well.

[Anonymous No.22163703]

>>22163677
I can tell you're stimulus addicted because you're on 4chan. You literally imagine farmers and Virginian housewives (and implacably most religious people) as incapable of understanding God as something other than a man on a cloud or a giant face in the sky. You trying to equate those things is just dishonest.
And you can take that patronizing false modesty somewhere else, I just know it's hard for you to face the fact that these people might not only be more useful than you, but also better than you at thinking about these things

[Anonymous No.22163709]

>>22163703
>as incapable of understanding God as something other than a man on a cloud or a giant face in the sky.
this started with a guy claiming that atheists are incapable of that because the guy who made family guy phrased something in a silly way. stop being a retard

[Anonymous No.22163733]

>>22163709
Yeah, and then it continued by someone saying the religious see it the same way. It's a retarded sentiment through and through, but I only ever see atheists talk about it like anyone takes that notion seriously

[Anonymous No.22163756]

>The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.
>Day after day they pour out speech, and night after night they display knowledge.
>There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
(Psalms 19:1-3)

>“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of the same nature as you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the sky, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them;
>who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.
>Yet he didn’t leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
(Acts 14:15-17)

>For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.
(Romans 1:20)

Without even leaving the Bible you can see plenty of evidence that people considered the natural world to be evidence of God's existence, not that they believed God to simply be sitting out of sight on a cloud and having faith in that.

[Anonymous No.22163762]

>>22161701
atheism is unfun because i want a cool monster to exist in the closet in my head

[Anonymous No.22163851]

>>22161701
I get that this is bait, and terrible bait at that, but there might be one very confused anon who opens this thread.
>Guy in the clowds
I am a follower of Christ and I don’t believe in a “guy in the clowds.” Atheist pictures of God are laughable. God is so great, so pure, so majestic you could take the light of 100,000 suns over a 100,000 oceans and it would be less beautiful than him.

[Anonymous No.22163890]

>>22163604
Just spend a little time reading about remote viewing it doesn't cost you anything, the guy wasn't selling anything just observing that there was a difference why are you sensitive is it because your gaymz were threatened?

[Anonymous No.22163896]

>>22163667
so it's confusing religion for god and rejecting god because because you couldn't distinguish it

[Anonymous No.22163955]

>>22163851
>God is so great, so pure, so majestic you could take the light of 100,000 suns over a 100,000 oceans and it would be less beautiful than him.
Is that your headcanon?

[Anonymous No.22164009]

>>22163890
you dont remember the source but you know he wasnt selling anything?

[Anonymous No.22164081]

>>22164009
Because context matters.

[Anonymous No.22164190]

Christians are indignant that atheists do to god, what they do to lucifer

[Anonymous No.22164260]

>>22164190
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.22164272]

>>22161712
>noooooo . God isn’t from the same realm of reality
And he apparently can’t inhabit this one. No, the Bible is inadequate as documentation.
>you jes gotta beliebe!
This is the sum of your “higher power”

Cope. You get dressed down by a cheap cartoonist, and even high schoolers.

[Anonymous No.22164294]

>>22161712
Reminder that theism belongs to a geocentric worldview. All of your ancient and medieval book daddies would drop it in a second if they knew how enormous the universe was and how many planets there were. Imagine thinking it was all for us. Retarded.

[Anonymous No.22164327]

>>22163756
Where did Jesus ascend to? Why did he ascend at all? Did he get like 100 feet up and then go to the spirit world? 1,000? Why not just go there from the ground?

[Anonymous No.22164339]

>>22164327
A higher dimension

[Anonymous No.22164348]

>>22164272
>>22164294
>>22164327
Is it really true that every single "atheist" is a troll trying to push the limits of how retarded you can pretend to be?

[Anonymous No.22164351]

>>22164339
he moved up along a normal dimension

[Anonymous No.22164358]

>>22164348
Really, where was he going? Even if he made it to space he still hasn't gone very far

[Anonymous No.22164451]

>>22161712
Lmao, Paradise Lost is rather juvenile.

[Anonymous No.22164603]

>>22163955
No, this is shown in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22164675]

>>22163316
We can see semiconductors and we have physical proof of their existence and them doing what they're said to do, and multiple other ways to verify the existence of said tiny things

[Anonymous No.22164697]

>>22164675
sexually active people don't know what a semiconductor is

[Anonymous No.22164746]

wowzers!! another completely organic "atheist vs christian" thread, cant wait for the conversation to organically turn into how islam is superior like it does in every thread like this!!!

[Anonymous No.22165693]

>>22164294
reminder that the heliocentric worldview was funded by the catholic church and the reason little G got political pushback is because the script that he was paid for had a character called simpleton that resembled the pope.

[Anonymous No.22165834]

>>22165693
Galileo was also arguing against a theory, itself a piece of an interconnected and mutually supporting paradigm, that had been standing for well over a millennium and had lead to extensive understanding and progress in various areas. There can't really be a modern equivalent to something like this but picture a single scientist denying something like the existence of molecules and demanding, by way of openly ridiculing his superiors, that all of modern biology has to be rewritten according to his findings.

[Anonymous No.22165918]

>>22161701
>Seth MacFarlane
He was involved with the update of Cosmos.
Why did they start out a "documentary" by lying about Giordano Bruno? They literally try to turn him into a sacrificial martyr (pretty ironic) for science and ignore that he was a Dominican friar who converted to a radical sect of Calvinism (during the one of the most politically tumultuous periods of the Reformation) and started preaching stuff about Christianity even crazier than the Mormon's and Kolob (for which he was repeatedly warned by religious/political authorities trying to contain various violent uprisings).

They make it seem like Bruno was killed by evil religious authorities for simply saying the Earth isn't the center of the universe complete with animation which shows him posed like Christ flying through the heavens (kek). Kind of weird they start out a supposedly educational program by flat out rewriting history and try to slander religion by creating a martyr complete with superhuman iconography wherein he's posed like Christ.

[Anonymous No.22166738]

>>22165834
Not only that, but while also openly mocking the head honcho of the company funding his research and efforts

[Anonymous No.22166767]

>>22161712
look all this strawmanning

[Anonymous No.22166782]

>>22166767
>leftist
I shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.22166819]

>>22166738
>by way of openly ridiculing his superiors
I touched on that. But yeah, what Galileo did is basically the 17th c. equivalent of having your CEO ask you to add a few things to a company-wide email so you put all of his concerns in italics while changing his name to "Retardo" before hitting SEND ALL.

Atheists generally know fuck all about the history of science because they listen to popularizers like Richard "mild pedophilia" Dawkins and watch shit produced by the esteemed creator of Family Guy (>>22165918).

[Anonymous No.22166851]

More like, 2000 years later and atheists still can't answer this simple scriptural wisdom

[Anonymous No.22167113]

>>22163291
This is why Schopenhauer solved this bullshit for good.
>religion is metaphysics for the dumb masses
>philosophy is too hard for normies but in order to grant them some form of cope for living in this shitty world, men invented religion
>watered down philosophy told through parable and symbolism
>but some dumb retards take the symbolism literally
>and then these profound metaphysical truths suddenly become these appalling paradoxical cruel doctrines
Just like most people cannot enjoy classical music, they need pop music, so do people need religion who don't have the brainpower to handle metaphysics
Most confusion arises from this conflation of the "theologian's God" with the "farmer's God"

[Anonymous No.22167154]

>>22163130
No, YOU can perceive God and YOU think there's no conclusive evidence for the existence of God. That's very different from whether both those things are OBJECTIVELY true. Which they aren't. Faggy atheists can't seem to wrap their heads around this and think the world revolves around their rules.

[Anonymous No.22167237]

My question is: why do the religious so desperately need to believe? Most seem to think that the world would be a bad place without god.
>no morality without god
If we pretend for a little bit that the world is a simulation created by aliens, would the aliens hold the keys to morality? No? Well why does your god? It's almost like humans dictate the morality of their god.

[Anonymous No.22167253]

>>22161701
He looks euphoric

[Anonymous No.22167387]

>>22167237
I always wonder if people actually think through retarded shit like this deeply or if it's just a 5 second thought they think is a really profound gotcha. Either way you're a smoothbrain.
In your fag example if aliens created the whole world and all the variables etc.. the reside within it then yes they would have needed to also create objective morality. If they didn't then they didn't create EVERYTHING which is what the religious belief is, so in that case the comparisons isn't the same.

If you say objective morality doesn't exist then cool, then there's literally no reason why rape, murder, theft etc.. is objectively wrong. This is Richard Dawkins and other atheists beliefs, that objective morality doesn't exist, that classifying rape as "wrong" is as arbitrary as why we have 5 fingers.

[Anonymous No.22167395]

>>22167387
>why rape is wrong
Are you literally unable to answer this without resorting to religious crap? Not even fucking joking?

[Anonymous No.22167398]

>>22167387
I would argue that classifying rape as wrong is actually kore arbitrary than why we have 5 fingers

[Anonymous No.22167403]

>>22167387
Yes, but how do those do those aliens 'objectively' dictate morality? Just because they created us? I can just say no thank you, there's your objectivity.

>If you say objective morality doesn't exist then cool, then there's literally no reason why rape, murder, theft etc.. is objectively wrong. This is Richard Dawkins and other atheists beliefs, that objective morality doesn't exist, that classifying rape as "wrong" is as arbitrary as why we have 5 fingers.

You really didn't have to type all this out. You want there to be objective morality, but I'm asking is there?

[Anonymous No.22167409]

>>22167395
Not even wrong, because without objective morality right and wrong aren't a thing, but the overall "value" of things decreases. You could say that this could be "right", but I tend to view degeneration as unsustainable. So even if there is no morality, there are suboptimal pathways, and rape is one of them.

[Anonymous No.22167423]

>>22167387
Evidently since rape within a marriage was acceptable until only very recently, and still now there's a portion of the population who don't consider it wrong.

[Anonymous No.22167425]

>>22167237
>spaghetti monster thing
>simulation
>aliens
yeah this ticks all the enlightened redditor boxes

[Anonymous No.22167439]

>>22161701
>"there's a monster living in my closet, you can't see him, but you gotta have faith that he's there".

I thought this was going to be a KINO statement about the condition of the human psyche but it ended up being just religious shitflinging, dang.

[Anonymous No.22167449]

>>22167395
Post like these are proof of how little new atheists actually know about these topics. Forget religion, this is literally an extensive topic of debate WITHIN atheism.
This is going to be hilarious, go on galaxy brain, tell us why or how rape is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
>>22167403
>Yes, but how do those do those aliens 'objectively' dictate morality? Just because they created us?
Yes, duh. If they hypothetically literally CREATED morality, no such thing existed before and wouldn't exist if they didn't create it, then they dictate and define what it is. That's literally what creation entails.
> You want there to be objective morality, but I'm asking is there?
From an atheistic perspective there isn't. There's no "good" or "bad", why should or shouldn't someone rape someone else and how does that make that person "better" or "worse". It's doesn't. It's meaningless subjectivity. It's pointless. That what atheism leads to, a pointless and meaningless existent.
>>22167423
And from an atheistic perspective there's the opinion that it's wrong or right is equally correct due to the subjectivity of it's moral world view. An atheist can argue that a man "raping" his wife is objectively wrong so why interject in the matter in the 1st place? On what grounds. See it's just pointless.

[Anonymous No.22167459]

>>22167409
value is still subjective in this case. You've solved nothing here, you've just reworded the problem.

[Anonymous No.22167489]

>>22161712
>it's pretty sad that when atheists are tasked with conceiving of a higher power, all they can imagine is a literal, corporeal entity sitting in some physical cloud realm.
that wasn't us

[Anonymous No.22167492]

When will Christians just accept that they're retarded and fucked up when they made every depiction of their God as a sky daddy? All of your paintings, all of your children's media, many of the bible verses... You guys really just gave atheists the easiest lay-up in history, at least other religions like Islam got it right when they explicitly forbade anyone depicting or anthropomorphizing God.

[Anonymous No.22167495]

>>22161701
>t. vax shill

[Anonymous No.22167499]

>>22167449
>>22167459
>value is still subjective
Yes, sure. Less calories available for the next generation, pretty subjective.
>father who rapes is unsure if he is the actual father of his child if rape is a generalized thing
What could go wrong with matrilineal lineages that mothers don't get to pick their partners?

[Anonymous No.22167507]

>>22167499
The thing is that rape is "wrong" for a reason, it is that simple. Once you are able to understand that things are wrong for certain reasons and uncover those reasons, you get into actually thinking. You won't need some stupid shit telling you whatever.

[Anonymous No.22167534]

>>22161701
It's easy to say this about God and pretend he's not there but harder when talking about the existence of Satan and pure evil. If you went up to a clueless modern person and told them people orchestrated events like the Holocaust, Gulags, Cultural Revolution they'd say you're crazy, nobody could be that evil, not even mentioning the existence and methods of our more outlandish serial killers. It's important to educate people on the nature of evil and how it can take many forms, even innocent looking ones.

[Anonymous No.22167547]

>>22167449
At least you're consistent with the creation of morality, but I don't see how it follows that a being creates me and then I should (but can also not) obey their rules. What if I think their morals are silly?

As for the rest, you're attacking perceived beliefs of others, but don't defend your own. How does gods existence create meaning? What if everything is meaningless (whatever this means anyway, no one has explained). As I stated originally, religious people seem to need and want belief, but this does not make their beliefs factual.

>>22167425
It's you who is the predictable one here.

>>22167534
People did it without the help of Satan.

[Anonymous No.22167659]

>>22167499
>Yes, sure. Less calories available for the next generation, pretty subjective.
Have no idea what you're talking about here.
>father who rapes is unsure if he is the actual father of his child if rape is a generalized thing
What is objectively wrong about this? Certain ancient civilisations for hundreds, if not thousands of years, used to have common day to day customs whereby multiple men would have sex with a women, all of them inseminating her. They had no idea who the biological father was. To arbitrary determine who it was they'd do stupid shit like call all the men over and let the baby crawl to the supposed father, or let the women decided who from the men she liked the most, or call some random guy over to look at a 1 day old and determine which of the men they looked like etc..
>What could go wrong with matrilineal lineages that mothers don't get to pick their partners?
Again in ancient civilisations for thousands of years the majority of women never got to pick their partners. They were forced upon them by their families. Fuck, a equally large proportion of where literal sex slaves that were bought and sold and impregnated.
The human species survived to just fine when stuff like this happened.
>>22167507
What's the "reason" rape is wrong and can you please prove this "reason" has objective grounding.
>I don't see how it follows that a being creates me and then I should (but can also not) obey their rules.
Because given that being has created you, has created all the rules that dictate reality, has created "good" and "bad", and created "benefit" and "detriment" then you exist in a reality whereby obeying those rules IS OBJECTIVELY beneficial to you. So not doing so would be stupid.
>What if I think their morals are silly?
Then you'd be wrong. Again we just said that these morals are created with the objective characteristics of being good. So it's irrelevant what you think. It'd be like putting water in a petrol car and getting mad and calling it silly that it can't drive. New flash fag, the car wasn't designed to run on water, YOU'RE the moron for using it wrong.
>but don't defend your own. How does gods existence create meaning?
God created us, God created our existence, he defines it's meaning. Again this is the basis of creation means. We're talking from a theological perspective here and it's beliefs, you can't seem to fathom that from a theological perspective that God creates these things and gives them their meanings.
>What if everything is meaningless
Yeah this is the only conclusion from the epistemology of atheism. Religion gives life meaning because it says the one who created life created it with x, y and z meaning.
> As I stated originally, religious people seem to need and want belief, but this does not make their beliefs factual.
no one had ever said this the argument for the factuality of religion

[Anonymous No.22167662]

>>22167547
sorry forgot to quote you, see >>22167659

[Anonymous No.22167673]

>>22163890
OK, /x/

[Anonymous No.22167677]

>>22163130
Not even lmao but I think you need to go outside.

[Anonymous No.22167681]

>>22167659
>certain ancient
certain ancient species are extinct, fucking retard. get back to the bible, I'm not wasting any more time with you

[Anonymous No.22167683]

>>22163140
Because mathematicians can not figure certain things out, it does not mean that they did not happen. That is why history and mathematics are separate subjects. Also, I'd like to refer you to Gödel's ontological argument, which I, even I, as a layman, do not understand, but know that it exists.

[Anonymous No.22167684]

>>22167673
according to the stanford research team remote viewing has higher replicability that aspirin

[Anonymous No.22167695]

>>22167684
Now ill look into it
Source ?

[Anonymous No.22167702]

>>22164746
hey you called it >>22167492

[Anonymous No.22167712]

>>22167695
You could start with a documentary called 3rd eye spies? Otherwise venture into /x/.

[Anonymous No.22167722]

>>22167681
Why is the bible relevant here if he's discussing anthropology?