/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22193811]

Why do philosophers look down on or at least not think very highly of New Atheism?

[Anonymous No.22193816]

>When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

[Anonymous No.22193823]

>>22193811
We think that by so frequently and consistently engaging with Christianity, it will lend said irrational system (a.k.a. faith) a legitimacy not worth being accorded to it thereby ensuring more of the common masses, without the reasoning ability to cut through religion’s facade, continue on their mindless way following whatever old sky man they believe will save them from the boogey man.

[Anonymous No.22193829]

>>22193811
not only is the monotheistic god real but the pagan gods are literally real too

atheists are cucks

[Anonymous No.22193833]

>>22193816
and by dunces are meant atheists

[Anonymous No.22194585]

>>22193811
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI

[Anonymous No.22194593]

>>22193811
Sam Harris has such a punchable face

[Anonymous No.22194602]

>>22193811
What philosopher have you talked to that dislikes new atheism? What even is new atheism?
Craig is not a philosopher, he is a charlatan

[Anonymous No.22194605]

>>22193823
>We

[Anonymous No.22194724]

>>22193811
It's the same dogma as organised religion without any of the offerings of guidance or salvation. It's ultimately useless
Not to say that any of those religions are any more useful or correct, but at least they have substance
I mean, you look at most pre-enlightenment philosophies and a lot of it might sound completely ridiculous, but at least there were practical ideas behind them

[Anonymous No.22194727]

>>22193829
Based

[Anonymous No.22194729]

>>22194593
He already took himself out with a terminal case of tds that advanced into stage 4 covid hysteria. Rip in peace.

[Anonymous No.22194750]

>>22193829
>not only is the monotheistic god real but the pagan gods are literally real too
In a very real way this is true but
>atheists are cucks
They only know mainstream abrahamic religions which make very false claims, their god is real in a very esoteric and anti-abrahamic way

[Anonymous No.22194751]

Because it completely uncritically bases its worldview on scientific materialism.
Because it only ever debated complete retards, proving that it was just a media circus instead of a search for genuine truth.
Because new atheists, Hitchens especially, basically just raged against biblical characters as though they were actually in the room instead of engaging with theological positions, especially outside an Abrahamic context.

[Anonymous No.22194789]

>>22194751
> theological positions, especially outside an Abrahamic context.
Such as Taoism and Hinduism, so relevant in western society?
Christcucks are incredibly disingenuous

[Anonymous No.22194798]

>>22194789
>abrahamism is the only western religious context
Post nose kike

[Anonymous No.22194804]

>unironically waiting for the rapture

[Anonymous No.22194806]

>>22194789
>Such as Taoism and Hinduism, so relevant in western society?
The question isn't "Is God relevant in western society", it's whether God exists. Disproving Christianity doesn't disprove God. This makes as much sense as claiming that quantum physics aren't relevant in a Chinese context. God is God and it doesn't matter how many times you can pull Bible quotes out of context, it proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.22194815]

>>22194789
Neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.22194849]

>>22194806
Now you pretend they only made arguments against the Christian religion and not against the idea of god? You’re a retard and you have to go back
>>22194798
>delusional larper
>>22194815
Irrelevant

[Anonymous No.22195005]

There is no society created without religion. Religion provides stability and keep the social fabric working. The lack of religion culminates in the worship of the state or of morality, either the lack of it (no taboos, everything is ok) or founded on solipsism, usually short sighted pleasure.

[Anonymous No.22195008]

>>22195005
Whatever let’s you sleep at night, christard

[Anonymous No.22195032]

>>22193811
It has no substance

It’s entire premise is coomer apology. If you aren’t a coomer there is no need for it as you have no problem with god.

Nu atheism offers no world view. Catholics have Thomism and Protestants have Augustin or even Hegel. Buddhists have a system.

Nu-atheism has no system only ‘not Christianity’

And in some ways that places it inside the Christian system as it makes no sense without the Christian world to be the anti-Thesis of.

[Anonymous No.22195038]

>>22195005
>The lack of religion culminates in the worship of the state
the ironing

[Anonymous No.22195058]

>>22194751
>Because it only ever debated complete retards

I highly doubt that any apologist has anything better to offer

[Anonymous No.22195088]

>>22193829
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.22195093]

Guess the age of the average poster in this thread.

[Anonymous No.22195094]

>>22195032
That image is too funny. It can't be serious, can it?

[Anonymous No.22195099]

>>22194751
>it only ever debated complete retards

You don't have much choice when you set out to debunk superstitions.

[Anonymous No.22195143]

>>22195058
>apologist
The problem is you are retarded.
Even benzolobsterman defeats four horseman fags or at worst gets into a semantic stalemate.

The problem with the new atheists is that they target straw men from their distinct ""scientific"" and ""rational"" perspective. They seek out "apologists" who typically lose by default simply because they accepted the frame of the debate. The New Atheists did not sufficiently try to understand religion or its role in the world before attacking it. As a result, their rhetoric is mostly useless. It impresses incel fedora-tippers who have spent most of their lives as cogs in highly controlled systems (school, academia, corporate wagecucking) where they follow institutional rules and are never forced to make real, consequential decisions in the world. These proto-plebbitors on the early internet could argue against the existence of god until their fingers fell off. They could lazily blame religion as the cause wars from a position of never having to care about the reality of social, moral and political conflict.

Meanwhile, the actual philosophical content they came up with tended to be modest to negligible. Dennett is somewhat notable academically, but his books wouldn't be famous without their heavy anti-Christian bias (meanwhile Harris and Dawkins are even more blatant trolls). Haidt's moral intuition framework is a far superior (and unbiased) basis to approach "scientific understanding" of religion and morality than anything the atheists came up with. And Haidt sells his theories without resorting to trolling christfags.

>>22194849
They were heavily biased against Christianity and Islam.

[Anonymous No.22195154]

>>22195005
>The lack of religion culminates in the worship of the state
Reality has shown that lack of religion in a society of white people dominated by corporate jews, culminates in worship of niggers.

[Anonymous No.22195162]

>>22195088
Both Christianity and Judaism acknowledge the existence of other divine deities but insist that God is the most powerful among them. The Church spent fucking centuries trying to sweep this pantheistic shit under the rug but you can see it for yourself reading the Bible.

Islam ironically enough might be the only Abrahamic religion that is truly monotheistic in that it outright states that no other gods exist except THE God.

[Anonymous No.22195164]

>>22193811
Nietzsche already laid it down in The Antichrist. These guys offer nothing new.

[Anonymous No.22195190]

>>22195099
>when you set out to debunk superstitions.
That's the whole problem. Why does it matter whether an 85 IQ WalMart wagecuck believes in god?

There are some legitimate points of contention, like creationists agitating against teaching of evolution. But those attention whoring christfags don't need to be dragged out as a straw man to fallaciously bludgeon all religion everywhere. Once again, our walmart wagecuck's life doesn't change at all because they know how pronghorns evolved to be more closely related to giraffe than antelope.

Debunking superstitions is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.22195207]

>>22194806
>The question isn't "Is God relevant in western society", it's whether God exists.
Nah, the empirical question of whether "God" exists is not particularly interesting or important. It's a semantic exercise and any smart person will arrive at questions of relevance. It's the fundamental problem with New Atheists. They are fixated on debunking God, which is a massive waste of time.
That's why I said "apologists" lose by accepting the frame of the debate.

[Anonymous No.22195220]

>>22195005
This is a fucking terrible argument because even if it's correct it doesn't address the core issue of whether deities are real or not. I have no idea why some supposedly religious people use it so much.
>>22195058
>>22195099
They do, don't be utter buffoons. There are centuries of the most brilliant minds on earth discussing religious truth. But the new atheists debated small town american ministers, not Platonist philosophers, Taoist mystics, or Vedantic brahmin priests.

[Anonymous No.22195222]

>>22195094

It always comes down to masturbating and homosexuals for atheists

[Anonymous No.22195231]

>>22193811
Because they frame religion as a memeplex virus. As in, it is strictly negative.

Meanwhile, the cognitive scientists of religion perceive it as a heuristic (it helps you to survive in a stable enough environment): fake-kinship structures; group identity fusion via traumatic flashbulb memory; polysemantic meta-narratives with multiple applications; etc.

Being a skeptic does not always pay off, evolutionary-perspective-wise.

[Anonymous No.22195244]

>>22193811
Because they are English fat-heads, whatever their nationality

[Anonymous No.22195264]

>>22195032
Richard Dawkins is a cuck for the very same christian culture he tries to disprove. He just cannot separate himself from it, making it appear to him as somehow more rational than any other religion's culture due to his intuition telling him so. Thus completely justifying cultural christianity without the Christian faith (jordan peterson does this too)

[Anonymous No.22195285]

>>22193811
New Atheists fundamentally do not understand the systems they try to criticize. That's basically it. Anyone would be annoyed by someone who starts ranting about things they don't understand to someone who has spent countless years studying and understanding those same things.

[Anonymous No.22195327]

>>22195264
Jordan Peterson hasn’t made an intellectual leap to Christianity at all so I woudlnt bother exploring him.

Dawkins realized christianity was inherently good (true or falseness of it aside) and he does so of course from a Christian cultural background. He sees atheism has lead to the destruction of hsi country and was so short lived as a political force it simply made Islam dominant. Which is of course due to Judaism and Zionism being the force behind nu-atheism anyway. He was a tool for anti-Christian political ends.

[Anonymous No.22195358]

>>22195032
Bible never said that masturbation is wrong. It says that coitus interruptus is bad tho.

[Anonymous No.22195388]

>>22195220
>it doesn't address the core issue of whether deities are real or not.
That's not a core issue at all.

[Anonymous No.22195395]

>>22195388
Of course it is. You believe things because you think they're true, not because it's convenient to believe them.

[Anonymous No.22195414]

>>22195395
what does it mean to be true?

[Anonymous No.22195415]

>>22195093
Underage b&

[Anonymous No.22195418]

>>22195395
And more importantly:
>>22195395
>You believe things because you think they're true, not because it's convenient to believe them.
How do you know these are mutually exclusive?

[Anonymous No.22195427]

>>22193811
>philosophers
Enumerate these contemporary "philosophers"

[Anonymous No.22195487]

>>22195008
Just disagree and refute it. No need to get mad.
>>22195038
No idea what it means.
>>22195220
Tbh I'm not even religious. I do believe in a deity due metaphysical enquires and teleological approach. But all arguments about the (in)existence were made centuries ago and are pretty well known. Whether it's Aquinas or Feuerbach. I find this kind of discussions quite useless, actually. It's interesting for the sake of debating but tends to lead nowhere.
Having been agnostic for a few years, I have nothing against atheists. Just think a lot of pro atheism speakers are the fedora hat smarter than thou type, considering religion like it is the worst of humanity, like some religious are le tradcucks muh golden age of fulfilment based on religion, considering being atheist as the worst crime someone could commit.
My approach is only that I haven't seen a civilization that was not based on religion and that most people that do lack it tend to worship material things, which I usually find worse. But things continuing to go the path they are going, I guess in 200 years people will have a simple answer if it's possible to have a stable society without religious values. In my humble experience, most people cannot function like that (and that applies to all social classes).
I also find hard as well to justify any kind of universal moral not based on "most people agree" or "i feel it's wrong" without religion. Not that religious arguments are much better. But again, that's also a well known discussion that leads nowhere.

[Anonymous No.22195493]

>>22193811
Why do Christians preach about love and Jesus yet their only response to atheism is to form an ingroup where they pridefully circlejerk their ignorance and call atheists cucks to feel secure about their own servitude to an imaginary person?

Christians are the ultimate midwits. They make up the largest group in the world and it’s not a surprise considering most people are too stupid to not take

>Dude trust me bro!

as evidence. The hubris to think they have cracked the secrets of the universe, that it all comes down to some Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago dying on the cross for original sin they inherited for no reason, and they know deep down how delusional this is, so online they constantly have to reaffirm each other that THEY are not the real cucks, but atheists are! They are so mentally insecure and weak in their beliefs they require constant herd affirmation from each other (where are the atheist churchs?)

Conclusion: Christianity is the ultimate pseud cope. Now, I possess no hate for Christians themselves, we are all occasionally captive to bad ideas. It is just unfortunate that our society tolerates ridiculous superstitions like Christianity but astrology or crystals are looked down upon, when both are equally unfounded.

[Anonymous No.22195537]

>>22195487
>most people that do lack it tend to worship material things
I half-joked earlier about the actual result is worshipping niggers. What seems to actually happen is that the religious void is filled opportunistically by popular media which is to say corporate propaganda. This looks like worshipping material things because companies sell material things, but it's not directly the same thing.

[Anonymous No.22195557]

>>22195493
Christians themselves aren't relevant. New Atheists just produced a lot of crap in the 2000s and early 2010s. They have been mostly irrelevant since big capital adopted woke BLM messaging, though.

[Anonymous No.22195586]

>>22195162
there are no other deities. Anything of the sort is just perverting the original Hebrew by misinterpreting it, or making assumptions since idols are depicted.
You're the kind of person Augustine talks against in City of God, and the ones who tried to fool him in his youth, as he goes over in Confessions.

[Anonymous No.22195625]

reminder niggers are christian

[Anonymous No.22195628]

>>22194806
The burden of proof will always be on those making unsubstantiated claims of “Dude trust me bro!”, the new atheists were a reaction against Christianity and not a positive position itself.

[Anonymous No.22195637]

>>22193811
False start
*theologians look down on philosophers and atheists.

This is another thread that doesn’t go here. Report them, please.

[Anonymous No.22195640]

>>22195005
How does this prove religion correct?

>There is no Christmas without Santa Claus
>I like Christmas
>Therefore Santa Claus is real!!!

[Anonymous No.22195643]

>>22195493
Yeah... But OP wasn't talking specifically about Christians. Atheism refuses ALL deities, not just the Christian one.
I am not Christian, but I have read the Bible and I can tell you: you are approaching the subject from a bad perspective. Christians don't care about the existance of a 2000 years old rabbi walking on water, but they are interested on day to day life and the repercussions of their religion on it.
Is it permitted to jerk off? Can I drink wine? Can I play videogames? That's what bothered them all these years: ironically, that's what Jesus criticized in rabbis, and that's what those rabbis asked him all the time (can I pay the taxes to the emperor? Can I eat with my hands dirty? Can I invest into property?).
That said, I have to point out to things: first, attacking American Christians is so fucking easy because they are midwits. They have no theological base to debate anyone.
Secondly, Atheism is just another religion. It just avoids dealing with some elements, just like, for example, pre-Babylonian Judaism didn't deal with eschatology. If it doesn't have churches, it's because you need to reinforce the absence of higher moral rules. The State, prior to "Atheism", was based upon the Church will. Now you cannot appeal to God when the State fucks up something. Society, the God of Atheism, is where morality comes from and it is filtered by the State to be applied to the "believer".
You need to interact with your learned members (the elite) to know what Society wants from you, but you disagree with their findings because you have no Sacred text. Think about it: has there ever been a church? The priest had to teach the Book to the commoner, but through ages Latin became gibberish to them. It was a social reunion that now, in the 21th century is bad for the economy: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/16/how-amazon-fought-the-union-drive-in-alabama.html

[Anonymous No.22195648]

>>22195625
And they have kids. Causation or correlation?

[Anonymous No.22195658]

>>22195643
To be honest your prose is very confusing and disconcerted. I think I understand what you are saying, but I don’t agree that atheism is a religion. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in God, I don’t see how this implies any other beliefs. I don’t find morals to be objective with or without God, I don’t find there to be free will with or without God, I would be a transcendental idealist with or without God, the God question is isolated for me.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.22195662]

>>22193811
because they strived to posit anti-theistic "reason-based" utilitarian morality which gave us gems such as
>if you do not support the iraq war the government should kill you
>if you touch a hot stove you immediately remove your hand, therefore we need to genocide all muslims
>violence is bad so people who inflict violence are bad so we need to pre-emptively kill everyone who we believe might be violent (the hobbesian trap is based in objective morality based in LOGIC and REASON)
>torture can be justified if it's against a muslim
>killing palestinian children is justified because they will only grow up to be in violation of popper's paradox of intolerance

heres your rejection of god, bro

[Anonymous No.22195713]

>>22195658
To be honest your prose is very confusing and disconcerted.
I will try to be more clear.
>Atheism is just the lack of a belief in God, I don’t see how this implies any other beliefs.
I was talking about the phenomenological aspects of religion: i.e. how does it influence your day to day life. I think only schizo Christians can claim to trully believe in God. I think everyone else is just pretending, because if they did believe in God, they would at least read the Bible.
> I don’t find morals to be objective with or without God, I don’t find there to be free will with or without God
We both agree on these two issues.
>I would be a transcendental idealist with or without God
Honestly, I don't even know what a "trascendental idealist" is, but, since you are one, I am sure you have studied philosophy so much that you reached a point where you can say without a doubt "I am a transcendental idealist". Now, a Christian doesn't need to know all the stuff you know, because he has a pre-imposed set of rules that he must follow. He will instead focus on other stuff.
This is what I meant when I said "Atheism is just another religion". The fact that you have no pre-imposed set of rules forces you to look for an other (this time, self-imposed) set of rules, instead of being more productive by focusing on actually important stuff.
Was I clear enough?

[Anonymous No.22195828]

>>22195586
And why was Augustine fooling his countrymen into abandoning gods of their forefathers?

[Anonymous No.22195840]

>>22195058
Religion offers peace of mind to some people, I have seen that in my family. Once I grew out the edgy teenage atheist phase I generally stopping talking about religion at all.

[Anonymous No.22195856]

>>22195658
>I don’t find morals to be objective with or without God,
Huh?
The point is that God created EVERYTHING. God created objectivity. He created morality. He created distinctions such as "good" and "bad". He gave these distinctions to certain things etc..
Where you believe in God in not relevant here. What I'm saying is in terms of pure logic then objective morality exists in a epistemology containing God. You could have an atheist, a Jew and a Hindu, all 3 don't believe in the same God, but regardless of that disagreement they can agree that LOGICALLY the Jew and the Hindu both believe in an epistemology that contains a case for objective morality.

[Anonymous No.22195893]

>>22195628
The biblical depiction of God is inconsistent and often implicitly defined. The idea that religion is derived logically from empirical foundations is already a mistake.

"Adultery is a sin because god says so"

Atheists see this and foolishly try to attack with logic. The only reason adultery is considered wrong is because god said so. If god doesn't exist, then he couldn't prohibit adultery. God can't exist, so he can't have prohibited adultery, so you're following rules for no good reason. This approach deeply misunderstands the nature of religion and religious writing.

[Anonymous No.22195918]

>>22195005
>Worship of the state
New Atheism atheists were libertarian. Contemporary atheists are politically active, largely because of theological policy being implemented by conservatives. Meanwhile religious conservatives form cults of personality around conservative leaders.

[Anonymous No.22195919]

>>22193811
Because there's no point to it, it's just shooting fish in a barrel, a practice ground for teens to exercise their arguments against imagined uneducated zealot retards.
They assume everybody thinks of God as literal Heavenly Old Jew Santa so they reject any validity of the concept and bash it 24/7.
My point is, there's no value to be gained from it. It only produces smugness, autism and another form of zealotry.

[Anonymous No.22195924]

>>22195713
Thank you for clearing it up somewhat. I understand what you are saying in regards to Christians following Christianity as an easy set of rules to live life by rather than actually fully believing in a God. When you say atheism is a religion though, I believe you actually mean secular humanism, which is the moral system that (I have no source but it every atheist I know personally is one) 90% of atheists subscribe to. I don’t find there to be any rules imposed on myself, I think all human actions are arbitrary (of course, since we do not believe in free will) and just based on your disposition coupled with environmental factors. Now do I have general principles I live my life by? Of course, or else action would be impossible. I don’t know that I self-impose these general principles however, I just seem to involuntarily be me, and I don’t ascribe any sort of value to that.

By the way, transcendental idealism is simply the position that we can only know the representations of objects and not the objects themselves. This implies that space and time are subjective and we cannot know actual reality. Causality is also subjective under most forms of transcendental idealism. If you would like a really really good book about transcendental idealism, voluntarism, free will, ethics that are not absolute, etc. I highly recommend Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation. You seem intelligent and could probably easily grasp him.

[Anonymous No.22195936]

>>22195856
You realize God making it would therefore make it subjective and completely arbitrary, right? If the logical absolutes and morality and even the concepts of what necessary or accidental come from God, they themselves are arbitrary and nonabsolute as God had to make them.

[Anonymous No.22196011]

>>22195936
No I don't realise that because that's not the case. Not just in this particular case but in a lot of theological discussion atheist often make false characterisations like this because their conceptualisation of God in anthropomorphic.
God creates reality, definitions like subjective and completely arbitrary exist within that reality. Something created within said reality with the characteristics of objective and reasoned can not be subjective and completely arbitrary. That's called absurdity. It's meaningless. Like a short tall man, or a squared circle.
You conceptualisation of these matters is faulty because you're doing so from your own view point whereby you already exist in a reality with pre-existing characteristics.

[Anonymous No.22196046]

>>22193811
Because they're making the same ancient Greece mistake of shut up and calculate except it's shut up and exist. Why the fuck would anyone listen to you if you don't demonstrate the capacity of learning from past mistakes?

[Anonymous No.22196063]

>>22193811
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9gLvLYF5s
Because the New Atheists constantly strawman their opponents

[Anonymous No.22196089]

>>22193811
Because they often engaged in sophistry and were more concerned about swaying the masses to their side with rhetoric, then they were in having an honest philosophical debate.

Additionally, they provided no social alternative to church or philosophical school to address big philosophical questions related to morality, metaphysics, and existentialism. So, they tore something down, without building something new in its place. It is always easier to try to destroy something than to create something new.

[Anonymous No.22196106]

>>22195220
The greatest philosophical minds in history always reduce God to a mechanistic set of laws rather than a person who gets angry, which is what the vast majority of religions and religious people believe when they speak about "God". Read The Future of an Illusion by Freud, the father figure in the sky is a byproduct of human psychology and is literally just projection. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can reach this conclusion extremely quickly.

[Anonymous No.22196187]

>>22196011
If your conception of God is not anthropomorphic, you are not talking about God.

>He created everything

You even said it yourself.

[Anonymous No.22196209]

>>22196106
The father figure in the sky is a visual metaphor used by Michelangelo on a painting you fucking retard.

I’m so god damn sick of the absolute fucking midwit arrogant shit heads coming in and posting their brain dead Reddit shower throught theories and ideas as if they’re some great thinkers with massive insight.

You all havnt read a god damn book that wasn’t assigned in your college communications major class .


>anyone with a modicum that intelligence


Just stfu. You’re entire post is midwit diarrhea of the mind. Nothing about it has ‘a modicum of intelligence’

I hate your types so much and my worst sin is relishing in the fact you will be in hell for eternity suffering inside a burning coffin of shit. (That’s a reference to literature youve not read by the way)

[Anonymous No.22196418]

>>22196209
The father in the sky is an archetype as old as we can trace language back and was not invented by Michelangelo

[Anonymous No.22196442]

>>22196209
>The father figure in the sky is a visual metaphor used by Michelangelo on a painting you fucking retard.
Religion and Faith is a psychological delusion created to cope with the inability of human cognitive faculties to enclose the world with a singular rational principle, also as a way to deal with the inability to establish undisputed moral realism. Hopefully, in the years to come, christcuckery and other such illnesses will be slowly corrected.

[Anonymous No.22196501]

>>22196187
So you're incapable of engaging in an actual philosophical/logical discussion on this topic and instead want to degenerate it to meaningless semantical word games. Cool.
And they're not even good semantical word games, they're actually retarded. The use of "He" does not denote anthropomorphism, it's not meant to mean a literal male/gender, nor anything close to even resembling that on any theological level. It's simply a linguistic convention. Again when talking about the distinct topic of theology it's clearly understood that God transcends any notion of anthropomorphic gender.
I'm talking critique you for petty linguistic conventions (like you pathetically did here), I'm critique for actual substantive implications on the nature and power of God. You literally conceptualised God's actions and reasoning from your own human perspective when you talked about subjective and completely arbitrary. You don't create subjective and arbitrary, you don't create objectivity, you're subject to them. God creates them, thus he defines what "things" possess these characteristics, again logically it's the ultimate form of objectivity.

[Anonymous No.22196511]

There haven't been any philosophers since the Academy was closed and the Library was burned
Socrates would tear out your mental guts for your shitty attempt at sophistry

[Anonymous No.22196520]

>>22196011
So call it something else. God is a wish-fulfillment fable Dad for a masochistic desert tribe. If you want "Atheists" to take you seriously, stop confusing your own terms

[Anonymous No.22196581]

>>22195222
Cannot tell you how accurate this is.
A guy in my English class wrote a 10 page essay on why God wasn't real when he was 14 and when he turned 16 he got himself a boyfreind

[Anonymous No.22196613]

>>22196501
Again, we are not talking about the same thing if you are going to act like a personal being that can create things, like a human does, is not humanlike.

If you are talking about an abstract notion, you are extremely far removed from any classical theist position about God. Additionally, you keep missing my point.

If God had to create concepts such as absolute or necessary or morality in general, they did not exist without God and are therefore arbitrary and contingent by definition. You can claim all you want “God defined them as objective!” but this definition itself is arbitrary and subjectively based on God, in addition to just being a groundless assertion!

I am not trying to be obtuse or use semantics or make you upset, I simply do not see how morality is not based on valuation which is by definition a subjective determination.

[Anonymous No.22196684]

>>22195643
wut

[Anonymous No.22196744]

I feel that by and large atheism is a kneejerk reaction to overbearing christian parents and usually doesn't actually refute the existence of divinity but just aims to point out contradictions in the christian bible at most. Scholars always gravitate back to spirituality

[Anonymous No.22196766]

>>22196581
The bibble is the only book actually need to spell out to its adherent that they can't jack off, that tells you all you need to know about it's base readership

[Anonymous No.22196779]

>>22196187
If your conception of God is strictly anthropomorphic, you aren't talking about Christianity.

[Anonymous No.22196796]

>>22196779
Yes, because the Christian idea that we are made in the image of god totally doesn’t imply a strong likeness.

[Anonymous No.22196801]

>>22196779
On the contrary, the Christian god is anthropomorphic, the other branches got killed off as heresies

[Anonymous No.22196933]

>>22193811
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial homonids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditiation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

[Anonymous No.22196963]

>>22193811
>Why do philosophers look down on or at least not think very highly of New Atheism?
Focusing solely on low-hanging fruit and convincing an army of midwits to intelligence LARP by becoming strongly opinionated about things they know very little about was a really dumb plan. It was a cringe fad to begin with and it took less than a decade to become unintentional self parody. They tried to weaponized ridicule and it back fired--the hubris that is atheistic pride is a constant source of keks.

[Anonymous No.22196979]

>>22194602
>Craig is not a philosopher, he is a charlatan
He wrecked Hitchens in their debate though.

[Anonymous No.22196993]

>>22193811
>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.22197038]

>>22196209
Thank you for demonstrating that you do not, in fact, even have a modicum of intelligence

[Anonymous No.22197049]

>>22196933
Is this what the average god believing retard thinks how the conversation went after his unsubstantiated beliefs are obliterated in the face of reality?

[Anonymous No.22197053]

>>22196209
>The father figure in the sky is a visual metaphor used by Michelangelo on a painting you fucking retard.
This nigga doesn't realize the history of patriarchal religion predates Christianity, and then he calls other people retards lol

[Anonymous No.22197055]

>>22195828
might want to read Augustine before you say stupid things.

[Anonymous No.22197057]

>>22196933
>I counter with pic related
Heh, sorry christcuck, it was over from the start

[Anonymous No.22197067]

>>22196933
pretty accurate, ngl

[Anonymous No.22197072]

>>22196796
Yes but the bible also describes God as spirit. It's an important you can't just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your lazy deboonking rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.22197089]

>>22196501
You're not wrong, but I think it would be slightly more accurate to say that objectivity 'flows forth' from God as consistent with His nature, rather than that it was created by Him.

[Anonymous No.22197098]

>>22196993
Cope christcuck

[Anonymous No.22197114]

>>22197089
Whether it was created or “flows forth” both are unsubstantiated claims that you literally made up.

[Anonymous No.22197120]

>>22196106
>the father figure in the sky is a byproduct of human psychology
this has always been such a stupid argument. I could just as easily say that dogs are not real, they are just an imagined byproduct of the psychological need for unconditional love. finding a plausible-sounding psychplogical explanation for a thing doesn't mean that the thing's real existence has been disproven. it doesn't even mean that a plausible explanation for its non-existence has been displayed.

[Anonymous No.22197129]

>>22197114
I didn't make anything up, so I'm not sure why you're whining to me. Go bitch at the Greeks and whoever taught them if you have an issue with the idea. I'm just repeating what the more learned men have already discovered about the nature of reality and its relation to the creator.

[Anonymous No.22197160]

>>22197120
The point is that God is 100% conceptual. His existence is a proposition built on faith, meaning it's patently obvious the concept of God is purely a result of the projection of the super-ego to an external, heavenly (and therefore conveniently ambiguous and malleable to fit the individual's projection) father. The problem is people become so committed to their own illusory projection they will fight to defend it as real, as an outsider this is equal parts sad and pathetic. If you are a religious person, just examine early human superstitions around God-Kings or really any Dear Leader who is regarded as more than human. People have this deep psychological desire to have a strong father figure in charge of them, whether in the form of a Divine King or an imagined Heavenly Father. This is not merely a "plausible-sounding psychplogical explanation" it's logically the sole explanation.

[Anonymous No.22197173]

>>22197049
>>22197057
>>22197098
The legacy of the New Atheist movement is a dysgenic pervert who sodomized himself with a banana while fantasizing about "girl dick" and "pregnant men."

[Anonymous No.22197174]

>>22195190
>Why does it matter whether an 85 IQ WalMart wagecuck believes in god?

Because there's a lot of them and they try to steer public policy, you moron

[Anonymous No.22197180]

>>22197174
>atheist libtard has totalitarian leanings
Pride is the father of all sins and you reap what you sow.

[Anonymous No.22197184]

>>22193811
Because it's fashionable to do so. Philosophers aren't serious people.

[Anonymous No.22197186]

>>22197180
Get off your pulpit then, prideful one.

[Anonymous No.22197188]

>>22197186
>no you!
The mitwit who didn't realize IQ is a normal distribution and thinks there are more 85s than 115s is bringing out the bangers.

[Anonymous No.22197194]

>>22197174
>everyone is deluded except for me
you will see anon, when you get a bit older you will realize who god is, and how people think about god.

[Anonymous No.22197195]

>>22197188
What else would motivate you to post such dumb shit, if not pride? You're a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.22197202]

>>22197194
I'm 55, so I guess what you mean is that people consider god an "out" on their deathbed

[Anonymous No.22197205]

>>22197195
>NO YOU!
Kek, he's stuck in a loop.

[Anonymous No.22197207]

>>22197160
and yet again, this is all just a non-sequitur. even if I granted a psychological cause for the belief in God, that still doesn't establish that the object of belief is non-existent. it would only establish that a psychological necessity is fulfilled in part by the belief in a God that may still exist. furthermore, the appeal to the godkings of old (might as well have gone back to the Old Man of the tribe, if you were going to go that route) is just flat out nonsensical. it was never the peasant, nor even the priest, that proclaimed the divinity of the man who ruled over them, it was the man himself who proclaimed his own divinity and enforced that claim through threat of arms. your example actually argues against your fundamental claim, because the king would not need to enforce the propaganda of his divine rights and nature unless he felt that everyone would naturally doubt it. if he was the satisfaction of the masses need for a paternal figure, then they would have proclaimed him divine whether he liked it or not, they wouldn't have needed the spears of his soldiers at their backs commanding them to kneel

[Anonymous No.22197209]

>>22197160
>and therefore conveniently ambiguous and malleable to fit the individual's projection
how is this different than any other subjective idea? Even if youre making an ontologically correct statement about gods existence, it still dosent change the fact more people have been killed over the abstract concept of communism and nationalism than the concept of God. It seems like you aren't against God's existence as much as the ways to understand him.

[Anonymous No.22197212]

>>22197205
I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.22197213]

>>22197212
>I WIN!
Are you going to treat yourself to a new fedora in celebration of your victory? Kek

[Anonymous No.22197224]

>>22197213
>no hat loser
lol

[Anonymous No.22197229]

>>22197224
>I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.22197234]

>>22197202
are you afraid speculating about God's existence is going to make you lose cred with your favorite political party or something? I mean people have been discussing the existence of God for thousands of years, if it was "simply a psychological projection" why are we not past this?

[Anonymous No.22197237]

>>22197229
Here I found your hat

[Anonymous No.22197239]

>>22197234
>"simply a psychological projection"
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that midwits used to feel superior to others.

[Anonymous No.22197243]

>>22197234
>I mean people have been discussing the existence of God for thousands of years, if it was "simply a psychological projection" why are we not past this?

Because the world is full of retards such as yourself, and forever will be

[Anonymous No.22197244]

>>22197237
>can't escape the no you loop
Boring, anon.

[Anonymous No.22197246]

>>22197049
The enemy isn't an average god-believing retard, that's your mistake. And in the case where the enemy is genuinely stupid, they just invoke thick granite skull ability which reduces all damage to zero. New Athiesm only works on midwits.

[Anonymous No.22197248]

>>22197244
ok hatless

[Anonymous No.22197249]

>>22197243
If I'm as resentful as you are at 55 I'll do the world a favor by walking in front of a train.

[Anonymous No.22197256]

>>22197249
At the age of 20 you're more resentful than me at 55, do us that favour today

[Anonymous No.22197260]

>>22197256
>(lack of) freedom 55 telling zoomers to kill themselves on anonymous message boards
NTA but you're just sad.

[Anonymous No.22197265]

>>22197243
you only think they're retards because you have some sort of idiosyncratic materialistic belief. you have subjectively trapped yourself inside a metaphysical materialism in the same way you accuse other people of projecting their own preconceived notions on to God.

[Anonymous No.22197269]

>>22197260
You don't need to tell zoomers to kill themselves, they take care of it themselves. The thought of suicide was already on his mind.

[Anonymous No.22197270]

>>22197174
Debunking their belief in god (which is impossible anyway) won't make them smart and won't change their views on public policy. And over generations, you turn well-behaved religious people into feral animals and easily-seduced schizos. There's no benefit to your approach.

To win policy you have to win the political game not the reddit philosophy debate.

[Anonymous No.22197272]

>>22197248
>ok hatless
Do the hats give you more confidence, anon?

[Anonymous No.22197273]

>>22197265
>durr ur just a ________ist

Whenever you see someone say this you can immediately stop listening to them, they'll never put forward a real argument

[Anonymous No.22197274]

>>22193811
Quite simply, they are the most influential idiots to parade themselves as intellectuals as of the 21st century. They didn't present any intelligent or thought provoking ideas. All they did was lower public discourse and spawn a legion of internet edgelords who had never read a religious text in their life to take up atheistic materialism as their secular religion. Their biggest failing both as thinkers and individuals, however, is their stubborn belief that if religion was gone life would just suddenly improve. Which is something none of the historical atheists and skeptics honestly believed. Not Voltaire, Not Rousseau, and not even Sade.

[Anonymous No.22197275]

>>22197272
They definitely provide more sensation

[Anonymous No.22197278]

>>22197269
>uses an infographic meant to demonstrate the effects of COVID on mental health
Kek, you really are a smart one!

[Anonymous No.22197284]

>>22197270
>Debunking their belief in god (which is impossible anyway) won't make them smart and won't change their views on public policy. And over generations, you turn well-behaved religious people into feral animals and easily-seduced schizos.

Ok so you admit that religion is a lie to placate the masses? Yet you are religious... interesting.

[Anonymous No.22197289]

>>22197278
>can't read a graph
No wonder you're suicidal

[Anonymous No.22197291]

>>22197284
>Yet you are religious... interesting.
>[tips fedora so hard it falls of head]
Also, straw man.

[Anonymous No.22197296]

>>22197291
>got mind broken by the fedora meme
lol you're a follower

[Anonymous No.22197299]

>>22197289
Lets see if you're also too dumb to extrapolate.

[Anonymous No.22197305]

>>22197296
>triggered by fedora meme
>NO YOU
Why do atheists suck so hard at bants? I know you're midwits but you'd expect at least one clever post against a target that's supposedly easy to dunk on.

[Anonymous No.22197314]

>>22193811
They never engaged with any theology seriously, and I say that as an atheist. For one thing, Hitchens' book on religion is full of outright falsehoods, not just about religion but about historical occurrences and even physical phenomena. Also, Harris is such a fan of certain aspects of Buddhism, yet both Islam and Christianity have mystical aspects that are similar if not identical. In fact neither religion's theologians believe God to be a bearded guy in the sky(for example) yet that was the strawman they chose to attack. They're not serious intellectuals, they're grifters. Now Dawkins is too afraid to criticize Islam which is hilarious after his attacks on Christianity. I hope someone from his family gets acid thrown in their face.

[Anonymous No.22197320]

>>22197305
Tremendous Christcuck coping.

>I get my purpose in life from a book that other people have decided for me is true…but…but at least I can b-banter!

Midwit priorities focused more on pride and vanity than truth, self refuting and kek

[Anonymous No.22197325]

>>22197314
Harris is a fan of the meditative practices of Buddhism that don’t claim any spiritual or mystical realities. Christianity and Islam do not teach that there is no self or that the world is an illusion, they teach quite the opposite.

[Anonymous No.22197326]

>>22197314
It was an embarrassing fad. Did you see the update of Cosmos? They opened the "documentary" by lying about Giordano Bruno? They literally 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). 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 on the cross.

[Anonymous No.22197336]

>>22197320
>C-C-COPE
>NO YOU!
Every time ffs.

[Anonymous No.22197345]

>>22197325
This shit is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22197347]

>>22197325
>there is no self or that the world is an illusion
so the guy admires literally the stupidest parts about Buddhism? kek

[Anonymous No.22197350]

>>22197325
Aaand let me direct you to Sufism and Theologia Mystica. For starters.

[Anonymous No.22197353]

>>22197336
Christians when they can’t spew forth their hatred for atheists and those who recognize them as delusional because their imaginary bvll is watching them

[Anonymous No.22197356]

>>22197284
religion is a mnemonic device to remember mathematics in case the faggots in the government burned all the books again

which they always do

[Anonymous No.22197358]

>>22197347
You mean the most based parts? If you pay attention beyond your low IQ common sense ideas of the world you will understand. Read picrel

[Anonymous No.22197361]

>>22197347
Damn, looks like we've found the one dualist that doesn't have Harris's cock down his throat.

[Anonymous No.22197362]

>>22197353
the lord is the internal monologue, maybe you wouldn't be an "atheist" if you have a fucking three-digit IQ

[Anonymous No.22197363]

>>22197326
Yeah I actually heard about that. Bruno was literally not even a scientist. Fucking embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22197366]

>>22197362
>”atheist”

Hello Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.22197370]

>>22197269
the criminals running the media need to hurry up and go to space jail

[Anonymous No.22197380]

>>22197284
No. Calling it a lie is disengenuous and means you aren't smart enough to have anything interesting to say about the topic.

[Anonymous No.22197381]

>>22193811
I would pay to watch Sam Harris die

[Anonymous No.22197399]

>>22197381
Same bro. Same.

[Anonymous No.22197400]

>>22197358
nah. if we're gonna start denying self-evident realities then I'm gonna have to tap out. my acid-head days are long behind me for a reason.

[Anonymous No.22197404]

>>22193811
hurr pasketti monster not real

[Anonymous No.22197426]

>>22193811
Philosophers look down on all popular philosophy. Not like academics have a much better opinion of James White or William Lane Craig or whoever does most popular Christian apologetics.

[Anonymous No.22197433]

>>22197353
>didn't greentext

[Anonymous No.22197442]

>>22193811
Because all in the pic are midwits.

[Anonymous No.22197441]

>>22197400
>self evident

My acidhead days are also over, but this is not anything wonky or nutty. All I am saying is that you can only have access to your mind’s perceptions of objects and not objects themselves. Nothing crazy or weird.

The illusion of self is simply recognizing all of your thoughts arise into consciousness out of nowhere and pass, so in reality all that is constant is the simple observing of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.22197466]

>>22197441
the problem is that we clearly do have a rational understanding of form, otherwise we couldn't define any two distinct objects as having the same form. which means there is an underlying reality that we are all aware of, and that we all recognize immediately before we even learn to talk. sure, we physically interact with accidents and not substances, but we are all well aware of the underlying essence of things and it is literally impossible to act otherwise except when under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

[Anonymous No.22197477]

OP, how much does being a janny pay?

[Anonymous No.22197482]

>>22197441
>all that is constant is the simple observing of consciousness.

What is doing this observing?

[Anonymous No.22197486]

>>22197466
I feel you are missing the point. Space and time themselves are in us a priori as the grounds of experience, so we cannot say that these exist outside of our minds. There could be things spaceless and timeless that we perceive to share a form in our sensibility. I know it sounds a little strange but look into transcendental idealists such as Immanuel Kant. They are not just bullshitting and speculating, that is the whole thing Kant is trying to combat.

[Anonymous No.22197495]

>>22197482
Ultimately it is unknowable, it’d be like a telescope trying to look at itself. Seriously, try to find the “center” or observer of your experience and you will not find anything, just raw experience happening over time, including your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.22197502]

>>22195662
Fucking based, Moslems stay seething

[Anonymous No.22197513]

>>22197486
this stuff always seems like just word salads masquerading as legitimate inquiries. the table is real. I'm looking at it. I can touch it. I can also recognize a completely different object with completely different properties as also being a table. I don't need to go any deeper than that. I don't need to question whether the table is just an illusion by a demon or whether I am even real but maybe I'm just an illusion too. I know I'm real. I know the table is real. anything that doesn't start from that point is useless because it doesn't track with reality. a philosophy that has no relation to reality is worthless.

[Anonymous No.22197530]

>>22197513
Can you define 'table' for me?

[Anonymous No.22197535]

>>22197513
It’s really simple to show you the problem with this, aside from the fact that it’s an assertion.

1. Either you get your concepts of space from objects or you already have it
2. To get it from objects you would need to be able to observe objects, which would require a concept of space
3. Therefore you must have the concept of space a priori, and not from objects themselves

Now you know you perceive things in spacial representations, but it is not clear that this is true of the things you are perceiving themselves. This is similar to using a computer and observing the desktop, with the actual data for the applications you visually see being bytes that are nothing like the desktop applications.

To make it more clear; it is an error to think that what we perceive is objective and not subjectively beheld. Your mind must be able to comprehend it in a format that your mind understands and can use. I would encourage you to investigate deeper into this and not just dismiss it because it seems esoteric, as there are some profound problems to be found.

[Anonymous No.22197616]

>>22195586
Aren't the other deities real in the sense that idols and Satan are real? We just shouldn't worship them.

Pelagius was right about Augustine btw.

[Anonymous No.22197618]

>>22197513
A hundred years from now, maybe 2 or 3, every belief you have about reality will have at least shifted and, more often than not, been replaced with something much different according to a worldview you'd find alien. Does that mean that those in the future would be right in saying all of your beliefs and ideas were merely superstitions?

[Anonymous No.22197622]

>>22194750
>their god is real in a very esoteric and anti-abrahamic way

So real in the sense that idols are real.

[Anonymous No.22197681]

>>22197320
No one you've replied to has even admitted to being Christian. I'm not, except culturally.
Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is that Starbucks wagecucks (You) fretting about WalMart wagecucks believing in God is embarrassing and misguided.

[Anonymous No.22197718]

>>22197530
I don't need to. the moment you read the word, you knew exactly what I was talking about. furthermore, you instinctively knew all the things I wasn't referring to when I you read the word.
>>22197535
but the problem here is you are suggesting, without reason, that there may be some other truth than what I am viewing. but there's nothing about the things I'm experiencing that suggests there is some other truth. there is no reason to think that the table is anything other than a table. obviously there is some form of the thing that underlies the accidents, but there's no reason to suggest that the form is anything other than what it appears to be.
>>22197618
but this isn't true either. the fundamental beliefs of everyday people are all still the same as they have always been. the only time anyone even suggests some different fundamental reality than the one we all know and accept is when they are actively trying to be contrarion. the moment they stop thinking about it, they fall back into the habit of treating things the same way everyone else does. some people might disagree about what clothes are modest or immodest, but no one thinks that pants are meant to be worn on the head. people might disagree about whether Scripture contains truth, but no on disagrees that there is a book that claims to be scriptural.

[Anonymous No.22197720]

>>22195231
nice word salad dude

[Anonymous No.22197735]

>>22197718
If you dream, then you should be aware that you can be completely deceived.

[Anonymous No.22197757]

>>22197718
>the fundamental beliefs of everyday people are all still the same as they have always been
They're not. 200 years ago your entire universe would be the village in which you were born.
>the only time anyone even suggests some different fundamental reality than the one we all know and accept is when they are actively trying to be contrarion
First, that's a retarded opinion. Second, I guess people like Einstein or Woolf are just contrarians, kek.
>blah blah blah more of the same
In a couple hundred years the majority of the "rational" beliefs you hold will no longer be represented by the majority of people on this planet. What you now consider science will be replaced by entirely different paradigms of conceptual belief. This is the overarching pattern throughout human history--you're a speck but you're endowed with the facilities to not only bare witness to but also interpret reality.

[Sage No.22197767]

>>22194729
>tds
sure thing. He's clearly a right-wing sympathizer and no one believes he actually hates Trump. That's why he has to keep saying he does over and over.

[Anonymous No.22197775]

>>22197718
>furthermore, you instinctively knew all the things I wasn't referring to when I you read the word.
This completely untrue. There's a ton of furniture that shares properties with a table yet is not called a table. Is a workbench a table? What about an ironing board? There are chairs that transform into tables. Are those included or not? Is pic related a table? That's not at all clear to me.

[Anonymous No.22197798]

>>22197775
Does anyone have the schizo trollface what is a table ontology meme?

[Anonymous No.22197810]

>>22197718
>I don’t need to

Just because we have concepts of objects that share apparent similarities, that does not imply any sort of metaphysical essence or form.

[Anonymous No.22197840]

>>22194729
If you don't believe in BLM you're cool with me. I'm guessing he's at least somewhat trans-skeptical

[Anonymous No.22197869]

>>22197840
His TDS was so bad he said something like "I don't care if Joe Biden is a serial killer with 20 bodies in his basement" and it didn't come off as hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.22197929]

>>22196106
Only shitters like Descartes do that. The Mahabharata for example describes god in very personal terms. Also Freud was a midwit who autistically latched onto one explanation for each phenomenon and never expanded his approach, he was thoroughly BTFO by Jung.

[Anonymous No.22197993]

>>22197173
Nope, that's the legacy of "Atheism+", which was a separate and antagonistic movement in regard to the four horsemen of atheism, or "New Atheism". Let me guess, you weren't actually alive in 2007.

[Anonymous No.22198021]

>>22197209
If you define "God" in the kind of way Spinoza does where it's just a set of mechanisms and principles, that's quite different from a parent in the sky who cares for you and wants you to behave in a certain way. The main problem with the word "God" is that it can mean fundamentally OPPOSITE things depending on how you define it, and thus people tend to use it to fulfill their own deep subconscious psychological needs while their conscious mind can insist that this projected God is actually real. Colloquial usage refers to a distinct being with agency who cares about things, a being with personhood. This is clearly projection, a man made fantasy to satisfy internal subconscious insecurities. Also, in regard to communism and nationalism, the leaders literally always harness the power of religious thinking, Nazi Germany was a deeply Christian Nation, Hitler often appealed to the idea of "doing God's work" and every Nazi soldier had "Gott Mit Uns" engraved on their belt buckles which means "God is on our side", Japan's emperor was literally considered a God on Earth, and Stalin also used the old tradition of the Czar being a demi-god, a divine leader, to establish a cult of personality around himself. In fact, look at the history of war and you will see in virtually every case, BOTH sides of a war claim that God endorses them. It's a way to get average moral people who would otherwise hesitate to kill or maim another person to do horrific things. As long as you can convince someone that God approves, anything is permitted (you'll notice Dosto got this exactly backwards). Left to themselves, good people will do the best they can, evil people will do the worst they can, but to get good people to do evil, that takes religion.

[Anonymous No.22198026]

>>22197305
>"MIDWIT!"

[Anonymous No.22198042]

>>22197993
You're reaching extreme levels of cope there, anon. I understand why you'd want to attempt to disown this dysgenic pervert though.

[Anonymous No.22198067]

>>22198021
>quite different from a parent in the sky who cares for you and wants you to behave in a certain way

When God gives ten laws, people complain. When the government gives millions, nobody says anything

[Anonymous No.22198090]

>>22198067
God never gives laws, men give laws and claim it's from God.

[Anonymous No.22198114]

>>22198090
gay and british ain't no way to go through life, son

[Anonymous No.22198145]

>>22198090
Real
>>22198114
Cringe

[Anonymous No.22198165]

>>22198067
"When God gives ten laws, people complain. When the government gives ten thousand, nobody says anything"

edited for parallelism

[Anonymous No.22198178]

>>22198090
Fake
>>22198145
Gay

[Anonymous No.22198325]

>>22198114
>>22198178
Cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.22198352]

>>22198325

[Anonymous No.22198401]

>>22198325
>>22198042
>the subconscious projection is unreal

[Anonymous No.22198434]

>>22195662
>because they strived to posit anti-theistic "reason-based" utilitarian morality which gave us gems such as
That's true and it's also because some of the leaders of it were British. John Stuart Mill and all that. That's why it's time to grow up and move on to dialectical materialist Chinese atheism:
https://youtu.be/BzDJBqOmzTY

[Anonymous No.22198453]

>>22198434
>chinese chud

[Anonymous No.22198460]

>>22198434
>listens to this Chinese chud