Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God?

File: 83 KB, 456x480, 1356543027702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:06:22 2013 No.3384985 [DELETED]

Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:07:22 2013 No.3384986 I take it you don't know much about philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:08:22 2013 No.3384987 Yes, but it's exceedingly more difficult in our post-modern world. You might even say, it takes a lot of strength for an intelligent person to have faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:09:22 2013 No.3384990 >>3384986 "God exists until you prove me wrong" is a fallacy. You are asserting his existence so the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead and objectively try and prove that God exists, I'll wait, bud.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:09:22 2013 No.3384991 Yes. We have historical ignorance, and people who's knowledge is focused in one area.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:10:22 2013 No.3384993 0/10 please, at least, try.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:11:22 2013 No.3384995 >>3384990 Thomas Aquinas already did that.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:13:23 2013 No.3384997

I think it's harder to be intelligent and still believe in atheism. With religion you have just swallowed your dogma as a child, went on to study other things. Atheists have usually spent a lot of time thinking about the existence of God, and decided to subscribe to a belief claim instead of looking at it rationally and deciding they don't have enough data for a truth claim.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:13:23 2013 No.3384998
File: 27 KB, 482x321, laughing-women-friendship-greetings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3384995
>Thomas viewed theology, or the sacred doctrine, as a science,[51] the raw material data of which consists of written scripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:15:22 2013 No.3385000 File: 85 KB, 1010x727, 1356542581626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3384997 Atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:15:22 2013 No.3385002 >>3385000 You're thinking of agnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:17:22 2013 No.3385004 >>3384997 >faggot agnostic thinks atheism is an asserted belief are you on the fence about invisible unicorns? you can make the case for a first cause and be intelligent, but "durr we don't know enough" is as retarded as blind faith in cheezus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:17:22 2013 No.3385005 Who cares? Unless you're trying to make god do things for you or start a cult, believing in "god"/spiritual whatever doesn't really affect much. I think getting all in a tizzy about coming to a conclusion either way is a bit mental.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:17:22 2013 No.3385006 >>3385002 Atheism = I will not believe that God is real until you prove his existence objectively.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:18:22 2013 No.3385010 ITT: Spooks

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:19:22 2013 No.3385012 troll thread is weak, try again with more fedoras.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:21:22 2013 No.3385017

>>3385004
>are you on the fence about invisible unicorns?
Yes. I have subscribed to models before. For a political example I have swung back and forth between capitalism and socialism, even out to libertarianism and communism. I made these decisions based on the information I had at the time, and with every case, learning something new changed my standpoint. This change is possible with any other view too, and it prevents me from completely endorsing one.

>you can make the case for a first cause and be intelligent, but "durr we don't know enough" is as retarded as blind faith in cheezus.
And so I lean towards the notion that there isn't a God, but I can't blindly believe it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:22:22 2013 No.3385018 I got 100 downvote points on reddit for asking how atheists solved the is-ought problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:25:22 2013 No.3385024 >Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:27:23 2013 No.3385027 >>3385018 Maybe that's because it's already been debunked hundreds of times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-hkpqVlYw

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:27:23 2013 No.3385030

>>3384998
You're an idiot. The whole thing looked very different eight hundred years ago than it does now - but most crucially, the understanding of science is totally different now than it was when Aquinas was writing. There's so many intellectual presuppositions that you have that would be totally alien to Aquinas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:31:22 2013 No.3385040 >>3385027 >Maybe that's because it's already been debunked hundreds of times. An appeal to consensus is not "Debunking."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:39:22 2013 No.3385059 >Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God? Unless you want to call 99% of history's greatest thinkers,artists and scientists unitelligent,then yes.Yes,it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:40:22 2013 No.3385062 >>3385017 >Yes congratulations! you failed the giggle test, you're a joke >spineless faggot agnostic keeps thinking atheism is an asserted belief and thinks he invented bayesianism

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:41:22 2013 No.3385064

>>3385018
What does that have to do with atheism? Theists can't solve it either.

It's not really a "problem" that needs to be solved, though. The "problem" is why our language makes out certain relations to be intelligible when they are, upon reflection, fallacious or untenable

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:42:22 2013 No.3385070 Of course. Now stop making stupid troll threads on /lit/ and the rest of you, stop falling for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:43:22 2013 No.3385071 >>3385064 Because new atheists believe in objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:44:22 2013 No.3385073 >>3385070 >being so new you don't understand how /lit/ deals with troll threads

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:44:22 2013 No.3385074 yes. see einstein and a bunch of others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:45:22 2013 No.3385076 >>3385062 Have fun with your dogmatic subscription to models of reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:45:22 2013 No.3385078 Why is that guy confusing Atheism with Pragmatism?f

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:48:22 2013 No.3385084 >>3385078 he's an idiot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:49:22 2013 No.3385090 >>3385078 Atheism is the only logical conclusion of pragmatism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:50:22 2013 No.3385091 >>3385084 Then we at least have ascertained that it is possible to not be intelligent and not believe in God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:52:22 2013 No.3385093 >>3385090 I wasn't aware that dogmatism was regarded as a desirable feature of a pragmatic worldview.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:52:23 2013 No.3385092 >>3385073 I do know, I just think it's a shitty way of doing it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:53:22 2013 No.3385094 >>3384987 Does effort signify strength?

>>	Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU Tue Jan 22 06:53:22 2013 No.3385096 >>3384990 Strawman. Seriously though op, if you allow religion to infer your opinion on someone else's intelligence you need some help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:55:22 2013 No.3385099 >>3384997 Unfortunately for you, a lot of atheists have not been raised in the presence of active religious beliefs and haven't put a lot of time into investigating faith or their status as atheists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:55:22 2013 No.3385101 File: 40 KB, 530x300, impatient watch man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385096 God doesn't exist until you can prove he does, that's how logic works. I'm waiting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:56:22 2013 No.3385103 >>3385101 I saw God. Therefore, God exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:57:22 2013 No.3385105 >>3385103 I see the sky as red. There, the sky is objectively red.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:57:22 2013 No.3385106 >>3385006 Theism = I will not believe that God isn't real until you prove his non-existence objectively. Magically, Theism is now a position of non-belief.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:58:22 2013 No.3385108 >>3385101 >God doesn't exist until you can prove he does, that's how logic works. no. You cannot 'prove' logically that anything exists, but that does not mean that nothing exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:58:22 2013 No.3385109 >>3385105 What's wrong about that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:58:22 2013 No.3385111 >>3385101 The universe didn't spring into existence by itself until you prove it did.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:58:22 2013 No.3385112

>>3385101
That's not true. People mistake an epistemological claim like "Belief in the existence of god is justified" (which depends on subjective standards of warrant) with an ontological claim like "God exists."

The latter is either true or false, but we don't have knowledge of its truth value until it is proven. The former is normative and can be inferred and debated as such

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:58:22 2013 No.3385113 File: 131 KB, 500x333, 1349237266950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385108 >FACTS DON'T EXIST!! >NOTHING IS REAL! >DEFINE "DEFINITION"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:59:22 2013 No.3385114 >>3385105 >>3385103 Relativism guys. One of you thinks he's holding a snake, the other thinks he's stroking a tree trunk, but you're both just touching this one elephant's wang and thigh respectively.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:59:22 2013 No.3385115

>>3385101
The Internet doesn't exist until you can prove it does, that's the way logic works. This computer doesn't exist until you can prove it does, that's the way logic works. Words don't exist until you can prove they do, that's the way logic works. You don't exist until you can prove you do, that's the way logic works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 06:59:22 2013 No.3385116 >prove >objectively >logic you don't really know how faith works,do ya?

Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU Tue Jan 22 06:59:22 2013 No.3385119
File: 20 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3385101
?

I haven't stated anything about the existence of God. If you're undermining the intelligence of great minds just, because they were religious you're not being intelligent yourself. There is no firm evidence whether God, does, or does not exist, ergo it's uneducated of you to determine the existence of God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:00:22 2013 No.3385120 >>3385113 Facts don't exist, you complete moron. Go away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:01:22 2013 No.3385121 >>3385115 You can easily prove that those exist using logic. So far I haven't seen any objective evidence for God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:01:22 2013 No.3385122 >>3385106 Not believing that ~q is not the same thing as believing that q

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:02:22 2013 No.3385123

>>3385112
>That's not true. People mistake an epistemological claim like "Belief in the existence of god is justified" (which depends on subjective standards of warrant) with an ontological claim like "God exists."
That's not ontology broheim. They're both epistemological claims.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:02:22 2013 No.3385124

>The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.[158] Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:02:23 2013 No.3385125 >>3385119 >ergo You should be slapped for this. I bet you use 'thus' and 'whence' too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:02:23 2013 No.3385127 >>3385121 You really can't. Unless you can logically prove "my perceptions of the world are an accurate mirror of an actually-existing objective world". & if you can prove that, I would be interested in seeing such a proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:02:23 2013 No.3385128 >>3385123 How is "God exists" not an ontological claim?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:03:22 2013 No.3385130 >God 'existing'. How do I into apophatic theology?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:03:22 2013 No.3385131 >>3385122 >is not necessarily the same thing ftfy. And in this case it pretty much is, unless you're suddenly going to go bad faith on the theist statement and not the atheist one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:03:23 2013 No.3385129 >>3385106 Theism = I will now believe in something entirely groundless. Magically, it's now a position of belief again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:04:22 2013 No.3385132 >>3385127 Prove that the dichotomy of "world according to my perceptions" and "objective world" exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:05:22 2013 No.3385134 >>3385128 An ontological claim would look at how God would exist or what it might mean for God to exist.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:05:22 2013 No.3385136

>>3385129
>Theism = I will now believe in something entirely groundless.

It's not groundless. Theists believe in God based on the particular models of reality they have adopted, to them their belief is justified. You just reject God because of the particular models of reality that you have adopted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:06:22 2013 No.3385137 >>3385129 It's also now the same position as Atheism.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:06:23 2013 No.3385138

>>3385127
Please cut that out. I know what you're saying and it'll always be a bunch of irrelevant bull. If we're going to have any kind of discussion, let's assume that we've gotten "what if we're the only human left and we're connected to a dream machine" out of the way already.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:06:23 2013 No.3385139

>>3385132
You're the one who's claiming that it's possible to prove logically the existence of material objects. I'm the one saying it's not possible to prove it. You're the one who has to show his proof here, not me, and one part of that proof is showing that there is no such dichotomy exists. Because if it does exist, you can't prove with logical certainty that anything exists.

>>	Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU Tue Jan 22 07:06:23 2013 No.3385140 File: 21 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385125 What's wrong with the word, 'ergo'? It's a perfectly reasonable word to show a flow of logic. Stop sidestepping the argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:07:22 2013 No.3385143 >>3385000 nope

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:07:22 2013 No.3385144

I always wonder if people like OP are secretly Mr Gradgrind from Hard Times shitposting on 4chan.

"Now, what I want, is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:07:22 2013 No.3385145 >>3385134 Those would also be ontological claims, but so is "God exists." How the hell could that be epistemic?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:08:22 2013 No.3385147

>>3385138
It's relevant when you're claiming that a logical proof for a given thing is a necessary condition for saying that it exists, which is what anon was arguing. Of course it's nonsense in the large sense, as is anon's original statement. If you want to talk about reasonable belief instead of logical proof, of course any such thing as this is ruled out, but that's not the ground that anon staked out originally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:09:22 2013 No.3385149 >>3385138 >let's assume that we've gotten "what if we're the only human left and we're connected to a dream machine" out of the way already. Exaggerating the logical flaws in your ideology wont do anything for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:09:22 2013 No.3385150 >>3385113 you obviously have no clue what logic is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:10:23 2013 No.3385153 >>3385140 Ceteris paribus, "ergo" sui generis is a sort of persona non grata in writing circa /lit/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:11:23 2013 No.3385154 >>3385138 >it'll always be a bunch of irrelevant bull If you think it is, you also think formal logic is bull. What you mean when you write 'logic' is not logic but common sense, and you really need to fuck yourself.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:12:23 2013 No.3385155

>>3385147
>hurp durp how do I into anything but irrelevant bull
All I know is that there is zero evidence, be it empirical or scientific, to the claim of God or anything else supernatural. Sure we can sit here and deconstruct reality until none of us exist, but let's try to keep it relevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:13:22 2013 No.3385156 >>3385155 Then you shouldn't have fucking brought up the idea of "proof" and "logic" in the first place, you fucking numbskull. You should have been talking about common sense, if that's what you meant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:13:22 2013 No.3385158 >>3385154 The issues skepticism raises are not with logic but with general standards of epistemological justification. If you change those from an untenable Cartesian foundationalism to something more nuanced then they tend to disappear

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:14:22 2013 No.3385159 >>3385145 You need to read up on your terms. Having knowledge that God exists or doesn't exist is rather obviously epistemological, and is much the same as saying one is justified in that knowledge.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:16:22 2013 No.3385161

>>3385159
"I have knowledge that God exists" is not the same statement as "God exists". The latter is very obviously ontological.

By your standards, what counts as an ontological, rather than an epistemological, statement? Isn't any affirmative statement at all equivalent to saying that one has a justified belief in some fact, and hence by your standards epistemological?

>>	Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU Tue Jan 22 07:17:22 2013 No.3385162 File: 21 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385153 Why make such a fuss over it? It's just a commonly used Latin word. Instead of addressing diction, how about you address the argument?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:17:22 2013 No.3385163 >>3385159 Obviously, "I have knowledge that God exists" is an epistemic claim, but "God exists" itself is clearly not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:18:22 2013 No.3385166 >79 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click here to view. /lit/, why.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:18:22 2013 No.3385167 >>3385158 I didn't engage in skepticism. Formal logic only works on abstract symbolic structures, thus you cannot prove whether 'things' 'exist'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:21:22 2013 No.3385170 >>3385163 >but "God exists" itself is clearly not. So you've confused metaphysical with ontological now or what? It's really not ontological, and basic research beyond the first sentence on wikipedia would clear that up for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:23:23 2013 No.3385172 >>3384985 Sure it is. Suggesting otherwise betrays a considerable degree of idiocy. Go read some Charles Taylor. http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/04/24/secularism-and-critique/

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:25:23 2013 No.3385174

>>3385170
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, namely, the branch dealing specifically with existence.

Do you want me to cite my justification of the usage for a basic term in one of the most obvious ways it is employed? Well, fine; the Stanford Encyclopedia says, e.g. "Many classical philosophical problems are problems in ontology: the question whether or not there is a god, or the problem of the existence of universals, etc."

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:28:23 2013 No.3385175

>>3385170
It's a statement about the basic nature of existence. Hence, an ontological statement.

Defend your arguments instead of being a jackass about "just do basic research lol" - because the combination of your insistence on a really stupid definition of "epistemological" and your weird idea about what constitutes "ontological" make me really doubt your fundamental competence here. I'd really like to see you actually make some kind of statement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:41:22 2013 No.3385186 File: 118 KB, 840x1200, 12513476-jerusalem--feb-05--orthodox-jewish-man-prays-in-the-western-wall-on-february-05-2011--the-western-wa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm an orthodox Jew, we're easily the coolest of all religious people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:44:22 2013 No.3385189 >>3385186 What about those Beit Shemesh hasidim who spit on 8-year olds and call them whores?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:46:22 2013 No.3385190
File: 116 KB, 500x451, israeli jew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3385189
Maybe they shouldn't dress like whores and they wouldn't be called such a name?

"The principal guiding point of tzniut in regard to dress is that a Jew should not dress in a way that attracts attention. This does not mean dressing poorly, but neither men nor women should dress in a way that overly emphasizes the physical or attracts undue attention.

Orthodox Judaism requires both men and women to substantially cover their bodies. This involves covering the elbows and knees."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:48:22 2013 No.3385191 >>3385190 That's not very cool, my mensch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:48:22 2013 No.3385192 >>3385189 one time there was a case where they covered up a statue of a woman surfing, because she was "indecent", and made quite a lot of fuss. ah, jewland.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:49:22 2013 No.3385193 >>3385191 Being a whore isn't cool either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:51:22 2013 No.3385196 >>3385193 calling anyone a whore to begin with is the uncoolest thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:52:22 2013 No.3385197 File: 113 KB, 800x529, israeli children.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385196 Bullying lets dissenters know what the social taboos are, without these actions Israel will become a modern-day Sodom like America.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:56:22 2013 No.3385201 goddammit /lit/

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 07:58:22 2013 No.3385202

>>3385174
>Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, namely, the branch dealing specifically with existence.
It's a way of looking at a metaphysic through the lens of "what is". Not as in "so and so exists", but more bluntly "what is existence?", or "what is so and so existing?". And the fact is it is a basic, but oft misunderstood term, for the most part because people read vague statements like "ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist", and assume as you two do that is a list of what things are is ontological.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:07:32 2013 No.3385210 File: 30 KB, 500x585, 1358494605208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You have 10 seconds to prove that God objectively does not exist.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:11:51 2013 No.3385217

>>3385202
You're just wrong, I don't know how else to put this. I already adduced Stanford, which is a very reputable resource, but if you want to imagine some binding strictures to the use of a word that most people (indeed most philosophers) use only in a vague sense anyway you can do so if you like, just realize that it's stupid and if you "correct" a philosopher's "misunderstanding" he'll just stop taking you seriously.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:12:51 2013 No.3385218

>>3384990

>You are asserting his existence so the burden of proof is on you.

Asserting 'burden of proof' when discussing the entirety of the universe seems like a weak crutch, the very practice fails under the weight of such an impossible task.

It really shits me when reddit-tier kids assert 'burden of proof' like it's some final argumentative smackdown when dealing with the metaphysical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:13:51 2013 No.3385219 >>3385210 Do you even Karl Popper?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:16:11 2013 No.3385222 >>3384985 Yes, very. Now to believe that God physically exists? Well, there are probably smart people out there who think that, but usually the people who do believe He physically exists are morons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:16:27 2013 No.3385223 >>3385210 Hey, baby, do you have Alvin Plantinga strapped to your back? Because your ass provides me with evidence for the existence of God.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:17:44 2013 No.3385226
File: 230 KB, 992x1000, winter_night-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It is the purpose of religion to paint the world in such a way as to motivate its followers toward their best self.

It can be a great source of beauty, there's nothing inherently abject about it.

The issue right now is that our religion is of another time. Of a world that no longer exists.

It sees itself as under threat, and an institution on the eternal defensive is rarely a source for goodness.

It takes a certain kind childhood to draw strength from religion later in life, and those type of people are waning.

I don't think examining these topics as vague blanket conclusions is at all useful or necessary, though.

You all don't meet a lot of people. You don't come to know them with much grace or depth.

You're just not familiar enough with these concepts and their denizens to be able to provide any realistic insight.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:20:02 2013 No.3385231

>>3385217
Well, if you desperately want a quote:
"Existence is a category of human thought", a rather specific clarification from Ferrier on the matter. And while you and the guy jerking you off might only have a vague notion of it, most other people use the terms in meaningful, and so rather specific, ways. The choice for you here is simple, accept you've used a term without understanding it and either: stop using it, or; learn about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:20:02 2013 No.3385232 Does it really matter whether god exists or not?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:21:02 2013 No.3385233 >>3385232 No.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:22:02 2013 No.3385236 >>3385232 That depends. Is all the evil done in his name of no importance?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:22:02 2013 No.3385237 >>3384985 Depends what you mean by God. Ibn arabi, Plotinus, and various other mystics seemed very intelligent, probably more than Rational Theologians.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:22:03 2013 No.3385235 >>3385232 It doesn't, actually. It only matters when people try to limit other people's rights or harm them because X religion says so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:23:02 2013 No.3385238 >>3385232 Does it really matter whether it really matters?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:24:03 2013 No.3385240 >>3385235 Rights don't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:25:02 2013 No.3385241 >>3385240 Alright then. The rest of my comment still stands.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:25:02 2013 No.3385242 >>3385236 Sounds like some ad hominem there.

>>	Uncle Toast Tue Jan 22 08:25:02 2013 No.3385243 There are: 1.) Intelligent atheists 2.) Dumb atheists 3.) Intelligent theists 4.) Dumb theists 5.) Intelligent agnostics 6.) Dumb agnostics. In ANY group, there will be smart and idiotic peoples.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:27:03 2013 No.3385244 >>3385226 I like you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:28:03 2013 No.3385247 >>3385231 You're citing a vague, contextless remark from a minor philosopher in the 19th century as authoritative for the use of a term that predate him (and that he doesn't use in the quote you gave me.) Are you actually trolling me

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:28:03 2013 No.3385248 >>3384985 Only if you are a hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:30:10 2013 No.3385251 >>3385243 This. To say "hurr durr everyone who believes in god is stuuupid" is a moronic generalization.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:30:56 2013 No.3385252 >>3385243 Will there be idiotic people in the smart group?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:33:15 2013 No.3385256

>>3385247
>You're citing a vague, contextless remark
Read the fucking book. If you want context, he's saying that statements of existence are always epistemological because they are necessarily personal to us. There is no need to go about inventing an unnecessary "Deity" as he calls it. And he coined the terms.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:34:47 2013 No.3385259 >>3385256 Except he's wrong. Existence isn't a category of human thought and it is a predicate. Doesn't matter what Kant or any other anal retentive german from 300 years ago said.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:35:34 2013 No.3385262 >>3385167 And thus, you've taken "logic" to a place where it does no kinds of good and is therefore pointless and irrelevant. I can also acknowledge these things, I just don't think them relevant in any kind of debate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:35:34 2013 No.3385263 >>3385259 >Except he's wrong. Right, whatever, enjoy your brain problems.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:36:19 2013 No.3385264 File: 18 KB, 352x352, 1328392871713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is love based faith the same as having faith in god?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:37:52 2013 No.3385268 >>3385263 It's always amusing to see self-thought intellectuals mindlessly kowtowing to authorities, while still telling themselves that they are superior minds who think for themselves. >muh Kant muhfugga

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:37:52 2013 No.3385269 >>3385240 Rights exist when they're enforced. Few things are as real as action.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:38:23 2013 No.3385271 >>3385269 No, they still don't exist. People all agreeing on a delusion are still deluded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:38:40 2013 No.3385274 File: 97 KB, 700x535, 1342834993284.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How are scientists who look to "logic" to find out the correct way to act any different from people who follow a religious code?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:38:55 2013 No.3385276

>>3385256
>If you want context, he's saying that statements of existence are always epistemological because they are necessarily personal to us
Fine. He's wrong. Do you think someone like Quine or Kripke would agree with that statement? It's ridiculous to say someone is "misusing" a term because it doesn't align with some particular philosopher that no one even reads anymore.

>And he coined the terms.
I think he came up with "epistemology" but he did not invent "ontology"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:39:11 2013 No.3385281 >>3385274 Are you trolling?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:40:11 2013 No.3385284 >>3385274 Logic is a mental category. Therefore what scientists see as logical is just their minds impressing that category onto reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:42:43 2013 No.3385288 File: 264 KB, 519x583, 1340784900488.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385281 No. It seems like scientists look to "logic" the same way religious people look to God.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:42:43 2013 No.3385289

>>3385271
An idea is not a delusion and if said idea is acted upon, it becomes - an act, born from consequence and giving birth to consequence, with real tangible outcomes. How could anything be more real than that? When it is ONLY an idea, however, it is not something that exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:44:17 2013 No.3385292 >>3385288 Religious people also "look to logic" because it is necessary for intelligibility

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:44:31 2013 No.3385293 >>3385281 He's an animu-avatarfag asking idiotic questions on 4chan without giving any kind of context or information about what he's talking about. Ask yourself, is he trolling?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:46:49 2013 No.3385297

>>3384985
This picture...

>Not making a difference between God and religion
>Then not making a difference between religion and Church

It's not possible to be intelligent and blindly follow everything the Church say.

It's - of course - possible to be intelligent and believe in God. Actually, a lot of geniuses did believe in God.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:47:35 2013 No.3385298

>>3385288
Religious people are less inclined to change their view upon receiving more information about it, but scientists are more likely to change their theory when more information about it is collected.

Scientists usually specialise in an area and don't hold a rigid belief in their theories as they know the theory is subject to change.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:49:22 2013 No.3385303 File: 132 KB, 393x424, 1352185396409.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385298 What do you mean by "information"?

Uncle Toast Tue Jan 22 08:50:11 2013 No.3385307

>3385252

Yes.

However, the idiocy I'm referring to in this comment isn't in the same vein as the idiocy this thread is referring to.

Smart people can make bad life decisions, not keeping in check with what they say, ect., ect...

But either way, this thread is referring to another type of intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:50:11 2013 No.3385308 >>3385303 empirically deduced data, sometimes combined with a little rationalism.

>>	That pikmin guy Tue Jan 22 08:52:42 2013 No.3385313 File: 309 KB, 399x500, 1358554620709.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385252

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:52:42 2013 No.3385314
File: 61 KB, 500x500, 1347003285891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3385308
But even "empirically deduced data" is subjective due to the bias of our senses. Believing in things like "facts" is just as much of a leap of faith as believing in God.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:55:33 2013 No.3385318

Reworded: Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God in modern age? Understandably lack of knowledge in our history made even intelligent people fall for false superstitions. Of course with the knowledge we have now it's safe to say if you possess any form of spirituality you're a fool.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:56:34 2013 No.3385320 >>3385314 >facts >leap of faith citation needed

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:56:50 2013 No.3385321 >>3385318 2/100

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:58:37 2013 No.3385323

>>3385314
Yup, it is. and if the subjective bias is so bad in humans, then why did you take the risk of turning your computer on? Did you put too much faith in past observation and foolishly think you could get on the internet again?

I agree with you, but wouldn't follow the rejection of empiricism to the extent where science becomes not worth perusing. Subjectively, these observations seem to make sense and conform to logical rules. I can say I am 90% certain of something and, to me, that is enough reason to see if I can continue observing it to see if I can change that percentage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 08:58:54 2013 No.3385324 >>3385318 Well, if this "modern age" is restricted geographically, then... still yes. There's really nobody that claims that you're either completely stupid or completely intelligent. The world allows for all kinds of circumstances and contradictions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:00:10 2013 No.3385331 >>3385318 >spirituality >religious You can pick one and not the other. Go ahead and tell me that Lao Tzu was unintelligent, and mean it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:01:10 2013 No.3385335 >>3385324 With modern technology/education you cannot believe in God and be intelligent at the same time

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:02:10 2013 No.3385341 >>3385331 Did you miss the whole "modern age" point of the post?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:02:10 2013 No.3385343 >>3385335 With modern education you cannot fail to punctuate correctly and be intelligent at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:05:10 2013 No.3385349 >>3385335 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:05:10 2013 No.3385351

>>3385341
I did. If Lao Tzu still isn't unintelligent by today's standards, what difference does it make? That a person would even try to argue in this way, for such a viewpoint, without even understanding what spirituality is or just failing to appreciate how it differs from religion and faith, shows just how advanced the mental processes of us modern people have become.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:05:10 2013 No.3385352 >>3385252 >>3385313 I admit I laughed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:05:10 2013 No.3385353 >>3385343 What is the point of proper punctuation if you only write one sentence? Is it to give yourself credibility? On an anonymous image board?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:08:09 2013 No.3385359 >>3385349 An amount of religious scientists you can count with your fingers is closer to zero than any other important number.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:08:09 2013 No.3385360 >>3385353 What's objectively unintelligent about a faithful person who also acts and contributes intelligently in certain situations?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:10:09 2013 No.3385366 >>3385351 >If Lao Tzu still isn't unintelligent by today's standards, what difference does it make He would have been exposed to some form of education and made the easy conclusion that believing in the divine makes you retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:11:09 2013 No.3385370 >>3385360 Anyone can act intelligently in certain situations. A monkey can act intelligently in certain situations.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:14:09 2013 No.3385381

>>3385359
>An amount of religious scientists you can count with your fingers is closer to zero than any other important number.
That is completely irrelevant when the claim was "With modern technology/education you cannot believe in God and be intelligent at the same time" Clearly, even if the number is low, you can.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:17:41 2013 No.3385386

>>3385381
Regardless it doesn't prove they are fully intelligent people. Sure they may have contributed scientific discoveries but their religion may have developed from some kind of mental incompetence such as Alzheimers or some traumatic event in their childhood.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:28:34 2013 No.3385401

>>3385366
Lao Tzu never alluded to anything divine, but was a thoroughly spiritual individual. The two aren't necessarily connected. Spirituality has nothing to do with belief in some greater power. They are divided into religion, faith and spirituality for a reason, they are not one and the same.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:28:49 2013 No.3385402 File: 86 KB, 720x720, Atheism_7328df_2046191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:29:05 2013 No.3385403 >>3385370 And yet the monkey is unintelligent? What about, say, Bob Dylan?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:29:21 2013 No.3385404

What a crass question.

Please see: Emmanuel Swedenborg, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, Arthur Conan Doyle, Helen Keller, John Milton, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, William Blake, Carl Jung, Israel Regardie, Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Henry Fuseli, W.B. Yeats, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Allen Ginsberg, Terence McKenna, Cornell West and so on and so on and so on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:29:37 2013 No.3385405 >>3385386 What the fuck is a "fully intelligent" person?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:30:38 2013 No.3385406 >>3385405 A 100% logical individual

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:31:54 2013 No.3385411 >>3385406 Nevah been dun befo'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:32:57 2013 No.3385413 >>3385406 as opposed to 23% logical individual? only a little intelligent? partially intelligent?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:36:02 2013 No.3385421 trolled by /sci/ autism stay classy /lit

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:38:34 2013 No.3385424

Probably. To say otherwise would imply that ever human is immaculate which is far from true. Just look at Newton. His beliefs don't make his scientific work any less valid nor do they give theology any more credit in the eye of the skeptic. People aren't perfect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:39:06 2013 No.3385428 >>3385402 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV8x5WWDcNg

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:40:06 2013 No.3385429 >>3384985 Any above average philosopher would shit all over your face that fucking picture, my sides

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:43:06 2013 No.3385435

>>3385429
Scientists are grade A plebs. Only the plebs judge the truth or merit of a thing based on how efficiently it can increase the production of useless plastic shit and supply burgers to more and more people.

It's no coincidence that pragmatism is the only philosophy to originate in america.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:44:06 2013 No.3385440 >>3385289 scifaggot detected People on agreeing something doesn't make it true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:45:06 2013 No.3385442 >>3385435 >Scientists are grade A plebs. Lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5JXbyw1C0

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:46:06 2013 No.3385447 >>3385435 >Confusing scientists and capitalists Shiggy-diggy don't

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:47:06 2013 No.3385448 >>3385308 >implying empiricism is true Have you even read Hume? About the only thing you can prove existent in empiricism is that you yourself exist, which is also doubtful since you'd only be relying on sense experience for that too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:48:27 2013 No.3385449 Postmodernism is garbage and the New Atheist movement is just cultural capitalism in disguise. The quicker you realize this the more rich and fulfilled your life (and indeed spirit) will become.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:49:45 2013 No.3385454 File: 22 KB, 491x224, laughter2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385449 >cultural capitalism It's best to just disregard the opinion of anyone who says things like this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:50:32 2013 No.3385457 >>3385448 That was not implied. Read the follow up post: >>3385323

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:51:05 2013 No.3385461

>>3385402

It is quite sad how you think that is a valid argument.

1. It's not a sincere representation of modern cosmology.

2. It has little to do with atheism.

3. Our universe is really that weird. More queer still than what is written on that picture. To try to make an argument from intuition, concerning cosmology in this day of modern physics, is quite revealing of the background knowledge you have concerning this field. And by that I mean to say that it shows that you failed middle school physics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:52:08 2013 No.3385464 >>3385447 >implying in the postmodern world there's a difference between scientists (academia) and capitalists Scientists, professors and all members of western Academia capitulate to capitalism.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:53:38 2013 No.3385466

The theologist has the ultimate burden in the end.
Let's say you could prove that there is something akin to a god, maybe scientists will one day prove that there has to be an "otherwordly" force in this world.

Fine and dandy, but what makes this
1)a god
2)God
3)Your God
?
Couldn't it be whatever? The combined consciousness of all humans past, present and future? A consciousless force?
A rainbow shitting unicorn?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:54:24 2013 No.3385467 >>3385449 >cultural capitalism Does it net over $170B a year? That's just what the Catholic Church makes and that's only in US.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:55:11 2013 No.3385469

>>3385466
Forgot to add:
Yes it is possible, which is very unfortunate. There are some great minds, great philosophers and apologists- all believing in God.
It would be foolish to say that they are stupid or not intelligent, it's just that they use their gift for utter foolishness.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:55:26 2013 No.3385470

>>3385323
Science is inherently pointless because it is constantly changed, every few years they decide that the old 'objective laws of reality' were wrong and here are the new ones. All you do is push 'the real' further and more distantly into mental abstractions. The process will continue until science has no connection with reality at all, while still claiming to.

Everyone would be better off if science never existed.
>>3385457

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:56:12 2013 No.3385473 File: 494 KB, 500x374, consider.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385454 >MUH SUPERFICIALITY >MUH VIDEO GAMES >MUH HOLLYWOOD >MUH LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR MUSIC >MUH SPORTS >MUH MATERIALISM >MUH LACK OF ANY SORT OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:57:59 2013 No.3385477 >>3385467 >$170B a year Try 15094.0 USD Billion on for size.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:58:15 2013 No.3385478 >>3385466 Opinion. Like every scifag you take the metaphysical and epistemological postulates of 'science' as given facts, not once reflecting philosophically on whether actually are true.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:58:45 2013 No.3385480
File: 52 KB, 600x450, breathersphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3385466
There is no 'proving' there is just suspecting.

I suspect that a universe spontaneously popped into existence, here's why...
I suspect that a God created everything, here's why...
I suspect that our universe is one of an infinite set of multiverses, here's why...
I suspect that 3 dimensional reality is structured like pic related, here's why...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:59:02 2013 No.3385487 >>3385470 >Everyone would be better off if science never existed. That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 09:59:32 2013 No.3385484 >>3384985 ugh. I can't stand those pop sci educated 'intellectuals'. They literally are the worst.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:01:03 2013 No.3385490 >>3385262 >you've taken You see, I haven't taken logic anywhere. This is what logic is. I'm not inventing my own opinion on what logic is contrary to what the word actually means, that is what you are doing.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:03:02 2013 No.3385496

>>3385478

Well for one, they are testable. Or at the very, least they seem to work.

I can't say the same of any theological or religious belief.

Perhaps this computer I'm using to communicate with you is just some sort of illusion. I don't know for sure. But I know that if prayed for God to relay this post to you, it would not seem to work.

While solipsism dictates that nothing can be for sure, it sure doesn't give any theological notion more or equal credit to a scientific one.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:03:02 2013 No.3385497

>>3385470
>Everyone would be better off if science never existed.

Yeah, I hear you, brother. Lets reject everything gained through the scientific method. Lets burn our computers, strip out our lightbulbs. Lets ban the 4 stroke engine, blow up our satellites, and dismantle the printing press. Fuck medicine, you can't prove tuberculosis or cancer, lets smash MRI scanners, and lynch midwives. We can build a huge fire and burn every book.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:03:02 2013 No.3385499 >>3385473 >wake up sheeple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:05:55 2013 No.3385505 >>3385487 >That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Of course it is. It's an obvious troll post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:06:25 2013 No.3385508 >>3385499 >sage >using the word "sheeple" You may as well have just typed "you know, you're absolutely right."

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:09:15 2013 No.3385511

>>3385030
I don't believe Aquinas wasn't a smart motherfucker and perspective is important. Do you think today with the access to science we have now he'd have been a believer?

I hate it too when people look back and call people pre-Newton "not that clever" because they could understand f=ma and think it entirely intuitive

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:12:06 2013 No.3385521

I know of two types of "intelligent" religious people.

There are those who have never invested a thought in what they believe. Some even refuse to do so and avoid the subject matter. Some of these are employed in intellectually demanding fields so going by that I can say they are probably intelligent more than the average person.

There are also a lot of, excuse me for this, /lit/fags. They read a lot of philosophical /lit/erature and are invested in their beliefs. While I'm sure that they are vastly more educated than the common man there is little that would grant me the liberty to judge them as intellectually superior to the common man. Most of them are middle school teachers, librarians or priests.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:23:15 2013 No.3385539 Is it wrong of me to be an atheist who plans to raise his children with religion? I'm not going to shove it down their throats, but I think children should be exposed to it early and draw their own conclusions as they grow up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:23:15 2013 No.3385541 >>3385521 > Most of them are... <drivel snipped> And of course, you, like the intelligent, rational man who believes in science, did the proper sampling and statistical analysis to arrive at this conclusion.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:32:42 2013 No.3385559

>>3385539

Both wrong and illogical.

Wrong because if you give them "religion" as an exception to logic, you leave them hopelessly foolish and easy prey for all other types of snake oil. You should in my opinion try to explain the skeptic philosophy to them. Leave religion out of it. Let them encounter and judge it by themselves as it happens.

Illogical because you are choosing a side for them in the guise of a neutral position. Besides, there is absolutely no pragmatic way in which you can expose your children to all the idiotic beliefs, theological and otherwise, for them to sort through and make an independent opinion.

Heck that's what academic progress is for. That's why we read dissertations about why democracy is superior to monarchy. We don't throw our children in Saudi Arabia to let them decide for themselves between monarch and democracy.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:32:58 2013 No.3385560

>>3385478
I do reflect "philosophically" though.
Yes, even the realist, has to make a 'leap of faith' to assert that their observed 'reality' is in fact real.
Of course, it woul be nicer if one didn't have to make any leaps of faith, but so far this one leap of faith, which basically everyone HAS to make ("What I see is real, at least I treat it like it is..."), has served me quite well and not only me but I'd say the whole world. Science in particular "uses this leap of faith" to make the world an (objectively) better place for everyone.

However I wouldn't assert the leap of faith in God the same importance and credibility as the most basic one on which everything else builds off.

At the end of the day, everything could be just a dream dreamed by a floating, giant hyperspace bug, but why should I pursue this thought? Why shouldn't I live the way I life and why shouldn't I see "my reality" as "the reality", when it works just fine?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:38:21 2013 No.3385570 File: 307 KB, 1264x2492, 1358851824462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:48:50 2013 No.3385592 File: 2.25 MB, 200x200, 1344329455874.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385559 >comparing monarchy and feudalism to spirituality

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:50:53 2013 No.3385594 >>3385570 Gave me goosebumps. Fun read. God still does not exist.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:52:39 2013 No.3385597

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
― Charles Bukowski

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 10:57:18 2013 No.3385606 "To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 11:14:57 2013 No.3385638 >>3385606 “The technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.”

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 11:15:28 2013 No.3385641 >>3385404 >Kant huh? come again?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 11:27:12 2013 No.3385669 Everyone in this thread is fucking retarded, especially those who believe in God, and even more especially those who don't, with specific speciality in reference to the OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 11:29:45 2013 No.3385681 I think OP is a fucking retard, but I'm actually curious as to how anyone living in the 21st century can justify believing in 'God'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:01:12 2013 No.3385772 >>3385681 define 'God'

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:02:00 2013 No.3385778 >>3385772 The belief in anything. Morals. Herd Instinct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:05:50 2013 No.3385786 >>3385606 This implies that life = religious beliefs. By removing thoughts about religion from your life God is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:06:52 2013 No.3385790 >>3385772 I'm referring to the Abrahamic God, you anal little weasel

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:08:24 2013 No.3385797 >>3385778 Wow, an edgy nihilist is in da house!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:08:54 2013 No.3385800 >>3385790 How is the Abrahamic God different from the Hellenic God, or the Nordic God, or Han Chinese God?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:09:56 2013 No.3385804 >>3385800 It's different in the sense that people still believe in it nowadays, which is what my original question was about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:10:26 2013 No.3385807 >>3385778 >Herd instinct >Following Nietzsche's philosophy on /lit/ I think you ought to know that you're part of the herd right here. Make your own philosophy if you're going to throw nihilistic anti-hero romanticism around, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:10:26 2013 No.3385808 File: 13 KB, 240x210, 1356552630447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385778

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:11:28 2013 No.3385811 >>3385804 Sorry little bro, I'm not gonna let you off the hook by circularly defining 'God'. Please explain what you mean by 'God' before continuing to shitpost.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:11:44 2013 No.3385812 >>3385778 This is not the guy who asked this: >>3385681 question. Let's all calm down.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:12:46 2013 No.3385818 >>3385807 If I believe in gravity am I just an edgy Newton poser? Morality = herd instinct is a scientific fact And your stupid metaphor "being part of the herd" is completely unrelated from herd instinct

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:14:49 2013 No.3385823

>>3385811
What are you even talking about? I asked how people can justify in believing in 'God' in the 21st century. I've already said that I was referring to the Abrahamic God, even had I not said that, there's no need to justify belief in something nobody believes in, so that rules out the Helenic Gods and Nordic Gods and whatever.

I just want someone to answer the fucking question Jesus Christ, is that so hard? I'm not even criticising, I'm just curious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:15:05 2013 No.3385826 File: 28 KB, 512x512, azlc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385818 >Morality = herd instinct is a scientific fact

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:16:05 2013 No.3385829 >>3385826 Then explain the evolutionary reason for morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:16:21 2013 No.3385830 >>3385818 >poser you mean poseur?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:18:41 2013 No.3385833 File: 596 KB, 240x160, 1356826067494.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >wake up >get to /lit/ >see this thread >billion replies Come the fuck on, /lit/. I was expecting more of you. This will auto-sage soon though

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:19:57 2013 No.3385834 >>3385833 We can only hope so. I think we need a hideable, stickied 'religion' thread, so r/atheism can channel their bullshit there and leave the rest of us alone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:20:12 2013 No.3385838 File: 62 KB, 250x250, onlythedeadcanhopeyou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >In The Year of Our Lord 2013 >atheists not realizing that science is just as dogmatic as religion can be

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:22:12 2013 No.3385840 >>3385833 You know as well as I do that as soon as this thread goes into auto-sage, another one will rear it's head... Possibly worse than this one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:23:12 2013 No.3385841 >>3385838 It's also correct, or, at the very least, closer to correct than Religion. I have no particular problem with dogma that revolves around seeking the truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:23:12 2013 No.3385843 >>3385830 no, poser retard http://lmgtfy.com/?q=poser it's software

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:25:12 2013 No.3385849 >>3385838 No. Science is impartial and constantly changes it's theories. The atheist philosophy students on this board are dogmatic, not the field of science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:26:02 2013 No.3385852 >>3385841 >correct lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:27:05 2013 No.3385857 >>3385849 But surely if science is impartial and mercurial (as it surely is) then wouldn't those who follow it dogmatically, by extension, be impartial and mercurial too?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:27:34 2013 No.3385855 >>3385838 The difference is that science goes "this may be the truth: here's why". Religion goes "this is the truth, you can't deny it sinner!"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:29:06 2013 No.3385862 >>3385855 There are a thousand differences, besides the shallow one you just used, which is straight out of Reddit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:29:36 2013 No.3385863 >>3385862 Name 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:30:54 2013 No.3385868 >>3385852 Hence why I added the little sub-clause >or at least closer to correct than religion I mean, shit. At least Science is based on observation and reason, rather than superstition and coincidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:31:39 2013 No.3385870 >>3385857 How would that change the point at all?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 12:52:53 2013 No.3385932

>>3385276
>I think he came up with "epistemology" but he did not invent "ontology"
If you're using the terms "epistemology" and "ontology" in any way where they're related to each other, you are using Ferrer's terms. Even things like Quine's "Epistemology is psychology" is ultimately traceable to Ferrer and his thought. Maybe you're using ontology as something completely unrelated to epistemology, but even then it's always been used in the sense of the characteristics of existence, not existence itself (with the exception of some Wiki-scholars).
>Do you think someone like Quine or Kripke would agree with that statement?
Neither would categorise "God exists" as ontological. For that line of philosophy, ontology is pretty much always characterised by "how" and not "what". Why do you think that Quine is called an "ontological relativist"? Do you think he believed that, if to you Homer's Gods exist, you go to the top of Mt Olympus and they're there showing off fire and playing with your life? Or maybe it refers to how people are able to think of existence, and that all Quine is interested in is something like our models of the world (that would be ontology right there). It isn't a case that if you believe it hard enough it's real for him. Not a bad educated guess though, choosing positivists, but Quine is really very similar to Ferrer when it come to epistemology and ontology.

Kripke's a little different, but it's still ultimately talking about possible worlds. The statement "God can exist" is ontological here, still not "God exists". Again, it's characteristics of existence: "What kinds of thing can exist" not "What exists". He also definitely doesn't have a pre-established universe either.

>philosopher that no one even reads anymore
Milk and brain fluid are blasting out of my nose. My sides are now in space. There is also no substitute for reading something other than Wiki-sites on these terms, get over yourself.

>>	Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc Tue Jan 22 13:08:16 2013 No.3385966 Would you believe me if I told that an anteater that liveing on the outskirts of the galaxy in a teapot is the one and only true god?

>>	Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc Tue Jan 22 13:11:21 2013 No.3385974 >>3385966 *that lives

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 13:12:37 2013 No.3385981 >>3385966 Why would you lie to me?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 13:22:02 2013 No.3386012

>>3385226
you blew a door right off its frame, in my mind; You opened up a parallel of understanding that i somewhat previously grasped, and yet couldn't fully ascertain.

however, i like you, and you have changed my life. Which is part of my personal miracle that God created us to experience life subjectively and learn from others.

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 13:45:03 2013 No.3386076

>>3385264
well, God is all loving, so in a way, yes?

>inb4 "God killed so many people"
>mfw nobody considers the psychology of God himself. He loves us all, but he is also about Justice.

It is not our fault that we are the way we are, but what we do when self awareness takes over is up to us.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 13:47:02 2013 No.3386079 >>3385966 How big is the teapot?

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 13:52:02 2013 No.3386100

Why is this thread even here? Seriously, what the fuck. It has been a while since I ever saw a discussion like this. Newfags? Usually they still, at the very least, come from Hitchens, Dawkins or Bible threads which are /lit/ nevertheless. You know, books.

Honestly, if you are over 16 and still discuss this as "u bliv in god? y? wher evidence?" and "u no bliv in god? y? u edgy?" you don't know shit about God or atheism... You are not helping yourself or others by perpetuating these prejudices and getting preachy about it. I speak as a guy who went into these arguments as a teenager as well.

Be more patient and read more. Stop clinging to "opinions" and you'll see there is much more to this discussion than this shit.

But if you're a newfag and reading this, just get the fuck off my /lit/ you bloody idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 14:06:02 2013 No.3386164 >>3385386 with your logic, i imagine you to be 14. or retarded. Either way, your opinion makes me want to pat you on the head and send you back to the sandbox.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 14:19:04 2013 No.3386231 Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in immaterial entities?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 14:21:04 2013 No.3386235 >>3386231 No. And one day science will discover atoms of justice, ethics, value etc. and everything will be objective.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 14:23:03 2013 No.3386243 Anti-intellectual edgy teenager drivel and baseless speculations are not on-topic contents here. Inane babble belongs on >>>/b/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/soc/ >>>/reddit/ >>>/9fag/

Anonymous Tue Jan 22 14:32:48 2013 No.3386272

>>3386100
Welcome to postmodernist decadence filled with brainwashed and self-approved teenage geniuses having fruitful debates about God's existence and the authenticity of evolution, usually exceeding over 9000 messages on das YuTubes!

Nagel, in his Mind and Cosmos covers the anti-intellectualism of neoatheists wonderfully

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 18:16:03 2013 No.3387134 bump :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 18:18:03 2013 No.3387144 "God exists" still an ontological statement never 4get

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 18:18:03 2013 No.3387147 File: 997 KB, 300x169, z220125614.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3386272 >Mind and Cosmos Top tier book.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 19:28:11 2013 No.3387401 >>3387144 >"God exists" still an ontological statement pfffft, it never gets to being an ontological statement because you stop at "god" and never look back

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 20:28:03 2013 No.3387708 That guy OP posted is kinda cute.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 22 20:30:03 2013 No.3387720 File: 50 KB, 400x360, 1222460427k70rMd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3385218 >facts and logic are a crutch

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature