/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3482083]

"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence. - Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.3482165]

>>3482083
>I am enlightened by my intelligence
Dawkins casts Circular Logic. Circular Logic is super effective!

[Anonymous No.3482172]

Dawkins is a spook-riddled motherfucker

[Anonymous No.3482197]

>>3482083
>tfw I know this feel

[Anonymous No.3482219]

>>3482083
Pretty sure you just misquoted one of this guy's gems.

[Anonymous No.3482228]

>>3482219
Afraid not.

[Anonymous No.3483517]

What a retard. At least Sagan wasn't so fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.3483538]

>>3483517
Even Dawkins admits that he doesn't "know" that God doesn't exist. Atheism, as a matter of probability, is just a safe assumption.

[Anonymous No.3483539]

>>3483517
You, that article, and Sagan miss the point of atheism entirely.

[Anonymous No.3483553]

>>3483539
Kindly illuminate.

[Anonymous No.3483570]

>Implying that moderate (reasonable) theists and atheists don't hate arrogant cunts, whether they're theist or atheist.

There are arrogant and shitty people all around, and there's a fair chance they're either theist or atheist. For every "intellectual" delusional, arrogant atheist I can give you a powr hungry, mad, fascist pope. And vice versa.

[Anonymous No.3483578]

>>3483570
Exactly. Idiots errywerr.

[Anonymous No.3483604]

>>3482165
Are they the same? I always thought enlightenment was religious in nature anyway

[Anonymous No.3485054]

>>3483604
The 18th century Enlightenment wasn't religious

[Anonymous No.3485069]

>>3482083
>>3482165
>>3482172
>>3482197
>>3482219
>>3482228
>>3483517
>>3483538
>>3483539
>>3483553
>>3483570
>>3483578
>>3483604
>>3485054

[Anonymous No.3485073]

It's all about the comma after "because"

[Anonymous No.3485077]

>>3482083

/thread

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4

[Anonymous No.3485080]

>implying dawkins isn't dumb enough to think philosophy is irrelevant in 2013

[Anonymous No.3485090]

>>3485080
>implying dawkins isn't dumb enough to think philosophy is irrelevant in 2013
>Implying someone who gained their degree from Oxford, holding a Master of Arts and a Doctorate in Philosophy is 'dumb'.

Not only is Dawkins a Doctor of Philosophy, He's also a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He may be 'dumb', but he's well above the intellectual level of angry 4channer.

[Anonymous No.3485098]

>>3485090
>appealing to about eight different authorities

he could have invented fire and that wouldn't change the fact that his non-scientific work is incredibly ignorant and naive.

[Anonymous No.3485108]

>>3485098
>appealing to about eight different authorities
It may look that way, but Dawkins is actually one genius, not eight. I'm not sure you know what an appeal to authority is, though no doubt you have seen the term thrown around here a few times. I'm not reinforcing any of his arguments, or saying he is correct in anything because of his degrees. I'm saying having multiple degrees from Oxford denotes a certain level of intelligence.

>his non-scientific work is incredibly ignorant and naive.
Would you care to point out why you think this is the case?

[Anonymous No.3485119]

>>3482083

angst against dawkins again

[Anonymous No.3485136]

>>3485069
I believe you've made a mistake. The quote is from Dawkins, not that guy.

[Anonymous No.3485138]

>>3485108
>intelligence
>Dawkins

you can borrow my reaction from the previous poster.

you're confusing intelligence with intellectual capacity

[Anonymous No.3485139]

>>3485108
God delusion

[Anonymous No.3485140]

>>3485138
>you're confusing intelligence with intellectual capacity
what's the difference?

[Anonymous No.3485149]

>>3485090
I feel like your acting like doctor of philosophy is a philosophy related thing. I hope you know he never studied literature or philosophy but studied zoology.

[Anonymous No.3485150]

This was actually said by a R*ddit user.
Richard Dawkins did not actually say this.
This was a quotation that someone posted to R*ddit's popular atheism board.

It was ripped to shreds by them due to its pseudo-intellectual nature.

[Anonymous No.3485151]

>>3485139
>God delusion
Yes, it's a book. Again, can you point out, in your own words, why you believe Dawkins is 'ignorant and naive', without resorting to greentext 'implying' statements or two word responses.

[Anonymous No.3485153]

>>3485151
The god delusion is full of petty insults and ad hominems.

And btw being a 'doctor of philosophy' doesn't mean youve studied philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3485156]

>>3485153
>The god delusion is full of petty insults and ad hominems.

Now we are beginning to make progress. I was hoping for something a little more in depth though, have you actually read the book in question?

[Anonymous No.3485158]

>>3483517
It's called burden on proof, Christfag.

[Anonymous No.3485159]

>>3485158
>inb4 "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

[Anonymous No.3485161]

>>3485158
>burden on proof
I'm pretty sure it's not.

[Anonymous No.3485166]

>>3485158
Christians don't claim their assertions have no evidence though.

[Anonymous No.3485167]

>>3485159
That's a true statement, just because there is no evidence for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But there is no reason to believe in something that has no evidence.

[Anonymous No.3485173]

>>3485167
>But there is no reason to believe in something that has no evidence.
That's what the militant agnostics fail to realise. They believe relativism and rejection of knowledge somehow validates theology.

[Anonymous No.3485177]

>>3485166

That's irrelevant when in effect there isn't any evidence.

[Anonymous No.3485180]

This thread has been posted on at least two boards. Stop.

[Anonymous No.3485182]

>>3485177
>"Show me God!"

[Neko noko No.3485188]

>>3482083

>2011
>feeling like an ultra superior intelligent being just because you don't believe in god

[Anonymous No.3485191]

hubris general

[Anonymous No.3485192]

>>3485188
>not being enlightened because of your own intelligence and not because, of some phony god's blessing
>2013

[Anonymous No.3485197]

>>3482219
He actually kind of opposes the militant atheist stuff. He just also doesn't want seven-day creationism taught in science class. I can dig that.

[Anonymous No.3485199]

>>3483570
>For every "intellectual" delusional, arrogant atheist I can give you a powr hungry, mad, fascist pope. And vice versa.
There have been a relatively small number of popes throughout history, and only some were really power hungry. There are a LOT of atheists, and I'd say probably 10% of them (just like 10% of people regardless of beliefs) are complete fucks.

So, your "for every"/"and vice versa" is probably inaccurate.

Still, I agree with the basic premise that there are assholes in any group.

[Anonymous No.3485202]

>>3485150
Literally everyone on /lit/ probably knows this.

[Anonymous No.3485207]

I don’t know if I’m the right person to be doing jokes about religion; in the past few months, I’ve become religious, I’ve started to believe in god, creationism and intelligent design, and the reason that I now believe in god and creationism and intelligent design is because of Professor Richard Dawkins. Because when I look at something as complex and intricate and beautiful as Professor Richard Dawkins, I don’t think that just could’ve evolved by chance!

[Anonymous No.3485209]

>>3485199
More like 50% of atheists are fucks.

The average person who doesn't 'believe in god' doesn't devote their effort to promulgating it as an ideology or spend time arguing with people over it.

[Anonymous No.3485217]

>>3485209
Yeah, but the average person who doesn't 'believe in god' is an atheist, even if they don't use the word, since 'someone who doesn't believe in god' is what atheist means.

I'm referring to those average people when I refer to atheists who aren't assholes.

[Anonymous No.3485218]

>>3485207
Why did you just quote the video in >>3485077 ?

[Anonymous No.3485219]

>>3485209
>or spend time arguing with people over it.
Do you really not see how necessary it is to purge the world of religious ideology, particularly Islam?

Scroll down and watch the vid:
http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/suicide-bomber-fail-mission-end-up-decapitated-street-syria/

Do you not know how lucky you are to live in a secluded western bubble of privilege where you can moan about atheists?

[Anonymous No.3485221]

atheist and antitheist are not the same thing (though one can be both)

[Anonymous No.3485225]

>>3485209
>>3485217
Even a large portion of "christians" are atheist these days.

[Anonymous No.3485227]

>>3485209

Do you have some evidence for this fucking demographic?

[Anonymous No.3485230]

>>3485218
because I never watch videos posted on 4chan without some small explanation of what they contain first

[Anonymous No.3485231]

>>3485219
Religion doesn't kill people, people do

[Anonymous No.3485228]

>>3485217
They aren't an atheist. Atheism is outright denial. The average person doesn't care enough to deny god exists. It doesn't matter to them one way or the other.

>>3485219
Nope, I'm Muslim.

I also made the thread. lel.[/thread]

[Anonymous No.3485232]

>>3485177

>this thread will be ad nauseum and still no evidence will be vomited

[Anonymous No.3485236]

>>3485232
There isn't evidence either way.
At least no evidence that we can interpret into an answer.

[Anonymous No.3485238]

>>3485228

Not denial, chap.
>atheist: if you have no evidence for any god, why should i believe there's any god?

[Anonymous No.3485242]

>>3485238
Nope.

>atheism: denying that gods/god exists

Just accept it sperglords, you affirm the non-existence of God. The average person doesn't care enough to do that.

[Anonymous No.3485243]

>>3485228
>oy vey! it was the mohammedans all along!
This "trolling" just keeps on getting better and better.

[Anonymous No.3485245]

>>3485069
I was just waiting for that.

[Anonymous No.3485247]

>>3485236
>At least no evidence that we can interpret into an answer.

I'm not so sure. I think it can be demonstrated that God was created by man to explain something beyond his comprehension. Therefore, God exists as a linguistic construct, purely created by our species.

It can also be demonstrated that something external to, and not under the description of, the laws and models of physics that we describe reality by, would be completely indescribable and wouldn't necessarily have any of the characteristics we have ascribed to it.

It can be shown that 'God', as we understand it, doesn't exist and is a linguistic creation made by man in his own image.

[Anonymous No.3485249]

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony human intelligence. But because, I am enlightened by Odin. Me, personally anointed and enlightened by Odin.

superioritylels.jpg

[Anonymous No.3485250]

>>3485247
ITT: People who can't into natural theology, german idealism or heidegger

[Anonymous No.3485251]

>>3485247
What about panentheism rather than classical theism?

[Anonymous No.3485254]

>>3485250
ITT: People who can't into Feuerbach

[Anonymous No.3485258]

>>3485242

> The theist anxiety is strong in this.
Doesn't care enough to what?

[Anonymous No.3485262]

QUESTION

I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven objectively, nor can it be disproven objectively. This is because both are subjective interpretations of the world around us.
For example:
>God does not exist because of the scientific complexity of the world around us
>God exists, haven't you seen the scientific complexity of the world around us?

Who should I read that would contradict my point of view?
Thanks

[Anonymous No.3485270]

>>3485262


>God does not exist because of the scientific complexity of the world around us
wut howda

>God exists, haven't you seen the scientific complexity of the world around us?
Assertion that the world is fantastic, therefore a designer.
If designer is fantastic, therefore a designer.

[Anonymous No.3485278]

>>3485270

>God does not exist because of the scientific complexity of the world around us

Read this guy.

[Anonymous No.3485280]

>>3485270

>wut howda
I was just demonstrating that if someone dismisses the existence of God because "science explains the complexity of the universe, we don't need to rely on made up fairy tales", that's their interpretation of the scientific facts. However a theist could also say "science shows me the complexity of the universe and I take that as evidence of a designer".
The point is both are subjective statements.
I want a thinker who has addressed/refuted this issue so I can read up on it.

[Anonymous No.3485285]

>>3485280
I was just demonstrating that if someone dismisses the existence of God because "science explains how gravity acted on my cup to smash it on the floor, we don't need to rely on made up fairy tales", that's their interpretation of the scientific facts. However a theist could also say "I don't understand that, so God smashed it."

[Anonymous No.3485291]

>>3485285

Ah I see your point! You're right but that's still relying on subjective interpretation isn't it?
For example if I was a religious person I would respond
"God created gravity lel"

[Anonymous No.3485292]

>>3485280
>However a theist could also say "science shows me the complexity of the universe and I take that as evidence of a designer".

Science doesn't show the universe to be complex enough to require a designer, that's not where the contention is. Science gives us an ever improving model that describes the entire chronology of the universe. It has been battling with the theological model to replace biblical concepts. Theological positions like flat earth, intelligent design, earth centre of the universe have been slowly eroded. The entire universe can be mathematically shown to come from nothing more complex that just hydrogen. The 'designer' is not required for the complexity, but for first cause.

[Anonymous No.3485293]

Why is this thread spammed across boards?

[Anonymous No.3485296]

>>3485293
OP's comparing how different boards respond?

[Anonymous No.3485313]

>>3485292

I understand what you're saying, but my question wasn't referring to science vs biblical concepts/ unscientific reasoning. It was about drawing subjective assumptions from objective scientific fact. Would you say that atheists make less of an assumption than theists? If so then why?
Apologies if I'm being pedantic, if it'll take too long to write then just point me in the right direction

[Anonymous No.3485344]

>>3485313
>It was about drawing subjective assumptions from objective scientific fact.

The scientific method is theoretical. The universe doesn't 'run' on the laws of physics and thermodynamics like computer code, instead scientific laws and models are there to mirror reality. They are hypothetical models that aim to be as accurate as possible. Theology doesn't rely on the scientific method at all. It cant. If a God made the universe, then the theories of science are an attempt to describe Gods wonderful work, not the other way around. You can't start with science and use it reinforce God, as science, by it's nature, is the perception of man.

You can reject the scientific method, you can ask for first cause, you can reject objective knowledge, you can claim science can never be accurate enough, but you can't say e=mc2 proves God, because that equation was created by man as a hypothetical explanation of the function of the universe. Arguably a theist could try, but it wouldn't get them anywhere. The most common argument is to misunderstand this and say e=mc2 is an objective truth, therefore God made this code for us and fine-tuned the universe.

[Anonymous No.3485353]

does /lit/ even check credibility of quotes?

[Anonymous No.3485372]

I think that theism can be criticized a lot since psychology, sociology and history, which can explain how it could be caused.

Also, omnipotence falls in contradicction, and it's clearly a human concept.

Since everything of theology are human concepts, you can criticize it, I think.


Also, I dislike atheists a lot of times for how they speak (not everybody), and Dawkins it's an example. Why should you go and treat people with hatred?
When he goes to ask people on ""The Enemies of Reason", it's like he wants to punch them in the face, and makes his posture quite agressive.


PD: Sorry for the spelling mistakes if there are

[Anonymous No.3485382]

How does he know he is enlightened?

Does he perhaps believe so?

[Anonymous No.3485386]

>>3485372
>Sorry for the spelling mistakes
You can get an ad-on for your browser that will correct your spelling for you.

[Anonymous No.3485394]

>>3485344

Thanks, very well explained. So am I correct in my understanding that proving the existence of God through science is inherently flawed? Because that's what I believe and is what I tried to say in my previous post (albeit in a hamfisted and clumsy way).
My point was that this would also imply that you can't DISPROVE the existence of God through science, since we've already established that science cannot be used as proof of God. After reading your post I understand that I was basing it on the assumption that science can be a truly objective measure, whereas you pointed out that science is a theoretical mirror of the world around us.Would I still be wrong in considering science as the closest thing to objective that we have though? Very interesting.

[Anonymous No.3485404]

Mathematics are the proof god exists.

[Anonymous No.3485405]

>>3485394

>tl;dr since science on it's own isn't enough to come to a conclusion, should we accept that this knowledge is simply beyond the realm of human understanding?

Referring to the existence of God remember, not christian superstition like the earth is flat and center of the cosmos

[Anonymous No.3485423]

>>3485405
But which one is the conception of God we should talk about?

[Anonymous No.3485459]

>>3485423

Haha! That is a very good question. So far I've been referring to God the same way judeo-christian theists would refer to God but without the additional "he died for our sins"/"wrath of God" nonsense. Mostly as a creator and all powerful being.
I guess its the most convenient way to view the issue since it's science vs christianity that has been the focus of most atheists at the moment

[Anonymous No.3485465]

>>3485394
>Would I still be wrong in considering science as the closest thing to objective that we have though?

Science is the closest thing we have to describing empirical data, but it's not infallible. It's axioms are accepted as truth, but can be refuted in certain thought experiments.

It is scientific belief that our planet is a sphere, not flat, and the scientific method accumulates more evidence and data to form a model of reality that supports this; it prevents relativism - the idea that a flat earth and a sphere are equally valid. While science can never claim objective truth (again, because certain thought experiments can conceive of situations where we are wrong) it can give a probability value for it's theories. So, 'the earth is a sphere' gets 99.9999% chance of being true, with additional supporting evidence seeing those 9's shoot further down into decimal places.

Other areas, String Theory, Dark Matter, Spontaneous Creation, Quark properties, havn't achieved a 99.99% truth value yet, which is why science continues to explore and refine theories. The reason theology isn't compatible with the scientific method is because it is an contestable faith claim.

Science shows that any Biblical miracle is incompatible with scientific models, but obviously it can't 'disprove' a creator.

[Anonymous No.3485477]

>>3483539

According to Asimov, Sagan was one of two people whose intellect surpassed his own (the other being Marvin Minsky). Do you think one of the top 2 most intelligent people is going to miss the point of atheism entirely? I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.3485482]

I don't understand Dawkin's assessment that a universe with a God would be discernible from a universe without one.

How is a transcendent being existing separately from the material universe supposed to leave footprints in the material universe?

[Anonymous No.3485483]

>>3485465
>Science shows that any Biblical miracle is incompatible with scientific models, but obviously it can't 'disprove' a creator.

[Anonymous No.3485493]

>>3485465

Thanks, although I'm sure you have your own biases you've kept your posts very well balanced, objective and informative. It's clarified the issue for me a great deal.
One last thing, could you suggest any authors who explore the relationship between science and religion as objectively as yourself? Would be much appreciated. Atheist writers seem to pander too much towards their target audience sometimes and it gets annoying. Any writer that avoids this would be great.

[Anonymous No.3485494]

>>3485482
I mean, if someone made a time machine, and was able to go back in time and ask Jesus if he were God, then Dawkins would have a point, sort of. If Jesus said no, then Christians had the wrong idea at least.

[Anonymous No.3485517]

>>3485494
Jesus never said he was god, so he WOULD say no. He was god's son and didn't want to be worshipped. On more than one occasion Jesus says his 'father is greater than I' and 'why do you call me good? only my father is good'. Most christians have it wrong, the Holy trinity is not taught in the bible, it's something thought up by man for an excuse to worship Jesus

[Anonymous No.3485521]

>>3485483

If you understood the argument contained in the image you were posting, you might notice that he only establishes that it is not necessary that a creator created the universe, not that a creator did not create the universe. The first is an easily provable argument but the second is not and is espoused chiefly by assclowns/new atheists.

[Anonymous No.3485529]

>>3485483
Where is the source of this technobabble? I want to understand a more simplified version. What if one were to say that it was a creator who determined the conditions for this reaction to take place and it was spontaneous only to us?

[Anonymous No.3485536]

>>3485517

this nigga gets it

[Anonymous No.3485541]

>>3485529

See >>3485521. The image does not argue that the evidence disproves the existence of a creator, only that one can construct an argument that explains the existence of the universe without resorting to the explanation of a creator.

[Anonymous No.3485542]

>>3485521
>If you understood the argument contained in the image you were posting, you might notice that he only establishes that it is not necessary that a creator created the universe, not that a creator did not create the universe.

This.

Also, the question of "where did the universe come from" is only of secondary importance to theistic philosophers and theologians. What they're really concerned with are existential crises related to life, death, suffering, and justice.

[Anonymous No.3485560]

>>3485517
If Jesus were God, do you think that he would have acted like it? That would have totally defeated the point of turning himself into a human.

[Anonymous No.3485575]

>>3485541
>>3485542

Rebbit atheists twist science to justify their personal agenda the same way extremist preachers twist religious scripture to recruit people to their political cause.
It's pathetic that they think themselves enlightened because of this.

[Anonymous No.3485582]

>>3485560
Jesus wasn't god... did you even read my post? He was proving to the people that he was god's son. He had to correct them and set them on the path to worship the TRUE god.

[Anonymous No.3485584]

>>3485582
The idea with the trinity is that the son is God, the father is God, and the holy spirit is God.

IE, Jesus is God, and his own father, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.3485589]

>>3485584
Just as you said "the idea". The holy trinity is not taught in the bible. Read it one day

[Anonymous No.3485590]

>>3485575

news flash: people are stupid and want other people to parrot their views 24/7. this doesn't have anything to do with god or a lack of god, it's pure groupthink and the blame for its rise to prominence has to fall pretty squarely on popular scientists such as Dawkins etc. who talk big in order to sell books.

[Anonymous No.3485602]

>>3485590
Yep.
Fuck it.
I'm gonna go make my own groupthink circlejerk.
With blackjack
And hookers

[Anonymous No.3485604]

>>3485584
Don't take it as such a simple thing. They each represent different things, united by the term God. There is a complex topology there of wibbly wobbly theology and to say they are all God, as if to say Dr. Strangelove and the President are all Peter Sellers, is erroneous.

[Anonymous No.3485609]

>>3485589
Drop the ad hominem bullshit please. I've read the Bible.

I know that the trinity is never explicitly referred to but that isn't to say that early Christians did not use scripture to justify their belief in the trinity.

To Christians, Jesus has to be God, because no ordinary human could make of himself a sin offering for humanity's imperfection.

[Anonymous No.3485613]

>>3485609
God's son could

[Anonymous No.3485621]

>>3485584

If you're accepting the trinitarian premise that Jesus is God, you may as well also accept the trinitarian premise that Jesus is a mystical hypostasis of God and Man. He doesn't "turn himself into" a human and he's not trying to act unlike God: he possessed human nature literally before humans and it was part of his Godly nature just as his Godly nature was part of his human nature.

If this doesn't make any sense to you: congratulations you're officially not mystic enough to by into the trinitarian dogma.

[Anonymous No.3485622]

>>3485609
Why does Jesus have to be god? Is god's son not enough for you? Why not stop worshiping Jesus and worship his father through his name?

[Anonymous No.3485680]

>>3485609
>read the Bible
>use it as an authority on early christians

The bible has been modified and changed and the way we see it in its present form is not necessary the way "early christians" saw it.

[Anonymous No.3485700]

Dawkins is a fucking faggot and his shitty fundamentalist attitude is only turning atheism into another religion. If you want to enlighten people, Dawkins way isn't the right way.

The right way is by educating and showing how the real story of life is way more interesting and miraculous than any religion made it out to be.

>life from a star is far more bizarre than an old bearded bloke they call god

[Anonymous No.3485721]

>>3485700
>life from a star

cool hypothesis bro.

[Anonymous No.3485725]

>>3485721
u wot m8?

[Anonymous No.3485732]

>>3485700

>"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence"

Truly, we have come full circle and are now back to where we started.

[Anonymous No.3485736]

>>3485725
what's that, pumpkin pie? cat got your tongue?

[Erudite !!RIri20o/ep/ No.3485759]

>>3485173

But it does. Maybe not for you, but that's completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3485767]

>>3485700
Careful with your "real stories", dude. All myths are somewhat real, they always speak of truths, even if we don't see that in them. Batman and Little Red Riding Hood can teach people more about themselves than a lot of things. Religious myths are cultural, they have a history and are much more complex than all that so it's only natural that we don't see the truth behind it. And then, as people say there is some truth to it, you block their thinking, all is literal, you focus on the words and not the thing. And it's not about what is more interesting and miraculous, first because that is as relative as anything else, it depends on what words you use and what do you listen when you hear certain words. Second because that doesn't make anything more or less true, or else if the truth was "boring and uninsteresting" would we deny it? To go that way is exactly something that Dawkins and others do. Not that there is anything wrong in seeing the beauty in sciences, it's a good thing, but to use it as a device to attract people is not much different than a preacher speaking well of his church. It is important to see this through a linguistic, cultural and relative lens, because the moment you point to something and call it true, even if it is(you must believe it to say it), you are already opening up the doors for misinterpretation, extremism and so on.

[Erudite !!RIri20o/ep/ No.3485778]

>>3485700

That's exactly what he does you fucking blithering retard, and it's still retarded.

[Anonymous No.3485786]

>>3485069
Please make one with TheAmazingAtheist bananaring his ass

[Anonymous No.3485795]

>>3485721

It had to be that way. It's the only way the elements essential to life coul be formed. Just knowing what nucleosynthesis is leads to this inevitable conclusion.

[sage No.3485796]

just the kind of thing i want to open up my 4chan and see

[Anonymous No.3485806]

>>3485786
Didn't make this one, this is from...
...
wait for it...
...
REBBIT

there is some drama surrounding the user who posted this, luckily i don't browse reshit so don't care

[Anonymous No.3485815]

>>3485795
splendid, one of a kind imagination you have there, son, i'll give you that.

>It's the only way
OHHHHHHHHH, so you ACTUALLY have the empirical evidence for this?

i'm waiting impatiently.

[Anonymous No.3485827]

>>3485796
>my 4chan

check your privilege

[Anonymous No.3485828]

>>3485242
pol?

[Anonymous No.3485838]

[Anonymous No.3485840]

>>3485815
Yes the empirical evidence is that only a star has the mass needed to achieve the gravitational forces necessary in order for nuclear fusion to take place.

[Anonymous No.3485850]

between this thread and the laurie penny one, I wonder if anyone here values their time

[Anonymous No.3485855]

>>3485850
>4chan
>value their time

pick one

[Anonymous No.3485887]

>>3485855
Struck a needle in my heart.
It's true.
I'm here from morning to evening.

[Anonymous No.3485893]

>>3485887
I even stopped writing since all my time is spent here.

[Anonymous No.3485895]

>>3485893
>implying your writing was worth anything to begin with

[Anonymous No.3485900]

>>3485815

What the fuck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Here, you fucking moron.

And I guess the fact that it's widely accepted by virtually every physicist and astronomer on the planet isn't enough empirical evidence either, eh?

God damn.

[Anonymous No.3485905]

>>3485840
so, there is none. that's what i thought.

but feel free to fantasize about the hypothetical cosmological implications of sheer vagueness and feeling as if you're superior to the religious folk though.

[Anonymous No.3485911]

>>3483517

Carl Sagan spent most of his life deconstructing spiritual woo and other mumbo jumbo. What Sagan means by atheist and what you mean are two very different things. If you disagree I'd suggest reading the demon haunted world.

[Anonymous No.3485915]

>>3485905

This guy.

>"I'm uneducated and proud of it!"

[Anonymous No.3485925]

>>3485900
hahahahaha

an angry STEM baby appealing to the authority and throwing fancy conceptions after conceptions after conceptions at us.

it's cute.

[Anonymous No.3485926]

>>3485108
>I'm not sure you know what an appeal to authority is,

i'm the poster you're quoting here. sorry, had class. anyway, you appealed to the authority of oxford, the royal society of literature, etc. as proof of his "intellectual level". i don't really think you understand what an appeal to authority is. you can appeal to institutions and thats perhaps the most common form of the fallacy.

>care to point out

he doesn't think philosophy should be pursued any further, but he doesn't realize the philosophical position of his preference of empirical science over certain schools of philosophy. it betrays a large ignorance of the field. his attack on religion is incredibly naive, read eagleton's essay on dawkins/religion for a good dismissal.

[Anonymous No.3485922]

>>3485905
Feel free to come up with a way to fuse atoms and prove science wrong.

[Anonymous No.3485932]

>>3485905
>I don't BELIEVE there's evidence for a thing (even though a google search will provide plenty) so therefore it doesn't exist, also I won't be satisfied with falsifiable evidence because I DON'T WANT TOO.

[Anonymous No.3485939]

>>3485925

Us? There is no us. You're alone. You're a retard, and you're alone.

[Anonymous No.3485940]

>>3485895
Indeed, implying.

[Anonymous No.3485942]

>Study Physics at UCD
>Mainly studying electrodynamics, as well as high energy physics
>Read this thread

[Anonymous No.3485950]

>>3485926

I agree to a certain extent with Dawkins about philosophy - it's largely fruitless. Sure, it can try and claim the scientific method under some vague form of epistemology but that doesn't mean it's correct in doing so. I tend to agree with Stephen Hawking on this - Scientific advancement has made philosophy redundant.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3485957]

Holy shit. He's just saying he takes his own credit for his own accomplishments, not because of some god.

>/lit/

[Anonymous No.3485959]

>>3485900
im an interloper in this conversation, and while i find you opponent's position ridiculous he technically did ask for proof that this is the ONLY explanation. what you have is a very, very compelling explanation but not the only one. note here that you can have multiple explanations that are true at the same time; one theory does not come at the expense of the other (see for example general relativity and the standard model)

also note that this debate hinges on one's definition of 'life', something that biologists even have a hard time defining (viruses are a difficult case, for example)

third, what he's asking for the the link between star --> biological life. while i myself am satisfied with the knowledge that we are made of the same chemical elements delivered from previous generations of stars (ie carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen), the fine gentleman youre debating with seems to want to be shown the whole story from point A to point B

[Anonymous No.3485967]

>>3485950
science is a direct result of philosophical thinking
and science will eventually hit dead ends which, because of its own laws, it won't be able to surmount
and then philosophy will be the only course of action

[Anonymous No.3485973]

>>3485959

General relativity and the standard model coexist as differently applied parts of the same system. They do not conflict as currently used and both were derived from the scientific method. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Anonymous No.3485981]

>>3485915
>>3485922
>>3485932
>having zero understanding and comprehension of how science actually works

please get your shit together. at the very least, give me a challenge.

i had the impression the inhabitants of /sci/ were more than comical machinery of insipid erudition, regurgitating fancy conceptions they accumulated in high school and appealing to their glorified nerds wearing white bathrobes.

[Anonymous No.3485984]

>>3485967

Philosophy is nothing but fruitless pondering. It produces nothing. It uncovers nothing. It contributes nothing. Questions it once posed have now been fully explained by modern society. Questions such as where we come from, why we behave in certain ways, why we believe certain things etc... The scope of philosophy is constantly reducing. It'll be gone before long.

[Anonymous No.3485986]

>>3485959
>definition of 'life', something that biologists even have a hard time defining

No they fucking don't. Where the fuck are you getting this shit. There's a small, tiny quanta of 'things' that exist in the grey area between 'alive', and 'not alive', and they're mostly prions and viruses.

[Anonymous No.3485989]

>>3485959

Dude, what?

>while i myself am satisfied with the knowledge that we are made of the same chemical elements delivered from previous generations of stars

But...but....

Ugh. I give up. Whatever man. Belive what you want; what matters it?

[Anonymous No.3485991]

>>3485981
Hi, I'm a physicist what are your questions I will answer them.

Also Professor Dawkins is obnoxious, but he usually right. His work on evolutionary biology has basically picked up where Darwin left off, in many ways.

[Anonymous No.3485993]

>>3485950
>it's largely fruitless

there are valid applications in politics, ai and neuroscience. but the point isn't to bow to the notion of application/utalitarianism. the point is that there are still philosophical implications to science and the idea of mindlessly appealing to man's use of nature through the method of science.

[Anonymous No.3485998]

>>3485959
>your opponent's position ridiculous

yet another brainwashed pup, unmistakably thinking we came from the stars. you know, it's so progressive and radical, man. get a fucking brain of your own, fuckwit.

what is so RIDICULOUS you find about my post, you fucking reductionist faggot? tell me.

[Anonymous No.3486006]

>>3485998
But we did come from stars, barring the potential that we have primordial Hydrogen in our bodies. What do you think _actually_ happened, and do you have scientific, peer reviewed data to challenge the theory that the atomic mass of our bodies was created in a different event.

[Anonymous No.3486009]

>>3485998

Wow.

If this guy isn't trolling it's really messing with the integrity of this board.

I mean, holy shit, I thought /lit/ was kind of intelligent overall but lately I've been having doubts.

[Anonymous No.3486015]

don't feel like reading the whole thread. what's the crux of the debate going on?

[Anonymous No.3486022]

>>3486015
An anti-intellectual slowly loses his mind and a thread full of people watch in horror as fundamental scientific theories are made false via the method of the temper tantrum of an intellectual child quite literally screaming MUH RELATIVE HUMAN-CENTRIC WORLDVIEW.

[Anonymous No.3486027]

>>3485998
cancer

[Anonymous No.3486032]

>>3486006
go back to worshiping the half-brained lawrence krause and his confederates, hunnybuns

i'm out

[Anonymous No.3486037]

>>3486032
You don't really have anything to say other than what you 'believe', do you? And that's ok for you, because you're not a rational human being and you can happily live with intellectual conflicts in your mind. Also you're a coward.

[Anonymous No.3486055]

>>3486009
>>3486027
>i can't rebut him, therefore ad hominem

dem bulletproof arguments. keep on trying and samefaging, sweet cheeks.

[Anonymous No.3486067]

>>3486037
>It's the only way
hey, i'm not the one who said it. calm the fuck down.

[Anonymous No.3486087]

>>3486055

It's only in your head that you haven't been refuted.

Sam Harris actually made an excellent point about this. When people don't value logic and reason, how are you supposed reason with them or try to persuade them with logic? It's hopeless.

[Anonymous No.3486092]

Stars make it possible for life to exist. By indirect, and direct proxy, Stars provide the chemical materials for, and the high-quality energy for the production of life. Hydrogen does not form complex, animated molecular structures by itself, and if Stars didn't exist then the Universe would be an endless expanse of elemental, or simple bonded Hydrogen.

Stars. Make. Life.

[Anonymous No.3486100]

>>3486087

sam harris is one the most wretched dudes on earth. hes a fucking walking TED talk that never shuts off

[Anonymous No.3486103]

>>3486087
>Sam Harris
oh dear god

[Anonymous No.3486112]

>>3486103

>bring up one point he made which is valid
>immediately rejects everything

Yeah. Stay anti-intellectual.

>>3486100

Might be. Don't see how that refutes the point he made at all.

[Anonymous No.3486118]

>>3486087
Too bad Sam Harris is an awful thinker.

[Anonymous No.3486126]

>>3486112
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

[Anonymous No.3486131]

>>3486112
Can you bring me up to speed on what this anti-intellectual said? I want to play, but I've got other things to do at the same time.

[Anonymous No.3486133]

>>3486126

Wow.

I even agree with Zizek.

But man. The unfounded hate here. Wow. It's so stupid it blows my mind. I just MENTION a GOOD point he made and everyone throws a tantrum.

There's a reason why I said he "actually" made a good point too, because it's fucking surprising.

[Anonymous No.3486135]

>>3486092
Imaginative. Story. Bro.

>>3486087
Also, it would be nice if you could stop using words like Logic; a subject you seemingly have zero experience in and little to no grasp of.

[Anonymous No.3486142]

>>3486135
Its basic elemental physics, please don't say 'Lol no', if you don't have an alternative theory.

[Anonymous No.3486149]

>>3486133
It's fine. I'd rather we all dogpile on a mention of Harris for fear of an apologist than let it slide with some curious lurker adding him on a book queue. Though I guess it's better that a lurker finds out on his own.

[Anonymous No.3486162]

>>3486133
Because it's a tired old point made by someone entrenched in their ideology. If people don't value what Sam Harris deems to be "logic" and "reason", i.e. don't follow his ideology, he finds it impossible to convince them of his ideology. It's an idiot's reimagining of Kierkegaard's thoughts on logic and faith.

[Anonymous No.3486166]

>>3486149

I'm just sick of it. It doesn't even matter what they say. Even if he wrote a whole book where people on /lit/ who bash him agreed with everything, they'd STILL bash him. It's just getting ridiculous, and frankly, tiresome.

[Anonymous No.3486168]

>>3486142
What is his argument. BRING ME UP TO SPEED.

[Anonymous No.3486180]

>>3486168

He hasn't given any arguments. He just laughs at the fact that stars are necessary for life.

[Anonymous No.3486181]

>>3486133
for the love of god, shut the fuck up you beggarly disgusting teenager. amalgamate the already corrupt brain cells you have left and read a book that is not a direct neoatheistic fart for the average pseudo-intellectual for a change.

[Anonymous No.3486196]

>>3486142
like I said, you fucking weeaboo,

"life from stars" is just another fancy conception, which is no different from the christian god that did it.

[Anonymous No.3486198]

>>3486181

Thanks for proving my point.

>say I agree with Zizek
>say I'm surprised Sam Harris even made a good point
>get told this

Yeah. Makes perfect sense. Retard.

[Anonymous No.3486206]

>>3486181
>being this mad because brought up Sam Harris

Chuckled.

[Anonymous No.3486214]

>>3486206
Oopsie. Forgot someone there.

[Anonymous No.3486218]

>>3486196
>"life from stars" is just another fancy conception

Yeah, it's a fancy conception in the way that 'Gravity', and 'Mass', lol they're all just fancy conceptions because my world-view is human centric, and I unironically believe the cosmos was created singularly by God for the benefit of mankind.

[Anonymous No.3486228]

Fundamentally this whole argument is about relative views of Universe, with one side believing that it is Human Centric (lol), and the other being that it is not.

[Anonymous No.3486240]

>>3486218
Or as fancy as quintessence and distilling perfections. It's all just romanticised narratives that end with "and that's why we human being are here", each as anthropocentric as anything else.

[Anonymous No.3486245]

Dawkins is just as bad as christfags. Sure, he doesn't deny climate change, evolution, etc, but he treats science as a spiritual experience. It's nauseating.

Anytime you hear someone talk about science as "discovering the truth of the universe" you should feel uncomfortable. These people have no understanding of what science even is. They're mindless followers.

[Anonymous No.3486250]

>>3486240
The difference being that things like 'Gravity', and 'Mass', and 'The creation of more complex elements in Stars' exist regardless of whether or not Human beings observe them doing it. This is the thing. The Universe does not conduct itself according to the Human beings ability to acknowledge, and conceptualize that it does it. This is what people just don't seem to grasp.

[Anonymous No.3486251]

>>3486087
>Sam Harris actually made an excellent point about this. When people don't value logic and reason, how are you supposed reason with them or try to persuade them with logic?

You think that notion originated with Harris?

Have you read a book in your life?

[Anonymous No.3486260]

>>3486250
>The difference being that things like 'Gravity', and 'Mass', and 'The creation of more complex elements in Stars' exist regardless of whether or not Human beings observe them doing it.
They're all human explanations of these things.

[Anonymous No.3486263]

>>3486245

It's a spiritual experience in the sense that it can feel amazing to understand something you've never before understood.

Haven't you ever worked on a math problem and struggled for a long time, and then felt amazing once you've finished it? This is the same "spiritual" feeling, just not supernatural.

But I guess Einstein was an idiot, too, right?
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

[Anonymous No.3486267]

>>3486260
They're relative human explanations of events which occur, the terminology and lexicon we use to describe and interpret these events does not mean that they do not occur if we do not give them names. In addition to this, any other species that exists in the entire cosmos would experience, and describe gravitation in the same way human beings would. These are why they're called fundamental laws of physics, as they are fundamental and are inherent in the structural make-up of the Universe.

[Anonymous No.3486268]

>>3486218
>it's a fancy conception in the way that 'Gravity', and 'Mass'
>can't into Hume and Kant

ok, i'm out

as always; the prejudicial ambience of half-baked intellectual dwarfs of /sci/ this evening is unsurpassed.

[Anonymous No.3486270]

>>3486263
>It's a spiritual experience in the sense that it can feel amazing to understand something you've never before understood.
>If it feels good, it's spiritual!
That's not the same thing at all. "Solving a maths problem" does not give me the same sense of awe as entering most churches.

[Anonymous No.3486274]

>>3486268
>Once again I must quote the relative experience of Human beings and their musings versus the falsifiable existence of things which are, regardless of Human interaction.

[Anonymous No.3486275]

>>3486267
>In addition to this, any other species that exists in the entire cosmos would experience, and describe gravitation in the same way human beings would.
This is anthropocentrism if ever there was.

[Anonymous No.3486276]

>>3486263
It sounds like you're worshiping science, and that quote is nothing but a feeble attempt at an appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.3486282]

>>3486270
>Solving a maths problem" does not give me the same sense of awe as entering most churches.

But stargazing can. Using a telescope to watch planets close-up for the first time can. Understanding some new phenomena for the very first time can.

And I dare say that for certain math-challenges, if they are important, they very well can. Don't you think Andrew Wiles was euphoric when he did what he did and he understood he'd nailed it? Or Einstein too, for that matter.

[Anonymous No.3486287]

>>3486276

And now I'm worshipping science and appealing to authority because I quote someone?

You people are hopeless. There's no talking to you, because everything you disagree with is wrong by default, and everyone you disagree with is a pseduo-intellectual teenager and any person you otherwise disagree with is a hack by default. There's no sense in any discourse here.

I'm out.

[Anonymous No.3486289]

>>3486275
I'm not sure if you understand the point I'm making, or am failing to make the point correctly. The objective laws of physics are applicable to all things within the domain of the Universe, my individual perception of these things is most assuredly relative unto myself. However, given that we then create independent observers of these phenomenon which do not rely on the Human observer, or we observe other entities interacting with these laws provides us falsifiable proof for their actions. We may cross-reference other entities, and their reactions, and make them observers so that we may measure their relative experience so as to not make sure our own is the only one we have. In this regard, 'entity', and 'observer' are any things which exist in the cosmos and experience the fundamental forces of applying their interactions to themselves.

[Anonymous No.3486290]

>>3486282
>Using a telescope
>He thinks our senses are to be trusted, let alone the second-hand observations via the telescope.

[Anonymous No.3486294]

>>3486287
>And now I'm worshipping science and appealing to authority because I quote someone?
I don't know how you inferred that. Maybe you should go back to reading school.

[Anonymous No.3486297]

>>3486282
>But stargazing can.
It will do this whether I am singing "We are all made of stars" to myself or not.

>Don't you think Andrew Wiles was euphoric when he did what he did and he understood he'd nailed it?
Euphoria isn't the same thing as the sublime or the spiritual, and further to that I'm sure Wiles was just happy enough not to have locked himself away for years for nought. Sometimes in mathematics, yes you can have sublime experience I guess, but that's associated with a feeling of mysticism in my experience. Like the close equalities in the monster, you get a feeling something's there but it's incomprehensible and out of reach. And this feeling is at odds with scientism.

[Anonymous No.3486301]

>>3486289
>The objective laws of physics
What are these when they're at home?

[Anonymous No.3486308]

>>3486301
They're the laws of physics which apply to every single thing that exists in the Universe independent of human observation. Whether or not you believe the Universe is tending towards disorder does not mean that the Universe is not tending towards disorder.

[Anonymous No.3486321]

>>3486308
>They're the laws of physics which apply to every single thing that exists in the Universe independent of human observation.
You're repeating yourelf: the objective laws of physics are objective laws of physics. Clear as mud.

[Anonymous No.3486328]

>>3486321
Are you asking me for the specific laws? I.e. Measurement Principles, the Forces, etc?

[Anonymous No.3486337]

>>3486328
I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.3486363]

>>3486337
I've clarified it several times in this thread, and the absolute best way is to continue to give examples.

Planets orbit Stars due to gravitation, independent of the Human Observer.
Charge is passed via proton gradients, independent of the Human Observer.
Light Travels at a certain speed in a Vacuum across the cosmos, independent of the Human Observer.
The Laws which govern all of the Cosmos continue to govern all of the Cosmos, independent of the Human Observer.
In this regard they exist in an objective state, independent of the Human observer.

[Anonymous No.3486368]

>>3486308
>>3486328
ahhh what a delight it is to watch baby-physicists struggling to conceal their evident ineptitudes of abstract thinking

[Anonymous No.3486376]

>>3486368
Its often hard to convey concepts in formats which are not based purely in mathematical forms, if you want me to get the fucking math for them I will and you can have fuck grappling with that.

[Anonymous No.3486380]

>>3486368
>>3486337

Not him, but what the fuck are you getting at? He's made his point. What's your counter argument?

[Anonymous No.3486390]

>>3486368
>Once again I think that my relative human existence defines the entire fucking cosmos, and refuse to accept the independent machinations of physics and attempt to inject my pseudo-intellectual bullshit in falsifiable theorem. I have been spoon-fed relativism all my life, and cling to it like a fucking child because I actually, unironically believe that opinions and facts are interchangeable, this is what relativism has tough me.

[Anonymous No.3486399]

>>3486380
He doesn't have one, he's clearly trolling or is some sort of hilarious idiot.

[Anonymous No.3486403]

>>3486308
>They're the laws of physics which apply to every single thing that exists in the Universe independent of human observation.
See
>>3485465

[Anonymous No.3486413]

Holy fuck is someone in this thread trying to apply subjective relativism to the laws of physics. I wanna see this.

[Anonymous No.3486414]

>>3486403
>See
>>3485465
and
>>3485344

[Anonymous No.3486416]

>>3486399
Maybe he's suggesting that natural philosophers forget the basics of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3486436]

Science isn't about truths, it's about making our beliefs less false. And science doesn't make itself out to be anything else than that either. It just claims to make the best humanly possible estimations at least.

[Anonymous No.3486442]

>>3486414
Please don't snag me on a semantic. There are variations, and our theorem are always 'best possible solutions', theories and structural analysis of the laws of physics are constantly evolving, yes. However, the point I was making wasn't necessarily that these laws are infallible, its that they exist regardless of whether or not human beings observe them. Even if the laws change, if the math is wrong and has to be re-written and a better theory comes along, it just means the law is modified. But these variances still exist independent of the human observer. A good example of this would be synthetic super-heavy elements. They do not exist in nature, but given that they were created artificially means that the laws of physics allowed for their creation in a specific set of circumstances, regardless of whether or not Humans made them exist.

[Anonymous No.3486444]

I don't understand why God puts these thoughts into Richard Dawkins head, or why God and Richard Dawkins are playing this hide and seek game with each other, but then again, why should I expect to understand that?

[Anonymous No.3486447]

>>3486436
As I said, didn't say 'Science' was infallible, I said the phenomenon it attempts to describe exist regardless of whether or not we describe them.

[Anonymous No.3486453]

>>3486447

Precisely.

[Anonymous No.3486462]

>>3486442
>There are variations, and our theorem are always 'best possible solutions', theories and structural analysis of the laws of physics are constantly evolving, yes.
Doesn't sound objective to me.

>But these variances still exist independent of the human observer.
No they don't. No one else is modifying or claiming these "objective laws", they are based upon human observations and thought.

[Anonymous No.3486467]

>>3486462
the physical laws aren't objective; intuitive at best.

[Anonymous No.3486477]

>>3486447
I one sense the phenomena do exist, but in another sense they do not.

"the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

[Anonymous No.3486485]

>>3486462
>>3486467
The Universe does not change its dynamics when Human beings change their theories. The theories change to accommodate the Universe. In this regard our understanding of the Universe changes, but the Universe itself does not, because it had always incorporated that individual element of whatever theory it is we're changing. The law, written or unwritten, perceived or not perceived exist objectively, and independent of the Human observer.

[Anonymous No.3486496]

>>3486485
>circular fallacies everywhere

[Anonymous No.3486510]

>>3486485
What about your theory that fundamental universal laws exist?

[Anonymous No.3486511]

>>3486496
Not really. The point he's making is that when a tree falls in the woods, all of the events which make a 'sound' occur regardless of whether or not someone hears it. That's not a logical fallacy it all.

[Anonymous No.3486527]

>I am enlightened by my intelligence

[Anonymous No.3486536]

>>3486510
Because they do, even if we don't necessarily define them, or if our perception of them is wrong. If the Universe does something unexpected, then that doesn't mean the Universe is wrong to do them, it means we were wrong to say it wouldn't, or couldn't do that. All of these things, documented or undocumented exist as a function of the Universe. In fact the very existence of the Universe, and its functions, its defining characteristics are proof of the fact that it most adhere to values which define it.

[Anonymous No.3486542]

>>3486511
"sound" is a human concept and lives only in the mind.

See>>3486477


what the fuck are you fags arguing about, anyways? I don't think everyone's on the same page.

[Anonymous No.3486549]

>>3486536
>Because they do, even if we don't necessarily define them, or if our perception of them is wrong. If the Universe does something unexpected, then that doesn't mean the Universe is wrong to do them, it means we were wrong to say it wouldn't, or couldn't do that.
Like the universe following fundamental universal laws.

[Anonymous No.3486562]

Dawkins thinks how he feels is an argument against God.

>laughingwhores.jpg

[Anonymous No.3486564]

>>3486511
his reasoning is circular. your analogy doesn't make it more objective though; it's still intuitive.

[Anonymous No.3486571]

>>3486542
>"sound" is a human concept and lives only in the mind.

Yes, that's fine. The Human Concentric concept of 'Sound' is a relative human experience. For sure, but that does not mean that the events which create the 'Sound' do not occur. They do.

[Anonymous No.3486579]

>>3486564
Causality is not circular, it's causal.

[Anonymous No.3486587]

>>3486579
It's also only seen in retrospect.

[Anonymous No.3486583]

These fuckers make science look bad, especially for the people who'd gain from it.

How's that smart in any way?

Being cocky about things serious scientists approach more subtly and scorning simple people for functioning a different way while making the food we all eat is just an absolute lack of manners.

Dawkins is a fucking moron, Hitchens is a fucking moron. I don't give a fuck who's an atheist and who's Christian or anything. Just don't be fucking stupid whichever side you're on.

[Anonymous No.3486593]

>>3486579

Don't mention causality mate, you'd get fucked in the ass by Saint Thomas and his Cosmological Argument which no atheists dare tackle, Dawkins and Hitchens least of all. And I mean the real thing, not the strawman version.

Fucking cancer.

[Anonymous No.3486596]

>>3486579
his logical method of reasoning and explanation is circular, not his goddamn point.

[Anonymous No.3486604]

>>3486596
That doesn't make his point less valid, sorry. If you've resolved his solution, despite disagreeing with his method, and continue to argue a non-point, then you're just being a dick, aren't you.

[Anonymous No.3486611]

>>3486593
Few Physicists think that there was nothing before the big bang, or that there wasn't a spatial event on some sort of higher order of dimension that didn't create it. They're not trying to escape causality, I guess, but sure it's a question for greater minds.

[Anonymous No.3486613]

>>3486604
>That doesn't make his point less valid, sorry.
Does in my eyes. This is fundamentally a matter of faith, just like anything else.

[Anonymous No.3486618]

>>3486604
he's still wrong.

[Anonymous No.3486623]

>>3486613
"I like 1+1=2, but do not like 3-1=2, therefore I will argue against it."

[Anonymous No.3486633]

>>3486618
No, he's not. The Universe exists independent of the Human observer, sorry.

[Anonymous No.3486649]

>>3486611
>the big bang
Can we be adults for once and call it the First Cause?

There might have been no bang whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.3486651]

>>3486623
This is what a lot of maths and science involves, yeah.

[Anonymous No.3486655]

>>3486649
Sure if you want, but its just generally still referred too as 'The Big Bang' in common nomenclature, and we can at least likely agree that the Universe originated from a singularity point.

[Anonymous No.3486658]

>>3486649
It's been proven to be a fart. A Big Fart.
bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

[Anonymous No.3486662]

>>3486651
I understood him perfectly fine, and what he was talking about though.

[Anonymous No.3486666]

>>3486623
I remember that argument. So, you want 1=1 as an axiom?

"Welcome to planet earth, human. Unfortunately, despite it looking three dimensional to you, we are actually in a non-euclidean five dimensional reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 1=1 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation meant that items we were using for reference, like 1 cat = 1 cat, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of particles spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't detect. Here in reality 1 is never 1. Also, despite you thinking you are here, you are actually a simulation of a brain created by us. You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have our best researchers trying to understand your perceived map of reality though. "

[Anonymous No.3486673]

ITT theists try to vaguely apply their relativism, and opinions to physics then argue with people more intelligent about why they're right, and physics is wrong because muh relativism.

[Anonymous No.3486687]

Dawkins is that kind of guy who, before the invention of the microscope, would have laughed at you for claiming that bacteria and viruses make you sick.

Inb4 mad atheistards who can't comprehend the meaning behind this image.

[Anonymous No.3486691]

>>3486666
The mathematical fallacy of 1=1 is not an error, but the axiom changes depending on the required mathematical standpoint.

[Anonymous No.3486699]

>>3486687
Atheists don't make unfounded claims, they place the Burden of Proof where it belongs; With the origin of the statement. Your reasoning is flawed because if Dawkins was a true Atheist he would change his relative opinion based on new falsifiable evidence. In fact you know what, YOU'D do the same thing he would apparently do in a similar case, because YOU would also place the Burden of Proof with the individual who made the statement.

[Anonymous No.3486708]

>>3486699
>Atheists don't make unfounded claims

[Anonymous No.3486712]

>>3486708
Sweet counterpoint, dude.

[Anonymous No.3486718]

>>3486708
Their claims are no less absurd than the core idea they rally against, your point is both moot and fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.3486724]

>>3486718
So they're basically the same idiot, pulling at the other end of the rope?

[Anonymous No.3486725]

The only claims an atheist makes is that there is no reason to believe in God. What is unfounded?

[Anonymous No.3486728]

>>3486708
>A magical sky father made all things!
>Sounds reasonable.
>A magical sky father did not make all things!
>OH WOW YOU'RE FUCKING INSANE, HOLY SHIT GET A LOAD OF THIS GUY LMAO.

This is what you actually believe.

[Anonymous No.3486733]

>>3486724
Except one of them must be correct, and shit like Pascal's Wager doesn't come close to resolving it.

[Anonymous No.3486758]

>>3486728
Creation by an omnipotent existence sounds more likely than NOTHING EXPLODED AND THEN THINGS RANDOMLY HAPPENED AND THERE WAS EVERYTHING. The humanizing of such a being does seem a bit silly, however.

[Anonymous No.3486766]

>>3486733
>Except one of them must be correct
>law of excluded middle

[Anonymous No.3486774]

>>3486758
Except that Atheism does not replace one magical event with another, because Atheism has no doctrine other than the core tenant of non-belief in a Human-defined God as put forth by a Bible. The Atheist may subjectively believe in any number of theories other than the one you laid out -- However Theists completely unironically do believe the Universe was created by a magical sky father. You should probably not use image macros from /b/ as a basis for a counterpoint.

[Anonymous No.3486788]

>>3486766
Lol, hey man I'm not necessarily saying God does not obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics, but I do believe its going to be a binary outcome. If he existed at one point, or at all points in the span of life of the Universe then the answer is 1, a 1 which has many definitions. But if he never existed, in any form at any point in any place in the Universe then then answer would, by all accounts be 0.

[Anonymous No.3486794]

>>3486571
I mean... so what's your point?

[Anonymous No.3486799]

>>3486794
He made his point a long time ago that the Universe exists regardless of whether or not Humans say it does.

[Anonymous No.3486804]

>>3486666
Haha did you copypasta that from the thread on moral axioms, or was it copypasta before that?

[Anonymous No.3486806]

>>3486673
I haven't seen anyone arguing in favor of theism here. Could be a false dichotomy?

[Anonymous No.3486808]

>>3486804
>Moral axioms

pls

[Anonymous No.3486811]

>>3486733
>and shit like Pascal's Wager doesn't come close to resolving it.

“So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
― Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.3486814]

>>3486811
I don't take on Pascal's Wager, personally, but I'm entirely aware of the irony that Gnostic Atheism requires 'Faith'. Actually, has Dawkins defined himself as a Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist?

[Anonymous No.3486818]

>>3486808
Yeah, it was mostly just an argument regarding the definition of the word 'axiom'.

ax·i·om noun \ˈak-sē-əm\

Definition of AXIOM

1
: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2
: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3
: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
See axiom defined for English-language learners »
See axiom defined for kids »

There can be axioms in any field, according to the definition of the term. There CAN be, I didn't say there ARE or even, necessarily, that there should be.

Let's not start this retarded argument again. (ie 'troll me, troll me hard baby'_

[Anonymous No.3486825]

>>3486799
see >>3486477

It just seems like... maybe this argument is based on poorly defined terms.

Other than that, it seems like everyone in this thread has their pants on the wrong end of their bodies.

[Anonymous No.3486828]

>>3486818
I have no intention of even trying. But ugh, I guess if you accept human relativism as a foundation as a kind of core axiom in a philosophical sense, i.e. you accept that arbitrary social concepts are 'real' then you can begin pulling 'Moral Axioms' out of your ass all day long.

[Anonymous No.3486835]

>>3486825
Basically someone applied human social relativism to principles which can be falsified by an observer entity that is not a human being i.e. a machine, or entity which is under the affects of a Universal 'Law' of Physics and the thread exploded and like 5 people died.

[Anonymous No.3486838]

>>3486828
Right, the argument was simply over whether or not it's possible.

If I were to argue in favor of *attempting* to do so, then it would be based off the idea that reason without clearly defined terms, assumptions, etc... is meaningless. And furthermore I might argue that reason without axioms is ... dumb. I do think there are certain things that reasonable people could agree upon, but whatevs.

[Anonymous No.3486841]

>>3486814
Everything requires faith. You have to believe in things that aren't true to make them reality.

[Anonymous No.3486843]

>>3486835
I don't think that's what happened. I think both sides are just dumb.

[Anonymous No.3486862]

>>3486838
I think what's important there would be the end point, yeah? Ok we can say that the source point for 'Concept A' is, shaky, and circular at best -- However, the end result of 'Concept A' is perceived to be a net positive for the group, by the group regardless of whether or not there is an inherent 'Objective' truth to it.

[Anonymous No.3486865]

>>3486843
No, no, that is basically what happened and it was like the holocaust because it resulted in a whole lot of 'Muh Relativism', vs. 'Muh Physics'.

[Anonymous No.3487032]

>>3486865
Yeah, but the physics side is dumb for not understanding cogito ergo sum, etc, and the relativism side is dumb for making such terrible arguments.