[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 536x124, 2014-12-10_19-06-33.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5844518 No.5844518[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/lit/, what do you think of these self-described "skeptics" and "free-thinkers" that usually also call themselves "humanists" and almost always align themselves on the left? I guess they are synonymous with the New Atheist movement.

>> No.5844539

He's right.

Faith in the face of facts to the contrary isn't faith. It's stubbornness.

>> No.5844544

>>5844518
/lit/ - literature

>> No.5844549

>>5844518

I think they are right in their idea that the holy books have made a lot of claims that were torn apart by scientific discoveries and that this is a really pertinent argument against the authenticity of abrahamic religions

i think they are wrong in their belief that this has any power of killing religious belief as a concept


they are entry level intellectuals with colossal hubris which makes them sort-of-annoying-i-guess but they ultimately don't matter and i really don't understand why people feel so threatened by them

>> No.5844551

>>5844544
/thread

>> No.5844552

>>5844518
>>5844539
But what facts is he referring to? Is talking about the existence of God specifically? Because in that case, there isn't any evidence for or against. If he's talking about scripture, there may be more evidence against. But the New Atheist movement is shit. I went through a profound "militant" atheist phase, and I'm glad I'm over it. This comment will probably derail the thread, but if you are an Atheist, you need to realize you're taking the same leap of faith that a religious person is. There is no evidence either way. It's a metaphysical issue, and we live in a physical world. I think agnosticism is the most moderate answer, even though everyone calls it a cop out.

>> No.5844555

>>5844544
I see more controversial literature threads get deleted than all of these fucking threads that have nothing at all to do with literature.

>> No.5844557

Read The Closing of the American Mind if you want to know about the current academic trends of thinking, especially among self described free thinkers or humanists as you said.

>> No.5844561

>>5844549
>hubris
heh

>> No.5844568

>>5844552
>>5844539
If you want to go in-depth about it, nothing is provable. In fact, the most philosophically sound argument is Idealism: there is literally no counter for it.

But in refusing to take a side, what are we reducing ourselves to?

We have to have an argument. There has to be an argument. There is an answer, so why not argue about it?

>> No.5844572

>>5844549
>they are entry level intellectuals with colossal hubris which makes them sort-of-annoying-i-guess but they ultimately don't matter and i really don't understand why people feel so threatened by them
Thank you. This made me feel better about how much I can't stand them.

>>5844552
I also went through a "militant" atheist phase and I agree with you completely.

>> No.5844573

>>5844552
I'd wager that most of /lit/ would agree with this actually. Might be my observation bias, but I probably would have written something similar to this if you hadn't

>> No.5844575

>>5844552
The entire bases for every religion is false. Pretty damning evidence.

>> No.5844579

>>5844552
You would then say that you are Agnostic towards the possibility of there being a giant Unicorn on whose horn the world is spinning, but that is invisible and all powerful.

>> No.5844582

>>5844568
I'm not saying there isn't, or that I never take sides, but I also realize that I can't prove my ideas and that they will probably change over time.

But what's wrong with reducing ourselves to something? Why do you we have to have an argument? Why do you think there's an answer, etc. etc.

I think living an examined life and thinking about these at some point is important, but eventually I think we should realize that we most likely aren't going to get answers to these questions. That's okay though. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking them, but hell, you could also live without asking them and probably do alright.

>> No.5844583
File: 319 KB, 314x314, Cheers - Ryan Gosling.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5844583

>>5844568
>In fact, the most philosophically sound argument is Idealism: there is literally no counter for it.

Someone actually understood Plato on /lit/?

This is a first.

>> No.5844584

>>5844552
russell's teapot

>> No.5844587

>>5844552
>>5844572
You guys don't hate the atheists; you hate yourselves and project it onto them.

>> No.5844589

>>5844575
Not false, unprovable. Unless you are talking about certain historical events or something. I'm assuming you are talking about believing in afterlife, God, etc.

>> No.5844593

>>5844579
>>5844584
I honestly don't know how you read that post and don't see that it goes the other way for atheism or any philosophy.

>> No.5844597

>>5844587
What?
>ctrl+f hate
>only your post

>> No.5844598

>>5844561

yeah that was an obvious response

but i always substantiate my arguments and they're open to rebuttals, and i make an effort not to be a defensive dick and accept defeat when it's due.

new atheism is a tribe mentality. their hubris is collective.

>> No.5844605

>>5844518
But many of the leading figures of new atheism are actually neo-conservatives, not leftists.

>> No.5844610

>>5844587

All criticism isn't projection.

You've a child's understanding of the term.

>> No.5844611

>>5844582
I'm not saying you even have to believe in the side you're taking, just that you take a side. The point here is to foster discussion: if you have the ability to be a Devil's Advocate, take it. If someone is vehemently set against something you believe in, all the better: prove that person unequivocally wrong.

If Nietzsche was right about one thing, it was that Humanity needs conflict, thrives in it. People can argue against that all they'd like, but even in doing so they prove themselves wrong. It is the only true way to foster knowledge.

>> No.5844614

>>5844589
No, I'm talking about the cute little fictions of parthenogenisis , burning bushes, bullrush orphans, eve eating some fruit, satan's fall, sin, noah's son seeing some dick and every other fundamental basis for modern, western religion. It's bullshit.

>> No.5844616

>>5844587
Well, yeah, I do hate myself but I also hate them. I'm not projecting at all. My health was really damaged and ruined by modern medicine and these people would tell me that I'm a hypochondriac or something because they worship modern medicine and medical doctors. So I hate them.

>> No.5844623

>>5844611
Yeah, I like this. That's pretty much how I take these arguments. Practices in argumentation, instead of a real quest for an answer. Socrates would probably fucking hate me.

>> No.5844625

>>5844610
>You've a child's understanding of the term.

I saw this quaint "rebuttal" coming.

>> No.5844626

>>5844593
I don't believe in what can't be proven, if it is proven i can believe in it, if it can´t be proven in any way, as religion is and the teapot is, there is nothing to gain from saying that it may or may not exist.
And i'm also no longer interested in the religion debate as i was previously, and don't really care for this atheists, but that doesn't mean i should not still consider myself one, if there truly isn't a single argument for the existence of god.

>> No.5844630

What do you think of these self-described "skeptics" and "free-thinkers" who call themselves "Hellenists"?

>> No.5844634

>>5844614
Alright. I would agree. Honestly though I don't think there was much need to post this though. Most people, including a lot of non fundamentalist or conservative Christians would agree.

But the stories really have no impact on the metaphysical questions. At all. Even if we knew the person who made this stuff up actually believed he was making it up, there would still be a possibility that it exists. But this goes both ways unfortunately.

>> No.5844637

>>5844584
You do realize Russell wrote a lil' thing titled "A Free Man's Worship"? I wouldn't cite him as an argument against faith in atheism.

People try to present Russell as some sort of logic machine, but the man's all feels.

>> No.5844641

>>5844637
It doesn't invalidate the teapot argument though

>> No.5844643

>>5844623
Law student?

>> No.5844644

>>5844552
YUO CAN'T KNOW

>> No.5844647

>>5844641
Which doesn't invalidate the proposition that atheism requires faith.

Which uh... is what you were responding to with the teapot.

>> No.5844656

>>5844647
How does it require faith? Faith in what? What is the basis for that proposition?

>> No.5844657

>>5844634
>But the stories really have no impact on the metaphysical questions.

Yeah, except for the fact that they are the entire basis for the belief system. Tiny consideration, I know.

>> No.5844661

>>5844593
because when a person makes a claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence for that claim

agnosticism being some kind of rational middle ground between atheism and religion is literally just the south park fallacy

>> No.5844664

>>5844656
faith that they can provide no evidence to prove their delusional belief ina higher power
get wrekt christians

>> No.5844666

>>5844643
I wish. I've been convinced it probably isn't something I should go after at this point in my life though. Law seems very rough right now.

>> No.5844669

>>5844518
In my experience, free thinkers are almost always kind and thoughtful people. I really don't understand the animosity for them on places like 4chan; maybe they're being mistaken for the militant atheist "fedora crowd" that goes around insulting believers?

>> No.5844671

>>5844661
whats the south park fallacy?

>> No.5844672
File: 21 KB, 240x240, kierkegaard-ensom-web2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5844672

What's going on in this thread?

>> No.5844674

>>5844656
Faith that there will never in the future ever be evidence of an eternal God.

That's more faith than I have.

>> No.5844676

>>5844555
so what, this isn't lit

>> No.5844680

>>5844671
truth is in the middle

>> No.5844682

>>5844539
People see facts differently. If you don't believe me, ask any prosecutor, in any jurisdiction, ever.

>> No.5844685

>>5844657
For some people they are, but read the rest of the post. A lot of people are moving away from these interpretations because how fucking weak is your faith if it's all based on whether or not somebody performed a miracle? It also has nothing to do with the metaphysical problems.

Some people might say if they don't believe in these things they aren't "true Christians" or whatever they say, but this is the reality of how some sects of religion are changing.

>> No.5844686

>>5844549
Not one. Not one single hole.

The bible is the anvil upon which many hammers have been broken.

>> No.5844688

>>5844656
There is no evidence that can prove there is no god, negative propositions are not falsifiable as proving a "not-thing" is nonsensical.

Ergo, if you're really going to be an atheist and propose there isn't any sort of deity or deities that requires going beyond the evidence and facts available. And beyond those unavailable, given the proposition.

The best word to describe that is faith.

Of course you can simply be non-concerned with the question, but that's a different proposition.

>> No.5844693

any movement that "claims" something before it ever makes an argument or explains what the fuck its actually saying

"free thinker"
>hurr durr if you are not a free thinker you are a retard
"femanist"
>hurr durr if you dont accept my flavor of equality and "femanism" then you hate women, no counter arguments allowed
"pro-life"
>hurr durr how can you be anti life

>> No.5844697

>>5844685
It's always been about one person reconciling with God. Everyone will stand before God to give an answer for their life.

Mine will be that He is my Lord, and I know He lives.

What will yours be? That there "wasn't enough evidence?"

Do you have any concept of how weak that defense is? Literally the defense of ignorance of the Law?

>> No.5844698

>>5844676
I got freaked out for a second and thought I was on /mu/ posting in the wrong thread.

>> No.5844705

>>5844698
this is /x/. deal with it.

>> No.5844709

>>5844518
same thing I think about these self-described "non-sheeples" on /pol/

>> No.5844710

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

>> No.5844717

>>5844697
Ok. Wait, I'm not understanding how this goes against what I said? Except that I would then be rejected by God if I went by this reasoning.

I'm sorry I must not be understanding. It sounds like you agree that believing in God would be the most important thing. Aren't you?

>> No.5844720

>>5844688

>Of course you can simply be non-concerned with the question, but that's a different proposition.

I have never seen someone wreck their own case so elegantly.

>> No.5844721

>>5844688
believing that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence isn't faith, it's the default position for a reasonable person

>> No.5844722

>>5844710
Just because we don't have the evidence, or cannot get the evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evidence will only help us to KNOW that it exists. Metaphysical things could exist but we would never be able to know because they are outside our physical world. This isn't the same as unicorns, unless we are thinking of unicorns as metaphysical and existing outside our realm.

>> No.5844728

>>5844688
I'll be an Atheist until such requirements are met. I won't believe in Religion until there is proof it is to be believed, that there is something behind those proofs. I don't have faith they don't exist, I simply can't know, and probably there aren't, because there is nothing to tell me there is.

>> No.5844730

>>5844721
It isn't a default position. You would be born secular, not Atheist, Agnostic, or religious. Each one is not default, as it requires a position.

>> No.5844735

>>5844722
why would you choose to believe in the existence of something that doesn't have evidence to support it's existence?

>> No.5844736

>>5844722
Who says they aren´t, everything is possible in this realm that doesn't require proof to exist

>> No.5844741

>>5844735
I wouldn't, but it doesn't mean I'm right. Having evidence is how we determine something scientific in the physical world, but metaphysical issues are separate from our world and aren't provable. There's a very weird distinction though between things that we don't know and can't prove, and the things that are unknowable and metaphysical.

>> No.5844744

>>5844736
It is. But in the physical realm, we don't have enough evidence to believe they exist in any real way. Science can't prove they exist. I think you're assuming I'm taking a certain position just because I'm arguing for something.

>> No.5844766

>>5844744
How can i believe in something that is not physical? when time and time again all those ideas we attributed to a supposed metaphysical reality, or existence, have been pretty much debunked. We know that the brain is a series of circuits and that consciousness is just a representation of different stimulus in the brain.
It is not a matter of not not having enough, it is a matter of not having any evidence at all to support that idea. I'll be more than happy to accept it as long as there is some basis other than some guy said it was

>> No.5844772

>>5844766
>doesn't believe in time

>> No.5844774

>>5844741
that's just avoiding the question, of course there are things that cannot be proven or disproven metaphysically. If such things exist then we obviously do not have the capacity yet to understand or comprehend it. If that is true, then why bother taking a position that is "whatever i can imagine must exist at some point in space time, thus you can't say I'm wrong and it doesn't exist" It's because it has no added benefit to the things we do know exist and advancing our species. Right now the people who have most sway on the "metaphysical" debate are those of the Abrahamic religions who claim to know oh so much yet were created thousands of years ago when we knew jack of shit even more so.

>> No.5844775

>>5844766
Idk, people choose to do it. They have nothing to go on, but they do. But no, they haven't been debunked wtf are you talking about? How can we debunk the metaphysical in a physical world? They are completely separate and from what we can tell, can't interact.

And that's fine, I think it's the best we can do. I don't think we're in disagreement about what we should probably be taking as evidence. I just think claims that these things are impossible is taking it a step too far.

>> No.5844776

>>5844518
This isn't a religious board, faggot.

And this isn't 'new', you're just now turning 17 you colossal cunt

>> No.5844789

>>5844657
The basis of the belief system of Christianity is that Jesus atoned for all sin.

>> No.5844795

>>5844774
>If such things exist then we obviously do not have the capacity yet to understand or comprehend it.
This was my point.

>If that is true, then why bother taking a position that is "whatever i can imagine must exist at some point in space time..
ffs Why do you think I'm taking that position? Because I'm arguing that it's possible whether I believe it or not? And this has been my point through the thread. It is because it's silly and adds no benefit that it really shouldn't trouble us. Thinking about it at all and understanding these things is important, but hoping for an answer seems silly.

In response to the Abrahamic religions, I don't care if they have the most sway or get the most people to believe what they say. Doesn't make them right. Doesn't make them wrong for believing in a God, but a lot of those people have chosen a position of certainty, which I think is silly. I can't say wrong, because that would undermine my argument, but I think it's silly.

>> No.5844797

>>5844674
I'd like to know what atheists you're reading who posit atheism as necessary and eternal.

>> No.5844798

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_and_the_Big_Bang_theory

>> No.5844801

>>5844798
nice contribution. i'm sure it made a lot more sense to you than it did to us.

>> No.5844805

>>5844776
>Implying /lit/ isn't a meme board

>> No.5844811

>>5844801
>>5844772
I was answering to that guy, but had some problem with the captcha and it ended up showing as a lone comment

>> No.5844828

>>5844775
I ain't saying they are impossible, i'm saying that right now, that is the most sensible position to take. No evidence, no fun. If there is will adapt to it, but until then, what's the point in the limbo agnostics are putting themselves in. There was a phrase that went something like (and i'm both paraphrasing and translating) Agnostics are just Atheists full of fear.

>> No.5844861

>>5844795
I'm not saying you are wrong, but your position of ambivalence allows people of faith to justify any stupid idea that they have because "you can't prove me wrong". Of course i can't but their metaphysical beliefs do affect their physical actions. I'm happy for them to believe and act however they want in their personal life, but when you give credence to them, people in positions of power who also hold the same beliefs like to impose them on everyone else.