[ 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: 76 KB, 510x332, p17i1j099mjqp1s3d18b0o1e1beq0_98657.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5969775 No.5969775 [Reply] [Original]

What is wrong with atheism? I don't mean scientism, I don't mean the hatred of religion, and I don't mean being pointlessly edgy, rebellious, or provocative. Simply the idea of not believing in any kind of God.

>> No.5969809

Absolutely nothing.

>> No.5969811

Not much, just that it, just like any proposition, is incomplete

>> No.5970599

It's dull and boring

>> No.5970608

If you truly think there is nothing more to life than you simply flitting in and out of existence and enjoying the ride while you can, and you don't have a problem with this, you're a retarded fucking faggot and I'll kill you.

>> No.5970611

Everything.

>> No.5970640

>>5970608
>>5970611
Tell me what's wrong with it

>> No.5970652
File: 203 KB, 580x376, k.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5970652

>>5970640

>> No.5970656

>>5970608
Come fight me about it bro

>> No.5970658

>>5970640
I don't have to, Satan will tell you at the gates.

>> No.5970659

Nothing. But it more than likely goes with those other things nowadays

>> No.5970666

>>5970659
Not really.

>> No.5970668

>>5970608
>confusing nihilism with atheism

>> No.5970670

>>5969775
There's nothing wrong with Nietzsche or Hume style atheism.

It's the Dawkins shit that's poisonous.

>> No.5970672

>>5970656
From Nora's farts I shitpost at thee

>> No.5970980

>>5970659
I propose the majority of atheists do not fall under those other categories. The other things are merely the ones who are vocal. Like religious extremists, it's who gets pointed to when the attempt is made to criticize without thinking too hard. Like the majority of the religious, the majority of atheists are trying to live a life as best they can.

>>5970658
I sure hope he can explain it.

>> No.5970983

>>5970608

>ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!

ftfy

>> No.5971075

>>5969775
It's unprovable and unscientific. If there is no God and there never was one, that is not something you will be able to ever justify. It is a leap of faith to say that there isn't one as if you could justify the claim. When parsimony is followed dogmatically, it is as repulsive as the zealotry found in fundamentalism.

Is it really that fucking hard to say you don't know? Do you feel so important that you need to weigh in on everything, to have stupid beliefs about every aspect of life?

>> No.5971080

so many books being discussed in this thread

>> No.5971082

>>5971075

So do you still believe in Santa Claus?

>> No.5971095

>>5971082
No, but there is a large body of evidence supporting the fact that Santa Claus is a fictional character.

There is no evidence that there is not a God. A large portion of the universe is unobserved and unobservable, we have no conception of how things might work outside of our universe, if there is one, and there are serious conceptual flaws with materialism when one considers abstract objects.

Saying that you don't believe in a specific God is different than the claim that there is no God.

Atheism is the latter.

>> No.5971100

what's wrong with hating religion? it's stupid and completely irrelevant. freedom of religion in secular western states is the most worthless freedom that deserves to be eroded out of the constitution.

>> No.5971101

>>5971075
>It's unprovable and unscientific
seriously, fucking stop with this retarded horse shit

you don't understand the metaphysical consequences of what you say

>> No.5971103

>>5971075
Personally, I take the theory of atheism to be that all that is can exist within itself, thus leaving out the question of god or not. Obviously, I'm not making a claim to knowledge, I'm presenting a hypothesis as to the nature of the multiverse, which so happens to exclude god.

You're right, but the problem is only that if one tries to say "there is no god". There are tons of subtleties that usually get ignored in these discussions, reducing the argument to what you describe: unprovable either way.

>> No.5971107

>>5971095
you are fucking stupid, just stop

>> No.5971120

>>5971101
Did I step on your favorite dogma? Oh, so sorry.

>>5971107
How about you make me?

>> No.5971125

>>5971120
acting like a cunt doesn't fix how stupid you are

>> No.5971130

>>5971095
I guess I'm not an atheist then. I felt like there could be some sort of God- most likely one that doesn't meddle with anything, but more just one that either started the universe and watched or simply is everything, without beginning and without end. That's one that's interesting to me- everything is God. The chaotic sea, the quiet forests, the sandy shores, and the endless sky. All one uncontrollable, unforgiving, and mysterious thing. When we die, we just become a part of nature. We simply change, as we always have.

There's also a sort of joy that comes with living, and a sort of joy when you're walking on the beach and you know that it's just you surrounded by nature. Completely untamable, completely eternal. Have any of you walked on a beach recently? I travelled to Cape Hatteras in North Carolina recently, and it's just impossible to describe the feeling of seeing the sky meet the sea and to be totally overpowered by everything surrounding you. Even more powerful when you're in the waves themselves. It's just sublime as fuck

>> No.5971137

>>5971125
There's nothing to fix, jerk.

I have nothing to prove to you, but you seem to think that I do for some reason. If you can't comprehend what I'm saying, then that's your problem, not mine.

>> No.5971140

>>5971130
don't listen to him

he's philosophically unsophisticated and is posturing an unsustainable argument to defend his shithead beliefs

>> No.5971146

>>5971140
There's no point in being mean to someone being mean. People in this thread need to relax- if there's one thing I dislike a lot about 4chan, it's the infectious hate.

>> No.5971149

>>5971137
I'm arguing within your own style, dickbreath. All you're doing is making statements and posturing; nothing you have said is even remotely cogent or defensible. Atheism is completely rational, and if you can't accept that then you're worse than Dawkins.

Either step up or back down, quit with this faggotry.

>> No.5971150

>>5971095
>Saying that you don't believe in a specific God is different than the claim that there is no God.
>Atheism is the latter.

That's anti-theism. A-theism is not a claim, it's quite specifically NOT a claim - an aclaim, if you will. An atheist doesn't take the same universe as a theist, and remove the idea of god, instead they take the universe, and start with what can be seen or known, and see where it goes; it's only a-theism because they haven't found Him yet.

>> No.5971154

>>5971146
Kant himself destroys all possible belief in God.

>> No.5971156

I don't like the term because it presupposes an inherent opposition to theism. I'm not an "atheist", I'm just not convinced by any of the posited religions.

>> No.5971158

>>5971150
Then you would call agnostics atheists. I don't, and I am one. I agree that there is antitheism, but the atheism that's most popular right now in the mainstream is exactly that. I prefer not to be associated with that.

>> No.5971162

>>5971154
Excuse my laziness- but could you perhaps sum up his 'destruction of all possible belief in God'? Or if that's impossible, recommend me a book or link a page explaining it better than you could.

>> No.5971164

>>5971137
By the way, by positing God exists you're positing realism, which I would love to watch you try to defend.

I'm a hardened idealist and laugh at morons like you who talk about provability. You're so unsophisticated, you're walking around in these terms in the dark like a child, screaming at everyone that he has the answers.

>> No.5971165

>>5971164
Except I never claimed that God existed, moron.

>> No.5971171

>>5971162
From Anselm to Aquinas, no arguments for God's existence survive Kant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Pure_Reason

Is a good summary

Kant's own argument depends on the transcendental ideal

>> No.5971172

>>5971158
I would indeed call agnostics atheists. Theism has very specific criteria and definition, whereas the general term for it's opposite - atheism - requires nothing more than to be not-theism. Agnostics, in as much as they claim not to know, are quite clearly then making a non-theist claim. I respect your position, though, don't get me wrong on that.

>> No.5971173

>>5971165
Now you're just making petty ontological distinctions within the word "exists", retard.

I can play this game all day. You've implied two meanings for existence already in this thread, and will revolved back and forth and duck the hard thoughts because you're a sophist.

Be rigid: what are you exactly talking about when you say atheism, god, and exists? Until then, I will not descend myself to your level of debate.

>> No.5971174

>>5971130
That sounds like deism to me. Deism is the belief there is a god that created everything and then touched nothing afterward.

>> No.5971179

>>5971173
You are possibly the dumbest person I've tried to converse with this year.

I literally never made claims about the ontological status of a deity.

I made claims about the scope of science, provability, and justified belief. You can't see that, because your too busy hating me for beliefs I don't hold.

>> No.5971180
File: 127 KB, 714x949, 1413957389761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5971180

>>5971158
>>5971172

>> No.5971181

>>5970672
>it's the Dawkins shit that's poisonous

Please explain anon. Are you talking about his criticism of religion? I haven't read any Hume but I know that Nietzsche was a huge critic of Christianity.

>> No.5971183

>>5971180
That's cute. Did you make that yourself?

>> No.5971185

>>5971179
>I literally never made claims about the ontological status of a deity.

and I quote

>Saying that you don't believe in a specific God is different than the claim that there is no God. Atheism is the latter.

> If there is no God and there never was one, that is not something you will be able to ever justify.

You're absolutely the dumbest person alive if you think these are not statements about the ontological status of a deity. If you think such statements can only be of the form "God exists" or it's negation, then you're absolutely, undeniably the dumbest person alive.

>> No.5971189

>>5971180
I'm sorry, you've posted an image which contributes nothing. Did you have a point or are you just shitposting again?

>> No.5971191

>>5969775
What's wrong with it, I think, is that by rejecting the existence of a higher being, you close the door to a question that people spend their entire life attempting to answer. You remove from life that enigmatic quality that serves to provoke thought, discussion, and a lifelong search. I also see it as close-minded, and I would go so far as to say arrogant (inb4 the same could be said of the extremely pious). To claim that God doesn't exist and to leave it at that suggests an immense arrogance as the person making such a claim brings forth an easy answer to something contemplated for thousands of years; those who spent decades trying to answer the question of whether God exists and were unable to apparently lack the superior intelligence of the Atheist who is able to, with confidence, give an answer.

>> No.5971195

>>5971185
I'm sorry that you think you can "prove" a universal negative that isn't a contradiction without omniscience, and that you don't know what a conditional statement is and how an antecedent works. I'm sorry, but it's not my problem. Go bother someone else with your sophomoric attempts at philosophy.

>> No.5971200

>>5971191
Well, you might as well spend your entire life pursuing aliens, bigfoot and 9/11 conspiracies.

By denying them, you're closing the door to questions that people spend their entire lives attempting to answer

>> No.5971209

>>5971180
Yep. If you're not certain about apple trees growing apples and the easter bunny not existing, you definitely own a propellor beanie.

>> No.5971211

>>5971195
>conditional statements are not statements
>conditional statements cannot be ontological statements

Be as cunty as you want, you've already trapped yourself very deeply.

How about, instead of wrapping yourself up in defending obviously defeated views, you let your guard down for some real discussion?

>> No.5971212

>>5971191
But you're doing the same thing by saying that. Why couldn't the atheist position be true? Why couldn't it be the very answer people have been searching for? It certainly comes off as arrogant, you're right about that, but that doesn't invalidate the claim, it's just an indictment of who makes the claim, and is only your opinion of them, not their claim.

>> No.5971220

>>5969775
Is it wrong to just truly not give that much of a fuck and not classify as anything?

As much as I'd like to check out religions, I get swayed too easily from side to side by arguments and emotions. I might just be a pussy, but I'd rather not stick to a side that I'm not sure I'll agree with in a year or two

>> No.5971222

>this entire thread
>sophomoric christians/agnostics posturing "u cunnot know nuffin" without having read a single philosopher or assertive a constructive belief
>people blithering about topics they clearly have never read

The bottom line is, don't take /lit/ seriously. Go to reddit if you want to talk to people with education, lol, it's sad but reddit is vastly superior to the morons who populate /lit/

>> No.5971223

>>5971191
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone that maintains the position that there absolutely is no God, never was, and they know this for certain.

I can only speak for myself, but I have a sort of Pyrrhonian skeptic's relationship with the question of God -- I'm quite resolute in the fact that I have not come close to being convinced by the claims of religion (any of them), but I'm not tethered to this mindset.

>> No.5971224

>>5971220
>Is it wrong to just truly not give that much of a fuck and not classify as anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

>> No.5971228

>>5971211
How are those strawmans working out for you?

This is how the conversation usually goes with antitheists. A bunch of ill-informed, superiority-complex driven shouting, ignorance of clear and basic points made which make them look even a little stupid for assuming too much, and claiming they "won" the "argument" to anyone still around to listen.

How about you read my above posts again, in order, and this time for comprehension instead of trying to cherrypick whatever position you feel like attributing to me?

>> No.5971233

>>5971200
Whether God exists or not is of more consequence to man than any other matter that can be debated.

>>5971212
But if you ask the Atheist if God exists, the answer will be no. If I were asked, if those humble and sincere were asked, we would reply that we don't know, and then share what we believe. The difference is that one is confident about a matter that is simply incomprehensible, while the other harbors a conviction while also acknowledges the possibility of being wrong.

>> No.5971255

>>5971228
You're retarded because you're including epistemological and ontological presumptions in the atheist's argument. You call me ignorant, but no, you are ignorant.

Again, how about you study German idealism and atheism? I do believe God doesn't exist, but your entire view of existence is one entire, undeveloped strawman and is completely, indisputably moronic. You're posturing so hard but you do not understand the arguments.

God exists in idealism, but I am an atheist. That's because "nonexistence", or, explicitly, a thought which can't be thought, is obvious. The reason I'm an atheist is because the idea of God has absolutely zero influence in a large category of my other ideas.

Make of it what you will, but you're just a posturing retard. Look into a mirror for once.

>>5971233
>Whether God exists or not is of more consequence to man than any other matter that can be debated.
Whether there's a man with a gun outside of your vision who's about to shoot you is of more consequence to you than this entire thread, but you don't spend 24/7 worrying, do you?

No, God's existence, for some people, is truly an irrelevant issue.

>> No.5971257

>>5971228
And no, you actually believe that I simply misunderstood your arguments, but your arguments were unadulterated shit. There's no point in reading what 8th graders write.

>> No.5971264

>>5971255
What is atheism? In order for that belief to be justified, what must be knowable?

>>5971257
Sure, buddy. Your responses have clearly indicated a poor understanding of large swathes of what I've posted.

>> No.5971273

>>5971255
>No, God's existence, for some people, is truly an irrelevant issue.
Unfortunately, I cannot prove what I am about to type but it's simply a result of experiencing the company of those who consider God's existence to be an irrelevant issue. No such person who is absolutely devoid of spirituality that I've met could I call happy. People such as this, from what I've seen, tend to suffer from depression, addiction, and from an obscure uncertainty that they label as a void within. Seeing people like this has suggested to me that there exists no issue of greater relevance to man.

>> No.5971275

>>5971264
>What is atheism? In order for that belief to be justified, what must be knowable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

I reject dualism. There is nothing but a recurrence of ideas. Even the idea of there being things that are not ideas is an idea; you can't escape ideas. Of course God is "an idea", he has to be thinkable to be thought. God doesn't exist because exist is always used in my ideas in a specific way, one that deals with the concrete, immediate ideas of life. God does not lie in that area of ideas. Whatever stupid shit people spout about God, is either the equivalent of a definition of already existing ideas or is so abstract it's absolutely not concrete.

Christians more or less try to make God both purely abstract and concrete; there is no argument for him that isn't just sophistry

>Sure, buddy. Your responses have clearly indicated a poor understanding of large swathes of what I've posted.
Not replying doesn't mean you're a big bad smarypants that no one can argue against. That's quite an ego you have, there, to even think that

>> No.5971277

>>5971233
>The difference is that one is confident about a matter that is simply incomprehensible, while the other harbors a conviction while also acknowledges the possibility of being wrong.
Maybe I'm just stupid and sleep-deprived, but I can't tell which you mean is which. I'm happy to make up my mind, and change it if it turns out wrong. But I recognize much of what I think about is incomprehensible to me, yet I'll state it confidently, because I know I'll change my mind if it turns out I was wrong. I'm wrong a lot, and this is good, because it means I learn and grow. There is no one alive who walks around thinking they're right about everything all the time, and though most people doubt, they don't think they're wrong either even though everyone knows logically they must be wrong about something, until shown to be so there's no benefit in thinking oneself wrong.

When the atheist says "no" (I think) it's because they can't reach another conclusion, given what they know - just like your conclusion is that you don't know, given what you've experienced. Neither is static. Atheism, at least in its proper term, is nothing but a conclusion given current evidence - emphasis on current, here - and is certainly subject to the possibility of being untrue (even if some of its supporters are unwilling to accept the possibility of being wrong).

>> No.5971279

>>5971273
>No such person who is absolutely devoid of spirituality that I've met could I call happy. People such as this, from what I've seen, tend to suffer from depression, addiction, and from an obscure uncertainty that they label as a void within. Seeing people like this has suggested to me that there exists no issue of greater relevance to man.

I do not agree that spirituality has an intrinsic link with "God", in the Christian sense.

>> No.5971284

>>5971279
I did not mean to imply that it does; by God I simply refer to a higher being that is perceived to be the source of life.

>> No.5971286

>>5971275
Not him, but what if we suppose God is in the noumenic side of the world? Surely that would make his existence or inexistence simply impossible to prove, but it makes more sense than to threat him as ideas based on our own comprehension of what is around us.

>> No.5971288

>>5971284
Well, okay, but atheism isn't materialism

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the idea of God does not exist

>> No.5971289

>>5971275
Idealism is a pretty spooky ontology.

Idealism also is not the only monism.

The biggest problem you have, I think, is that you are conflating the idea of God with a God or gods. There are plenty of reasons that could be given why my idea of the Parthenon is quite different from the Parthenon, and why my idea of my idea of the round square is different from an impossible object.

Christianity is pretty stupid in a lot of ways, at least in a literal interpretation. Kierkegaard's is alright, but there is no reason to accept it other than something else that is an objective justification.

And it wasn't the lack of reply that was disturbing, it was the continual replies taking me to be some sort of evangelical and attributing all sorts of things to me that I didn't claim. It's rude, and it does show a lack of understanding and consideration.

>> No.5971290

>>5969775
>Simply the idea of not believing in any kind of God.

Nothing's wrong.

>> No.5971294

>>5971286
Idealism states explicitly that the noumena is in itself contradictory. All we ever experience is phenomenal. If God is explicitly noumenal, then God explicitly doesn't relate to anything we ever do, which is essentially what I'm defining as atheism.

Of course, God phenomenologically does have impact and is possible to describe that way, but I don't think that's the subject of our conversation

>> No.5971298

>>5971273
God's existence doesn't really concern me other than as a thought exercise and I'm pretty happy.

>> No.5971302

>>5971273
>No such person who is absolutely devoid of spirituality that I've met could I call happy. People such as this, from what I've seen, tend to suffer from depression, addiction, and from an obscure uncertainty that they label as a void within. Seeing people like this has suggested to me that there exists no issue of greater relevance to man.

Because no one spiritual ever was depressed. No one spiritual was ever addicted, uncertain, or unhappy. If they had been, your entire argument would be null and void.

Except the relevance. It's clearly relevant to the above states. But is it thus because they're fighting something within themselves, as you suggest, or everyone "spiritual" thinks that's the only possible way of being right, true and happy?

>> No.5971303

>>5971289
I have no problem with the idea of God in a pantheistic sense. Take the ignostic doctrine to an extreme, or don't prescribe concrete ideas to God a priori which can be demonstrated to be false (God is all loving, for instance).

>> No.5971306

>>5969775
there is literally nothing wrong with atheism

>> No.5971308

>>5971255
But where does the conviction come from if, like you say, the matter of god's existence is beyond comprehension? Why can't uncertainty comprise its own conviction?

In microphysics, it's impossible to know the exact location of an electron and its speed simultaneously. I would assert that because we can have knowledge of the worldly (unless we can't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', I'm fine with that too), we are kept from knowledge of the spiritual. Having certainty in relation to both worldly and spiritual matters is claiming to exist and understand existence with an outsiders view.

But perhaps I'm just full of shit.

>> No.5971310

>>5971277
Perhaps it's due to my basing my beliefs on those I've been exposed to; the Atheists I've talked to do not acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, they are obstinate with their conviction. I imagine those that consider themselves Atheists do so only after they've attained a certain level of confidence concerning the existence of a higher being and therefore, have found an answer to a question that no man is capable of answering.

>> No.5971316

>>5971303
And this is exactly my point. There are some conceptions of God which are not incoherent or big leaps of faith to make. Einstein and Spinoza are good examples.

My epistemological concerns against new atheism (they can have the term, I don't want it) are exactly that. That flavor of atheism is conceptually repugnant. If you like sharing a label with Sam Harris and Dawkins, go right ahead. I'd rather distance myself.

>> No.5971318

>>5971275
Bro, please read Thomas Reid on Berkeley and Hume.

>> No.5971327

>>5971302
I didn't suggest that those who consider themselves spiritual can't suffer internally as well. I only stated that the happiness that every man strives for, the happiness that causes one to radiate and attract others, I've never found in one who claims to be an Atheist but have a number of times seen within those who, in the least, acknowledge the existence of a creator.

>> No.5971329

>>5971310
Yeah, there's too many of those. They turned me off hard-line atheism. I used to call myself a gnostic atheist, precisely because being wrong about that wouldn't be too bad, I thought. But then, what I was wrong about was the "gnostic" part.

Then I came across the Omega point, and now I don't know what's what.

>> No.5971345

>>5971308
>But where does the conviction come from if, like you say, the matter of god's existence is beyond comprehension?
By the very definitions of the religious people themselves

there is no such thing as an idea that can't be an idea, which is to say a thought which cannot be thought. the existence criteria of christians implies someone would have to noumenally phase to disprove god, that's not necessary

wittgenstein and stirner are actually useful in understanding why so much of the language we use is, for lack of a better term, "spooky". And I dunno what that other guy was saying, idealism is basically the antispook philosophy if one chooses to apply their mind in that direction

> Why can't uncertainty comprise its own conviction?
Idealism itself is uncertain about pretty much everything. The whole point is to disabuse people of the idea of noumenal experience altogether. I don't seem much the relationship to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. So we can't apply our ideas of mathematics to a physical phenomenon.

when you're contemplating idealism, just practice dialectically reducing every statement to it's ideas.

>Having certainty in relation to both worldly and spiritual matters is claiming to exist and understand existence with an outsiders view.

When you start delving into idealism, you come upon recursion in your thoughts. It's weird when you contemplate the idea of idealism, or the idea of spiritualism and worldliness. The best thing idealism will show you is the places wherein Nietzsche's essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" will shine bright; or, the reduction of assumptions we forgot are assumptions to their proper ontological status as an idea

I don't think you're full of shit, just think and think in new ways, and really hone in your dialectical understanding of the world

>> No.5971351

>>5971316
>That flavor of atheism is conceptually repugnant.

Consider aesthetics from an ideal perspective

This is where the talk gets fun

>>5971318
Will do, thanks for a reference

>> No.5971367

>>5971327
Then your argument is a personal anecdote. Anecdotally also, I know several people who are atheist and possess what I'd say is that "radiant happiness" you mention. But I'd guess the atheists you're talking about think the question is "finished", that it shouldn't be talked about because it's "solved". I see the same in some believers. People who don't or can't imagine they're wrong, who refuse the idea, while being unable to rationalise it, create an internal conflict, which becomes pronounced greatly about questions which can't have a "definite" answer, such as those the thread's been about. These people feel a need to assert their belief as fact, and take criticism as a threat. The difference here between believers and non-believers is that believers have a system to fall back on, and support from communities, support from their own interactions with their belief (praying etc), which means they can, in this sense, suffer in silence as a non-believer could not. Hopefully I'm not generalizing too much.

>> No.5971381

>>5971351
>Consider aesthetics from an ideal perspective
I've never been into value theory that much other than a bit of metaethics.

I'm definitely not an idealist. Hegel poisoned the well.

>> No.5971384

>>5971345
>idealism is basically the antispook philosophy if one chooses to apply their mind in that direction

Ding ding ding.

Idealism is actually a truer empiricism than contemporary empiricism. Contemporary empiricism is just rationalism that is theoretical, or paradigmatic, instead of direct.

>> No.5971403

>>5971367
>The difference here between believers and non-believers is that believers have a system to fall back on
This might have been accurate as recently as a few decades back but now, this pop-atheism that we come across so often is so prevalent due to the ease with which one can access others with a similar close-minded certainty in the existence of nothing. Here it's a meme, the fedora, but they exist and support each other in forums that the perusal of which would evince cringe in anyone remotely sensible. Sure, those on the other side of the spectrum who claim that, for example, "Jesus Christ is God, nothing you say will change my mind," are no less arrogant, but the topic under discussion is Atheism, if it were Christianity, the same could be said. I have not encountered Atheists who acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, however, I have met Christians who adhere to the religion but are still open to the possibility of the answer being elsewhere.

>> No.5971440

>>5971403
...

Yeah, fuck the atheists for having their own community and support, they should all be lonely and sad.

Also, I guarantee you've met atheists who accept they could be wrong, you've just not talked about anything religious with them. Not everyone wears it on their sleeve. There's no "atheist cross" that can be worn as cheap jewellery. There's no universal symbol, no inherent structure in the lives or thoughts of atheists, such as to make them instantly recognizable. An atheist who acknowledges they may be wrong isn't likely to talk about it, because it's a matter of personal faith. If you meet a person, and one of the first things they talk about is either religion or atheism, you can be sure you've run into a severely maladjusted person, an insecure person or a seriously boring person.

But besides all of that, I think you're not talking about atheism, you're talking about people who are atheist, and sublimating your experience to encompass all atheists, since you haven't encountered anything to the contrary. Understandable, but not reasonable, if you accept that a person is more than what they believe.

>> No.5971485

>>5971381
>I'm definitely not an idealist. Hegel poisoned the well.

Eh, Hegel's fun. Idealism is best explored on your own, it's really boring otherwise

>>5971384
Yes, this post is very cogent and accurate.

>> No.5971499

>>5971403
you're right, it was so much better when hobbes was almost punished by the english parliament for causing diseases

atheism is totally just irrational dogma

>> No.5971514

>the idea of god is just an idea like any other
>just one day some human just came up with it

Why does this take all the weight out of the God argument for me?

>> No.5971520
File: 36 KB, 450x450, c-crown-crushable-fedora-hat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5971520

>>5971440
>There's no "atheist cross" that can be worn as cheap jewellery
>no inherent structure in the lives or thoughts of atheists, such as to make them instantly recognizable

>> No.5971528

>>5971520
Wow, you're funny. Make me laugh again, funny man.

>> No.5971548

You been kafka trapped by faggots if you're asking this question bro.

>> No.5971560

>>5970658
not according to the Pope amirite

>> No.5971572

>>5969775
Nothing wrong with it.

>Wull, what do you believe
Just the facts ma'am

>> No.5971852

>>5971222
What subreddits are you talking about?

>> No.5971857

The nu-christians are just as bad as the nu-athiests they complain about