[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Why don't believers get this!
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 139
Thread images: 9
File: monicks-hitchens-1.jpg (205 KB, 698x336) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
monicks-hitchens-1.jpg
205 KB, 698x336
>>
File: SeOnW.jpg (22 KB, 424x417) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SeOnW.jpg
22 KB, 424x417
>>521472
The video that this quote is from is so good https://youtu.be/7nIRJVmZ4K8
>>
Because the Jews and Greeks have alphabets and the Roman civilization isn't a desert.
>>
>>521472
Because there have been buddhas throughout all consciousness and what distinguishes guatama is the traditions which developed after him that give us all easy access to the 8 fold path?
>>
how many jews were in china lmfao
>>
>>521472
Why would the belief that the jews are superior people and after they die they will lead eternal lives in a haven made for them appear in China?
>>
what's to "get"?

>God would never pick a desert to give divine revelation

>because i say so

that's not an argument.
>>
>>521587
every post here talks about the desert part, when the relevant one is the time
humans have been around, apparently godless, for tens of thousands of years
why reveal himself then? it wasnt when writing was invented, but later. it wasnt when radio and globalization were invented, but earlier. an arbitrary point in time with no purpose to it.
>>
>>521599

>why reveal himself then?

is there a time God could have picked where you wouldn't say "why reveal himself then?"

he picked it, because it was his will to do so
>>
>>521599

>hurr why reveal himself in 2016
>there are already billion muslims on the planet
>and christianity has already been irrevocably divided for 1000 years
>he'd just be locked up in a lunatic asylum
>he'd just be one of those homeless guys with a sign that says "the end is nigh"

etc etc
>>
>>521611
>reveal yourself when writing is just invented to make use of this new way to spread the word
Sensible.
>reveal yourself during the height of Alexander's empire, to calm the war ravaged world and use the bridge between east and west to spread the word
Sensible.
>reveal yourself in bumfucknowhere in a rotting, dying empire, in a place and way that you will be branded criminal
Not sensible.

>>521623
The exact same thing happened to Jesus, though. At least today he'd get many views on youtube and a petition.
>>
>>521634

so it couldn't have happened because you and Hitchens don't think God was sensible, based on your personal tastes, and this proves it couldn't have happened?

it may have been released inbumfucknowhere, but the message got spread to the entire world. so that didn't hinder God's plan
>>
Christ appearing when he did was a catalyst for Christianity to become the state religion of Rome, which has had a lasting impact. If he a long time earlier, there would have been no Roman Empire. If he appeared a long time later, there would have been no Roman Empire.
>>
>>521472
>lol i won an argument against a retard epic win

how about instead of arguing with retards from a dying religion you go to the middle east and actually accomplish something instead of arguing with retard #2500
>>
>>521641

>If he appeared a long time later, there would have been no Roman Empire.

Jesus was born in the Roman Empire you niglet
>>
>>521634
>dying empire
rome hadn't even conquered britain yet
>>
>>521650
This is true, I was thinking of the year when Christianity became the official religion, not the birth of Christ.
>>
>>521647
Right, if he appeared a long time after he did, there would have been no Roman Empire.
>>
>>521655
You are implying that a heretic being executed at a distant corner of the empire is the only reason that empire continued to exist.
>>
>>521655
What I mean by this is, there would have been no Roman Empire *anymore* to adopt Christianity. That is, the Roman Empire adoption Christianity was enormous. And if he appeared later, there would have been no Roman Empire to adopt Christianity, because the Empire would already have ended.
>>
So Hitchens thinks that the Jews and/or Romans didn't know how to read and write and had no civilisation?
>>
>>521656
No, you misunderstood me.
>>
File: 1452029851765.jpg (96 KB, 650x650) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452029851765.jpg
96 KB, 650x650
>>521472
because atheists discussing religion is like vegetarians discussing meat
>>
>>521655

Right you're going to have to explain this one

>If Jesus wasn't born when he was (in the Roman Empire)
>The Roman Empire would not have existed

I don't think it's a radical idea to suggest that the fact that Jesus was born in the Roman Empire does kind of also intrinsically imply the Roman Empire existed regardless of his birth
>>
>>521660
>>521662
Okay, I see what you were trying to say there.
However, I dont think that the Roman Empire existing was of that great importance. Other empires or alliances have covered a similar amount of people, and with time the means of spreading knowledge have only improved.
>>
>>521667
He means if Jesus wasnt born during the Roman Empire, he would have been born after it, and thus it wouldnt exist for him to christianize it.
As in, the empire would have ended before his appearance, and thus there would be no christian roman empire.
>>
>>521668
What empire would have been better?
>>
>>521665
>hurrr oncologists discussing cancer is like vegetarians discussing meat
>durrr that white coat trying to tell me how to deal with cancer, when he doesnt even smoke
>>
>>521686
You are asking for a major change 2000 years ago. The world would be different, and different empires would exist.

Regardless, Alexander's was mentioned, as it bridged east and west, and the timing would have been perfect, since everybody was tired of war and looked for new purpose. Stoics and Cynics were in favor too, and those influence Christian morality greatly. That was the perfect timing.
>>
>>521701
Alexanders Empire was not so extensive, and did not last long at all in its unified state.
>>
>>521701
Alexander's empire fell apart instantly after his death. Terrible choice.
>>
>>521709
It was placed in a much more important area for spreading christianity to as many people as possible.

>>521709
>>521711
It fell apart because there was nothing to keep it together. Christianity would have kept it together. It was a better time for it to burst into existence. The old religion defeated and conquered by the new one, powered by the morals of trendy greek philosophers, spreading along with the creations of new cities, promoting peace and cooperation to rebuilt the war torn country, a bridge between east and west.
>>
>>521715
Christianity wouldn't even have been around long enough to be adopted before the empire fell.
>>
>>521715
>Christianity would have kept it together.
No it wouldn't. A religion doesn't instantly convert the entire population of a giant empire in the span of 5 years, it took over three centuries for Rome. Alexander's empire didn't even survive long enough for anyone to have even heard of Christianity before it was long gone.

It's a terrible idea, stop thinking you know better than God.
>>
I feel like this is horribly off-topic. Its relation to history is tangenital at best. This is an argument about faith and spiritualism, which have little bearing on the actual history of Christianity.

But since we're already talking about it, I think the crux of the problem is that militant atheists don't really understand the nature of faith, which is why they're militant atheists. It's fucking faith. It's not based on proof. There are promises made, but they ultimately have no backbone to them. It's taken on trust, and intuition. Christians don't generally argue that Jesus was born because it was the best time and place to have him be born. The only why of it is that it was God's fucking will, and he decided it was the right time.

Christ. It's like apple fans demanding that oranges be judged by the principles of apples.
>>
>>521754
>The only why of it is that it was God's fucking will, and he decided it was the right time.

If its not the best time and place, then God's will was stupid. He made a mistake. Which compromises his design.
>>
>>521634
You fedora are all the same kind of ignorance. The reign of Augustus wasn't Rome as a "dying decaying empire"
>>
You'd be right if that was the case, but it's not. It was the best time and place for God and for us based on reasons he deemed, not ones that we might argue myriad reasons for. My point is that the specific point in time and place is moot, and it can be argued to death. We won't ever know, and there's little we can do but wonder on it. It's what happened.

As a person that has distanced himself from the Catholic Church, I have difficulty putting stock into the idea that Jesus was born among the Israelites because they were his chosen people, because I'm also a person of southeast Asian descent, which would put me outside that group. But the Church teaches that Jesus comes as redeemer to all peoples, not just the Israelites.

While that's all fine and dandy, I believe that ultimately if God decided it was the right time, it was the right time. It's so utterly simple. Obviously if he is God and he is perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then he is infallible. In a historic sense, we have evidence that he hasn't failed in his mission of salvation; Christianity still exists.

tl;dr Jesus dying for us in Jerusalem two thousand years ago is not anymore ludicrous than him dying in China three thousand years ago, because we don't ultimately know God's plan. It's so fucking simple. If you can't wrap your head around it, it's because you don't understand faith or the nature of the Christian God and refuse to try. You don't even have to believe it. You can just take it as a hypothetical and leave it at that.
>>
>>521634
being branded criminal and consequently executed is kind of the point
>>
>>521599
it was when israel was chosen
>>
>>521472
Most people ITT are criticising the fact that Roman Empire was far from a desert, that even Judea wasn't really a desert and that Jews weren't really that illiterate.
That's all true, but even bigger problem with his claim is, that he thinks that Christianity just appeared out of nowhere in first century bce/ce.
God, YHWH was "present" since at least middle to late Bronze Age. Sure the timeline from creation to Moses is kind of muddled and you could only claim that it goes to maybe middle Bronze age, but so do other creation myths from other Middle East Civilisations of that time, like Enuma Eliš of Babylonians.
And if you ask some Christians, like Quakers for example they'll tell you that God emanates in different forms, so every religion ever is just another facet of one true god.
>>
If the Christian god is so great, how come I haven't been smote for offering to Thor?
>>
>>521849
Because Thor is just another emanation of YHWH.
You do know, that most of Edda was rewritten by Christian missionaries in 11th century?
>>
>>521472
Don't really give a shit about the religious debate but
>desert
It (Judea) was located between arguably the two most important provinces in the Roman Empire (Syria and Egypt). It also benefited (from God's point of view) as the place where he had a group of fans already, so to speak. Lastly, Judea was far enough from Rome/Italia that separate religions would be tolerated, so it makes sense (if his goal was to send Jesus to a place where he could make an impact on the Roman Empire) that Jesus was born/sent there
>>
>>521849
Because God is merciful, so punishment is not immediate in the hope that you repent, bug he is just and he may smite you in a way that you will not attribute to him.
>>
>>521972
If he's so merciful, why do I have to burn in a lake of fire for exercising the free will that he gave me?
>>
>>521852
Where do you get that bullshit from? Certainly not christanity.
>>
>>521852
Lol no, the Eddas may have been written by Christians but evidence of the Norse gods can be seen on runestones predating the arrival of Christians in the region.
>>
>>522058
I know, I was kind of embellishing it.
But if you subscribe to the idea of god emanating in different form in different cultures it still makes sense.
>>
>>521587
Probably because around 0AD was actually kind of a perfect time to expand a massive new belief system through a massive empire.

>No invading hordes to deal with
>A common system of reading and writing in Greek to share ideas.
>Greek is complex enough to share ideas of salvation and repentance
>System of Roman law protecting Christian missionaries
>Development of Mediterranean trade allowing for quicker spread of the word.
>>
>>521646
Whats the diffrence a retard in a desert or a retard in the states? Other than one leads to murder.
>>
>>522066
Interestingly enough most of this demands were present at the height of the Bronze Age
>No invading hordes to deal with
Sea people would came way later
>A common system of reading and writing
Cuneiform, sure not as complex as Greek, but still.
>System of Roman law
Eh, yeah okay this one is not really that true, there was some religious tolerance going on in the Bronze Age, but that's pretty much it.
>Development of Mediterranean trade
Yup on par with the height of Roman Empire.

Maybe there's a reason that first organised religions started around the same time (well a bit earlier), and probably even monotheism.
YHWH might have started as just one of the gods in Jewish pantheon, together with El or Elohim, and to an extent Baal, but El/Elohim and YHWH merged pretty fast into one god.
>>
>>522066
But it was only in the 4th century that Christianity's future was actually secure, it was actually really slow to spread compared to Manichaeism or Islam.
>>
>>522064
Huh, I never thought of it like that. Good point.
>>
>>521804
Now this is trolling
>>
>>522066
>No invading hordes to deal with
The romans were the invading hordes

>A common system of reading and writing in Greek to share ideas.
Sorry, something about latin?

>Greek is complex enough to share ideas of salvation and repentance
And previous languages weren't?

>System of Roman law protecting Christian missionaries
That explains those roman candles

>Development of Mediterranean trade allowing for quicker spread of the word.
I'll just duck out and tell the phoneticians, greeks, myceans and egpytians that Mediterranean trade didnt develop until 0BC

The correct statement that you could make is that if something had gone wrong for christianity we wouldn't be discussing it today, and as a result asserting that it was the "perfect time" is a selection bias.

Had the surviving religion been Manichaeism then we would be discussing why fate selected its particular starting point as a beneficial one rather than that thing of only historical note called christianity.
>>
>>521599
all nations had messengers even if they weren't mentioned in the quran
>>
>>522102
Please refer to this: >>522078
The evolution of god is very interesting, and I recommend you to read History of God by Karen Armstrong.

Also Christianity won for two reasons, it was at the same time revolutionary, as in it went against hedonism that patricians of Roman Empire enjoyed in, and conservative, as many people within Rome, starting with Augustus wished for return to traditional values of family and temperance.
>>
>>522116
My point isnt against christianity winning, my point is that to assert that somehow christianity is correct because it won is a selection bias.

But yes, the reasons surrounding the rise of christianity are certainly interesting. The primary events that I would ascribe to it are the taxation benefits under constantine (prior to the outright banning of non christians from most public offices) and the french defeat of the Umayyad Caliphate.
>>
>>521837
Why? Buddha, Mohammed, and other prophets spread their religion just fine without being executed. Why would being a criminal and being executed be necessary?
>>
>>521587
>>521587
>>521587
>90% of all 4chan arguments
>>
>>521711
>Alexander's empire fell apart instantly after his death
It fell apart because he died early and had no time to set up a proper heir. God could've just blessed Alexander and kept him alive for a few more decades.
>>
>>522134
I'd add Battle of Frigidus to the list.
The last time when "paganism", well traditonal religion of Roman Empire tried to unite the empire and exile Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus
>>
>>521477
Damn, that was good
>>
>>522134

> french defeat of the Umayyad Caliphate.

The one that didn't even stop the warring in France, let alone everywhere else? Surely, the Byzantine victory in 657, you know, the one that committed about 5 times as many troops a Tours, was a more significant event.
>>522151

>Implying that the various regionalist movements already existing at the time of his death wouldn't have broken Alexander's empire apart in revolt had he lived longer.


I mean, do you even into the conflict he had between the Macedonians and Greeks, let alone everyone else?
>>
>>521639
No, it proves that your particular God is a shitty planner who let humanity suffer untold agony in life before eternal agony in death for 98,000 years, & that's a pretty shite thing to do.

Best case scenario for you God-botherers is that if you're correct, Papa Inviso is a royal dick. A deity could have chosen not to condemn to hell the entire species it created solely for its own overly grandiloquent ego edification for 100 millennia, instead revealing the truth to civilization once it reached radio tech level, ensuring the widespread distribution of its Word--IF it wanted to leave no questions to cause wars among believers, & IF it wanted to use the meat-sacks to distribute the message naturally, RATHER than just distributing it supernaturally & skipping all the interim internecine conflict.

But it didn't.
>>
>>521472
>most of its children dying in childbirth
Oops! Incorrect right there.
>>
>>521665
> herp no atheist used to be a believer
> a-derp starving people don't know about food
> full retard using canned Jesus Camp responses & smugly "checkmate atheists"-ing
>>
>>521695
Underrated post
>>
>>522893
> why did families even through the 1900s have like 15 kids?
> "Well, gee, maybe they just wanted to fuck a bunch & it had nothing to do with the introduction of medicine & nutrition."
>>
>>521472
HOW
DARE
YOU
>>
>>521665

The religious discussing religion is like British people discussing why British food is the best
>>
>>522919
Why do Christians get triggered so easily?
>>
>>521760
Then obviously part of that faith is believing that God chose the exact place and time because it best served whatever his goal was.
>>
>>524837
H
O
W

D
A
R
E

Y
O
U
>>
Friendly reminder Abrahamic garbage is best used to wipe one's ass.
>>
>>524837
That's how Hitchens often concludes his statements.

>How dare you
>This is evil
>This is inhuman
>>
>>525125
And this triggers you?
>>
>>525125
>>525933

It looks like Christians need a system of trigger warnings. They get upset incredibly easily.
>>
File: alg-laughing-jpg.jpg (25 KB, 635x460) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
alg-laughing-jpg.jpg
25 KB, 635x460
It's kinda scary how people will defend their nonsense voodoo beliefs like this in the 21st century. I mean, it's fucking obvious that guys like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were crazy con-men, but somehow if you give their beliefs a few centuries to stew then they become "truth". I mean, FFS if anyone walks around spouting shit about hearing voices they'd be locked up. The supernatural has never once been proven to exist, ever.

I'd expect durkas and oogas to, but not rational 1st worlders
>>
>>521503
just this.
it's not about being Atheist or Believer. I think Hitchens is gross and historically and philosophically poor. I read some of his book.. he was a good journalist, all the study on Mother Teresa was good. But when he goes into philosophy he is vain and boring.
He makes me want to go to church
>>
>>522139
that's why a lot of people love Hitchens here
>>
>>525119
a distinct sound of a hat tipping accompanies your comment
>>
>>521472
>Less literate part of the Middle East.
There were plenty of people in Roman Palestine that could read and write.
>>
>>525959

>The supernatural has never once been proven to exist, ever.

unfortunately for you, if God does exist, he will have the attributes whereby his creation won't be able to, without God's permission, find evidence for him

that's just logic... you think a clay pot can figure out whether the potter exists?
>>
>Not arguing about how consciousness may or may not be a state of matter independent of the body.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
>>
>>526408
>if God does exist
And if Cthulu does exist we're fucked anyway

>he will have the attributes whereby his creation won't be able to, without God's permission, find evidence for him
That's probably the most retarded case of special pleading I ever heard

>you think a clay pot can figure out whether the potter exists?
No, but a human can dismiss something which there is no fucking evidence for.
>>
>>526437

>Chthulu

note how i didn't say "the Christian God", or any specific man made religious interpretation. i'm talking about the creator of the universe, generically

>most retarded case
why? it's perfectly reasonable. to start off by saying you will only consider the existence of a creator if you find observable, physical evidence within his creation of him, is the retarded position to take

just take more than 5 seconds to think about what you're demanding, and realise by definition, that won't be possible unless God chooses to reveal himself

again, the potter/clay pot is apt... it's just that you can't comprehend the idea that us humans, with our senses and thoughts and intelligence, are comparable to a clay pot when talking about the differences between the creation and the creator.. you want to be the highest level of knowledge and ability.. that anything could be of a higher level than us simply can't enter your consideration because of your human ego
>>
>>526437
>And if Cthulu does exist we're fucked anyway
But who will be eaten first?
>>
That quote seems altered

>>521665
I bet you get a lot of likes on facebook for your deep wisdom
>>
>>525125
>>525108
He wasn't wrong. Are your little jesusfeels hurt because his solid moral logic has no real counter but the supernatural absolutist stance (a god did it, so it must be somehow morally correct)?

If you'd read some, you'd find he expressed his disapproval of the immorality of religions in a variety of ways.
>>
>>526394
I dunno, I think his conclusion that "the Catholic Church shouldn't perpetuate boy bum-buggery & AIDS spreading" were fair points.
>>
>>526481
Projecting the whole "nu-UH! YOU don't understand!" is cute and all, especially given your insistent use of the poor argument from ignorance metaphor of pot and clay.

It still means your 1 of 8000 different deities could instantly end all religious violence with just s but of intervention, proving even by our lower standards (as you pointed out & agreed) that your deity is morally inferior to its creations, best-case scenario.
>>
>>526481
"higher than us" So how often daily do you get Deepak Chopra emails? My voodoo crystal healing yoga essential oils life coach recommends taking in 15 minutes of shiatsu reiki massage while listening to Chopra books every day during my juice fast foot detox psychic chiropractor treatments to rid myself of chemikills, autism, & midichlorians. :^) Namaste!
>>
>>526406
>not going to China during the Golden age

>not going to NYC in the age of video and Internet

Jesus, pls
>>
>>521472
All he is doing here is strengthening the legitimacy of Chinese folk religions.

Looks like Taoism is the true faith guys.
>>
>>521472
What's to say that our religion stretch back 100,000 years exactly? I don't see what the problem is.
>>
Basically this
>>
>>525107
If you give him a goal, we can assess how he did. If the goal was getting good news to the world, he fucked up.
>>
>>528724
Excellent rebuttal of Bertrand Russell
>>
>>526408
>that's just logic
No, actually those are just unfounded assertions based in putting the conclusion before the evidence.
>>
>>528700
With this same logic, how can atheists say with such certainty that a God does not exist?
Why would you call yourself an atheist or a Christian when the definitions of these terms imply that you believe one way or another? When both options have no basis or evidence to support them?
>>
>>529090
How can you be sure I'm not fucking your mother while petting my pet dragon every time you're not looking?
>>
>>526408
He gives permission though, that's why miracles like Lanciano happen.
>>
>>522116
>Karen Armstrong
>Trusting a jezey
>>
>>529104
Do you really think that situation is comparable to your beliefs concerning how existence came to be and whether or not the universe as we know it has a meaning? Why devote yourself to ideas of this magnitude based solely on probability when that concept itself meant nothing 'before' existence came to be?
>>
File: Religion threads.png (137 KB, 1010x274) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Religion threads.png
137 KB, 1010x274
>>521472
>implying atheists even understand what they are arguing about
>>
>>529124
Considering we're simply talking knowledge, it's perfectly apt. Just like Russell's teapot, answer the question.
>>
>>529155
>Considering we're simply talking knowledge, it's perfectly apt.
We're talking about how the universe as it is came to be, and you're using concepts and philosophies that only exist in this universe as it is now.
>Just like Russell's teapot, answer the question.
What question?
>>
>>521472

This isn't a very good argument against God at all.

The Truth doesn't adjust itself to your beliefs and feelings. If you are an atheist then okay, what you are saying could be an argument (selecting a religion based on how well it fits into your world view and ideals) otherwise it is absurd.

If God is a three headed poodle that sends people to hell for playing Commander Keen on Wednesday then no matter how much you whine about it or how much it doesn't fit with your world view: that doesn't change the truth.


Just because a child doesn't agree with detention doesn't mean the principle doesn't exists, not matter how much of a tantrum the child throws.

But, Hitchens only said stuff like this when addressing atheists anyway. He would never use this argument in an actual debate so good on him.
>>
>>529090
>With this same logic, how can atheists say with such certainty that a God does not exist?
This was your response to Russell's teapot. I gave you another example to ponder, one a little clearer.

>What question?
How can you be sure I'm not fucking your mother while petting my pet dragon every time you're not looking?

>We're talking about how the universe as it is came to be, and you're using concepts and philosophies that only exist in this universe as it is now.
Which is completely irrelevant before you explain how you judge truth claims.

But just by the way, my dragon also told me he made this universe just for me and that you lot ill be annihilated at death while I can get on to fucking people's mothers when they're not looking until the end of time.
>>
>>529134
>religion is a way of explaining human nature through allegorical language
which is why most of it has tons of laws regarding rituals to please gods
>>
>>529183
Oh, that blatant strawman argument wasn't rhetorical? I've already explained how the two situations can't be treated the same way, with the same logic and concepts concerning probability.
>how you judge truth claims
More like how the void judges 'truth claims' when there's no physical evidence to support them. With silent disapproval.
>>
>>529181
He was debating his retarded christian brother there, actually.
>>
>>529206
Well that is very surprising then; because it is not a good argument and I figure he would know better then that because he usually does.

You are calling Peter Hitchens a ''retard'? That's a stretch.
>>
>>529204
It's not a strawman, you heathpoop, it's what me and my best pal are up to.

What physical evidence is there to support a god, exactly?
>>
>>529189
Are those rituals to please a deity, or to calm the soul?
>>
>>529216
>What physical evidence is there to support a god, exactly?
None at all, which is the half of my point that you seemed to miss earlier. Have you been assuming that I'm Christian this entire time? Did you not read my original post in its entirety?
>>
>>529228
If there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe in one, and atheism is the only rational position.

And just by the way, atheism doesn't imply knowledge. It is the null hypothesis and thus has to be proven false. Babies are literally atheists, go up to a baby and ask why it knows there's no god with such certainty.
>>
>>529237
>atheism is the only rational position.
The only rational position is no position, as I explained earlier. Probability and Occam's Razor in particular should not decide your beliefs, or lack of, concerning implications of this magnitude. It's stupid to argue for one side of this possibility with the kind of logic that might not even be applicable to some parallel universe. You're thinking too small, anon. Do you think mathematics as a whole is the same across all possible existences as well?
>>
File: schopenhauer.jpg (113 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
schopenhauer.jpg
113 KB, 1024x768
>>529216
>>529237
What physical evidence is there to support that the nature of humanity is rooted in demonically-malicious desires and that one should resist these?

There is none. Why? That's not the point of the abstract thinking.
>>
>>529265
I just explained to you that atheism doesn't imply knowledge. Do you have anything that doesn't work on false pretenses? Agnostic atheism is, in fact, a non-position.

The implications are irrelevant. If there's no reason to believe a claim, it's irrational to do so.
>>
>>529279
>actually uses the word demonic
I don't know, you tell me. I'm fascinated to hear this.
>>
>>529291
>If there's no reason to believe a claim, it's irrational to do so.
It's also irrational to argue against that claim when it concerns something unbound by the presumptions of probability and logic as we know it.
>>
>>529325
>unbound by probability and logic
Really? Do explain how that's the case.

It's never irrational to point out that a ridiculous claim has no evidence.
>>
>>529352
>explain how that's the case.
I already have, but you absolutely refuse to read all of my posts
Reread >>529265 (All of it this time, please)
>>
>>522064
>But if you subscribe to the idea of god emanating in different form in different cultures it still makes sense.

This has caused so many problems and discrimination. How does it make sense at all.
>>
>>529365
I've read it. You're hanging your argument on ifs, buts and maybes you have no way to substantiate. "Maybe there's a parallel universe" is quite literally not even relevant.

Maybe you're just a fart in my conscience that disappears just as soon as I stop thinking about it.

Maybe this universe is all there is. Maybe all that exists is the last 10 seconds of existence, and 10 more after I finish this post.

Maybe you're just a dunce who can't come up with an actual way to judge truth claims and then comes out saying denying all sots of useless or delusional shit is irrational.
>>
>>529387
Oh wow, you missed the point completely.
The 'parallel universe' example was an attempt to make this easier for you to understand, since the void concept obviously wasn't working out for you.
>You're hanging your argument on ifs, buts and maybes you have no way to substantiate.
Says the anon that's basing his entire argument on the presumption that logic and probabilities as we know them are relevant outside/before the modern universe came to be. That's a great big 'if' with a side of 'maybe' if you ask me.
>then comes out saying denying all sots of useless or delusional shit is irrational.
You're still trying to expand my point to all arguments when I've made it perfectly clear that this only pertains to ideas with implications that outreach this existence.
>>
>>521641
Why not China?
>>
File: mystery.jpg (155 KB, 721x450) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mystery.jpg
155 KB, 721x450
>>529412
>>
>>529409
>You're still trying to expand my point to all arguments when I've made it perfectly clear that this only pertains to ideas with implications that outreach this existence.
How could it possibly only pertain to ideas that 'outreach this existence'?

>The 'parallel universe' example was an attempt to make this easier for you to understand, since the void concept obviously wasn't working out for you.
Your void babble was just about as irrelevant to the point as parallel universes. You're free to explain how it was at all relevant.

>Says the anon that's basing his entire argument on the presumption that logic and probabilities as we know them are relevant outside/before the modern universe came to be. That's a great big 'if' with a side of 'maybe' if you ask me.
I already asked you to justify the claim that there is stuff we can't apply logic to. Or probability theory for that matter. Are you even remotely aware what these two concepts are?

I'm hardly assuming anything. I'm just not letting you get away with saying things you could not possibly substantiate if your life depended on it.
>>
>>529303
Schopenhauer, though an atheist, used "demonic" to describe the nature of human will.
>>
>>530973
And?
>>
>>529216
>What physical evidence is there to support a god, exactly?


>What physical evidence is there to support a black hole, exactly?
>>
>>531008
Gravitational lensing and the movement of celestial objects in orbit of something you can't see.
>>
>>531008
If people started to claim that the will of a black hole should dictate your life, you can bet your ass people would be no longer willing to give their existence the benefit of the doubt.

Also, this
>>531019
>>
File: Delenn.jpg (8 KB, 300x168) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Delenn.jpg
8 KB, 300x168
>>521472
Middle East religion of Jesus Christ was profitable point for an old civilization. The book for reading and standardization of language.
Standards of marriage. Many religions are conflicting each with other, wasting time for culture affairs.
Of course Christianity and many other religion are go out of date nowadays, alike ride on donkeys or a bow and an arrow or sleep at a ram fell.
>>
>>531070
>Of course Christianity and many other religion are go out of date
Wot? Europe is becoming muslim and Africa and China is becoming Christian. Abrahamic religions are going nowhere for a long time
Thread replies: 139
Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 386721



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.