How could one man have so much insight? He destroyed the most

>>1538258
>He destroyed the most prominent Christian myths and permanently altered intellectual society away from Christian thought.

No, he didn't. New Athiests and Sam Harris exist, so he is a failure. "Christianity may live or die, but Christian Ethics are my target"

>>1538336
ebin

>>1539222
ebin

>>1539233
ebin

By erecting his own form of mysticism

File: image.jpg (83KB, 732x1063px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 732x1063px

>He destroyed the most prominent Christian myths

still didn't disprove god though...

>>1539634
>implying there's anything to disprove

God can exist or not by any of those abstract nonsense arguments, it in no way gives credence to Christian beliefs. The point of "God is dead" isn't just "lel god doesn't exist", because God's existence is the most infantile form of atheism. More sophisticated atheists are about culture, which is Nietzsche's focus.

>>1539634
Of course he did. What is asserted without proof can be disproved without proof.

>>1539634
That was never aim, and one could even use the way he goes about that particular subject as a criticism of his work. Throughout it he assumes that Christianity is false and works from there, attacking its philosophical underpinnings on their merit as philosophy and ideology.

Frankly, I think it's the right way to go about it. Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is basically a snipe hunt, and it will never go anywhere as the divine is something we can never actually know anything about. So instead we should focus on the conclusions derived from the divine and the sort of world they create.

>>1541546
The existence or nonexistence of God is the worst starting point to getting the Truth of the Bible. There is absolutely no good argument to go from [an abstract God exists] to [that God is the god of the Hebrew bible]

Except faith! Which convinces nobody.

>>1541553
Yes, exactly. It's why Nietzsche managed to work irreversible change on philosophy while the new atheists mostly managed to create a brief wave of some very annoying internet commentators. You can point out to the inherently illogical nature of belief in the divine until you're blue in the face, but that wont really accomplish anything as belief in God is not actually what draws people to Christian values.

File: 'god'.png (84KB, 486x377px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 486x377px

You are all idiots. This is all literally besides the point.

>The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.

>And this is one of the most crucial definitions for the whole of Christianity; that the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith.

>This much is certain: The greatest thing each person can is to give himself to God utterly and unconditionally—weakness, fears, and all. For God love obedience more than good intentions or second-best offerings, which are all too often made under the guide of weakness.


Theology and spirituality are not able to be separated from human beings. The churches currently have a monopoly on this idea of 'god', you do not have to subscribe to their dogma's in order to believe in a god.

Proving or disproving his existence is pointless.

>>1541595
>Theology and spirituality are not able to be separated from human beings. The churches currently have a monopoly on this idea of 'god', you do not have to subscribe to their dogma's in order to believe in a god.

Wasn't that also the aim of Spinoza's project?

>>1541595
>Proving or disproving his existence is pointless.
We are all in agreement, but as Nietzsche said: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

>>1541595
In other words, nobody gives a shit what you have faith in. And no, there is qualitative difference between faith in God and faith in science. It's not "le le all the same :-)".

>>1541598
>Spinoza's project
No idea, looking into it now - seems very interesting going to check it out, thanks.

Seems like it is, but he is aiming for change inside a state level?

>>1541608
Spinoza is pretty anti-Christian and was accused of atheism.

>>1541608
Not sure, I only just developed an interest in Spinoza and am still waiting for my copy of Ethics to be delivered.

>>1541606
>It's not "le le all the same :-)".
It literally is though. Why is it unbelievable to you that god put these mechanisms in place?

Just because you have science doesn't mean for some reason you disprove god. That's your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Arguing god is essentially arguing the WHY of the universe, arguing science argues HOW, they are in now way the same.

God is why AND how is most cases.

>>1541610
Spinoza was a Jew who was ostracized by the local Jewish community for his views. He was also an early textual critic of the Hebrew Bible.

>>1541615
>Why is it unbelievable to you that god put these mechanisms in place?
No evidence for it, and irrelevant if he did or not either way, it in no way justifies belief in the Bible.

>Just because you have science doesn't mean for some reason you disprove god.
I've said like five times in this thread, not that you can prove or disprove God, but that his existence is an irrelevance because there are no good conclusions from his existence. If God exists, it doesn't lead to belief in the truth of the Bible.

>Arguing god is essentially arguing the WHY of the universe, arguing science argues HOW, they are in now way the same.
Read Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche, teleology is bunk. There is no why to the universe in itself, and such explanation is superfluous.

>God is why AND how is most cases.
No he's not, prove an abstract God, and you don't get a why or a how, you get a "who cares".

>>1541615
this
/thread

>>1539634
Thick...

>>1541626
>actually liking that post
He doesn't even address my viewpoint, he went off on some barely coherent tangent.

>>1538258
>He destroyed the most prominent Christian myths and permanently altered intellectual society away from Christian thought.

Nietzsche did not do that single-handedly. It was a process of many centuries.

>>1541633
I agree with you.

>>1541624
>No evidence for it, and irrelevant if he did or not either way, it in no way justifies belief in the Bible.
Kek, you understand I literally said this in my first post?

> you do not have to subscribe to their dogma's in order to believe in a god.
> you do not have to subscribe to their dogma's in order to believe in a god.

God operates outside of these religions.

>Read Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche, teleology is bunk. There is no why to the universe in itself, and such explanation is superfluous.

Kek, telling me to read authors I've already read is no argument in of itself. If YOU understood these authors you could argue their points. You have no fucking idea WHAT you are saying.

You are simply using evidence which is always subject to change. It's idiotic.

>No he's not, prove an abstract God, and you don't get a why or a how, you get a "who cares".
>still trying to prove his existence
There is your fault.

Just stop. You have no ideas. You literally just said 'no' but with more words attached. Nice.

Except Christianity still exists and Nietsche isn't cared about by anyone but atheists looking to feel superior or Philosophy majors, kinda puts a dent in your thought train OP

>>1541638
>God operates outside of these religions.
Right, I have no problem with your personal fedora God. Really I don't.

>Kek, telling me to read authors I've already read is no argument in of itself. If YOU understood these authors you could argue their points. You have no fucking idea WHAT you are saying.
Oh, good rebuttal. Thanks anon.

>You are simply using evidence which is always subject to change. It's idiotic
No, I'm arguing about the value of evidence, not about any particular method of evidence.

>Just stop. You have no ideas. You literally just said 'no' but with more words attached. Nice.
Did you just read what you just posted? You did nothing but affix "no's", you are in no place to criticize the substance of anyone else's argument.

>>1541644
Not that guy, but a lot of Nietzsche's thought has become common place. Some of it even appears trite these days (what with the whole, you create your own purpose in life schtick for instance) and the prevalence of genuine Christian or Platonic thinking is pretty minimal. Yeah, there are lots of people that profess faith in Jesus Christ, but I'd wager the vast majority of them still hold some degree of perspectivism in their views.

>>1541649
>No, I'm arguing about the value of evidence, not about any particular method of evidence.

Okay then, so how does lack of evidence directly prove or disprove something? It literally means you keep looking. People like you are literally exactly the same as Christian/Muslims what ever.

You believe you have the answer, you do not. Yet you argue you do, granted you understand more mechanisms of how, that in no way explains the reasonings behind anything though.

That's what you don't understand. You like a Christian understand the universe on the same level, you do not know anything about they why. That's the fuckingpoint you mong, I don't care for how. How is fucking pointless, how is a huge undertaking which will take many hundred of years to understand. We may never know WHY though as it's much more interesting.

Just fyi, you literally made no points except for read x.

Literally stop.

If you want to continue, give us this evidence that everyone else is ignorant of that empirically proves what you are saying. If you cannot do not reply.

>>1541656
Yeah, Nietzsche's influence is widespread an ingrained in culture, claiming he's not cared about is proof of ignorance.

>>1541656
>you create your own purpose in life schtick
and look how thats turned out for us

>>1541664
maybe in your country not mine though.

>>1541667
Wow, again you establish your ignorance. You really think that Sartre's stupid shit is Nietzsche's only influence?

>>1541667
Relatively well. We're prosperous and comfortable, and even the parts of the world that aren't are on an upward trend largely. But we're certainly not living up to Nietzsche's ideals (though I don't think we're quite at "last man" stage yet).

>>1541672
In all countries. You do realize a huge amount of social science, philosophy, classical interpretation, I mean even fucking Nazism, was influenced by Nietzsche? Even liberals highly influential on Rawlsian liberalism reacted harshly to Nietzsche. His works shaped and influenced the world in a great way.

>>1541682
The mistake I think people make in railing against this sentiment is assuming that we mean Nietzsche was the sole architect of modern thought, when that really isn't the case. Yes, he did a lot to erode the dominance of Christian/Platonic thinking, but that doesn't mean he outright abolished it or wasn't himself just one major thinker among many. I'd say figures like Marx, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, even Plato, Aristotle, Christ, and Augustine all combine to create fragments of our reasoning; a sort of ideological tapestry through which we interpret (I dare say even create) the world as we know it. Nietzsche's works opened the doors to new thinking, but they are by no means the sole thoughts that have come to dominate.

>>1541603
Why was Nietzsche such an idiot? Faith is not about proof, it's essentially the opposite.

You cannot prove your faith, asking anyone too is literally retarded.

Every human being has faith of some sort.

>>1541708
Yes, that is correct.

>>1541709
He's not an idiot, he's just saying faith doesn't matter to other people. He's just saying Christians pronouncing faith doesn't change an atheist's mind. It's a simple point, I don't get your fedora response which is actually exactly the same as what Nietzsche was saying.

>>1541709
And atheists do not value faith. Christians and lunatics value faith alike. Maybe faith is avoidable, but how you value you it matters.

>>1541712
>He's not an idiot
He literally is.

I've read all Nietzsche, it's very idiotic.

>misunderstanding Nietzsche that much
>"There are no facts, only interpretations"
hehe

>>1541714
>And atheists do not value faith
So? You still have it. You have faith you will wake up the next morning, when really you have no evidence to suggest you will.

>>1541721
>I've read all Nietzsche

Haha you fucking piece of shit liar.

>>1541727
>'no because I said'
Kek, sure I may have missed a few essays or papers here and there. Literally babies first philosophy, I bet you do not even understand the problem fully and the solution it provides, just how freeing nihilism can truly be.

Do you even use it? Do you even know HOW to use it? Everything is simply pointless, amirite?

>>1541726
We don't act "on faith", though, as in on principle, Christians do. Clearly not having absolute justification that my toast is not poisoned doesn't mean I'm acting on principle when I eat toast.

And again, your faith is utterly meaningless to me. What I'm hearing is you have no good justification for your belief in the Bible, and at best your argument is "you do it too!". This is the sort of bad reasoning that Nietzsche says makes you look foolish.

File: tumblr_nsb7xeVTWt1sztyb3o1_1280.png (145KB, 1160x706px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1160x706px

>>1541732
Liars gonna lie!

>>1541712
>Christians pronouncing faith doesn't change an atheist's mind
And atheists pronouncing Nitsche and Dawkins won't change a Christians mind (or other religion), so why are we having threads like this?

>>1541734
>no good justification for your belief
>Implying humans need justification for things
>Implying we should disregard the reality of human nature
wew lad

>>1541741
I want to talk about Nietzsche, not deal with the baby-tier outrage from triggered Christians.

What is it about Christians on 4chan that makes them act out over literally nothing? Don't like Nietzsche? Then hide the thread and move on.

>>1541745
So you're saying your faith in God is completely unfounded, unjustifiable belief?

>>1541734
>We don't act "on faith", though, as in on principle, Christians do
You most certainly do. Have you ever crossed the road without looking? Sure as fuck once or twice you have.

>And again, your faith is utterly meaningless to me
AGAIN, that's a completely idiotic point of view to have. Since when has anyones faith mattered to anyone? Past attempted conversion? You think your lack of faith matters to me?

>What I'm hearing is you have no good justification for your belief in the Bible
I've literally said, time and time again. I do not believe in the bible. Faith is not restricted to the bible. Faith is a core part of every human being. God is not restricted to the fucking bible. Stop arguing from fucking ignorance, you mong.

> and at best your argument is "you do it too!"
As it is literally fact. Denying faith is literally as retarded as expressing it.

>This is the sort of bad reasoning that Nietzsche says makes you look foolish.
Heh, simply wrong. You do not even understand my argument. xD

Stirner did it before he did, and better. Neechee makes unfalsifiable claims concerning man's need for meaning.

>>1541750
I'm saying everthing is unfounded and unjustifiable, but thats fine since the only oerson you need to justify anything to is yourself or God/Gods should you believe in Him/Them

>>1541751
>You most certainly do. Have you ever crossed the road without looking? Sure as fuck once or twice you have.
That's not acting on faith. Acting on faith is an abstract principled notion. Walking into the street without looking or eating toast is more akin to acting on instinct, to just being the animal I am. There is a very important distinction between the two.

You did not find faith in God by instinct, you found faith in God through reason and social pressures. Don't bury your reasoning and act as if there is no distinction, while you're making a distinction.

>AGAIN, that's a completely idiotic point of view to have. Since when has anyones faith mattered to anyone? Past attempted conversion? You think your lack of faith matters to me?

What Christians believe, do, and say is wrong, and if they have no good justification for themselves then I have no compulsions about acting against them.

>I've literally said, time and time again. I do not believe in the bible. Faith is not restricted to the bible. Faith is a core part of every human being. God is not restricted to the fucking bible. Stop arguing from fucking ignorance, you mong.
Stop acting out. Faith is not a core part of being human. Faith is tied to reason, not action.

>As it is literally fact. Denying faith is literally as retarded as expressing it.
I'm not denying faith, I have faith in some regards too, but you're throwing everything in one pot like some kind of idiot soup.

>Heh, simply wrong. You do not even understand my argument. xD
You don't have an argument, you're spinning circles because you have absolutely no understanding of faith.

>>1541751
>Faith is a core part of every human being
If you are making any sort of logical decision with lack of empirical evidence, then you are making a faith based decision.

Faith is simply not restricted to a theological sense. Even if religious people coined the term, they do not own the idea.

>>1541761
>I'm saying everthing is unfounded and unjustifiable
Then you're a complete idiot. You're saying it's unfounded and unjustifiable that 13 is a prime number?

>but thats fine since the only oerson you need to justify anything to is yourself or God/Gods should you believe in Him/Them
No, you need to justify yourself to the society you live in. A murderer does not need to only justify themselves to a God, they have to answer to other people.

>>1538336
Intellectual society, anon. New Atheists predominantly come from unintellectual backgrounds, and that I can use religion as a possible divider between the two is, according to OP, because of Nietzsche.

>>1541770
>Faith is simply not restricted to a theological sense. Even if religious people coined the term, they do not own the idea.
You're right, except nobody else calls that or treats it like faith. Do you understand David Hume's ideas? We act out of force of habit, instinct all of the time, and he demonstrates completely that we can't demonstrate anything absolutely with logic. This is a part Kant agrees with him, so don't spout the "le Kant" memes.

We treat our food as if it's not magically poisoned not because it's inconceivable, but because we must do so out of our urges. Christians treat everything as thought it's reasonable, when the truth is we are largely unreasonable creatures.

>>1541768
>You did not find faith in God by instinct, you found faith in God through reason and social pressures

Kek, are you retarded? God could most certainly easily be argued as an instinct, as literally every single human being at one stage thinks about god or at least his meaning, regardless of society (every society has some sort of creation idea).

Religion has been in our culture since the very start. It could very easily be argued as instinctive to our nature, just as it couldn't - it can't be proven so it's besides the point.

>What Christians believe, do, and say is wrong, and if they have no good justification for themselves then I have no compulsions about acting against them.

You're an idiot, you've got literally no evidence to even suggest this. All you have is no evidence, which for some reason you think proves religion wrong? I am not religious in the church sense, but your argument, and his, is weak as fuck.

>but you're throwing everything in one pot like some kind of idiot soup.
What? All I am simply saying is faith exists outside these ideas of religion and are intrinsic to human beings.

All you can say is no and use Christians as an example for why it is so, using no evidence to support your claims. Granted I am doing the same, but no where have I said I am correct, just you are incorrect, or at least your argument (his) is not entirely sound.

>>1541726
Well you have statistics that suggest you will. Nothing in the empirical world ever suggests any of the shit religions ask you to have faith in, though.

>>1541786
>Nothing in the empirical world ever suggests any of the shit religions ask you to have faith in, though.

Huh? We could empirically prove intelligent design (not saying it exists) but if it did exist we COULD prove it.

You also have faith that what you think is empirical is in fact empirical. There is still nothing to suggest your knowledge is empirical, unless of course you believe you have computed ALL the data around an idea. You simply have ENOUGH data to prove what you want to prove.

Therein lies the problem with empirically proving things and the beauty of faith.

>>1541726
That's not a good analogy. The amount of assumptions you gotta make to claim "I will wake up tommorow?" is no where near what you gotta assume to say "Heaven is an actual sphere of existence".

>>1541807
>is no where near what you gotta assume to say
This matters, because?

Also to a Christian it's probably the 'same level of faith'.

>>1541726
>You have faith you will wake up the next morning, when really you have no evidence to suggest you will
There's a lot of empirical evidence surrounding my health, age, location, past next mornings etc. to suggest that I will in fact wake up tomorrow morning. I might not though, and I acknowledge that possibility. If I had reasonable causes for believing I wouldn't for a specific cause, then I'd address that cause.

>>1541809
Because it's asinine.

>B-but you atheists make acts of faith too!!11
Alright, sure. But it's so fucking obvious these religions aren't real. The more we know about everything around us, the less plausible it becomes, the more it seems like a fucking invention. Come on, it's always so human centric, it's always about us and what we should do, and most of what religion said about the world beyond just us was proven to be bullshit. You look at the natural world for a second and you quickly figure out all this shit isn't about us specifically. You wouldn't sit down 3 hours pondering about the existence of unicorns, you just know it's bullshit

>>1541785
>as literally every single human being at one stage thinks about god or at least his meaning
You just said humans have always been monotheistic. Good job retard. I'll take your concession to the argument with pride.

>>1541741
Considering the number of youths on the internet who cite Dawkins as an inspiration for making them renouncing their religion, I'd say you're rather patently wrong.

>>1541624
Just so you know, Aristotle is Mr. Teleology.

>>1541829
Yeah, pretty sure there are more theists turned atheists than the other way around.

>>1541817
>to suggest that I will in fact wake up tomorrow morning.
The point is you do not have the knowledge every single night before you go to bed. Sure it's there, you are ignorant of it though. (much like our objective truth). You just go to sleep and accept you will wake up, even though you really do not know you will. That's the point.

>>1541827
>But it's so fucking obvious these religions aren't real.
But that is not my point. Of course I do not subscribe to the dogma's they peddle. To deny the existence of a god simply because the main churches are corrupt and 'wrong' is simply idiotic.

This argument is about god, not institutionalized religion, they are not the same thing.

>>1541829
>caring about the cow people

>>1541846
>The point is you do not have the knowledge every single night before you go to bed. Sure it's there, you are ignorant of it though. (much like our objective truth). You just go to sleep and accept you will wake up, even though you really do not know you will. That's the point.
If we always act on faith, as you insist, then faith is a meaningless concept that doesn't help us understand anything.

>>1541846
>The point is you do not have the knowledge every single night before you go to bed. Sure it's there, you are ignorant of it though. (much like our objective truth). You just go to sleep and accept you will wake up, even though you really do not know you will. That's the point.
No, going to bed doesn't involve any faith in my waking up, it merely means I have no logical reason to assume I won't. I already told you that I know that I might not. On the other hand, I know that I'd be unable not to sleep, or that I'd die if I went without it for long enough, and that sleep improves my health and lessens the odds that I'll die sooner rather than later. Very little faith involved.

>>1541846
>To deny the existence of a god simply because the main churches are corrupt and 'wrong' is simply idiotic.

I should also say to simply accept god's existence is simply idiotic also. No one is telling you to do this.

There is simply no evidence to suggest anything. But for some reason athetis use a lack of evidence as evidence against god.

Theological Agnosticism is the only true and confusing choice. Every day is a battle.

>>1541838
And?

>>1541857
>But for some reason athetis use a lack of evidence as evidence against god
It's not proof for his inexistence, it's a dismissal of the non-argument for his existence.

>>1541853
>If we always act on faith, as you insist, then faith is a meaningless concept that doesn't help us understand anything.

I have never professed anything for or against faith, just that everyone uses it and it IS core to every human being, as you are beginning to see. It's 'value' cannot be measured, except by the individual.

>>1541854
>Very little faith involved.
You are flat out wrong.
>i go to bed with empirical knowledge every night I will wake up
>this is not me misunderstanding faith with a definition and interpretation.

>>1541846
Well what is God? Some sort of entity or presence that recommend a very detailed set of behaviors and values to a very specific species on a very specific planet, and that set of behaviors and values happens to be compatible and fathomable with the environment this species is living in?

Cultures create the religion that comes and validate their values and their behaviors, not the other way around.

If a definition of God is just some sort of act of initial creation, then why makes such a big deal out of it, and why call it that, knowing all the connotation and the now-proven-bullshit metaphysics that concept is related to?

>>1541861
Kek, no evidence proves nothing.

>it's a dismissal of the non-argument for his existence.

But it means literally nothing? Since people obviously have faith that he or it exists. You cannot empirically prove he doesn't exist. It's pointless, you are using no evidence in an argument - it's weak.

before you project, both sides are idiotic.

A Christian has faith god exists
An Atheist has faith god doesn't exist
I have faith I KNOW you cannot make any of those claims, yet.

>>1541864
>>i go to bed with empirical knowledge every night I will wake up
>>this is not me misunderstanding faith with a definition and interpretation.
Stop posting until you read Hume and Kant.

>>1541873
It's not a 50/50 thing. The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god. So, that's the default position. Now anyone claiming something else than that default position needs to back it up with something, otherwise it's just saying whatever you want. No one would seriously give credit to my belief if I claimed there was 245 purple plastic dumpters orbiting Pluto, because everyone automatically assumes it's wrong, and rightfully so. I have nothing to back it up, and it isn't possible for them to even come near to empirically testing it.

>>1541873
Doesn't matter whether God exists, it's impossible to establish truth of the Bible where evidence applies.

>>1541865
>If a definition of God is just some sort of act of initial creation, then why makes such a big deal out of it, and why call it that, knowing all the connotation and the now-proven-bullshit metaphysics that concept is related to?

Why make a big deal of the whole reason why we exist and are able to have this discussion in the first place? Really now? Why bother proving anything with science? It happens anyway, why prove it?

>now-proven-bullshit metaphysics that concept is related to?
How does an idea of god imply 'bullshit metaphysics'? I honestly do not understand this logic you atheists and 'scientists' use.

I even stated it earlier in the thread. Science is in no way related to WHY, it's HOW. WHY is infinitely more exciting than mechanism put in place by the WHY.

>god created evolution
Really is a valid argument which cannot be refuted (not saying Christian god exists) but a being capable of the intelligent design we know surely could create 'scientific mechanisms' and evolution to uphold everything. Proving these ideas in no way disproves god, it's extremely illogical to even think it does. I mean yeah it denies most religious doctrines, but it does not deny god.

>>1538258
*tip tip*

>>1541886
>The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god
Or rather, doesn't indicate that there is a god.

>>1541886
>The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god

No. You are restricting your definition of what it means to be god to a religious sense, that's all, that's your mistake.

Care to provide me with this evidence I seem to be ignorant of which directly disproves god? Note: God, not Christian god, not muslim god, just god.

>So, that's the default position
What you made a broad claim and didn't back anything up. Not logical at all.

>No one would seriously give credit to my belief if I claimed there was 245 purple plastic dumpters orbiting Pluto, because everyone automatically assumes it's wrong, and rightfully so.

Well that's simply unreasonable.

>gods unreasonable because I, and many others said so
That's not how it works. You have provided nothing except subjective reasonings, that's the point. You are arguing empiracy which simply doesn't exist.

Again, give me this evidence which explicitly states god does not exist. You have said it exists.
>The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god.
>The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god.
>The empirical world, which is 99% of what we have and perceive (giving 1% for all the yahoos claiming they have something more) indicates that there is no god.
I am waiting. You have no evidence, your argument is based on faith. Your whole philosophy is based on faith.

>>1541864
>>i go to bed with empirical knowledge every night I will wake up
With empirical knowledge that there is very little reason to deduce that there's a significant chance that I won't. Also nothing to suggest there's anything I can do about dying in my sleep after I've died in my sleep, so why worry?

>>1541895
>Why bother proving anything with science? It happens anyway, why prove it?
Well with science we can actually demonstrate things, come to objective conclusions, that can be reproduced by different people, at a different times, and result in the same conclusions. Faith is just making up shit without ever testing this shit against the objective world (because if they ever do they always hit a wall).

>I mean yeah it denies most religious doctrines, but it does not deny god.
But nothing suggests God in the first place, there is no need to deny it, it's already unproven by anything, it's already denied by default.

>>1541902
>Or rather, doesn't indicate that there is a god.
And that's my whole fucking point you mong, which I have said many fucking times.

Lack of evidence does not prove anything.

Lack of evidence does not disprove anything.

How do you disprove god's existence?

Ignore >>1541908 we are finally on the same page.

>>1541908
>You are arguing empiracy which simply doesn't exist.
You're one of those guys. I'm done. Congrats you win :D

>>1541912
No, I'm another anon. And lack of evidence disproves any theory, as evidence is what proves a theory. It's how modern science works.

>>1541912
So, I declaire that there are plastic cubes orbiting Pluto, and that all these cubes contains piece of paper with the Truth written on them. You can't disprove it! Next time you are discussing religion, please include that belief in the debate, because you have to consider it, you can't disprove it!

>>1541910
>Well with science we can actually demonstrate things, come to objective conclusions, that can be reproduced by different people, at a different times, and result in the same conclusions. Faith is just making up shit without ever testing this shit against the objective world (because if they ever do they always hit a wall).

A-huh, and how does proving how these mechanisms work disprove god? Why didn't god create these mechanisms you're studying and using against him?

> Faith is just making up shit without ever testing this shit against the objective world
No, you are wrong. You do not understand what faith TRULY means, faith exists outside the religious world.

>But nothing suggests God in the first place, there is no need to deny it, it's already unproven by anything, it's already denied by default.

Kek, no. That's a fallacy. You are simply wanting to remain ignorant. Existence does directly imply some form of creation, the big bang is a form of creation. Figuring out that existence is inherent to us as a species and our ability to actually think about it.

Intelligent design is a very valid argument. Denying it wout providing any evidence is idiotic, and that is what you're doing.

You are using NO EVIDENCE as EVIDENCE AGAINST something, it doesn't work like that, mate.

>nothing suggests man will be able to fly
>fuck making planes and shit

Gaytheists getting demolished yet again.

>>1541927
WHat the fuck? You understand how evidence is discovered? And nothing is inherently 'known'?

>>1541930
>So, I declaire that there are plastic cubes orbiting Pluto, and that all these cubes contains piece of paper with the Truth written on them. You can't disprove it!

So instead of actually arguing, you want to become a blubbering retard?

Again, how do you disprove god's existence? Proving science doesn't do that? Proving the big bag doesn't do that, none of your modern philosophy disproves god, they simple disprove the Christian god, which is fine.

I can use reason to disprove it, how did they get there? You cannot use reason to disprove god, as it's entirely reasonable that god does exist. There is nothing you can say or evidence you can currently give to deny said reason.

I would consider an alien who created us god. We will be creating robots which will consider us gods, so it is entirely reasonable that we were created by something else, inside or out of this universe.

>>1541931
>A-huh, and how does proving how these mechanisms work disprove god? Why didn't god create these mechanisms you're studying and using against him?
You start with a desirable conclusion, and then you think of whatever realities would need to be true to get there. Your conclusion is that there is a God, and then since you come with a bunch of maybes and probablys in order to arrive to that conclusion.

>>1541942
Why do you assume there are no plastic cubes orbiting Pluto?

>>1541942
>What the fuck? You understand how evidence is discovered? And nothing is inherently 'known'?
Through empirical science, which means it's measurable. Your hypothesis has no empirical support? Into the trash it goes.

>>1541944
>and then since you come with a bunch of maybes and probablys in order to arrive to that conclusion.

Again, where is the empiracy revolving around the question WHY, I mean I have asked it many times, put it in caps and everything. God answers why, science does not.

How do you think answering HOW refutes WHY?

>>1541949
>Why do you assume there are no plastic cubes orbiting Pluto?
You have provided no reasonings as to why they would be there.

>implying the universe and us are not reason enough to imply some sort of creation, intelligent or not.
>even though we are trying to figure explicitly that out
>you will say no
>cause

I will fucking ask you, for the goddamn third time.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU DISPROVE GOD, answer me that, stop being a retard. If you don't you are done, your ideology has been shaken, and I am glad.

>>1541958
>Through empirical science, which means it's measurable. Your hypothesis has no empirical support? Into the trash it goes.
You have literally said EVERYTHING is WRONG until proven otherwise

not

We do not know what we don't know

Where is your empirical data measured through science which explicitly states god does not exists?

I am waiting.

hehehe

>>1541962
I don't see where there needs to be a why.

>>1541966
No, I've said every hypothesis is only a hypothesis until tested, at which point it becomes trash if unsupported, remains a hypothesis in case of uncertain evidence, or becomes a theory. Your hypothesis is unsupported, completely, so, into the trash it goes.

>>1541969
>I don't see where there needs to be a why.
Then why do you need to understand how?

You didn't answer the question. By using science you imply how refutes why, that what I am asking you, why do you think that is so? I don't care if you care for why or not. I am simply asking why you think how refutes why?

>>1541975
>Your hypothesis is unsupported, completely, so,
But so is yours. By saying that you have implied you have disproved my hypothesis.

My hypothesis remains just that, an unproved theory.

I have not claimed anything else, you can project all you want, the proof is in the pudding and you can re-read my responses all you want. You have not disproved the existence of god, like you think you have. Simply saying you have no evidence so therefore you are wrong doesn't mean anything - it's still a working theory.

We do not know what we do not know.

>no one answering the simple question of how to disprove god
>claims god doesn't exist and is proven to be
>cannot give said evidence

Come now felluhs.

If there is a God, it seems unlikely that any religion practiced by members of our species is describing or talking about that God. Our religions are always about us, as >>1541827 says, yet the universe isn't.

>>1542003
>yet the universe isn't.
Care to explain this? There is evidence to suggest others.

We are made from atoms created by star dust ejected from the stars upon their explosions. We literally are the universe, in thought and form.

>>1541985
What I can disprove is the rationality of believing in an unproven hypothesis.

>>1542014
>What I can disprove is the rationality of believing in an unproven hypothesis.

Well therein lies the difference between faith and belief. Is also idiotic everything at one stage or another is an unproven hypothesis which people believe. Do you understand what you just implied by using the words you did?

Do you understand what the purpose of a hypothesis is? Proving something which is unproven? Every hypothesis at one stage or another was an unproven hypothesis.

Gravity was at one stage an unproven hypothesis
planets orbiting stars was at one stage an unproven hypothesis

>>1542012
Yes, but the messages of our religions are typically related to what we do as a humans in the recent millenias, to the political aspect of our lives. If there is a God, seems more likely that it is something completly alien and unrelated or unfathomable to us.

>>1542023
>If there is a God, seems more likely that it is something completly alien and unrelated or unfathomable to us.

Most certainly, but by saying this doesn't disprove the Christian god, you can disprove his dogma, you cannot disprove him yet though.

>>1542029
Well, you'll never be able to disprove him, because he was never proven in the first place.

But yeah, the christian god is a good of example of what I am refering to.

>>1542022
>Well therein lies the difference between faith and belief. Is also idiotic everything at one stage or another is an unproven hypothesis which people believe. Do you understand what you just implied by using the words you did?
Yes, that believing a hypothesis will be proven to be true even if you haven't found evidence yet is one thing, and that believing you don't need evidence is another.

File: Men in black.jpg (69KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x269px

>>1542048
>Well, you'll never be able to disprove him, because he was never proven in the first place.

That's the point, and the beauty of theological agnosticism. I fervently believe in a god, will I ever be able to truly comprehend 'him' or 'his' actions? That's not the point and I really do not care.

Even though there is no evidence about the existence 'outside' of the big bang it still 'exists' or at least there exists a time outside of our universe were our gods exists and since it's outside of our being we literally cannot comprehend them past the general acceptance of their existence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTOBxlFjgc0

I just love arguing with people who say they 'know' in any form.

>>1542056
>and that believing you don't need evidence is another.
Literally who said anything about this, don't even dare mentioned christians, I have been shit talking them this whole discussion.

>>1542064
>outside of our universe were our gods exists and since it's outside of our being we literally cannot comprehend them past the general acceptance of their existence.

Of course this is my speculation.

>>1542064
I read something recently about some new branch of quantum mechanics in which there are no big bangs, no beginning nor ends to our universe.

>>1542072
>I read something recently about some new branch of quantum mechanics in which there are no big bangs, no beginning nor ends to our universe.

Holy that's amazing, link to the name of the theory?

>>1542067
We may have been talking around each other, or rather just have been concerned with different things. My position is disproving the rationality of faith, not god's existence, which doesn't interest me as the provable irrationality of faith makes its irrational conclusions irrelevant.

>Christians get BTFO and ragequit the thread

typical

>>1542938

Hahaha ikr? They're not deluded like us, right comrade atheist?

BAZINGA XDDDD

>>1542996
ebin

r/4chan'd

>>1542996
>being this bitter buttblasted

>>1538258
>He destroyed the most prominent Christian myths and permanently altered intellectual society away from Christian thought.
desu Kierkegaard really said a lot of what he himself did before, though from a very christian context.

>>1541680
desu our world is more like the pessimistic vision Nietzsche had for the future rather than anything close to his dreams.
we still value everything he outlined as slave morality, and we uphold the Last Man as the epitome of virtue.
if anything we've just become a twisted mockery, christian or not.

File: 1466482151087.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>1538258
Nietzsche was a punk ass bitch too afraid to go the full nihilism.

>>1538258

While Nietzsche was certainly influential in the slow abandonment of Christianity in the West, I think Kant and Darwin were more influential in taking down religion dogma.

People didn't really widely read Nietzsche before the 60's-70's. In Europe and the US he was known as the "Nazi" philosopher for a long time, and as a result he was shunned.

>>1544242
he was never a nihilist

>>1544293
I know, he was very afraid of nihilism which is why he wasn't one. This is my point.

>>1544242
>>1544303
filtered

>>1538258
>How could one man have so much insight?
It's called being a genius. They are rare, but they exist.

>>1538258
>Raped by mudslims
>Killed by mudslims
>Filled with corrupt leaders
>The West will die in our lifetime
>The West is the joke of the Planet


How Great !

thanks atheicucks

>>1541553
Except Kierkegaard.

>>1538258

Nietzsche was a pretty interesting philosopher, but his views on Christianity were pretty biased due to being educated by a protestant over-emotional mother.

The Christ that is described in his "the Antechrist", for instance, was neither the Christ of the Bible, neither the Christ of Catholic theology. It's the Christ as seen in a small evangelical german town, a personal helper, here to confort your wounds and punish the bad. Of course, he could have easily debunked such Christ and such dogma. But it isn't essential Christian dogma, rather some popular vision of God feed by Lutheran thought.

>mfw he continued the works of the Jesuits, debunking Protestantism once and for all.

Thanks Nietzsche I guess. All of you should read Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil and understand that the core of the Christian message is that God is present in this universe, not as an existing object, but rather as an absence of himself, as a nothingness, either exerced ( the Sun ), or endured ( the Cross ). God can only be perceived as a non-finite-object, as the absolute absence, and yet presence. Sorry It's really hard to explain it with my shit english. But if atheist here want to confront themselves with the real christian ( well, mixed with Gnostic elements, in the case of Weil ),dogma try to read Grace and Gravity. One of the best introduction to metaphysical thought imo.

The guy lived in darwins afterglow. There are far more religious people today than in his time. He also thought believing in God was good for life because without faith people are left with a void and most wouldn't be able to fill making life that much harder than it already is

File: Voltaire.jpg (2KB, 87x105px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 87x105px

It was Voltaire who destroyed Christianity.

File: good1.jpg (20KB, 349x356px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 349x356px

>>1545685
>God is the fact that he doesn't exist.