What are the strongest atheist critiques of the religious viewpoint?

>>2188662
no evidence for any god ever.

ergo no reason to believe.

This is the only argument you "need".

In fact you do not need a single argument since the burden of proof is on the side of religion.

>>2189134

Please, don't kid yourself. You don't want to believe in god, theists want to believe in god. That's what every philosophical motivation ultimately comes down to. There is no proof for anything. Your entire perspective on reality is an act of faith. Modernity's obsession with "evidence" amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation.

File: AAEAAQAAAAAAAAShAAAAJDllMWE2YTRiLWI0ZTQtNDY0ZS1hNTY0LTkxMGQ2OWY4Yjk1Mg.jpg (29KB, 500x286px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x286px

Pic related

>>2188662
For Abrahamism at least, historical evidence points to it evolving more organically rather than the narrative of a straight revelation from God it gives us.

The exaltation of a god associated with war and storms, having a henotheistic stage, recycling pagan myths, etc.

File: ishygddt.jpg (9KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x240px

>>2189219
>Modernity's obsession with "evidence" amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation.

History shows constant ongoing evolution of religions into what they are (or are not) today. We see religions borrow shit from other religions, can generally tell when and why they did it, etc.

History makes human involvement and motivations in religious matters very difficult to question, and following any organized religion has all that associated baggage unless you want to bury your head in the sand (going off of >>2189219 that is exactly what you'd like to do, and this entire argument will be useless).

And of course there's always the question "why this god and not one of this other excellent selection all equally valid as far as proofs are concerned"? You just go with
A) What you're born into.
B) Whatever you feel like.
Neither are particularly valid reasons to hold irrational unproven beliefs.

File: Bart-d-ehrman-2012-wikipedia.jpg (9KB, 220x260px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x260px

The academic views on a religion are usually at odds with the traditional views.

>>2188662
>What are the strongest atheist critiques of the religious viewpoint?
it leads to shitty third world behaviour. I've nothing against religion per se, but it should be restricted to a very select few and should be regarded as a personal pursuit and not a law. Peasants and plebs should never be allowed within 1 mile of a religious text. Religion is possibly the worst foundation on which to base a society

The best religions are the esoteric or occultist ones where they don't teach you that shit unless you deserve it.

File: Godlit.png (6KB, 765x91px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 765x91px

>>2188662
>What are the strongest atheist critiques of the religious viewpoint?

Well there are those which attack the legitimacy of the logic and reason they derive their belief from (the proofs of God ect). These often come down to issues of empiricism and the validity of the Aristotelian logic.

Some of the others which Ive found to be strong are the fact that despite being linked to the divine you tend to find a very artificial and human hand on the divine process and works.

This is especially profound when it comes to religions based on written down revelations and it gets worse the more you look into comparative religion and in sources not controlled by the group itself.

The greatest advantages faiths like Christianity have is they had the unique oppertunity of being able to control the narrative by being in an Empire where literacy was objectivly low and written material expensive and difficult to preserve.

>>2189134
Please try and understand a little bit more about what evidence is before you clown yourself like this on the web.

>>2189230
You are treating religion like some small choice someone makes in their life, similar to deciding what type of suit to wear or which bread to buy. Atheists constantly do this. It is clear that you look down on religious faith, but you don't do your argument any service by letting it cloud your judgement.

People don't "choose" to be Christian because they "feel like it" or were "born into it". They listen to Christian belief and it resonates with them. They hear the stories and become enthralled with the deep meaning each story holds which cannot be captured by abstract language of the modern era. You let the bland modern era blind you, and it is of no fault of your own. With all the science that describes the natural world and the technology that lets you do incredible things, you find that God is no longer important. You do not see anything in these stories. Instead you read them and give little thought to what is being said other than "LOL PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE THIS CRAP". Some do take it literal, but that is no reason to discredit a document you have put zero effort into understanding.

What is rationality? Is it to do that which makes most sense? Rationality may help you in mathematics or in explaining the natural world. It will help you in concrete belief, but in the philosophical sense, it does nothing for you. To be absolutely rational, you must live a very sad and empty life. It is rational that the suffering in existence deems life a waste of time. It is rational to kill yourself and your family to spare them from life.
It is irrational to believe that suffering will lead to happiness, and yet it does. It is irrational to believe that there is a higher power you cannot explain through rational means whom you must be accountable to for your actions, yet this belief has held the world together.

>>2189342
As a scientist I am pretty sure I know what evidence is.

Stop making a fool out of yourself by going for ad hominem.

The fact that you can not prove that your god exist and his existence is based upon indoctrination and lies makes your comment even more absurd.

Why don't you just say " I want to believe I have no evidence for his existence I am weak I want to be immortal and I need a imaginary friend because reality is to cruel to accept and live it.

Thank you for demonstrating how dishonest and weak the religious mindset is.

>>2189134
Outside of obviously uneducated and literalist streams, religion is not a series of propositions meant to be "proven" or "refuted".

When the Egyptian worships the sun as Ra, he is not saying "Ra is the sun" but the "sun is Ra". In other words, the godform is not prior to the phenomenon but a symbolic elaboration of its character.

>>2189330
I don't see the work of man to be proof that there is no God, yet instead evidence of the nature of God.

Once again, they are looking at religion in a very scientific way. The Bible isn't a textbook. It isn't a manual either. It is a group of stories built on thousands of years of human development. It is a revelation of human understanding of the ontological, something that natural science cannot describe.

Man didn't make God. Man created an understanding of God and the unknown. This is an understand Man has struggled with since the dawn of time. Simply because it is mans job to understand all that God laid out before us doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Secondly, using the history of Christianity isn't a way to disprove Christianity either. People will use any means of control possible.

>>2189358
>People don't "choose" to be Christian because they "feel like it" or were "born into it"

I can't believe that you actually wrote that.

Idoctrinating the weak(children) is a basis of every religion.

Brainwash them before they can think.

Your whole comment shows how biased and irrational a mind poisoned by religion really is.

It's like a fucking virus that forces you to ignore everything that contradicts your religion.

You are wasting your whole life following a fucking cult, you abandon sceptical thinking and making your own decisions (the thing that makes you human) just to maybe visit a imaginary 5 star hotel after you die.
That is literally insane.
Religion takes your money your mind and even your body (if you work for them) just by selling you a product you have never seen.

I can not believe people are dumb enough to fall for this scam.

>>2189370
Gods are personifications of immanent and transcendent realities that obviously exist.

It's pathetic you think Hindus haven't proven the existence of Shiva or Ganesh, which are just anthropomorphic representations of impersonal forces such as destruction and wisdom

>>2189342
You're joking, right?

>>2189426
It's fine when you say things like, " Brahmin is synonymous with the essence of being and form." One person can still say with accuracy that Brahmin has no evidence for it's existence. You can say this for Spinoza's god as well as there is no reason to anthropomorphize a concept. No, the problem is that many people believed that their gods were actual entities that possessed actual power, otherwise people wouldn't pray to them. Give me evidence why I should consider the lightning as synonymous with a god. It is essentially the same thing.

>>2189426
t. starbucks sipping new age liberal

>>2188662
I'm a religious atheist/naturalist
Any atheist arguing against religion and not God is a complete retard

>>2189381
It is not like I am trying to refute religion because religious people are immune to logic.

But if you believe in something as special as a god and you claim to have a book that is his word and the basis of your believe it should hold up to a check right?

But it doesn't that is my point.

Everything in it seems to be written by middle eastern guys with limited knowledge of science (the scientific knowledge back then).

So how can it be gods word?
Either god is a fucking retard like his followers or they were lying to make money and gain power.
Answer the question for yourself.

Btw I was a christian for half of my life just the answer for the guy that said "you don't eant to believe".

Only religious people can rely on such a weak argument, I can not even describe how pathetic and immature their mindset is.

>>2189370
Thank YOU for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the Christian faith. You chastise him for ad hom, while insulting him. This doesn't make you stronger and atheism isn't a quick path to "intelligence". It sounds to me you gained your knowledge of religion from atheists, which is intellectually defiant if you ask me.

Is it so hard to understand that the natural world cannot explain everything there is to existence? Christianity isn't about weakness and we don't believe in God because we need an imaginary friend, you ignorant oaf. My religion is about finding strength within yourself and resisting the evils of this world that surround us everyday. Reality is cruel and reality is cold and Christians accept this fact with open arms. You have clearly never read the Bible and if you did, you did so with contempt. Every single page of the Bible describes the suffering of man, the acceptance of his suffering, and him overcoming the pain of life and eventually finding salvation on Earth leading the way to salvation in an afterlife. What guidance does your empty belief offer? It has allowed hundreds of millions to die and in its place, reassured the populace that there is no morality, there is no higher understanding, there are no rules to a happy life, suffering isn't worth it, but at least we know that we're descended from monkeys!
>btw Science was kept alive by the Church and many great breakthroughs were by religious people

File: WP_20161022_002.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2189426
yeah obviously.....

File: 1480628016399.jpg (12KB, 251x241px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 251x241px

>>2189426
>transcendent realities that obviously exist.

lol

>It's pathetic you think Hindus haven't proven the existence of Shiva or Ganesh, which are just anthropomorphic representations of impersonal forces such as destruction and wisdom

then why not just call them destruction and wisdom? Why do we need fancy supernatural names?

>>2189483
This preachy bullshit is a better argument against religion than anything else in this thread.

I like christianity, m8, but you're a fucking faggot.

>>2189483
>Is it so hard to understand that the natural world cannot explain everything there is to existence?

That doesn't make your made up story true.

Btw I was a christian for over 20years so don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

I love the phrases you used to describe what (you think) christianity is/means.

Gonna save them for a pasta.
btw what about all the other religions they are wrong right?

Why exactly is your imaginary friend real and theirs is not?

They alsi have holy book made up stories and pseudo scientists just like christity so how did you decide they are wrong?

>>2189497
>then why not just call them destruction and wisdom?
That's what we used to do until the eternal Abrahamic decided that being sane was taghut shirk

>>2189477
Why, god has no power as he doesn't exist. I'm more worried about his followers.

File: image_d4b6ba8b1f.jpg (17KB, 361x253px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 361x253px

>>2189483
>Every single page of the Bible describes the suffering of man, the acceptance of his suffering, and him overcoming the pain of life and eventually finding salvation on Earth leading the way to salvation in an afterlife. What guidance does your empty belief offer? It has allowed hundreds of millions to die and in its place, reassured the populace that there is no morality, there is no higher understanding, there are no rules to a happy life, suffering isn't worth it, but at least we know that we're descended from monkeys!

Holy fucking shit you really lost your mind.

I guess he was right when he said religion poisons everything.

>>2189134
You say there is no evidence. This is an unsupportable statement. You have no evidence, this is true. You don't know that other people don't. They might be keeping it themselves because they don't want arrogant people like you getting hold of it and shitting all over it. Have you ever thought about the true value of the proof to a believer? Would they seriously throw the truth to dogs like you? Don't think so mate. It would be worse than selling your mother's arse for crack money.

>>2189423
Thank you once again for your complete lack of argument. Why do I even formulate arguments for atheists? You sound like an angsty little teenager who spouts the same vitriol I spouted when I was your age.
I'll let you in on something. I was atheist my entire life. I wasn't skeptical to what I listened to in Church, I just didn't listen to it. Instead, I listened to people like you whose whole argument was predicated on calling Christians stupid and talking about how cool Atheism is. If you don't think atheists attempt to brainwash, you are absolutely delusional. Every Communist nation has attempted to brainwash its populace and used their lack of moral groundwork as an excuse to kill countless numbers of their OWN people.

Eventually I opened my mind to what was being said in the pulpit and written in holy scripture and actually gave thought to the meaning of stories that are very difficult to comprehend. There is a reason people spend their entire lives studying the Bible and discover something new and enlightening every day. I made my own decision you moron. My decision was that atheism is a bullshit joke that offers nothing to the human race other than a misguided sense of intellectual superiority.

I haven't seen God in the sense that he stood right before me, because God is more complex than any science book could ever come close to describing. And btw, putting a dollar in the collection plate every Sunday isn't theft your moron. Neither is volunteering in a soup kitchen or doing actual good work with the Church. Something you don't even need to be Christian to do. But you don't care about that do you, because you just told me the only reason you would do good is to get into an "imaginary 5 star hotel you've never seen".

I'm Christian but god do I hate threads like this. It just turns into a contest of who has the bigger dick most of the time. Can't we all just agree to disagree?

>>2189541
>You don't know that other people don't.
can't make this shit up

>>2189219
>Modernity's obsession with "evidence" amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation.

Every time I enter these threads, Christfag idiocy/mental gymnastics never cease to amaze me.

Kill urself.

>>2189545
>I'm Christian
We don't fucking care

>Can't we all just agree to disagree?

no, because that's retarded. The existence of the supernatural isn't some petty opinion issue, it's an argument on life and the universe

>>2189543
Ok more ad hominem and butthurt emotions.

Not a single good argument why you believe in christianity over allllll the other religions.

You are doing more work with your batshit crazy (and probably mentally ill) preaching than I could ever dream of.

Thank you for demonstrating what religion does to people.

File: 1480565178119.jpg (205KB, 580x580px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 580x580px

>>2189543
>he fell for the "skepticism is just an edgy act of rebellion and what I know is more complex than what you can ever comprehend" meme

and I thought atheists were supposed to be the euphoric ones

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1473204535189.jpg (195KB, 798x770px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 798x770px

>>2189543
>Eventually I opened my mind to what was being said in the pulpit and written in holy scripture and actually gave thought to the meaning of stories that are very difficult to comprehend.

Translation: I got brainwashed so long that the sceptical part of my mind died and now I believe everything I am told by an old pedophile reading a book that doesn't hold up to any logical and scientific test.

>>2189579
This board is garbage.

>>2189497
Because not everyone has the autism that requires that to be necessary

>>2189591
It wasn't too long ago. Seriously, i leave for a month and when I come back /his/ became /christfag/

>>2189601
lol you think I'm agreeing with you

>>2189601
This board seems a lot less Christian than when it was opened

I think most of them got banned for being /pol/ tier.

>>2189605
not that guy but judging by that statement you just look super butthurt at the backlash religion has got

>>2189523
>made up story
>my own belief of what Christianity is
You understand that every Christian reads the Bible in a different way and gains understanding in a different way. It is why there are hundreds of denominations, each with their own customs and beliefs.
The stories are there to explain a concept. The people who wrote the Bible didn't have the abstract language we enjoy today, so they described abstractions through stories. The story of Adam and Eve can be interpreted in many different ways. Some say it is the story of how man gained his self-awareness. Other say it is the story that describes the original sin and the origin of human suffering. Suffering as in the things man must do in order to live, in order to find salvation.

Man, after eating the apple discovering himself to be naked and ultimately gaining his self awareness, was banished from Eden and forced to work the fields to gain food and protect Eve who must now suffer through childbirth.
>God and other religions
The concept of God is complex. He's God, of course he exists, but he exists on a reality that is higher than our own. Any learned Christian will tell you that.
>Are the religions true
Well which religion are you talking about? Every religion attempts to explain the concept of God and morality in the language of its people. Every religion has "truth" to it, but as a Christian I give preferential treatment to the teachings of Christ.

>>2189534
How have I lost my mind? Do you not make sacrifices in your own life? You go to school don't you? Perhaps you work? The sacrifices and sufferings may be small, but they are still evident. You sacrifice time and comfort and comfort and suffer through work to make money. You sacrifice money to keep a roof over your head. Not saying every sacrifice or suffering is equal to that of Christ. Suffering and the acceptance of such is a way to enlightenment and happiness. Even atheists can agree with that. Read the story of Jacob.

why are all atheists such fedora tippers

i haven't met a single self professed atheist who had a grasp of philosophy

>>2189611
lol if you think that guy's post constitutes anything like an actual, substantative backlash instead of just being a dogshit reddit burn

The Problem of Evil

a.k.a.

>If God exists, then why don't I have a girlfriend? There is no God!

>>2189620
If atheists cant into philosophy why are 3/4 of philosophers atheists?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-percentage-of-philosophers-believe-in-god-485784336

>>2189634
>he considers modern analytical "philosophy" and existential "philosophy" as anything other than an embarassement to the field
lmfao

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1476587242144.jpg (72KB, 640x407px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x407px

>>2189614
Yes I do make sacrifices I scrifice time at work BUT I get something out of it money.

You wast time money and the most important thing your free will and you get nothing.

Well you get something, mental slavery.

There is no hope to bring you back into a mindset of reason logic and secpticism.


I am really sorry for you.

You will probably be a slave until you die(just like everybody else no vip area for you).

>>2189412
>I don't see the work of man to be proof that there is no God, yet instead evidence of the nature of God.

It is when the work of men is held to be the divine work of God alone.

>Once again, they are looking at religion in a very scientific way. The Bible isn't a textbook. It isn't a manual either. It is a group of stories built on thousands of years of human development. It is a revelation of human understanding of the ontological, something that natural science cannot describe.

I was talking about religion in general not just Christianity

>Man didn't make God. Man created an understanding of God and the unknown.

There is a big difference between creating the idea of a God to understand the world around them and creating God.

>Secondly, using the history of Christianity isn't a way to disprove Christianity either.

In some ways it can for instance one uses history to refute the Book of Mormon. However the point of that section of the post was to explain the veil of time that gives the illusion of purity to older faiths and distorts the artifical nature of them.

>>2189634
Because the majority are autistic analytic philosophers who still think God is something you prove in a paper

File: holology.png (527KB, 800x1082px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 800x1082px

Strongest would be an explanation of how religion works behind the smoke and mirrors of holy word, how God was invented, how concept of deity was evolved, what causes religious expierence, all the matural explanation of so called miracles, and so on. Religious metaphysics can't really be argued, as metaphysics is speculative, but you definitely can reduce revelation to human fabrication or the human speculation and without its special status any religion is just another philosophical system.

>>2189626
>why should I believe in God
>dude blind faith lmao xD

Btw if you give another answer, you don't understand the point of religion.

>>2189614
>You understand that every Christian reads the Bible in a different way

If you believe it is gods word there is only I honest way to read it word by word(playing devils advocate).

Who are you to paraphrase gods word?
Oh it is not gods word?
Then why believe a single word written in it?

Makes no fucking sense.

>>2189626
> The Problem of Evil
Pretty weak counter, because you can always say that God is actually morally neutral being.

>>2189674
So he just doesn't care. Remind me why people worship this literal motherfucker.

>>2189674
The christian faith unequivocally states that he is NOT morally neutral. Good is good., God is right. god is loving.

>>2189652
Actually black holes eventually evaporate due to Hawking™ radiation.

t. Stephen Hawking

>>2189693
True, but atheism shouldn't deny only Christianity. Does problem of evil exist, say, in Hinduism?

>>2189691
It's your choice. Worship God or burn in hell.

>>2189644
>but I get something out of it, money
I didn't say sacrifice gives you nothing. I said sacrifice gives you EVERYTHING. You sacrifice time for money, you sacrifice money for a home, you agreed with what I said as a reason to discredit me. You fucking moron.

>Mental slavery
Explain to me how wishing to follow by a code of morality that I believe is higher than man itself is slavery?

Logic and skepticism is what I have founded my whole belief structure on. Maybe I am a skeptic for what the atheists have said my entire life? They say morality is subjective and I found that to be illogical. I used to do whatever I pleased, I allowed myself to be overcome by bad emotions, ignorance, and bad choices that were based on my own baser instincts and I was afraid to sacrifice my comfort. If anything I was a slave to my own choices. I lied and made evil decisions and put myself in a place of suffering that was gaining nothing. I was committing an evil act upon myself.

Is skepticism only skepticism if it follows what YOU believe? This is a totalitarian mindset that places mankind and all of its flaws into a seat of power that declares anyone that does not believe as stupid and worthless. It is a scary hearkening to crimes of humanity committed in the 20th century.

>>2189731
Nice try, but you don't need a faith to be a priest.

>>2189722
How can you follow morality that is higher than man and so must be out of his reach?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1479479678529.jpg (5KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 125x125px

>>2189722
Oh cute now you get angry don't you little bitch?

I get something for my sacrifice (money) you don't get anything.

Stop talking about skepticism like it is an ideology you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Enjoy the pile of shit you call faith, I am busy now and not going to waste more time.

I am really sad you couldn't even provide a tiny amount of evidence for your hallucination.

Going to buy a bible on my way to work and use it as toilet paper.
Your shitty arguments made me get that idea you should be proud of yourself.

>>2189666
nice trips Devil's advocate. I am not paraphrasing God's word, I am simply trying to make sense of it. Christians debate meaning among themselves. They also discuss the content of the Bible and how the Word resonates to them.

"Believe" is a loaded word. Do I believe that Adam and Eve literally at a physical apple and God physically walked around and Adam physically hid behind a physical bush? I believe the metaphor is describing a truth. As Christians it is our job to make sense of what the truth is. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what the truth is. Previously I said it is the origin of man's self awareness, evident in when they realized that they were naked.

Another highly debated example is the curse of the Canaanites that shares many aspects to the story of Adam and Eve. Noah was naked and passed out drunk when his son Ham saw that he was naked, Noah cursed his son, Canaan, with slavery. This is a fucked up thing, but I believe the meaning to be similar to the suffering brought on by self-awareness and Noah's embarrassment at his son seeing him at his weakest.

>>2189779
Ham was a fag, and he should have been put to death.

File: aXm9942xjU.jpg (94KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 650x650px

>>2189779
> I believe the metaphor is describing a truth.
What metaphor doesn't? They all describing some truth, one way or another if you will to search for it matephorical meaning long enough.

>>2189778
You will only understand once you allow yourself to think. It is proof that you refuse to even grasp the concept sacrifice because you are so rooted in materialism. You should try practicing skepticism on yourself and doubting these notions that you have existence figured out. There is no greater sign of stupidity than that which you are showing yourself. I'll pray for you.

File: Hieronymus Bosch - Die Hölle.jpg (75KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x398px

>>2189779
>I am not paraphrasing God's word, I am simply trying to make sense of it.

If it is gods word it would make sense, everything else than taking it literal is paraphrasing.

Either it is gods word and he is acutally insane to make stuff like that up.
Or
Some morons wrote it to gain power and money.

Hey nice life you got there would be a shame if you got tortured for eternity right?
Np just do everything I say and you will have a supermega life after you die(the irony)
That is the defintion of mental slavery make up a threat make up a whole universe(environment) where people are afraid and give them a solution you control.

The mechanism is so obvious....

File: holy roman empire.png (60KB, 320x121px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 320x121px

>>2189606

We had a theologyfag phase where everyone got sick of it. It's still a staple, but not as much.

/his/ is still a young board, for all we know it comes in waves.

Speaking of coming in waves, when will voltaireposting make a proper comeback?

>>2188662
>the religious viewpoint

the normal, most common viewpoint.

throughout history, nearly the most completely ubiquitous and substantial viewpoint.

>>2189816
>You will only understand once you allow yourself to think.

>>2189831
>skeptic thinks he knows everything

lmao stop embarrassing yourself

>>2189763
Well clearly moral perfection is out of reach for man. Only Christ was perfect according to Christian doctrine. However, that doesn't mean man cannot act in moral good, else what is the point of not killing whomever you want?

Morality must be out of reach else man would be able to create his own morality, which would deem morality useless. Man is too flawed for that sort of privilege. It usually leads to bad shit.

>>2189799
Not true. Metaphors only represent what you want them to represent if they are well crafted. Feminist pieces are full of stupid metaphors are only represent their ideology. I believe that the thoughts and concepts the Bible puts forth through metaphors represent truth. This is why I am Christian.

>>2189842
He never said he knows everything.
Stop strawmanning, claiming to have absolute knowledge is a typical religious trait.

lmao stop talking you make your position look weaker with every fucking word.

I wonder if atheists have appreciations for things like music and poetry; their behavior makes it seem as though they wouldn't be able to grasp such things.

In our complex global world people are too caught up in their warrings against one another to deal with the 'dirty questions' they're faced within religion; it's easy to pass God off as 'illogical' and submit oneself to faith in something more stylish and modern.

Anyone who has a grasp on argumentation knows that the 5 tops "arguments" every 'atheist' (and this is a terrible name for a nonreligious movement, given the fact of atheistic religions) embraces and espouses ad nauseam have no significant effect on the religious or the religious understanding.

It's not like we can blame or try to convert the nonreligious; their views are a predictable part of all that came out of the enlightenment 'humanism' and an insignificant microendorsement of a broader, more menacing historical event.

>>2189864
> what is the point of not killing
Well, killing is pretty hard and not worth the effort and risks if you just hate the victim.

>>2189864
> Morality must be out of reach else man would be able to create his own morality.
Man would do this anyway. Because, why even bother to follow what can't be properly followed?

>>2189651
unfortunately for you, saying "i feel it" doesn't cut it. Dumbass.

>>2189877
>I wonder if atheists have appreciations for things like music and poetry; their behavior makes it seem as though they wouldn't be able to grasp such things.

Atheists love art love people love the universe love the here and now.

What did your middle eastern deathcult do to you that you can even think about a question as dumb as this?

Tell me where did he touch you?

>>2189818
>it would make sense
I guess you mean, you wish the Bible was written in modern language so you wouldn't have to think about it so hard.

1) the concepts in the Bible are incredibly complex and the actions that Biblical actors make have deep meaning. You refusing to think about the deep meaning and drawing YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS as to what is being said is a personal problem.
2) People in Biblical times did not have the words we have now. Their language was different and explained abstractions through parables. Just read Aesop's Fables for proof of this. Or is that all bullshit too because a tortoise would never race a hare?
>The insane would make this stuff up
The Bible was written by many different people. Some of the stories predate Abraham. It is the word of God because it describes the stories of God fearing people and the revelations gained from God in their journeys through life.
>Heaven and Hell
Hell is touched on very softly. The modern idea of Hell came from the Middle Ages, specifically formed out of the Divine Comedy.
Ancient Jews believed Heaven and Hell to be more Earthly. Others consider Heaven to be an actual place on Earth. I personally believe it to be a state of mind, though many believe it to be the afterlife. It doesn't really matter as good Christians live life to live not to die. Not all though, nuns can be rather scary about it.

Anyone can find themselves in mental slavery and anyone can break out. It is a choice of the individual and it has nothing to do what your beliefs are. What it is is being completely obsessed with worldly goods, vices, materialism to the point you become diminished. Atheists and Christians can experience this. Living for a higher power is not mental slavery. I have seen the most unhappiness in Atheists than I have ever seen in a Christian, yet it is the Atheist who is mentally free?

File: 114533-004-24F50A6C.jpg (24KB, 358x450px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 358x450px

>>2189877
> Their behavior makes it seem as though they wouldn't be able to grasp such things.
Yeah! Such behavior like banning music... or the images... Wait. It was religious people who lack appreciation of real art and ends up baning such things. ISIS destroyed cultural heritage because religion says so. This is behaviour that points on fundamental lack of an aesthetic understanding.

>>2189718
Why are you on 4chan? Fuck off churchboy

>>2189919
>the concepts in the Bible are incredibly complex and the actions that Biblical actors make have deep meaning.

No that is what you want them to be but in fact they are incredibly simple dull amd obvious.

I know you need this type of argument to make genocide rape and murder more acceptable by claiming it means something else.

Because we just don't get it right?

Abother example how dishonest you are.

Murder means murder not kissing the bible is written in a pretty simple amd straight forward fashion sorry no chance for you to make stuff up even if you try it again and again when you are confronted by the fact how immoral "gods word" is

File: Nones_2.ngsversion.1461422622827.png (158KB, 1140x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1140x1000px

>>2189877
> have no significant effect on the religious or the religious understanding
The effect is truly here, even if some people deep in denial about it existence.

>>2189902
Art and religion both revolve around a 'spiritual' (emotional) affect which for the latter seems never to reach the atheist mind, who uses "scientific" arguments against the fundamentally unscientific understandings of religion; the relation of which to science is shared by art. Also much of the greatest poetic and musical works were created by the profoundly religious, giving the two a historical connection.

>>2189920
Saying that the acts of ISIS are purely religious is a broad reductionism and fails to grasp the entirety of the 'ISIS Situation.'
Furthermore banning certain arts is not alien to those atheistic communist nations, who saw art as a purely political act; the banning of art is not specific to the religious.

>>2189944
k thanks for telling me I don't enjoy the music I enjoy right now.

Nobody could make up what a deeply infected mind like yours produces.
When did you say goodbye to reality?
Indoctrinated from your birth on I guess what a sad life.

>>2189944
>to those atheistic communist nations


ffs atheism is not an ideology it is a lack of believe it has no impact on politics it has no impact on anything.

>>2189882
That is why it is not good to follow sin and baser instincts. The world has a way of punishing people who do wrong whether it be legally or emotionally. Hopefully you refrain from evil because it is evil and not because you will get in trouble.

>>2189892
Do I really need to explain this? You want to follow morality because it makes you a better person. It can be properly followed. It is just too difficult for people to do because people are lazy. If you followed morality explicitly you will reach salvation, nirvana, zen, the good place, whatever you want to call it.
Acting against morality has an interesting way of fucking your life up. Do you think drug addicted perverts live full, happy lives? If they do, their vices prevent them from going any higher. These things diminish you over time.

Of course man creates his own morals. Yet it doesn't work out. They usually create morality as an excuse to commit unspeakable acts against fellow man.

>>2189939
Not that guy, but Biblical stories can be extremely layered and a single one simultaneously be a metaphor for an entire series of truths. Most of the major events of the OT and the history of Israel are retold within Christ's life.

>>2189973
I have read the whole bible yes word for word it is pretty simple in its language.

I know religious people look for a way to paraphrase it because it is so fucking immoral but no it just doesn't work that well.

File: Hedonism.jpg (373KB, 700x850px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 700x850px

>>2189944
> latter seems never to reach the atheist mind
This is where you are mistaken. Atheists aren't free from the emotional affect, they just doesn't attribute it to a made up idea of God. Basically, you can see how flawed your logic is when you pick drug abuse as source as emotional affect, than claim that you can't be a religious without heavy abusing drugs to be spiritual. Like there, actually is no need for drugs to expierence art, there is no need for God.

>>2189944
I don't agree you need to be religious to enjoy art and music. There is a certain amount of profound affect that is lost if you believe in no higher power., but just to enjoy is not enough.

I believe atheism only works in a certain type of mindset. One that is mechanical and scientific, however these people will never create anything to great value and will most likely never live lives beneficial to anyone other than themselves.

>>2189962
Of course it has an impact on politics. You have to be foolish to believe there isn't a belief structure around atheism. Though, the way atheists debate it has me halfway convinced, considering their whole argument is "YOUR A FUCKIN CHRISTIAN WHAT A FAGGOT EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS BULLSHIT WHY DON'T YOU AGREE YOU MUST BE A SLAVE"

Any type of widespread mindset has an affect on politics. If you are a person in power, your worldview will have a very tangible affect on the way you use your power.

>>2189943
>statistics perfectly reflect people's inner understanding of reality

holy lel

>>2189965
>It can be properly followed. It is just too difficult for people to do because people are lazy.

Okay.... making up your own morality amd following it just to be good is easy and foe the lazy guys.

Following a 2000 year old guide how to rape beat a slave and fight non believers is not only moral but a tough job.
And you are not even doing it for being good and doing good things NO you want something for it eternal life.

Playing by the rules because you want cake after dinner very moral.

Shit there is really no hope for you.

>>2189965
> You want to follow morality because it makes you a better person.
Is it really makes you the better person? History knows many bad persons who followed religious morality word by word. Looks like religious moral system isn't really better than made up one from factual point of view.

>>2189956
I was an atheist in my youth out of rebellion but later came to terms with religion after realizing that the understanding ancient books like the Bible produce are far more useful to one's existence than rebellious atheism. I never said that you can't enjoy music; do you have any reading comprehension at all? You type like a whore. Also there's no such thing as an 'infected mind.'

>>2189962
Everything in one's understanding impact one's orientation in the world.

>>2189980
I'm saying that religion and art affect the spirit in the same way, and if one is able to appreciate art then one must be able to appreciate the religious.

>>2189981
>I believe atheism only works in a certain type of mindset. One that is mechanical and scientific, however these people will never create anything to great value and will most likely never live lives beneficial to anyone other than themselves.

I agree deeply. I find that 'science' in every part of our modern society is seen as an objective and unquestioned answer; the only person who should care in such extreme respect on the notions of science is a scientist.

>>2189977
>it is very simple
There is your problem. Like I said, the people who wrote the Bible didn't use abstract language. Why can't you understand this? I've explained it so many times. They represent abstractions through stories. I studied with an old rabbi who described the complexity of the Bible as "the story between the lines". The story of Mary and Joseph for example. It does more than describe the virtuous spirit of Joseph. What would he think that his new wife was pregnant without his seed? Instead of chunking her off and branding her an adulterer, he stayed by her all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

>>2189981
>don't agree you need to be religious to enjoy art and music. There is a certain amount of profound affect that is lost if you believe in no higher power., but just to enjoy is not enough.I believe atheism only works in a certain type of mindset. One that is mechanical and scientific, however these people will never create anything to great value and will most likely never live lives beneficial to anyone other than themselves.

Okay you should kill yourself I am serious, everything you said so far has no basis in reality and shows how insecure and butthurt you get when you are confronted by the fact that you have no rational reason to believe.

Atheists are just as emotional as religious people they create art they love.

I wonder where you get your theistic propaganda from.

>>2189219
>Please, don't kid yourself. You don't want to believe in god, theists want to believe in god.
Yea man how horrible it would be if there existed a god who loved you unconditionally as long as you die in battle.

>>2189981
>Any type of widespread mindset has an affect on politics. If you are a person in power, your worldview will have a very tangible affect on the way you use your power.


You still don't get it.

Atheism is not a worldview it is not a belief it is not a ideology.

Btw you still did not provide a single good argument why you believe and why all other religions are wrong.

So far you made a fool oit of yourself and did a good job of debunking religion and discrediting it.

m e n t a l s l a v e
e
n
t
a
l

s
l
a
v
e

>the atheists don't into theology and keep repeating the same questions that have been shot down time and time again
>the Christfags on here are doing a horrendous job at explaining ANYTHING

What is going on in here? This thread is a mess.

>>2189981
There is a certain amount of profound affect that is lost by not being an atheist. For example, if you a person believes in heaven he can't feel a mortality of human life as fully as random atheist, to believe in higher power is to take many things as the joke by comparison to it, to believe in a higher power is to try eliminate the affect that you feel from such a world where no higher powers exist to protect your weak fragile ego.

>>2189991
So... You are saying that theist are claiming to be an atheists or what? :)

>>2189992
Can you not insult me because it offers nothing to your pathetic argument that I have already heard a million times.

lol the Bible offered guidelines on how to treat a slave in a time where slavery as accepted and how to commit acts we consider now deplorable in a time where no one cared. Its pretty bad isn't it. Lets throw out the whole book because it doesn't correspond exactly to modern belief, who cares if we lose the basis of Western civilization in the process.

>Playing by the rules because you want cake after dinner very moral
You are purposefully ignoring the things I am saying because you can't come up with a decent argument. I do not act to good to get into heaven. I have no preconceived notions as to what heaven is. Personally I consider it another metaphor for a state of mind gained here on Earth. I act good because it is a good thing to do. I try to make myself a virtuous person because it will lead to a better life for myself and my fellow man. It is a shame you cannot see through your own selfishness.

>>2189995
Calling it rebellious doesn't help your position at all.

>Muuuh atheists are angry teenagers, lets repeat it so nobody realizes that believing something without evidence is something children do and grown ups liev in reality.

Another good indication against religion is that religiousness correlates negative with intelligence.

The smarter you are the less likely you are religious.

Dumb people like this ideology it must be true.
I still have not answered the question where my evidence is or why I believe in a religion and not another one.

Huuuh atheists do not enjoy music that will show em.

You lost this so hard.

>>2189995
> one must be able to appreciate the religious
Who said that atheists can't appreciate religion? Many of them study it harder than most theists. You can see on 4chan that most critical people are always the one who enjoy subject the most themselves.

>>2190029
>lol the Bible offered guidelines on how to treat a slave in a time where slavery as accepted and how to commit acts we consider now deplorable in a time where no one cared. Its pretty bad isn't it. Lets throw out the whole book because it doesn't correspond exactly to modern belief, who cares if we lose the basis of Western civilization in the process.

But god is all knowing and perfect right?
So he was wrong about slavery back then?

But god can not be wrong it is almost like a goat fucker 2000years ago wrote it.

Shit you are really horrible at this your "arguments" are so weak and full of logical fallacies I can not stop laughing.

>>2190018
> shot down time and time again
*tips fedora* is not counter argument, anon

>>2190017
>why other religions are wrong
I never said all religions are wrong. Every religion attempts to explain the unknown and provide ontological truth in the language of its people. I prefer Christianity because it makes more sense to me and I believe it has the capacity to do the most good. There is also the cultural and family aspects of it.
The REASON I believe is the same reason you do not. I believe everything in the Bible is true. You do not. I believe through Christ I can find salvation. You do not. You only believe in one less God than I. The reason everything I say discredits religion maybe because you are already not receptive to what I say. Everything you say regarding atheism and calling me a mental slave STILL doesn't even have me close to being convinced. Belief is something you have to find within yourself. You think this is a joke of course because you are hardwired into this atheistic mentality. I don't try to convince atheists of God. My religiosity happened naturally when I made a very huge, very quick decision in my life. I realized that atheism doesn't provide anything and science can't explain everything.

LOL RELIGION DEBUNKED DUDE
At least I'm showing you respect. Its interesting that a tenet of atheist rhetoric is to show the religious as little respect as possible. It shows how juvenile your mindset it.

Physicality
Simply put, we haven't observed literally anything deviating from it, so why start now with little evidence?

>>2190084
Holy Bible is enough evidence by itself...

>>2190079
>The REASON I believe is the same reason you do not.

No just no, my reason is logic and skepticism you want a warm feeling and shut your brain down.

btw I am pretty sure you will go to hell for not saying "all other religions are wrong"

>>2189358
this is bullshit. the vast majority of religious people are religious because they were raised that way.

>>2189995
see
>>2189568

>>2190079
>STILL doesn't even have me close to being convinced

there is no way to reach you just like conspiracy theorists, because you don't care if your beliefs are true and have a factual basis.

I never thought I would reach you.

File: omnitheism.png (2MB, 1063x1054px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1063x1054px

>>2190079
> You only believe in one less God than I.
That is why you both atheists with only difference between you is that one is honest about it. While another one think that he is somehow better than person who does exactly the same thing 99,99% of a time. Both of you choose the dogma as your views be it dogma of Christianity or dogma of the scientific method.

>>2188662
Well let's take a moment here- we should consider the fact that atheism is just as much as religion as theism. It posits the "fact" that there is no such thing as a divine being, whereas realistically they have about as much evidence to back up that thesis as the theists do.

Now, if they would like to rechristen themselves as "A-christian" or "A-islam" in rebuttal of a specific religion altogether then their arguments make much more sense because the goal post is moved much closer and is thus a less astronomical task. But at the end of the day, you can disprove the concept of divinity with "there is no proof" because there is also no proof that there ISN'T one.

>>2190021
>fragile ego
Please give me one atheistic response without an insult.

We experience morality in the fact that we are morals with limitations. You are making an assumption that you have a more profound experience in life than I do because you believe it all stops when you die. We view life in two completely different ways so our profound experience are of two different natures.

>>2190068
It is the Word of God not because God wrote the book, but because through God man wrote the book. Man has every capability to be wrong.

Your arguments are weak too. You are misunderstanding my religion as a form to discredit it. Which is a logical fallacy. Then you are going to say "no I understand it pretty well" then you are going to laugh some more.

Your ignorance is not a sign of intelligence.

>>2190046
You are wrong to think that atheism is the fast track to easy intelligence. I have seen just as many stupid atheists in my time as I have met genius Christians and vice versa. Nothing you have said has given me any indication that you have above average intelligence or that you are any authority as to how someone should live their life or what to believe.

>>2190097
Yeah and Yang Wenli is real too.

>>2190021
>fragile ego
Please give me one atheistic response without an insult.

We experience morality in the fact that we are morals with limitations. You are making an assumption that you have a more profound experience in life than I do because you believe it all stops when you die. We view life in two completely different ways so our profound experience are of two different natures.

>>2190068
It is the Word of God not because God wrote the book, but because through God man wrote the book. Man has every capability to be wrong.

Your arguments are weak too. You are misunderstanding my religion as a form to discredit it. Which is a logical fallacy. Then you are going to say "no I understand it pretty well" then you are going to laugh some more.

Your ignorance is not a sign of intelligence.

>>2190046
You are wrong to think that atheism is the fast track to easy intelligence. I have seen just as many stupid atheists in my time as I have met genius Christians and vice versa. Nothing you have said has given me any indication that you have above average intelligence or that you have any authority as to tell people how to live their life or what to believe.

>>2190079
Not a christian personally but I definitely agree with that final sentiment. Most religions today are becoming much more tolerant and respectful- only atheists are still by and large self-righteous and annoying.

>>2190125
*sorry CANNOT

>>2190125
> atheism is just as much as religion as theism
Religion isn't just a believe, it is also the practice which atheism lacks.

>>2190126
> Please give me one atheistic response without an insult.
I didn't meant this as the insult. People sense of a self is fragile no matter if you believe in God or not, it's natural state of all of us.

>>2190125
>i have never heard of skepticism, probability or the null hypothesis

>>2190073
I didn't say it was shot down in this thread but they're easy to counter.

I've seen both sides offer better arguments. It's been pretty basic.

>>2190126
> our experience are of two different natures
Well, we can never really be sure about that. Even two religious people have different experience, but no person can truly transcend the boundaries of a being human, so any difference here is an illusory one. This is somewhat visious circle to claim that atheist expierence is different becayse we focuse on that and only that difference. Yes it is different, but how exactly significiant that difference? There is no way to answer that question honestly, while your human mind is a black box to everyone else.

>>2190105
>warm feeling
>shut my brain down
I have put a great deal of thought into everything I believe. You don't have any authority to tell me or anyone what is going through my mind. The smartest people I have ever met have been religious but you are so dense you would call them idiotic to their face.
At least the atheists I have met have interest in understanding religion before they attempt to discredit it. I have attempted to at least explain my point of view but you just shit all over it because apparently it is me that was brainwashed. There is NOOO way that I could have come up with an idea on my own accord.
>>2190109
A vast majority of atheists were also raised religious. People can choose their own path. This isn't the Middle East.
>>2190113
The facts are facts of life. Life rewards people who live a virtuous way. The Bible also provides understanding. If you want me to prove little scientific tidbits we'd be wasting our time. Is it possible for you to conceive the idea that not every aspect of existence is based in the physical realm? If the world is limited to numbers and observations, then your life hasn't much meaning. I suppose you won't listen to a religious argument unless it is coming out of a religious scientist's mouth.
>>2190124
I don't believe myself to be better than him. I wasn't even trying to convince him, but instead to explain why I believe in the first place. I am certain we both do the exact same things. He's probably lived a life more virtuous than mine was. I don't know the guy but I do know I've done some very fucked up shit in my past.

I don't understand why he can't see that science and religion explain two completely different things. I agree with the scientific method but the scientific method can only be used with that can be observed, not what can be experienced ESPECIALLY at a philosophical level.

>>2190166
I wonder, has any religion ever provided an adequate argument as to why they are correct and all competing, non compatible religions are not?

Not talking about the existence of god but rather the truth of their interpretation of god.

>>2190154
Sure you could use the null hypothesis as a justification for your beliefs. And that's fine.

But at the end of the day it doesn't change that fact that because the concept of a deity is something with literally zero hard data, and therefore because you basing something on what is the scientific method's equivalent of a default, you are still choosing to believe it based on rhetorical applicability. At the end of the day the null hypothesis still doesn't definitively PROVE anything, and therefore it is a belief- much like the beliefs the theists hold.

>>2188662
>no evidence for any god ever.

This.

Meanwhile, there's countless examples of humans making shit up to exploit their fellow man for their own benefit. There's also countless examples of IDIOTS following the bullshit preached by countless of other con-men.

>>2190145
At it's core it is a set of beliefs. There are rituals and whatnot around it sure, but it comes back to believing in something. And Atheists believe just as much as Theists do.

while you could say god is an entity beyond the need or possibility of evidence
however what does require evidence is the claim that god actively intervenes in the world and cares about worship

the latter has zero evidence

>>2190171
> science and religion explain two completely different things
Fundamentally, they aren't. Both engaging in explaining reality and our place there. You can pretend that their respective fields never collide, but we all know that it isn't really true and such separation is artificial one.

>>2190177
"Those guys are making wild claims with weak justification" is not a faith position, nor is it one lacking in evidence. There's no equivalence here.

>>2190181
Yes. Religion is set of beliefs, but not every set of beliefs is religion. Sometimes it's just philosophy, ideology or something less structured.

>>2190171
> Life rewards people who live a virtuous way
Religious code is not requirment for virtuous life.

>>2190153
I see what you mean. Sorry I'm a bit on the defensive right now.
Sense of self is very fragile. I even explained how the description of this fragility is present in Genesis. It is such a deep concept in Christianity that it is tied into the creation of man itself!

>>2190185
Fundamentally they are.

Does science actually explain reality or does it explain the mechanics of reality? If anything, science reinforces my believe in God. The collision of the fields is the fault of man, not religion.

>>2190199
I know plenty of atheists who live virtuous lives. Religion helps a guide-stone for many people living today.

If you want to back enough, our western virtues are Christian in nature, though the virtues were there before Christianity, it took many revelations over many years to bring them to light.

>>2190192
That is a fine counter argument of any specific dogma, but not against the concept of a deity. Atheism, unless i am wrong, is the belief that there is no such thing as a deity. You also are making a claim with little basis other than that your personal limited senses cannot deduce the existance of something that could be considered a deity, and yet atheist's present it as a fact. It is still an assumption however, and thus a belief.

>>2190203
> the description of this fragility is present in Genesis
Yes, it is a pretty viable one, all things considered.

>>2190184
AFAIK to believe the former makes you an agnostic. To ascertain the later thus disproves the former makes you an atheist.

>>2190216
> Does science actually explain reality
Does religion actually explains it? I don't think so. In many cases god himself is beyond explanation and he is the one with supposedly key roles here. Science also isn't necessary about a mechanics. Don't forget, that demarcation problem is problem for a reason. Many boundaries are very fluid here.

>>2190223
> concept of a deity
Is there even a concept of one that is universal for all religions? You can't really disprove something, that aren't even really stated or even defined.

>>2188662

1) A long train of scientific investigation, which discovers empirical facts and amasses evidence, has obliged the world's religious traditions to contract certain of their tenets, since even some of their adherents have a certain capacity for rationality. And this because religion eventually and necessarily insinuates itself into empirical facts to a very large extent, and to proclaim general truths, in the service of telling compelling stories that humans can understand.

2) I turn my attention to the central fictive Monster of our conversation. The creature, or monster that is described in the Abrahamic tradition, is an absolute abject asshole and abomination, and when someone defends that abomination a la apologetics, this is in and of itself enough to know that that apologist has a depraved moral sense which is totally useless to the human point of view. Happily, evidence suggests an alternative: that the asshole is an outgrowth of human projection of absolute power if it could be realized by one human. If you don't sincerely hate the idea of the abrahamic god as it has been historically explained, on every level that it is possible to hate that god, then it really is true that it is you who has the depraved moral sensibility. Hatred and revulsion with a will to destruction are the proper and correct moral sensibilities when confronted with such a monster.

3) "But we need religion". This might be provisionally true in order to maintain a stable society, but is it a /vindication/ of religion? Certainly not, again from the human point of view, and in light of the above. If we 'need' religion, then this is not a point in favor of religion, but a point against humans.

Unfortunately, humans don't seem to be good enough, strong enough, smart enough, whatever you want to call it, to handle what the rest of the world declares upon them as immanent. They are instead obliged to make stories to themselves.

>>2190248
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The literal definition of atheism.

>>2190179
You have to be absolutely autistic to rely on religion to provide an "argument" for its truths instead of just relating them to your own experience like an actually mature human being who has an idea of life

Kill ys manchild

>>2190223
>Atheism, unless i am wrong, is the belief that there is no such thing as a deity
As the name implies, the word "a-theist" means "not theist." That's it.

>>2190248
You are right. Which is why it's as foolish to claim they cant exist as it is for the theists to demand they do.

>>2190240
I don't think its possible for anything to explain it. Religion describes reality in relation to man. God works on a level above anything else. The Bible is his word to Man.
I am not a scientist so I can't pretend to know all the parameters of what science is or isn't. I can say that my scientific knowledge has never impeded on my faith or vice versa.

>>2190277
Here it is again:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is the literal definition.

>>2190269
You can argue that it is atheism case by case, but not as denial of broad concept that doesn't exist in a strict sense.

>>2190283
Notice that it is defined as a lack of a positive belief, not a separate positive belief.

File: 8787213646_9c3e4bb1e2_b.jpg (29KB, 850x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 850x360px

>>2190278
I actually agree here. Atheism is more a label than a position. NOTA of religious views in a sense.

>>2190286
It is defined both ways. One is the lack of a positive belief- the other, by definition, is a positive belief. You can be either or, but not both.

>>2190300
No, both dis-belief and lack of belief imply a failure subscribe to a positive belief. Nowhere in the definition does it say "the belief that gods do not exist." Failing to affirm the existence of something is not equivalent to affirming that something does not exist.

>>2190290
I would argue the NOTA option would be agnosticism too, but as anon pointed out yes it is entirely possible to be labeled atheist but still adhere to the concept of NOTA rather than hold a positive belief version of atheism.

>>2190311
It literally says that though. One more time.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief (or lack of belief) in the existence of God or gods.

and what you said is

"the belief that gods do not exist"

Disbelief in their existance and believing they do not exist are quite literally the exact same thing. Thus to be an atheist who actively denies the existence of god(s) means you hold a positive belief: the belief that gods do not exist.

>>2190318
>Disbelief in their existance and believing they do not exist are quite literally the exact same thing
No, because one is a failure to accept a positive belief while the other is a separate positive belief. That is the difference, and why they are not literally the same thing.

ugh

>>2190328
To not accept that positive belief forces you into a separate positive belief because the question by nature is binary. If you do not believe they exist you must believe they do not exist.

>>2190346
It's a thread about theology. At the end of the day, inherently, it's all just semantics.

>>2190348
Failing to accept a claim is not equivalent to affirming its opposite.

>>2190272

You have to be an absolute idiot to rely on religion for ANYTHING.

KYS, moron, and go to your "gods" already.

>>2190348
If I tell you that a beach has an even number of sand grains on it and you have no reason to believe me, does that mean you automatically believe that the number of grains is odd?

>>2190373
In the case of this where it is quite literally a binary option (is vs isnt) then yes, to reject the claim of is; is quite literally to accept the claim of isnt. You cannot say both that gods cant exist and they must exist- they are mutually exclusive statements.

>>2190395
If I do believe your conclusion then I must believe they are even, if I don't believe your conclusion then I must believe the opposite. There cannot be a state wherein the grains are both or neither even or odd.

>>2188662

So far I haven't heard a good answer for the "abortion paradox".

So if God sends aborted and miscarried babies to heaven (I mean there isn't much difference in result of a aborted and miscarried baby and if he sending miscarried babies to hell then we have a problem of evil) then why aren't we aborting more babies to save souls?

Why aren't Christians pro-Abortion when it comes to non-Christians?

Wouldn't making all Muslims abort their babies send billions of souls to heaven instead of hell as heathen Muslims who won't convert?

And is withholding the kingdom of heaven from another human by inaction a sin?

See where I'm going with this...

>>2190395
Whether or not I agree with whatever reasoning you provide for the beach having an even number of grains is ultimately coincidental to whether or not i believe your conclusion itself.

>>2190405
>If I do believe your conclusion then I must believe they are even, if I don't believe your conclusion then I must believe the opposite

But that's nonsense. Is it not enough to recognise that my claim is unjustified? Right and wrong are indistinguishable in this case - the only reasonable response is to withhold belief until there is good reason to pick a side.

>>2190421
But that isn't disbelief in the conclusion- merely the claim. Thus if you are "withholding belief" then you cannot claim to disbelieve in gods and you can also not claim to believe in them, merely that the evidence is insufficient to determine either way.

What you're describing, by the way, is agnosticism- not atheism.

>>2190439
But that's precisely my point. Agnosticism and atheism (in the 'lack of belief' sense) are not mutually exclusive.

Theists claim that a god exists.
Atheists do not believe the claim.
This does not necessitate making or believing an inverse claim.

>>2190460
Yknow earlier when it became apparent that the definition provided easily had two meanings i looked into it further and there are two sub-sects of Atheism: Hard and Soft atheism. (Or Positive and Negative atheism as you would put it). With negative being in all but name Agnosticism.

Usually Atheism is connotated with the concept of hard atheism and agnosticism is pretty exclusively used to refer to soft atheism.

>>2190479
Pretty much. 'Hard' atheism is a harder (hue) position to defend because gods are typically defined to be slippery and vague. "Soft" atheism is a simpler and more popular position, because it's simply 'not buying what the theists are selling'. Soft atheists can still attack specific arguments or conceptions of gods put forward by theists, though. You don't have to disprove *all* gods to know that the god who created the world 6000 years ago isn't real.

"Atheism" works well enough as an inclusive term for both positions, unless the discussion is being sidetracked into semantics.

>>2189219
>Please, don't kid yourself. You don't want to believe in god
>implying

>>2190493
Well then I apologize for the exercise in semantics- I had always thought atheism to exclusively refer to hard atheism.

>>2190412
but if you kill a fetus you might go to heck

>>2189541
>I have no stamps
>Therefore I have no stamps

I can't prove that I have no stamps.

>>2189381
>Cannot be refuted
What? Are you so cucked that you're too scared to question your own beliefs? Like a poor child who is too scared to speak up against his abusive father.

>>2189219
If I "want" to believe in fairies, then does that make fairies real? Just believe you choose to believe in God dosen't mean you're right.

The best arguments against religion are those which argue that religion isn't a science and therefore doesn't describe material reality.

The problem with this of course is that science isn't the only truth that exists. There are also moral truths which science cannot touch, because science starts with the presupposition that the subjective is non-real, or at least not "true" because subjective statements cannot be falsified.

So, in other words, scientists are actually operating in a space of non-morality. Which is why they have had no problems creating heroin, mustard and chlorine gas, and nuclear weapons, and this has happened in the span of 400 years, which is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

I'm fairly convinced that if science doesn't incorporate some kind of moral dimension into it's direction, it will one day create a weapon that annihilates humanity.

>>2190872
>non-real, or at least not "true" because subjective statements cannot be falsified.
It simply doesn't say anything about it, not that it's true or false.

>>2190872
>There are also moral truths

Kek.

>>2190884
>It simply doesn't say anything about it

Yes, because the presupposition is that Truth™ exists in objective space. Hence the subjective is non-real.

If there is nothing truthful to say about the subjective, it means it is a lie.

>>2190907
>If there is nothing truthful to say about the subjective, it means it is a lie.
If there is no falsehood to be said about the subjective, does it mean that it's true then?

>>2190913
>If there is no falsehood to be said about the subjective

The point is that if truth only exists in objective space, then it literally follows logically that anything subjective is false.

god isn't real huh

show me again where this so called love for your parents is located then i'll believe it exists

>>2190318
>Disbelief in their existance and believing they do not exist are quite literally the exact same thing.

No they are completely different

>>2189561
>we
Also you clearly care but ok.

>>2188662
It's not exactly an argument but I always found it difficult to adhere to any one religious doctrine after getting more involved in world history.

You can objectively study the history of religions from their formation and their evolution over time, including the political motivations of those involved and the context in which it occurred all around the globe across thousands of years.

I think another important distinction to make is that atheism doesn't mean the disbelief of the supernatural or spirituality. It merely means anti-theistic, theism being a rather defined expression of the supernatural relating to a god/gods/supreme being creating or influencing reality.

>>2191625
If it meant anti-theism, it would be called "anti-theism", but it's called "atheism" - the "a" signifying "lack of", contrary to "anti", which means "against".

>>2191640
Poor wording on my part but It's still contrary to a specific defined doctrine, which was my point.

>>2190854
You have a very simplistic and narrow idea of religious belief.

OP here. Just fyi I'm reading every post in this thread so it doesn't become another shitshow only 3 people read

>>2189591
>gets proven wrong
>"hurr durr, this board is garbage!"
Wew lad.

>>2189543
>MUH COMMIES
Atheism isn't an ideology, ergo, it doesn't bear the fault for commie behaviour. Just get the fuck off my board, you fucking idiot, since your lack of comprehension and sheer delusion you must'ev suffered is quite apparent. Fucking ChristCucks.

>>2191817
>atheism isn't an ideology

lol

>>2191829
Thanks for proving my point.

>>2191015
Common mistake, but memories are not located "in" any one specific cell, but rather "in" the shape of the entire network and in clusters of neurons that fire together. It is "in" how cluster A activates the network in pattern B vs pattern C. So something like "love for your parents" is located in your visual cortex that recognizes your parents' face, in the neurotransmitters that are up-regulated when thinking about them, in the lexicon that identifies all those reactions as a singular emotion called love, etc. So like many higher-order-thought processes, you have to point to the entire system to be able to answer the question. But this isn't magic. It's like asking where "driving" is in a car. It's a system of the wheels interacting with the gears interacting with the engine interacting with fuel etc. No individual part is "driving"/"love for your parents," the overall system functioning in some specific way is.

>>2191854
And to prove God I would point to the system of reality as a whole. QED

The factual claims of religion are undemonstrated, unfalsifiable or demonstrably false.
The philosophical arguments for religion rely on questionable or unsupported premises.
Religions can be seen starting, changing and ending throughout human history, implying that they are man-made.

Paraphrasing Greta Christina - "Religions are ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. They therefore have no reality check."

>>2191867
So if you're going to use this argument, surely you can point to the specifics of the system that imply God? If "God" is equivalent to "love for your parents" within the context of their respective systems, what is reality's equivalent of neurotransmitters and the lexicon?

Because "the system" isn't actually a get-out-of-jail free card, You still need evidence, which is why a psychic can't just point to the brain and say "my powers are in there" without first demonstrating ability.

>>2191889
The fact of the system presupposes a ground: God. Notice I'm not only making the bare minimum of assumptions about his nature.

>>2191886
>The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
>The Self is that which by the ear hears, the eye sees, the mouth tastes...
>Form is emptiness, emptiness is form

Please refute these statements.

>>2190171
>A vast majority of atheists were also raised religious. People can choose their own path. This isn't the Middle East.
what's your point here?

religious people are religious BECAUSE they were raised that way.

atheists are athiest often in spite of their upbringing.

are you suggesting that being raised religious does not indoctrinate young minds?

>>2191915
>The fact of the system presupposes a ground:
Substantiate exactly what you mean by "ground." Be specific.

>>2191922
That which makes possible such a thing as a system in the first place. The Unknown; the primordial state of absolute possibility out of which reality has emerged.

>>2191915
>The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
Contradiction. 'The Eternal Tao' is a name.

>The Self is that which by the ear hears, the eye sees, the mouth tastes...
False. Have you heard of something called a brain lately?

>Form is emptiness, emptiness is form
Contradiction. Would be a tautology if true.

>>2190171
>Life rewards people who live a virtuous way.
are you a buddhist? because only they get rewarded for virtuous behaviour.

Christians need to accept Jesus and repent. then they get heaven.

muslims must accept Allah and follow the rules. then they get the virgins and heaven.

"living a virtuous life" never enters the equation.

I live a virtuous life. Trying everuday to be my best self. I'm a vegan even. but if allah or Jesus are god, I am going to hell fire.

what kind of God is this?

>>2191940
lmao you're autistic my man

File: BFoId3i.jpg (68KB, 508x412px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 508x412px

>>2191944
lol ok thanks for your contribution

>>2191938
>That which makes possible such a thing as a system in the first place.
"System" is a convenient, human word to designate certain portions of reality acting upon a scale we find useful to classify. That portions of reality act in specific ways is no reason to assume a "he" (capitalized or not) facilitates it. Once more.

>>2191954
You're splitting hairs. Reality obviously exists, something made that possible, even if it is an absolutely inexpressible background void, which makes life even more miraculous, that out of infinite nothingness there is still such a thing as love and light.

>>2191952
>The eternal tao is a name.

Recognition of what cannot be expressed by language is only that and nothing else.

>Have you heard of a brain?

The Self is the fact of the conscious presence within any consolidated body that receives impressions through biological processes.

>Would be a tautology if true.

Things exist, but do not exist in any absolute sense. No tautology here.

>>2191979
>which makes life even more miraculous, that out of infinite nothingness there is still such a thing as love and light.
None of which have anything to do with a "he," except in the most metaphorical sense. The complex system of plate tectonics is as miraculous as life, so why not instead of anthropomorphizing the inexpressible background void as a human "he," we petro-morphize it as a "SiO2"? SiO2 as the "ground" of all being even makes poetic sense.

>>2191997
I never called it a "He", but yes, if this primordial unconscious nevertheless contains the possibility for everything beautiful and worth loving in life, it's fine to call it God. Or you can call it infinite light, or infinite darkness, or the mystery, or the abyss. Doesn't matter. The void is a nothingness and a fullness.

>>2188662

The existence of god has not been demonstrated.

That's it.

If you start assuming god exists, there is absolutely no way to not prove there is one. If you start assuming god doesn't exist, god can demonstrate it's existence at any time it wants.

>>2191997
>The complex system of plate tectonics is as miraculous as life
no its not.

two plates can fuck and combine their DNA to create offspring? Nah. How did some shitty basic elements do that anyway? Nothing that exists is as amazing that that.

I'm not religious but don't make life sound so bland.

>>2192023
No, but I mentioned calling it both a "He" or a "he" carried the same connotation, and you mentioned a "his" in >>2191915. If you would like to "split hairs" over "he" vs "his" that is of course your choice.

>contains the possibility for everything beautiful and worth loving in life,
Everything beautiful and worth loving to humans, which make up, collectively, a tiny tiny fraction of reality. Much, much smaller than whatever it is you are imagining right now reading this post. First, try understanding how small humans (collectively, over all our history) are in the context of just our solar system, then try imagining it over the entire universe. You can't, because our minds aren't able to deal with numbers like that, hence the anthropomorphism that assumes both a god exists and he is abstractly like humans.

>Or you can call it infinite light, or infinite darkness, or the mystery, or the abyss. Doesn't matter. The void is a nothingness and a fullness.
Just saying two opposites is a single thing is very poetic, but not an argument. The Ground of Being is infinitely spicy an infinitely mild only within the context of taste buds, which are not universal. This sounds like a silly example, but it is as relevant as yours once you remove a human- or earth- centric bias.

jainism is a atheistic religion.

am I to assume this is not relevant to this thread?

as a matter of fact, jainist belief falls in line with science.

I'd argue that there is a place for a virtuous and open-mindedned (one of the virtues) philosophy outlined by jainism doctrine.

Islam on the other hand... ×_×

>>2192045
>two plates can fuck and combine their DNA to create offspring?
In a sense. Two plates crash against each other, and depending on their properties they can form quiet oceanic volcanoes, or extremely violent eruptive volcanoes, which have huge effects on climate which effects weathering which effects deposition which effects the qualities of the plates crashing into each other, etc. It is all a gigantic, self-regulating system, not unlike the way life functions. And despite how "bland" that may make life seem, it is true, merely on different timescales. "Shitty, basic elements" act in tandem both to form a squirrel chasing a nut and Nile delta "deciding" how it will deposit. There's no reason to assume the fundamental principle of reality is a squirrel, the Nile, or a human "he," because they are all a fairly equal product of reality.

>>2192062
So what if the human experience is confined to one planet? Doesn't change literally anything I said, in fact the rarity of life in the void further supports what I'm saying.

The infinite light/darkness bit is the understanding that everything that makes us recoil about the void and darkness is precisely what makes such a thing as light and consciousness possible in the first place. Nothingness IS fullness, they are not opposed, but indissolubly the same thing. You're trying to apply scientific rigor to what is beyond it.

>>2192096
>So what if the human experience is confined to one planet?
So, making sweeping generalizations about the properties of the entire universe based on the things relevant to humans is like making sweeping generalizations about the nature of the earth by observing a single blade of dyed astroturf on a tennis field. Yes, your talk about The White and how it surrounds everything that exists but does not change our nature is very poetic, but it not useful once you begin observing the whole court and later the whole earth etc.

>You're trying to apply scientific rigor to what is beyond it.
The moment God interferes with the physical world, he would be detectable, in that things that shouldn't happen do. Even if it was just altering the frequency of radiation from a particular radioactive subject, that would be detectable statistically. If God is beyond scientific rigor, he is either beyond reality entirely and does not intervene in any case, or he is deliberately "cooking the books" to hide his presence. In either case, there is no reason to believe until there is actual evidence.

>>2192080
>In a sense
so no.

stfu.

File: serveimage.jpg (31KB, 466x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 466x480px

The fact that religion tears people apart.
The fact religion argues for their convenience, that there´s is moral absolutism and morality is not subjective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L2jyru7xNw
And you are just talking monkeys capable of great imagination and possibly infinite stupidity, and so religion spreads like wildfire for the most gullible people out there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI9E3nEsvWo

>>2192138
So two plates coming together to produce something different in nature from either of them through a complex chemical reaction is not in any way comparable to life doing the same thing? Then what is the difference?

Is it just DNA? Then is DNA some fundamental force of reality that separates the complex from the non-complex? What about RNA-based life, do they count as complex or not? At what point, specifically, do "shitty basic elements" acting according to their properties go from being irrelevant and easily dismissed to being worthy of consideration? Again, be specific.

>>2192125
You're having real trouble with this.

Something exists. Part of this something is everything that makes life worthwhile. I don't give a shit about plate tectonics, I'm a part of life, and something gave me this life without me asking for it. I choose to call the ultimate identity of what this something is, God.

These aren't arguments, this is absolutely self-evident. The only liberty I have taken is to call it God. I could call it polka-dotted unicorns as long as what I have in mind is a transcendent and infinite force I exist in and sustains everything I know. It's unreal how hung up you're getting on labels.

Humans did not create human meaning. This existence created such a thing as humanity and such a thing as meaning; the principle of meaning, of art and beauty and love, all precede me, although I participate in it. The fact of my participation ex nihilo is wondrous.

>>2192162
>I don't give a shit about plate tectonics
This statement is roughly equivalent to "I don't give a shit about reality." Which, hey, is fine, everyone has a right to give a shit or not give a shit about whatever they choose. Just understand that by disregarding the implications of reality, any argument you try to make about its nature is inherently much weaker than one made understanding said implications.

>These aren't arguments, this is absolutely self-evident.
It's absolutely self evident that our eyes do not have a blind spot very near their centers, and yet, the blind spot can be proven to exist. "Self evident" is worthless when speaking seriously about reality.

>Humans did not create human meaning.
Of course they did. We can see it develop throughout cultural evolution.

>all precede me
Of course they do, you came into existence long after anatomically modern humans did, which themselves were the product of earlier beings with complex thought processes. We're talking millions and millions of years here.

>>2192184
No, before humans was the idea of a human, the Cosmic Man: the fact of existence being constituted in such and such way that what we understand as the human experience is necessarily latent in it.

This human experience is only privileged insofar as we embody reality's apprehension of itself. Once again, you're getting hung up on le anthropic fallacy, instead of understanding what it is humans represent: the objective becoming subjective so it might know itself as such

>>2192151
There is a distinction between sexually reproduction organisms and rocks smashing together. please stop.

>>2192214
>No, before humans was the idea of a human
You either have to prove this, or prove that the plate tectonics you "don't give a shit about" are somehow not counted in the things necessarily latent in reality.

>This human experience is only privileged insofar as we embody reality's apprehension of itself.
Which is not fundamentally different from the Nile "apprehending" that one depositional environment is full and "choosing" to deposit within another. Again, you need to actually justify you elevating the human experience above all other reality.

>Once again, you're getting hung up on le anthropic fallacy,
Putting le in front of an argument does not actually refute it, or I could just say "le humans are special" or "le consciousness" and be done with it. Evidence is key.

> the objective becoming subjective so it might know itself as such
Why would this be some fundamental aspect of reality? Why are objective and subjective so important, and why does the Nile not count?

>>2192228
Yes, there is a distinction. But what is the fundamental difference, when viewed from the perspective of "shitty base elements" deciding how to act? Don't just avoid the question, respond to it. Surely you can easily refute it if I'm being unreasonable. How much do you actually know about plate tectonics?

>>2192234
I really can't believe you're having so much trouble with this.

Everything is latent, everything is possible, but there are some bits that are more awake, literally present, to the process as a whole than others.

There is no comparison between a river's natural self-regulation and human subjectivity, except being rooted in the same material substrate.

Consolidated, self-regulating, evolving systems seem a pretty fundamental aspect of reality, bud. Don't be daft.

>>2192253
>There is no comparison between a river's natural self-regulation and human subjectivity,
And this is the part you are having so much trouble with. They are actually very alike, accounting for the different timescales. A river changes depositional environment when the conditions of the previous environment become unfavorable to further deposition. River direction changes. A particular neuron sending the same signal over and over again can cause the post-synapse to become unfavorable to this continued signal, and a different one is instead activated. Neuronal activation, and thought, changes. It is the same fundamental process, on a different temporal and spatial scale.
The difference, and the thing you keep on asserting is important without actually explaining why, is this "awakeness" and "subjectivity," So, again, explain why these are so important that we must ascribe such importance to them.

>Consolidated, self-regulating, evolving systems seem a pretty fundamental aspect of reality
No, reality allows both for self-regulating, evolving systems and non-self regulating largely static systems. It is just that the nature of self-regulating evolving systems allows them to exist more long term than one-off collapsing systems, but by no means is one more fundamental to reality itself than the other.

>>2192283
lol you're asking me to prove why subjectivity is a higher order phenomenon than a river.

I'm done.

>>2192294
Here's a new wrinkle. Why is a "higher order process" more fundamental to reality than a lower order process?

>>2192299
Because subjectivity is nothing other than any given system's internal perspective of itself and by extension the totality it helps comprise. Without this self-apprehension there is no reality to speak.

File: 1483513258246.jpg (14KB, 338x358px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 338x358px

>>2190124
>dogma of the scientific method

>>2192319
>Without this self-apprehension there is no reality to speak.
So of a virus were to emerge tomorrow that killed all humans (and aliens of roughly comparable intelligence) reality would cease to exist?

>>2192334
There is no reality but the perception of reality.

>>2192364
It was a very simple yes or no question.

>>2192396
And it was a very simple answer.

>>2192399
I do not see the yes or the no. Clearly, as I am unable to so perceive the subjective as you do, enlighten me. Would that virus cause the cessation of reality, yes or no? Would trees stop growing, Nile stop flowing, sun stop shining, etc?

>>2189134
This, basically. There are no compelling arguments for god that meet the high standards of my other beliefs.

>>2192406
If we allow trees and viruses and whatever a rudimentary perception, no. If the universe were rocks floating in a void with nothing to perceive it, it would for all intents and purposes not exist, or would be as existent as a hypothetical universe made out of infinite cheesecake

>>2192419
>If we allow trees and viruses and whatever a rudimentary perception, no
How does this rudimentary perception differ from the rudimentary perception the Nile employs in order to "decide" where to deposit? Be specific as to the mechanisms.

>it would for all intents and purposes not exist,
So when the virus is unleashed, what exactly happens? Do all the planets collapse into themselves into black holes that suddenly combine for no reason?

>hypothetical universe made out of infinite cheesecake
The regorganization of the cheesecake universe would require all molecules to be a specific organic arrangement, whereas a universe without consciousness would simply require a few (and I mean "a few", given the number of molecules in the universe compared to the number of molecules constituting conscious beings) molecules to be in slightly different configurations.

>>2192447
The mechanisms of perception emerging out of complex molecular networks is fundamentally the same, it's just that in the human (or other beings of comparable intelligence) a barrier has been broken and that perception can finally know itself as true self-perception.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Reality has only ever existed in perception, there is nothing outside the duality of subject apprehending an object, at least insofar as this duality is concerned.

No subject, no object, they condition and mutually inform each other.

>>2192464
>it's just that in the human (or other beings of comparable intelligence) a barrier has been broken and that perception can finally know itself as true self-perception.
Okay, if we can acknowledge the former, why is the latter some huge fundamental shift? Don't get me wrong, meta-cognition is a huge development in the overall development of thought, but it is ultimately a development of previous processes.. Where is the evidence that this specific thing is somehow fundamental to the universe? Why do you consider that breaking some barrier as opposed to one of many developments that happened to produce human thought, like object permanence?

>Reality has only ever existed in perception, there is nothing outside the duality of subject apprehending an object
So before conscious primates emerged a few million years ago, what existed in reality? If realty didn't exist before them, what did the earlier primates and life inhabit? Or if we arbitrary assign their thought processes the quality of perception, what came before them? Did shellfish pop into existence somehow perceiving what pain was, thus allowing the universe sufficient subjectivity to exist?

>at least insofar as this duality is concerned.
So, in your own words, the anthropic principle?

>No subject, no object, they condition and mutually inform each other.
Because subject and object are also convenient human categories for classifying aspects of reality, but that is a discussion for later.

>>2192491
Of course it's a development out of previous processes, everything is, it's that these processes culminate finally in the universe's awareness of itself as system, process, etc. Now it knows itself AS itself, ie a mystery coming to terms with itself as such.

Before any kind of perception was the unconscious "chaos", a concept found in nearly all cosmogonies. This chaos, whether out of a blind will to order and awareness, or simply chance, eventually emerged into a consciousness of itself. Either way is miraculous.

Did this reality "exist"? The terms get fuzzy but the point is exactly what I've been saying: out of an unconscious ground that is impermeable to our thought and perception arose conscious existence.

>>2189134
Even false religions have evidence.Even false theories have evidence.

>>2192234
>Yes, there is a distinction. But what is the fundamental difference, when viewed from the perspective of "shitty base elements" deciding how to act? Don't just avoid the question, respond to it. Surely you can easily refute it if I'm being unreasonable. How much do you actually know about plate tectonics?
just stop dude it was a stupid analogy

it sounds like you're suggesting there is no difference between life and volcanoes

maybe when I get high later I'll join you in your mental masturbation.

>>2192528
>it's that these processes culminate finally in the universe's awareness of itself as system, process, etc
Why assume humans are the culmination? It is just as possible that our current level of conciousness is just a transitional period for a future animal that spends less resources maintaining the brain but is better able to survive its environment.
>Now it knows itself AS itself, ie a mystery coming to terms with itself as such.
That is very poetic, but you have yet to provide any evidence why "the mystery coming to terms with itself" or any other formulation of the existence of conciousness is fundamental to reality.

>Before any kind of perception was the unconscious "chaos", a concept found in nearly all cosmogonies. This chaos, whether out of a blind will to order and awareness, or simply chance, eventually emerged into a consciousness of itself. Either way is miraculous.
No more miraculous than a mountain forming from continental plates crashing which themselves were caused by systems of volcanism etc.

>out of an unconscious ground that is impermeable to our thought and perception arose conscious existence.
For one thing, they aren't impermeable. We know of such things as the oxygen crisis of ~2.4 billion years ago. And furthermore, if we allow the universe before concious primates/animals/aliens to exist, there is no reason to assume they are the endpoint, or fundamental, to reality itself rather than one of many products.

>>2192566
>just stop dude it was a stupid analogy
The weakest part of my analogy was telling fact that geologic processes occur overy a geologic timescale while neurological processes occur over a biologic timescale.

>it sounds like you're suggesting there is no difference between life and volcanoes
The differences are vast, but are both ultimately the function of "dumb elements" acting according to their properties. Even DNA, whose properties are a function of the properties of the molecules that constitute them.

You've been avoiding the premise every tie you respond. Again, if I am being ridiculous, it will be trivial to refute me, and much more productive than saying "come on" over and over. So do it.

>>2192580
Humans are the culmination of consciousness, but certainly a transitional form and not the only intelligent beings that do and should exist.

Reality coming to terms with itself is the most fundamental thing I can think of. There is something out of the black, and now that something has an idea of itself as having emerged from unfathomable mystery. It's beautiful and terrifying. The rest of reality, to generalize, is just chemical processes happening in the dark. These processes are invaluable, but in no way does lifeless matter hold primacy over the being that knows itself as being.

No, there is the unconscious chaos of this universe and there is the unconscious chaos "prior to" (because time is meaningless outside of this frame) the universe.

Yes, symphonies and art and beauty and love and light coming out of the dark unknown is miraculous

>>2192603
I'm not "refuting" whatever you're trying to say because your posts are hurting my head.

if you would like to clearly state your point I'll refute it swiftly. one sentence pls, I have the flu.

>>2192611
>Reality coming to terms with itself is the most fundamental thing I can think of.
Because you're a human and it is important to you. Try even entertaining the non-human perspective and evaluating reality as a whole (the entire whole.)

>No, there is the unconscious chaos of this universe and there is the unconscious chaos "prior to" (because time is meaningless outside of this frame) the universe.
No, because, again, we know the oxygen crisis occurred 2.4-2.3 billion years ago, and not "the existence of humans"+unknown years ago. According to your formulation, it wouldn't even make sense to extend the concept of a "year" back before the existence of conscious humans.

>The rest of reality, to generalize, is just chemical processes happening in the dark.
All of reality is chemical processes happening, and the more fundamental processes behind those occurring. You have made an arbitrary distinction between chemicals acting in the dark and in terms light, again without substantiating it.

>Yes, symphonies and art and beauty and love and light coming out of the dark unknown is miraculous
Not really. Extremophiles seek heat. Humans seek social groups. Bother have consequences. They are amazing, and subjectively important, but there is no magic.

>>2192636
Point out the fundamental difference between the Nile "deciding" where to deposit sediment (which occurs when it has deposited too much in some area, leading to energetically unfavorable conditions for further deposition) and a neuron "deciding" to send another signal ( which occurs when too much neurotransmitter has been released into the post-synapse, causing energetically unfavorable conditions for continued signal transmission and the switch to something else.) One admitted difference is the timescale. Is there anyting else ?

>>2192672
ow, my head.

>>2192654
There is quite literally nothing other than perception, of course subjectivity is important to me because the only frame where really anything can happen is in subjectivity. The rest is nothingness.

And I don't mean just human subjectivity. Subjectivity defined as the perspective from within of any system. The objective "view from nowhere" is either the totality's perception of itself, God, or nothingness, both supporting my argument.

Is the bible worth reading just for the history found within?

>>2192789
was the bible written by historians?

>>2192722
>There is quite literally nothing other than perception,
So the universe popped into existence whenever it was you started to perceive it within the womb?

>The objective "view from nowhere" is either the totality's perception of itself, God, or nothingness, both supporting my argument.
God's perspective would still be a subjective one, since adding the adjective "absolute" in front of things doesn't actually solve one. You can only get more or less subjective, because again "subjective" and "objective" are words made up by humans. Getting rid of a certain amount of human subjectivity better approximates whatever reality it is we mean when we say the word "objective", but getting caught up in those definitions leads to silly conclusions about capital-t-Truth.

>>2192722
This is Kant 101. Of course my reality popped into existence when I was born, because all I've ever been is this unique perspective on the thing-in-itself, the world "out there", which I can never access and pretty much does not exist for me except as the dark, impenetrable ground of nature out of which my consciousness obviously emerged.

I like that you keep arguing that all subjective experience of reality is not conditioned by the properties of a given subjectivity, and then telling me subject and object are just manmade constructs anyways

>>2193010
>Of course my reality
That isn't what I asked you.

>impenetrable ground of nature
Did WW1 happen or not?

>I like that you keep arguing that all subjective experience of reality is not conditioned by the properties of a given subjectivity, and then telling me subject and object are just manmade constructs anyways
Humans experience a subjective experience of reality, but you can in am abstract sense reduce the amount of subjectivity by using specific tools.

>>2188662
the burden of proof is on religion.

You can say something that noone as seen or experiment exist and go "lol you can't dispove it".

And since no tangible proof has ever been brought, there's obviously no gods.

>>2193048
Outside of subjectivity there is only that darkness which produced subjectivity but is nevertheless not explained in terms of it. Outside of light there is only the darkness of the womb.

>>2193095
What a poetic treatise on the nature of The White that covers us but does not change us. But that isn't what I asked you. Did WW1 happen, yes or no?

>>2193107
You're having serious trouble understanding simple concepts. I'm not even arguing solipsism, there are as many subjectivities as there are and I'm one of them, but outside of that there is only the what-is, God, the identity of this manifold we happen to find ourselves in

>>2193118
Did WW1 happen? Yes or no?

The theist argument is suspiciously similar to the "smug agnostic ( you cant know nuffin )" argument
>You just don't understand the text
>It's not literal
>You have to be a biblical scholar to understand what it means

Their argument is literally some vague "you are ignorant bout the subject just interpreting the passage wrong" but you can't ever know what it actually means because LOL 100s of Christian denominations and interpretations. Literally a goalpost that moves itself, that even Christians themselves haven't reached.

Its all bullshit since theres no solid evidence of any it being right

>>2193122
You keep struggling with really simple ideas and I'm kind of tired of wasting my time. Your best argument has been "life is fundamentally no different than a geologic process" which is simplistic and a great indicator you're deficient in the ways necessary to make my argument comprehensible.

>>2193266
The fact that you're this hesitant to answer such a simple yes or no question probably means you can already tell where the defects in your argument are. Which, again, is totally fine if you're using it as a personal mantra, but becomes silly when you start insisting reality conforms to it.

>>2193330
I don't think you understand my argument if you think a historical event I am not a part of refutes it.

>>2193463
Again, not yes or no answer. If this were just about me understanding or not understanding your argument, by now you would have given an answer and refuted whichever argument I made based off of said answer. Instead you continue to avoid the answer (as you almost certainly will continue to do) because you know exactly where this is all headed.
Again, it's fine. clearly you are so attached to your convictions you do not want to ever question them. It's a valid way to live, just an extremely weak argument.

>>2189290
>should be regarded as a personal pursuit and not a law
This. The biggest problem with religion is it's institutionalization.

>>2193560
Not to bring this back from the ashes nor am I that anon but somewhere along the line I completely lost track of what this argument was about but i'm curious enough.
What points were you two trying to make?

>>2194940
My argument was God is essentially what the religious mind calls the deep nature of reality, which is the Unknown and of which we can say very little. There's nothing to "prove", reality and what created, birthed, emanated reality, whatever, already exists by virtue of that.

God is the indisputable fact of the Real.

>>2191944
>get BTFO
>hurr you're an autist

Why are christfags so fucking stupid?

>>2196075
>accusing Buddhist maxims of logical fallacies

lel ya dun goofed