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

>"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist;

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 323
Thread images: 49

File: Christopher Hitchens.jpg (69KB, 1024x595px) Image search: [Google]
Christopher Hitchens.jpg
69KB, 1024x595px
>"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." - Christopher Hitchens

how do you respond?
>>
Y-Yeah...well.....at least I'm not dead
>>
File: 2007-2014.png (25KB, 310x645px) Image search: [Google]
2007-2014.png
25KB, 310x645px
>>412476
With optimism
>>
Thats a naive and cynical view of religious belief
>>
>>412515
He meant organized religions, OP fucked up the quote and left out the part about churches.
>>
>>412515
The man knew the bible back and forth better than 80% of most Christians, I would hardly say he was naive.

However yes he was very Cynical.
>>
>>412476
"You are figuratively Satan, prince of lies. And you can't be angry at God longer than God can forgive you."
>>
File: RkL3O.jpg (9KB, 200x259px) Image search: [Google]
RkL3O.jpg
9KB, 200x259px
This is now a Based Hitchens thread

>required viewing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIRJVmZ4K8
>>
>>412476
>the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful
lmao
>>
>>412535
>better than 80% of most Christians,
Source for the percentage please
>>412527
Except churches are the most generous charity donators on the planet. The "religion is responsible for x evil" meme is equivalent to saying "video games are responsible for school shootings"
>>
>>412559
>That smug, bored drawl
>That verbal theist genocide
>>
>>412588
>Source for the percentage please
Science
>>
File: reminder to be moral.jpg (17KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]
reminder to be moral.jpg
17KB, 460x276px
>Still enjoying the inferior Hitchens sibling

Grow up faggots!
>>
"If we didn't have the church, we'd have the mosque. You're welcome"
>>
>>412610
>Instead of arguing, the Christfag just makes shit up and plays with hypotheticals

Shocking
>>
>>412606
Based morality man
>>
>>412588
Most people don't know their scriptures. Asking for empirical proof on common observations isn't going to slow his superior argument down.
>>
File: HowWouldOneVerifyThis.jpg (14KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]
HowWouldOneVerifyThis.jpg
14KB, 256x197px
>>412618
And Atheists don't?
>>
>>412638
>Atheists do it so I can too
You think like a child. It's shit when either atheists or religious people do it.
>>
I agree on the whole no god thing but why do you have to be such a dick about it?
>>
File: 1429813705371.jpg (25KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]
1429813705371.jpg
25KB, 184x184px
>>412606
>We didn't lose our empire, America forced us to give it up!
How is that different from losing?
>>
>>412635
From the Christian perspective, they aren't really Christian then. Only nonbelievers choose to lump nominal Christians in with the genuine ones. Some of you can't even decide whether Agnostics count as Atheists or not.
>>412643
Exactly. but I wasn't even the first guy you responded to, so relax son.
>>
>>412657
>No True Scotsman, right off the bat.
>>
>>412618
>Implying I'm wrong
>Implying all other things being equal, Islam wouldn't have steamrolled Europe
>Implying Europe isn't being overrun by Islam right now thanks to the weakness of the church
>>
>>412476
Is it more harmful than cancer? :^)


Seriously though it's such a shame Hitchens wasted so much of his time and talent on such a non-issue, instead of something more constructive like focusing is efforts on criticizing the regressive left and rejuvenation of the right. Imagine him writing columns for Breitbart instead of circlejerking with Sham Harris. Still is one of my favorite orators though.
>>
>>412647
Becuase christians and Muslims are not just dicks they're give an inch take a mile assholes.
>>
>>412663
>Implying Islam would have existed if Christianity never had
>>
>>412663
Europe is being overrun by Islam becuase you have secularists, not ardent Atheists running things.
>>
>>412657
Anyone who's baptized and accepts all of the Apostles' Creed is Christian by definition.

Also no one, on either side, claims agnostics are anything more than agnostics.
>>
>>412647
Because selling Atheism as "believe this and it will make you smarter and a better person than the masses instantly!" is more marketable than simply expressing it as a differing worldview. Its become a cult following in itself.
>>
>>412670
So long as the Jews exist, Islam would exist

>>412673
What's the difference?
>>
>>412647
People are being slaughtered in the name of god as you type.
>>
>>412675
No it isn't. Christianity is not a set of rules to follow, its an actual change in your mindset.
>Also no one, on either side, claims agnostics are anything more than agnostics.
I've seen plenty of atheists badgering agnostics to just admit they're atheists. Especially favoring the "you're an atheist to Zeus!" line.
>>
>>412606

[morality intensifies]
>>
File: 1410834063482.jpg (349KB, 2682x1765px) Image search: [Google]
1410834063482.jpg
349KB, 2682x1765px
>>412476
I used to be an atheist. Than I started looking to Jung and Campbell and I realized myself and most of the world has completely misunderstood the concept of Gods, Angels, Spirits, and Demons.

Once you strip away the superstition from religion you are left with powerful symbols. Symbols that are deep within our subconscious and fulfill some vital roll. The symbols do not need to be a part of a religion, they seep into all aspects of culture. Once I understand that God is not a man in the sky but a powerful psychic phenomnia I stopped being an 'athiest'. Of course there is a God, it's silly to think there isn't. He's as real as sky or the earth.

God is very powerful. I met him in a dream. As in I literally went to sleep an atheist and woke up knowing God. The Christians are for the most part too superstitious and dogmatic to understand God and the atheists refuse to see something that is plainly evident.
>>
>>412696
>Once I understand that God is not a man in the sky
You're a naive fellow with naive grasp of theology who fell for naive pseudo psychology nonsense.
>>
>>412476
by acknowledging that he is an idiot and that religion since time memorandum comes from astrotheology and explains the truth in universal ethics and morality from stories that cleary represent the sun/stars/zodiac/etc. taking it literally on both sides is stupid.
>>
File: 1447798925085.png (523KB, 575x767px) Image search: [Google]
1447798925085.png
523KB, 575x767px
>>412647
>why do you have to be such a dick about it?
>>
>>412696
im on the same page. are you familiar with manly p hall?
>>
>>412682
He saw how united and prosperous the monotheistic empires that surrounded him were. He also saw how shit Arabia was, with its endless petty deities, decentralized society, and constant clan warfare.

He probably invented a new monotheism so his people could finally get their shit together, instead of playing with figurines.
>>
>>412696
>DUDE WEED LMAO : the post
>>
>>412725
was is the picture?
>>
>>412684
To be a Christian you have to accept the Apostles' Creed, you can't be a "good person" and qualify for the faith without accepting its basic tenants.

The whole "all you need to do is follow the greatest of all commandments" line is a shitty cop-out. You're just trying to avoid the embarrassment.

I doubt you even accept all of it.
>>
>>412705
I've actually researched Christian theology. Theology is good to understand God but you need to look into all of it. For instance I learned a lot from Avicenna.

The trouble with theology is that it's too narrow. A proper understanding of God should be able to account for all religions. The Christians feel content to just dismiss other religions as false or misguided, when infact no religion can be false. If people have a genuine, deep connection to an idea of some sort of God...than that deep feeling doesn't just come from nowhere, it comes from God. A lot of religions aware of God but they cannot describe it. In fact I don't think anyone had a real clue about what God is until the 20th centuary. We have so much more data on how the mind perceives things, about world religions, compared to the past. We are the first generation to realize that God is a psychological force rather than some sort of spirit that performs miracles.

Another problem with theology is that it tries to centralize dogma. For instance, how could you prove my conversation with God is any less legitimate than the one that Paul had?
>>
File: 1449512696958.jpg (140KB, 1552x1152px) Image search: [Google]
1449512696958.jpg
140KB, 1552x1152px
>>412683
>islam is all religion

nice meme
>>
>>412749
According to that other guy nothing that warrants being mean to theists.
>>
>>412705
>god can only be a big man in the sky or he doesn't exist
>he calls other people naive

Read a book you fucking mong
>>
>>412728
>manly p hall?
no can you give me a few pointers


>>412734
I've never touched the stuff.
>>
>>412756
>Christianity and Buddism are not the cause of many slaughters in the past years
Nice meme,just because Islam commits 90% of all killing sprees it doesnt mean the other religions are not causing violence,it just means Islam is more effective at doing so (because muslims still believe in God unlike most Christians)
>>
File: 2lHZ1.gif (480KB, 141x141px) Image search: [Google]
2lHZ1.gif
480KB, 141x141px
>>412755
>>
>>412770
>Christianity
>Buddhism
>cause of many slaughters
>a couple of pro-life nutjobs and a few (admittedly vicious) retaliations against muslim provocations
>as bad as hundreds and hundreds of suicide bombings, shootings, terrorist attacks, wholesale slaughter and rape of defenseless ethnic groups such as the yazidi, calls for the death of the west, etc.

Fuck off back to tumblr faggot
>>
>>412785
>Buddhism
>not the cause of many slaughters
Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Thailand?
>>
>>412756
back to /lit/ pls
>>
I don't see what theism has to do with religion.
>>
File: 1449277752635.jpg (5KB, 170x170px) Image search: [Google]
1449277752635.jpg
5KB, 170x170px
>>412754
>The whole "all you need to do is follow the greatest of all commandments" line is a shitty cop-out.
>i-it's just a cop out
>>
>>412785
>>as bad as
When did I say it was as bad as muslim violence? but Christians and Buddist have not been saints lately,the fact that you can only list events that happened in America means you must be a fat yank retard who cannot be arsed to keep up with international news.
Religion causes violence,ignorance,superstition,etc all of that under a false premise.
It deserves all the shit it gets and more.
>>
>>412791
Slaughtering the Muhammedan is the gateway to heaven.
>>
>>412817
It's true. I heard Richard Dawkins say that if you kill a Muhammedan, all your sins will be forgiven!
>>
File: 1921 in russia.jpg (86KB, 800x563px) Image search: [Google]
1921 in russia.jpg
86KB, 800x563px
I'm not an anti-atheist, but an anti-communist. I maintain that atheism is merely a vessel for the propagation of communism amongst the learned classes.

Case in point, Christopher Hitchens was an unapologetic Trotskyist who supported the massacres of Leninism and the Cheka until he died.
>>
>>412682
And if the Jews don't exist, we're throwing babies to Maloch.

I'd even take ISIS over that.
>>
>>412823
Dawkins wills it!
>>
>>412696
God isn't something you can "converse" with and I highly doubt a sleeping mind is in any condition to use that ability. A dream is as disjointed as the wandering thoughts that occupy the mind during idle work.
>>
>>412823
I know you are being sarcastic but Richard is more likely to call forth a crusade than the Pope.
What a time to be alive.
>>
>>412813
... You mean the anti-muslim violence in Myanmar? That took place in America? Dumbass. By the way, nice argument. I guess technology is a net bad for humanity because of all the people who have died in modern wars, right?
>>
>>412861
Oh, I know he is. I take what these people say seriously, and it's incredibly dangerous. They think everyone who doesn't think like them is stupid, and so not only is it justified, but easy to murder their way to victory.
>>
>>412872
Do people get gun down by packs of feral fedoralords who proclaim they are acting on behalf of technology? don't answer that.
>>
>>412887
They tend to be lone shooters, but yeah.
>>
Denying God is just masturbation, considering all existence is just a neuron in His mind. We are all figments of God's imagination and trying to supplant that is the ultimate delusion.
>>
File: 1449202890473.jpg (14KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]
1449202890473.jpg
14KB, 234x216px
>>412898
That delusion.
>>
Why do people always blame religion for war and bloodshed? As long as humans exist, even with no religion, we'll find something to fight and kill each other over. Take away religion and I can guarantee you something will replace it.
>>
I thought Hitchens was a great debater, but he had a lot of political stances I disagreed with. He was a little TOO into Orwell, what with wanting the US to topple every dictatorship out there.

>>412902

Azathoth pls, you're supposed to be asleep.
>>
>>412922
http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-shooter-asked-about-religion_56103b22e4b0dd85030c4feb
What's it like living under a rock?
How much do you pay for rent?
>>
>>412730
So he decided to make the rest of the world shit by spreading their shitty desert religion. Righto.

>>412836
Cause you prefer faggots thrown off rooftops instead?
>>
>>412936
Because war and bloodshed are happening right now LITERALLY in the name of religion.
And when I say literally I mean it by the definition of the word,people are praising God while blowing up shit and shooting civilians,its documented its right there in front of your eyes and you chose to ignore it.
>Take away religion and I can guarantee you something will replace it.
I'm not saying religion causes all war but its a big reason,atheist majority countries are in general more peaceful,its an undeniable statistical fact.
>>
>>412827
>atheist
>communist

socialist maybe, but using atheist with communist is an oxymoron. The Soviets had a God, it was called the state.

and blue jeans.
>>
File: 1450002730567.jpg (12KB, 403x360px) Image search: [Google]
1450002730567.jpg
12KB, 403x360px
>>412943
The oregon gunman was not an atheist you damn fucking retard,did you not read his social media account? he actually killed people who confessed to be christians because he believed they would go straight to heaven.
I'm done discussing with you,you cannot be arsed to provide a SINGLE valid argument then I cannot be arsed to debate with you.
>>
>>412949
>religion
>not Islam

typical mealy-mouthed lefty bullshit. say what you mean pussy

>I'm not saying religion causes all war but its a big reason,atheist majority countries are in general more peaceful,its an undeniable statistical fact.

>what is correlation does not equal causation
>>
>>412977

Not him, but when was Islam not a religion?

Just because Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists are backwards, only half-sane 7th century imbeciles with 20th century technology, doesn't change that their book enables their behavior.
>>
>>412977
Christians are commiting war crimes in Africa and Buddists are doing the same in Asia.
When people take religion seriously bloodshed ensues.
Why is Islam so violent? because Muslims are the most fervid believers in the world,when people took Christianity as seriously as Muslims take Islam today it was not different,religious wars tore Europe apart.
>>
>>413001
>>412991
>wars fought for materialistic reasons such as oil, territory, and securing american hegemony
>it's just war man it's human nature man what you gonna do man

>christians and buddhists reacting against the muslim menace
>all religion is bad mmkay

mhm sure
>>
>>412606
Peter is a typical, joyless husk of a pompous Englishman.
>>
>>413005

When you win a war, that's all that matters

Vae victis, same reason I think we should have followed Sherman's example and torched half the south as punishment.
>>
>>413008
That also goes for his brother.
>>
>>413005
People need oil,countries need clay,america needs to wave its dick around,nobody needs religion.
By dumping religion you are removing a major cause of conflict without sacrificing anything in return.
>>
Tip my fedora to my fellow intelligent atheist
>>
>>412969
You sir, are mad.

Perhaps we could discuss this further after you apply some preperation H.
>>
>>413011
>he doesn't think reconstruction wasn't punishment enough.
>>
>>413022
>nobody needs religion
>without sacrificing anything in return

hahah you're fucking dreaming if you think you can wave a magic wand and make people's natural curiousity and urge to understand the mysteries of existence suddenly disappear no questions asked. maybe the doctrinal baggage of religions today could use a little downsizing and reform but lmao @ just eliminating religion/spirituality wholesale. jesus christ so many fucking beep boop autists on this board, no understanding about human nature or anything
>>
>>413022
>People need oil
lmao
>countries need clay
lmao

lmao
>>
>>413053
He's no proposing it actually can be done he's just simply making the observation that if religion simply ceased to exist there really would not be any significant consequence.

Science could easily fill the void.
>>
>>413056
Without oil you would starve to death,do you think tractors,trucks and boats run on friendship?
>Humanities board
ayy
>>
>but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.

how do atheists even argue this?
>>
>>413021
Well pompous would be as far as I go with Christopher, though he did make some effort of humility. Overall though, the two were night and day. It would have been a treasure to share Scotch with the man and get him ranting on Clinton or Kissinger.
>>
File: Autism-Speaks-Logo.jpg (811KB, 1286x1254px) Image search: [Google]
Autism-Speaks-Logo.jpg
811KB, 1286x1254px
>>413060
beep boop we can replace the solace and community supported afforded by a local church and spiritual mentor with a scientist who can just look at your brain scans to tell you what's wrong and then prescribe you medication beep boop beep boop
>>
Since I don't want to make a fresh thread for this, are there any modern day equivalents to Hitchens? I always appreciated his input on current events, and wish I could see his reaction to the mess in Europe these days
>>
>>413076
Where have you been raised that you've never experienced actual humility or joy?
>>
>>413073
Religion promotes willful ignorance at best.

Murder and genocide at worst.

Thats the jest of the argument.
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]
hqdefault.jpg
21KB, 480x360px
>>413105
>jest
>>
>>413090
Douglas Murray seems to have been inspired by Hitchens, but he's no replacement.
>>
>>413105
>jest
Absolutely sad and banal
>>
>>413107
Gist then motherfucker, I'm half drucnk I get that liberty at least.
>>
>>412476
"I agree but they're so cool though, orthodox patriarchs are fucking pimps yo."


That's how I respond.
>>
>>412495
Didn't he say that Christianity was relatively benign compared to Islam which would fall under "non christian" faiths?

I think he'd despair at that pic tbqh lad
>>
>>413090
David Starkey is pretty based. But no where near as enlightened.
>>
>>413122
>David Starkey is pretty based. But no where near as eloquent.


ftfy, Hitchens never seemed particularly intelligent to me, just very eloquent. He had an ease with words that I found very impressive.
>>
>>413103
Not me personally, but I have several friends that had to escape Religious Fundamentalist families. Like Westboro Baptist Church tier, without the public protests but in some ways worse. Some of them didn't remember laughing until they were 15, and all of them were groomed to spew the fire and brimstone of the bible the moment anyone attempted conversation with them. It was a life of pure arrogance and misery as I've ever heard.
>>
>>412761
he is a 33rd degree mason that goes into exactly what you were saying and beyond. this lecture is a personal favorite of mine, and you wont be disappointed if you sit through it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHSumNdWACc
>>
>>413324
OK. That's quite an experience.

But still, you can really shoot higher for "authentic joy" and "humility" then Christopher Hitchens. Like...fucking anyone. Maybe start small and check out the republican primaries?
>>
>>412949
>atheist majority countries are more peaceful
Wouldn't that be because they're modernized?
>>
>>412606
There's a reason Peter is less popular. He's an insipid commentator on most matters and utterly typical on others. Only really looked up to on places like /christian/ and /pol/.
>>
File: Sam.png (895KB, 920x2492px) Image search: [Google]
Sam.png
895KB, 920x2492px
>>412476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PbYoQw8M48

I would call his natural predator, David Berlinski.
>>
>>412476
>bisexual atheist alcoholic marxist jew
>died of cancer
It's like poetry.
>>
File: Oh_no_not_Satan.jpg (46KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]
Oh_no_not_Satan.jpg
46KB, 600x450px
>>413981

>athiesm is caused by the devil

Ahahahahahahahahahaha
>>
>>414187
And if good, honest, upright christian folks die of cancer, what would you call that?
>>
>>414269
>what would you call that?

Well, the Bible says that diseases are caused by demons. So he was probably such a good person that demons attacked him
>>
>>414290
And god didn't protect him? Against fucking demons? Shouldn't faith be like the superweapon against demons anyway?
>>
>>414319
I'm not really an expert on these matters. I'll quote you part of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica though:

>Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted.
>>
>>414352
>because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed
Christian morality, everyone.
>>
- manuscript culture
- cathedral schools
- universities
- almost all art and architecture until the 17th century
- scholasticism
- the scientific method
- the fact we don't keep slaves or watch children get eaten by lions for entertainment

Meanwhile, things brought to you by atheism that aren't pseudo-scientific cults or genocidal ideologies:
...
>>
>>414377
>manuscript culture
greeks
>universities
greek academy
>almost all art and architecture until the 17th century
all contract work with stolen money
>scholasticism
an intellectual black hole
>the scientific method
greeks
>the fact we don't keep slaves
nigga are you serious?
>>
>>414403
You obviously don't even know enough history for effective trolling.
>>
>>412476
I'd agree with him that all religions (and he obviously means the modern religions, not paganism) come from the same core.
I'd agree that they are all "false", as in a God doesnt exist.

I would disagree that they are useless. They have most definitely been useful throughout the years, and can still be useful if they and the churches that they administer are guided towards spirituality, ethics, mental health and charity work, and stay away from the sciences and politics.
Stop trying to explain how the universe works, who created who, and trying to dictate laws, and instead start collecting money to build shelters for the homeless, to bring water and education to poverty stricken countries, and try to nurture morals in the more and more decadent youth.
>>
>>412559
The bombastic titles of these videos really put me off.
The Hitchslap, or Hitch vs God and other such, so cringy.

Still good viewing though.

>>412606
They had a debate at some point, although it was pretty dull. I expected more fire.
Although it did lead me to notice that Chris has abandoned his english background and became entirely american.
>>
>>412696
Basically you are into history, philosophy and ethics, except you are too dumb to understand them without the religious coat of paint on top.

Drop the god part and start looking at why humans shaped religion this or that way at this or that point in time. There is your treasure.
>>
>>412756
All religions want the same thing, islam is just the alpha stud of the group, so he goes and takes it.
Christianity is the beta who gets closer and closer to shooting up a school. It has happened in the past.
>>
>>414377
Things discovered in times of religion doesnt equal things discovered because of religion.
You might as well say all these things are brought to us by wine, since people did drink wine while discovering them.
>>
File: smn_cries.jpg (20KB, 540x380px) Image search: [Google]
smn_cries.jpg
20KB, 540x380px
>>412559
Absolutely amazing
>>
>>414469
Those are all things that were literally created by the Catholic Church.
>>
File: 1450078500390.jpg (160KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]
1450078500390.jpg
160KB, 640x480px
>>414510
Really nigga

I don't completely agree with the anon your responding to, but really
>>
>>414510

>literally created by the Catholic Church.
>cathocuks actually believe this
>>
>>414510
Created under the Catholic church.
The same way rockets were created under fascism and space flight was created under communism.

Yet we dont thank the communists for allowing us to explore space, and we dont thank the nazis for allowing us to get there.
Religion is the only case in which otherwise intelligent people become idiots for the sake of claiming its useful.
>>
File: obama_laugh.jpg (252KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]
obama_laugh.jpg
252KB, 1024x683px
>>414510
>>
File: superlative laughter.jpg (331KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]
superlative laughter.jpg
331KB, 517x768px
>yfw Hitchens was drunk most of the time
>yfw drunk Hitchens could still BTFO sober christfags and mudslimes
>>
File: 1408142610782.png (175KB, 311x255px) Image search: [Google]
1408142610782.png
175KB, 311x255px
>>414510
>>
>>412476
>but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful

hahaha what an idiot

the only reason we aren't tribal savages still killing each other for barely any reason is because Christianity turned people into such moralfags. fedora atheists so fucking clueless they're reaping rewards because people followed Jesus' way of life.
>>
>>414512
>>414514
>>414515
>>414517
>all this fedora rage

Yes Kevin. The monks copying ancient manuscripts belonged to the Catholic Church. The cathedral schools and the universities were founded and run by the Catholic Church. The churches and cathedrals were built by the Catholic Church, and the Renaissance and Baroque religious art of Rome was commissioned by the Catholic Church. Scholasticism and the scientific method were developed within the cathedral schools and universities of the Catholic Church, by people who themselves often belonged to the clergy of the Catholic Church, on some occasions only thanks to direct intervention by the Catholic Church.
>>
>>414524
>the only reason we aren't tribal savages still killing each other for barely any reason is because Christianity turned people into such moralfags
>civilization didn't exist before Christianity.
lel
>>
File: clEHQEp.jpg (123KB, 683x716px) Image search: [Google]
clEHQEp.jpg
123KB, 683x716px
>>414527
>>
>>414527
You didnt respond to my post, despite quoting it >>414515
Things that happened under the Catholic church didnt necessarily happen because of the Catholic church.
Your arguments are flawed. Step back, clean your mind, and start over, without thinking you already know the answer in advance.
>>
>>414527
>only thanks to direct intervention by the Catholic Church.

Citation needed in context of scientific method
>>
>>414534
Yeah I really can't dumb this down any further.

Those things weren't just created UNDER the Catholic Church. They were created BY the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, as an institution, LITERALLY CREATED THOSE THINGS ITSELF.

There, maybe caps will make reading less difficult for you.
>>
File: and_image_1371547320.jpg (59KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]
and_image_1371547320.jpg
59KB, 400x600px
>>414539
You can't seriously be this stupid

0/10 bait
>>
>>414539
USSR, as an institution, literally sent people into space.
This doesnt mean that if nor for communism we wouldnt get men in space eventually. It wasnt done BECAUSE of communism, it was done under communism.

Same applies for the Catholic church and all of your examples.
>>
>>414537
1277 Paris Condemnations. Often considered the birth of modern science.

The bishop of Paris banned the works of Aristotle from being taught as indisputable fact at the University. They had to instead be taught only as theory, in particular where his works on Physics limited the power of God and excluded certain things as impossible.

This broke the academic conservatism where ever since ancient times Aristotle had been considered a reference of absolute truth. Which was a good thing because as it happens, Aristotle was wrong on every count listed by the Condemnations (that the Universe and Man existed since forever, that heavenly bodies can never move in a straight line, that nothing can move without something continuously pushing it....). Questioning those things led to the works of Buridan and Oresme in the 1300s which laid the foundation of modern Physics and Maths.

But more importantly, it established the principle that any scientific model can only ever be theory, and must never become dogma, but always remain possible to question. This is probably the most important principle of the scientific method.
>>
File: 1441766435999.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]
1441766435999.jpg
47KB, 500x500px
>>414557
>1277 Paris Condemnations. Often considered the birth of modern science.

No, that is not the birth place of the scientific method. That was literally just the Church censoring some of the teachings of Aristotle.

Aristotle I would consider the father of science.
>>
>>414539
>>414527


You must be an idiot.

Galileo didn't work at a University started by the Catholic Church, he did end up being imprisoned by the Catholic Church and having his books banned.

Newton wasn't even Catholic.

I could go on listing relevant people who have contributed to the scientific method but you get the gist, the idea they were all Catholics and all worked at places of education run by the Catholic church is pure fantasy.

Most of the Renaissance artwork and research was commissioned by rich aristocrats not the Catholic Church BTW.
>>
>>414557
>This broke the academic conservatism where ever since ancient times Aristotle had been considered a reference of absolute truth.

But wasn't Galileo arrested by the Catholic Church for going against Aristotle's theory about the earth at the center of the universe?
>>
FUCK IM SO SICK WITH RELIGIOUS FAGS
THERE IS NO PROOF TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
NOBODY SPOKE TO HIM
NOBODY SAW HIM
HE DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT GOD AND GROW UP ALREADY LIFE HAS NO FUCKING OBJECTIVE MEANING WHOOPSI FUCKING DOO WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN DARTH VADER AND GANDALF WHILE YOURE AT IT
>>
>>414566
Calm down, these people were indoctrinated from birth. Shouting won't help them
>>
>>414547
The USSR wasn't the only country doing space exploration, that's a bad parallel.

I don't think you understand how much Catholicism and the Church permeated medieval Western culture. Can you explain how exactly all those exact same things would have appeared if the Catholic Church hadn't created them? You think illiterate peasants would have copied ancient manuscripts? Or maybe blacksmiths and cobblers would have founded the universities, or built Gothic temples to the glory of atheism?
>>
>>414566
What would the presence of meaning change anyway?
>>
File: 1449942729343.jpg (725KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]
1449942729343.jpg
725KB, 1200x1200px
>>414569
>Can you explain how exactly all those exact same things would have appeared if the Catholic Church hadn't created them?

He actually thinks that no other humans could have done what the humans in the church did
>>
>>414569
Are you saying the Catholic church was the only institution world wide doing schools? Are you retarded?
>>
>>414569
>Or maybe blacksmiths and cobblers would have founded the universities

You realize that Academy has been a thing since the Greeks, right?
>>
>>414566
>2015
>not believing in Darth Vader and Gandalf
>>
>>414569
First, the whole idea of a monastery isnt related to religion. The first monasteries werent religions institutions at all. Christianity only later took over them.

Secondly, schools were donated to communities by the wealthy people living in them, or build by the community effort, it has happened throughout human history. Religion isnt required for a school to appear where there wasnt one, let alone that particular sect of that particular religion.
>>
>>414573
dunno apparently some people feel that without God life is meaningless and not worth living or something
>>
>>414566

>subject is christianitys contribution to science
>starts complaining about religious people

OK. I'm not christian but i'm also not an idiot and admit that yes, christianity has been a fairly positive on science despite the cool me-meys
>>
>>414587
You just restated what you said before. You haven't told me what meaning does.
>>
>>414560
You don't even understand what the scientific method is.

>>414562
>Galileo and Newton
Yeah you're only off by about 300-400 years.

>>414563
He was actually originally arrested because he refused to teach his theories as anything but indisputable fact. And because he got into a personal quarrel with the Pope. Galileo's intellectual opponents were Humanists, who believed (like in the early Middle Ages) that the Greeks and in particular Aristotle were right about everything. The Catholic Church was originally perfectly fine with the Copernican model.

But anyway this is much later, by then Humanism and the Renaissance had happened, the Catholic Church was largely corrupt and no longer functioned as the foundation for intellectual and scientific advancement.
>>
>>414591
If your dog dies, you are sad. You feel bad, food doesnt taste as good, your mind goes to dark places.
However, if everything had a meaning, then its not bad at all. Your dog had to die, it was suffering. It dying means you will adopt another, which otherwise would have been homeless and suffered terribly.
Thus your dog's suffering is ended, and another dog's suffering is ended as well, because you have room to adopt and take care of it. Its all for the best, this cake is delicious and moist, and I am getting a hardon.
>>
>>414577
>>414579
>>414583
Schools did not exist in the West after the Fall of Rome, until they were founded by the Church. And yes Catholic monasteries were Catholic, what the fucking fuck.
>>
>>414594
The point is that if not for the Catholic church there would be other monasteries, and other schools and universities, you dumb sack of shit.
These things didnt happen because of the Catholic church, they happened while the Catholic church also happened. They coexisted. Each could have existed without the other. They arent required for each other's occurrence.

How fucking basic do you have to be to not get this simple point after several people have been parroting it for half an hour?
>>
>>414592
>Yeah you're only off by about 300-400 years.

Don't be stupid. There is no one person or one point in history where the scientific method was created.

I don't even know in which direction you are claiming I am 300-400 years off. You could go right back to Aristotle or right forward to Popper.

If you think Galileo and Newton were not important people in the development of the scientific method then you are even more retarded than I thought.
>>
>>414600
>there would be other monasteries, and other schools and universities, you dumb sack of shit.
Really. Explain to me exactly how this would have come about.

>they happened while the Catholic church also happened. They coexisted. Each could have existed without the other. They arent required for each other's occurrence.
Except how in the real world, all those things were founded and run by the Catholic Church, not by fucking leprechauns.

>several people have been parroting it for half an hour
Very well put.
>>
>>414592
>He was actually originally arrested because he refused to teach his theories as anything but indisputable fact.

Wrong. During his sentencing, the Qualifiers (theologians chosen to investigate his claims) delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."

He was then put under house arrest for thinking that it is true and publishing another book on it.

Literally censorship in the name of dogma. The Church is the antithesis of the scientific method.
>>
>>414604
>There is no one person or one point in history where the scientific method was created.
>but it was created by Galileo and Newton

lol, wow...
>>
>>414592
>by then Humanism and the Renaissance had happened, the Catholic Church was largely corrupt and no longer functioned as the foundation for intellectual and scientific advancement

Nice No true Scotsman, Catholicism only counts if it's my version
>>
>>414609
>Really. Explain to me exactly how this would have come about.

Well a quick check of the history of the University of Bologna and University of Oxford, the two oldest universities in Europe doesn't mention any involvement of the Catholic Church creating them so I don't know what you are asking to be explained.
>>
>>414609
>Really. Explain to me exactly how this would have come about.
Man, I really hate the big city life, with all its noise, distractions, smells and taxes. I think I will poll together money with a few like minded people and buy a plot of land just outside the city. There we will be free to make small business and grow a garden, while having time to think about what interests us - ethics, morals, reading and translating old texts.
You know, the exact same fucking way that christian monasteries appeared, except minus the christian part.

>i agree with your critique, except i still think i am right in the real world lol
Cut open your legs and hang yourself on the tendons.
>>
>>414613

Are you fucking retarded?

That is not what I said at all.
>>
File: viper.jpg (147KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]
viper.jpg
147KB, 1500x1500px
>>414613
>>
>>414612
Yeah that's the sentencing. That's what happens at the very end. So, after the arrest. And it wasn't even the actual reason for the sentencing.

All of this is irrelevant, it's in the 17th century, at which point the Church was no longer intellectually relevant and the principles of the scientific method were already long established. Nobody was ever bothered by the Church just for doing science, provided they presented their work as theory instead of fact, and didn't meddle with theology. This still applied even in the times of Galileo, despite the Church having gone to shit by then.
>>
>>414631
>And it wasn't even the actual reason for the sentencing.

But is EXACTLY the reason for the sentencing.

Why does the church arrest people? Heresy. The Qualifiers declared that such a belief was heresy, and heresy deserves punishment under Catholic rule.

What is heresy? It's when you don't believe what the Catholics believe. This is pure dogma. Even the Qualifiers said their reasoning for declaring it heresy was Sacred Scripture
>>
>>414613
>If you think Galileo and Newton were not important people in the development of the scientific method then you are even more retarded

Actually statement by anon

reply
>but it was created by Galileo and Newton
lol, wow...

>pic related
>>
>>414631
>the Church was no longer intellectually relevant

>Nobody was ever bothered by the Church just for doing science, provided they presented their work as theory instead of fact, and didn't meddle with theology

What in the fucking fuck. This just shows a clear misunderstanding of the word "theory" in science. Galileo had overwhelming evidence for heliocentrism. He was persecuted for heresy, not for "claiming something as fact instead of theory"

God damn, you're either a troll or completely historically illiter
>>
>>414614
>history begins in the 17th century, nothing before that ever happened

>>414619
The universities grew out of the cathedral schools, and were all run by clergy. Oxford was founded when English students were no longer admitted at the University of Paris.

>>414621
>describes 1960s American hippie communes
No, that is not at all how monasteries appeared. They were all founded by clergy.

>>414627
Oh ok, so I guess everything in your post after "You must be an idiot." was just a completely unrelated rant. I'll just ignore it with the dozens of other reddit tier meme posts ITT then.
>>
>>414639
Monasteries literally appeared because educated people wanted to be able to perform academic work without being distracted by city life.
The fact that these educated people had a job in the church is irrelevant here.
>>
>>414639
>>>414614 (You)
>history begins in the 17th century, nothing before that ever happened

How the fuck did you pull that from from what I posted, are you suggesting that other countries and ideas did not exist at the time, or that greek ideas (pre Catholicism, also pre (name most religions)) were not a major facilitator of the developments which occurred during a later period when the majority of people happened to be catholic
>>
>>414639
>history begins with the catholic church, nothing before that ever happened, catholics invented writing and the wheel
>>
>>414639
>Oh ok, so I guess everything in your post after "You must be an idiot." was just a completely unrelated rant. I'll just ignore it with the dozens of other reddit tier meme posts ITT then.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle. Saying Newtin and Galileo were important people in the development of the scientific method is in no way, shape or form a statement that they and they alone were the inventors of the scientific method.

Apparently you can't read.

>The universities grew out of the cathedral schools, and were all run by clergy. Oxford was founded when English students were no longer admitted at the University of Paris.

I see no evidence Bologna or Oxford Universities started off as cathedral schools and the University of Paris didn't even exist when Oxford was formed.
>>
>>414634
Heresy is a theological matter, not a matter of natural philosophy. As long as you studied natural philosophy (ie science), didn't claim your theories to be beyond question, and didn't deviate into metaphysics, the Church didn't bother you.

And btw, not claiming theories to be beyond question and not deviating into metaphysics is exactly the sort of principle modern science adheres to.

>>414635
Try reading more than one post.

His statement was that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the scientific method because Galileo and Newton didn't belong to the Catholic Church.

>>414638
>Galileo had overwhelming evidence for heliocentrism.
He didn't, actually. His science was not convincing, and relied on observed evidence that only he was apparently able to see. And as I explained above, all he had to do to not be at danger of heresy was not claim his theory to be indisputable dogma. And again, this is 300 years after the time that's relevant to this discussion.

>historically illiter
Another amazing point.
>>
>>414653
>Heresy is a theological matter, not a matter of natural philosophy.

CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

THE HERESY THEY ARRESTED HIM FOR IS BELIEVING THE SUN WAS AT THE CENTER RATHER THAN THE EARTH.

Fuck, I'm out of here. You're more stubborn than young earth creationists
>>
>>414653
>Galileo and Newton

Don't quote me, but Galileo was called a heretic, and the other was a heretic in later life
>>
>>414653
>He didn't, actually. His science was not convincing, and relied on observed evidence that only he was apparently able to see.

This is a blatant lie. And the Qualifiers didn't even consider the evidence when declaring it absurd, they simply said it was philosophically absurd in light of Aristotle

>all he had to do to not be at danger of heresy was not claim his theory to be indisputable dogma.

No, all he had to do was believe it, because that's what the definition of heresy is. Now you have to cite why you think he claimed his ideas were indisputable dogma.

Also, the fact that the Church could put you under house arrest for heresy is terrifying, and definitely the antithesis of free thinking.
>>
>>414640
>educated people
Yes I sure wonder how they came to be so educated. Clearly them all being clergy had nothing to do with it, they could just as easily have received their education on some fedora subreddit right.

>>414649
You seemed to think there was some kind of contradiction between the Church being corrupt in the 17th century, and the Church being the foundation of all intellectual advancement in the West for the 1000 years prior. Do you understand how time works? Not everything happens simultaneously.

OK this is great but I do have other things to do, and I'm sure you'll be happier if I stop disrupting your euphoric circlejerk with historical realities.
>>
>>412749
It's the theatre where some of the paris terrorist attacks took place. The picture is dumb af, most of the shooters were french citizens
>>
>>414664
>the Church being the foundation of all intellectual advancement in the West for the 1000 years prior. Do you understand how time works? Not everything happens simultaneously

I have a problem with claiming the church is the foundation, when it perpetuated earlier idea in this particular aspect

>could just as easily have received their education on some fedora subreddit right

Cmon man i though we were having a decent discussion, please stay away from strawman
>>
>debating fedoras
When you've done it once, you've done it a billion times.

To the poor anon who is doing this, just stop. Let them circlejerk. They can't even be bothered to bring half a citation on a history board

Nicole Oresme
Albert of Saxony
(hint, these two were crucial to Copernicus)
Jean Buridan
Gregor Mendel
Albertus Magnus
Roger Bacon (first recipe for gunpowder)
All of these fine men were Catholic/Christian and usually Priests, Albert of Saxony was a fucking Bishop. The fact that anyone can even deny Catholic contributions to science and outright ignore the University of Paris is beyond me, but apparently my simplistic mind isn't enlightened enough

>>414669
You seem smart enough
>claiming the church is the foundation
Not him obv, but foundation isn't the best word, major contributor and factor would be a bit better. Those bored monks in monasteries did quite a bit, they were the literate ones who produced books in the early period, thus they saw and studied Greek texts. Not to mention the Church was rich and more importantly universal, monks and scholars didn't have nationalism to separate them like the US and Soviets in the Cold War, monks traveled across Europe to debate and read and the like.

What ever way you spin it, the Church still had a hand in scientific and nearly all developments I would say.
>>
>>414666
Just playing devil's advocate: just because most of the shooters were French citizens does not mean they weren't joined by, aided by, or bolstered/encouraged by refugees. The pic is dumb, but the fact that the shooters were French doesn't disprove that refugees are precluded from factors of causality.
>>
File: 1404840904405.jpg (39KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]
1404840904405.jpg
39KB, 480x360px
>>412489
>>
>>414669
OK real quick. There were several stages in Western thought:

- Scholasticism (11th-13th century)
Championed by people like Peter Abelard at the cathedral school of Notre Dame ("I must first understand so that I may believe"), scholastic thinking emphasised reason and logic as the best way to arrive at the truth. The idea of the Universe as a great clock made by God, who also gave us reason so that we may understand his work. The Church was fine with it because it also believed in reason and that it could prove the truth of Christianity (Abelard famously used Aristotle to explain transubstantiation). Logic became the highest science, and Aristotle became the supreme authority because of his work as a logician.

- The early Scientific Revolution (13th-15th century)
Read this post for what happened in 1277: >>414557
After that Aristotle was in many cases disproved and became disregarded at the University of Paris, where the fundamental elements of modern science were developed (early calculus, the concepts of force and momentum, even the Earth's rotation).

- Humanism (15th-17th century)
Now the centre of this budding revolution was in France, which was devastated by the Hundred Years War, along with other disasters like the Plague and little ice age that fell over Europe starting in the later 14th century. In the wake of this, Humanism became the new dominant ideology. By the 16th century it permeated all intellectual circles everywhere. Humanists studied the humanities, that is the ancient Greek and Roman texts. Like they founder Petrarch, they usually dismissed everything that had been achieved since the fall of Rome as "Dark Ages", and wanted to return to classical civilisation. In science that meant Aristotle. The work of the late Middle Ages was forgotten (burned in some cases), and academics went back to blindly worshiping Aristotle. This affected everyone of course, including Church academics.
>>
>>414684
The issue is NOT that his claim was Catholics did good science. His claim is here >>414539
>>
>>414684
>the Church still had a hand in scientific and nearly all developments

Doesn't actually mean they wouldn't have happened anyway.
>>
>>414696
>Western thought on study of the natural world
>Starts in 11th century

Do you even know who Aristotle is?
>>
>>414696

- Enlightenment (17th century)
Largely based on a waning of Humanism and a rediscovery of pre-Renaissance works. For instance there is nothing that Galileo says about Physics (and that was traditionally credited to him) that wasn't already discovered by Buridan and Oresme three centuries earlier, and there is reason to believe he had read their work. But this time did have the merit of formulating the scientific method explicitly (most decisively by Descartes), which led to the Scientific Revolution.
>>
>>414704
I'm talking about Western civilisation, not ancient Greeks.

>Do you even know who Aristotle is?
Why don't you read my post.
>>
>>414713
>I'm talking about Western civilisation, not ancient Greeks.

Kill yourself.
>>
>>414696
>Scholasticism

SCHOLASTICISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STUDY OF THE NATURAL WORLD
>>
>>414698
Oh, I thought we were talking about the quote in the OP
- manuscript culture
->cathedral schools
True
>universities
True
>almost all art and architecture until the 17th century
I would put the cut off at the 15th since you saw the rise of the banker families but for the most part the Church commissioned art and statues and the like.
>scholasticism
Should be obvious enough
>the scientific method
Awkward to define really
>the fact we don't keep slaves or watch children get eaten by lions for entertainment
Not really sure about this exactly but the church certainly was central in humanitarian rights, especially with Spanish settlement in the Americas

>>414701
>Doesn't actually mean they wouldn't have happened anyway
Bullshit cop out tbqh, the church contributed, it's irrelevant what could have happened in an alternate history
>>
File: vomit.gif (1MB, 250x230px) Image search: [Google]
vomit.gif
1MB, 250x230px
>>414716
The stupidity of that statement made me physically ill
>>
>>414721
>it's irrelevant what could have happened in an alternate history

The christfag anon also claims that only the church could have done it here >>414569
>>
>>414725
Its an advice, not a statement, and its a very sound one.
>>
>>414719
Scholasticism is a method of reasoning, and it's what preceded the scientific method and what the scientific method was build on, partly by assimilation (the preeminence of reason), partly by rejection (of Aristotlean conservatism).
>>
>>414731
I'm not going to bother with alternate history, I leave my point how it is
>>
>>414721
>it's irrelevant what could have happened in an alternate history

Not if the church actually hindered the sciences by overseeing it. Then, it would be quite relevant.
>>
>>414731
Regardless of that debate, the fact is the Church did do it, so the OP quote about how the influence of the Church has been harmful is crap.
>>
File: 1433206001711.png (156KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]
1433206001711.png
156KB, 500x301px
>>414738
>>
>>414736
>the church actually hindered the sciences by overseeing it
How exactly do you intend to support this position? You're arguing with imagination. The Pope could have secretly been an alien with advanced foresight, that would certainly change the situation. Is this the time where we start writing fanfiction about alternate history timelines which support our world views?
>>
>>414733
>it's what preceded the scientific method and what the scientific method was build on

Nope, it's based on the Aristotelian method (which scholastics to some extent ripped off and claimed as their own)
>>
>>414743
Galileo.
>>
>>414743
Galileo. See >>414612
>>
>>414745
Is this where I'm supposed to say that the Greeks got all their ideas from ancient Egyptians or some shit and we're all Africans?

I wrote an outline of Western intellectual history, where I mentioned that Aristotle was the principal reference during the scholastic era. I don't really understand what it is you're complaining about now.
>>
>>414747
>>414750
Yeah too bad the Church burned Galileo, that must be why we still believe the Earth is flat.
>>
>>414747
>>414750
What about Galileo? His theories and contributions were not nearly revolutionary enough to have made a difference when Copernicus and many others had already touched on the subject. He didn't invent the telescope either. Need I remind you Galileo still believed in circular orbits? Jesuit scholars went and used his ideas anyway, they started to observe orbits through the telescope, Kepler and Brahe come to mind.

Oh and give me a citation for >>414612 he used a quote so he must have something
>inb4 stephe fry
>>
>>414762
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6168
>>
>>414762
>What about Galileo? His theories and contributions were not nearly revolutionary

Galileo has been called the "father of observational astronomy",[4] the "father of modern physics",[5][6] and the "father of science".[7]
>>
i clear my throat so i dont get cancer
>>
>>413121
atheism followed by the religion of neoliberalism followed by islam is the popular idea. people thought that was ridiculous but then 2015 happened
>>
>>414790
Your mom has been called a "filthy whore",[3][4] a "cumguzzling fuckpig",[5][6][7] and a "disgusting fat pathetically desperate gutterslut".[8][9][10][11][12][13]
>>
>>414790
>"father of observational astronomy",[4] the "father of modern physics",[5][6] and the "father of science"
>judging actual contributions based on popular depiction and opinion
C'mon, you can do better than that. Tell me which particular idea/concept/practice of his was so influential the Church has suppressed the potential of science.

>>414778
It's late, I'll dig through this tomorrow after work if the thread is still up
>>
>>414719

Roger Grosseteste and Roger Bacon were scholastics and they had everything to do with it,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste

>It has been argued that Grosseteste played a key role in the development of the scientific method. Grosseteste did introduce to the Latin West the notion of controlled experiment and related it to demonstrative science, as one among many ways of arriving at such knowledge.[14] Although Grosseteste did not always follow his own advice during his investigations, his work is seen as instrumental in the history of the development of the Western scientific tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

>He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by later scholars such as the Arab scientist Alhazen.[3]

Then you have Oresme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Oresme

>In his Livre du ciel et du monde Oresme discussed a range of evidence for and against the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis.[6]

Oresme work was a precursor to Galielo and Copernicus. In fact, there is pretty good evidence to suggest that Galileo was reading Oresme in his early university studies.

Albert of Saxony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_of_Saxony_(philosopher)

>The Theory of impetus[1] introduced a third stage to the two stage theory of Avicenna.

>Initial stage. Motion is in a straight line in direction of impetus which is dominant while gravity is insignificant
Intermediate stage. Path begins to deviate downwards from straight line as part of a great circle as air resistance slows projectile and gravity recovers.
Last stage. Gravity alone draws projectile downwards vertically as all impetus is spent.
This theory was a precursor to the modern theory of inertia.

There are countless others. I would suggest reading up on Medieval Science, there are some good books on it. Edward Grant's work is especially good.
>>
>>414809
Nice

> a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
>>
>>414813
>changing goal posts

If you want to know his contributions to science, whether or not they got him arrested, go look it up yourself
>>
>>414818
Give him a break, he's only a Christian
>>
ITT:

>THE CHURCH TOTALLY DIDN'T CONDEMN GALILEO FOR HERESY

>actually yes, here are the documents

>NO THEY DID NOT

>but...these are the documents

>OH MY GOD SHITLORD STOP TRIGGERING ME
>>
File: 1434942809962.jpg (7KB, 141x250px) Image search: [Google]
1434942809962.jpg
7KB, 141x250px
>>412476
>>
>>414824
They've now switched tactics to "Galileo was a worthless hack anyway!"
>>
>>414827


Yeah, it's amazing. And if you were to show them that no, he wasn't, they would go back to "but he wasn't condmened for heresy".

They can't understand that "heresy" for the church, like "crime" for the state is pretty much whatever the church decides.

Sure, this must be within reasonable limits or else the whole pantomime falls apart but it's not like they're noobs at conceiving intricate reasons for why A is actually B.
>>
>>414762
Your response to the Church hindering Galileo's work and ideas is "he's not that important, anyway"?
>>
>>414820
What are you talking about? Read the thread and my posts, I don't give a single fuck about popular opinion when judging influence on a field of study.

>>414824
>strawman
Only highest level of discourse with fedoras. I skimmed the doc, it basically says:
>my latin translation is better than yours
Its 3am, if you want to hear my part you have to wait.

>>414827
His biggest contribution was the observation of Venus, Brahe did more and better.

Oh and cool it on the circlejerking hotshot
>>
>>414848

>Only highest level of discourse with fedoras. I skimmed the doc


>GUYS I BARELY READ ONE SOURCE, HERE'S MY CRITICISM (also ad hominem please don't notice it)


top kek
>>
>>414818
I suppose you honestly think copypasting memes from Wikipedia, or posts like these: >>414823 constitute a "high level of discourse".
>>
>>414815
Impetus was Jean Buridan. Albert of Saxony is rather overrated as a scientist (while keeping in mind that he and everyone else from that period are actually massively underrated of course).
>>
File: Yplh18u.png (26KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]
Yplh18u.png
26KB, 527x409px
>>414865
>copypasting memes from Wikipedia

Fucks sake, thats actually the sticky for /his

>pic related
>>
>>414848

>my latin translation is better than yours


Also, somehow I didn't notice this. The sentence was read to him in italian, not latin.

Also, this too in italian, we have his abjuration where he talks about heresy yet again.
>>
>>414870
Oh my God, do you seriously have the IQ of a goldfish? Try reading two posts up.
>>
>>414848

Here's what I was talking about here >>414873

> per haver io, dopo d'essermi stato con precetto dall'istesso giuridicamente intimato che omninamente dovessi lasciar la falsa opinione che il sole sia centro del mondo e che non si muova e che la terra non sia centro del mondo e che si muova, e che non potessi tenere, difendere nè insegnare in qualsivoglia modo, nè in voce nè in scritto, la detta falsa dottrina, e dopo d'essermi notificato che detta dottrina è contraria alla Sacra Scrittura, scritto e dato alle stampe un libro nel quale tratto l'istessa dottrina già dannata et apporto ragioni con molta efficacia a favor di essa, senza apportar alcuna solutione, sono stato giudicato vehementemente sospetto d'heresia, cioè d'haver tenuto e creduto che il sole sia centro del mondo et imobile e che la terra non sia centro e che si muova;
>>
>>414876
I replied from 'Nice' down, which was two post up, what's your point?
>>
>>414529
bedrock of virtually all current first world nations is Christian laws and teachings.

but feel free to argue that atheist marxists in eastern europe, russia and asia don't commit genocide like they were drinking coffee
>>
>>414886


>bedrock of virtually all current first world nations is Christian laws and teachings.

Bedrock of virtually all current first world nations are roman laws and enlightenment values.
>>
>>414885
Here is the post this was a reply to: >>414790. Do I also need to screencap it for you?

How do you even manage to operate a computer? Do you have someone typing for you while trying to interpret your incoherent garglings and droolings into somewhat understandable English?
>>
>>414892
Two different anon's mate, He's exaggerating and your mad, and I can type you cunt
>>
>>414867

That's what I learnt from Grant's books originally. It is interesting that the wiki page is crediting him with it now, it is from German book I have no access to. I just took it at face value.

The main innovation I heard of Albert's was his understanding of Rainbow's, apparently he was the first in the west to get a decent understanding of how they work. Though I can't find a good source on it at the moment.

Buridan is a giant of course. Really the 14th century was an incredible time intellectually. I really hope that the common history people are taught gets updated one day to gives these guys their due.
>>
>>414890
lol keep doing your mental gymnastics

the top country in the world was created because they wanted to express a Christian lifestyle

butthurt atheists in prosperous Christian countries should just fuck off to North Korea or some other atheist shithole instead of mucking up a good thing
>>
>>414906

>the top country in the world was created because they wanted to express a Christian lifestyle

Even though this is false, it still doesn't matter. It could be the truest statement ever. Doesn't change one bit what I said and what you previously said since we were talking about "virtually all current first world nations" not "the top country in the world".

Keep moving the goalpost
>>
>>412476
"fag"
>>
>>414890
Enlightenment values are Christian.

And civil law was only tangentially inspired from Justinian's codex, actual ancient Roman laws didn't work like that at all.
>>
>>414918


>And civil law was only tangentially inspired from Justinian's codex

Are you saying edgy incorrect stuff on purpose? Or does this come natural to you?
>>
File: 1448601263707.jpg (238KB, 1337x1289px) Image search: [Google]
1448601263707.jpg
238KB, 1337x1289px
>>414918
>Enlightenment values are Christian.
>>
>>414922
Civil law as it exists in most countries is derived from Napoleon's codex.

>>414923
Haha, I love le depressed amphibian, well meme'd my friend.
>>
>>414927

>Civil law as it exists in most countries is derived from Napoleon's codex

Yes, and I wonder what was behind napoleon's codex.
>>
>>414918
>Satanism is Christian
>>
>>412725
where are these pics? on liveleak?
>>
>>412725
Right I forgot Catholics did that.
>>
>>414959
Except Enlightenment values aren't just a reaction against Christianity, they're literally Christian and Catholic values: reason, equality, humanity, and the scientific method.
>>
>>415036

>they're literally Christian and Catholic values: reason, equality, humanity, and the scientific method.

You do know God is valued above all of those, right? Those only have value because of God.
>>
>>415081
Yeah, meaning they have value.

Since then the removal of God (and of Modern Era substitutes) has led to present day Postmodernism where nothing has value and everything is just like whatever.
>>
File: traditional catholic girl.jpg (123KB, 900x594px) Image search: [Google]
traditional catholic girl.jpg
123KB, 900x594px
>>412476
Very simply and directly, thus
>"Consider just the Catholic Church. It invented the hospital in its mdoern form and the university system that you took advantage of. It operates more free hospitals, more free clinics, and provides more free healthcare tot he world's poor than any other organization on the Planet. It provides mroe schools and more free education to poor children than any other organization on the planet. It provides more food, more agricultural training, and more agricultural tools to the hungry than any other organization on the planet."
>"If you wish to seriously claim that an institution that objectively does more to alleviate sickness, ignorance, and hunger than any other on the planet is 'positively harmful' then I suggest that your definition of harm is fatally flawed"
>>
>>412535
>The man knew the bible back and forth better than 80% of most Christians
Bullshit. he made gross errors that betrayed his knowledge of the bible was about on par to skimming Atheist web pages.
Oddly enough
>>
>>412606
Christopher
>'Hey! If I make outrageous statements about Mother Teresa and Christianity colleges will book me for speaking tours and college kids will by my terrible books! Hello, gravy train!"
Peter
>"If I remain true to the dictates of reason and logic I will live a good life"
Morons
>"Peter is so dull, but Christopher was a firebrand!"
>>
Morality
>>
>>414206
Have you never stopped to consider that little part of you which urges you to do things that you on some level feel are wrong is easy to personify, and even easier to attribute to an outside force?

I take it you lack a larger concept of right and wrong, for how could consistently hold these without some source of objective morality. You have your own ideas, sure, but they aren't founded on any principles besides "because I feel that's wrong". Alternatively you believe morality is subjective to the point where it can be logically contradiction: what's right for you can be wrong for someone else and visa versa, which is relatively self defeating as concepts goes.
>>
File: smirk.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]
smirk.gif
3MB, 320x180px
>>415036
>posting this post
>unironically
>on a history & humanities board
>>
>>412476

Well at least I didn't die before my objectively superior brother.
>>
>>415101

>It operates more free hospitals, more free clinics, and provides more free healthcare tot he world's poor than any other organization on the Planet


It's called "being the biggest centralized religion on the planet". Per dollars received, they're average or less than average.
>>
File: Pepe.png (59KB, 230x244px) Image search: [Google]
Pepe.png
59KB, 230x244px
>>412476
>how do you respond?
>>
>>412949
>atheist majority countries are in general more peaceful,its an undeniable statistical fact.

I don't think that atheism has anything to do with say Estonia not starting wars all of the time.

Also, USSR was an anti-theist state, and was plenty violent.
>>
File: mechwarrior hume.jpg (402KB, 920x2492px) Image search: [Google]
mechwarrior hume.jpg
402KB, 920x2492px
>>412476

Don't feel the need to respond to one of the most vapid products of the Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition. When you can be summed up and dismissed by an undergrad philosopher's webcomic you don't have much to say.

But seriously, what is this obsession with Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss etc just because they can coin a dank phrase? Guys like Massimo Pigliucci, Dan Dennett, AC Grayling etc are offering much better critiques of religion than Hitchens ever managed, with his superficial understanding of the history and sociology of religion.
>>
>>416506
>what is this obsession with Hitchens
See >>412559

The man can speak
>>
>>416517

So can any number of charlatan preachers. I'm more interested in whether he had anything to say.
>>
>>416316
>Also, USSR was an anti-theist state, and was plenty violent.

Not him, but this is true, but nobody is arguing for making a state that purges religious people though so it's kind of a strawman.
>>
>>416506
This comic brings no argument except some blanket statement nod to Hume. It's anti-intellectual.
>>
>>416527
Yes, I think he makes a lot of excellent points in the video
>>
>>414187
>>bisexual atheist alcoholic marxist jew
>>died of cancer
Kemal Ataturk died of liver problems, not cancer. Also I don't think he was a marxist. (I could be wrong though)
>>
>>412559
Point 1
> Even Aquinas had to give up moving from the first position to the second.

Actually Aquinas grounded the majority of God's properties that specified him as the God of Catholicism. Hitchen’s probably just read the three 3 pages that the 5 ways appear on and left it at that. Scotus even went as far as demonstrating the logic of the trinity.

Aquinas grounded his sexual ethics in the natural world as well, so there was a rational basis for how God "minds who you go to bed with and in what way", even if you agree with it or not. While some things had to be left to faith,no doubt the theistic God himself had been grounded by arguments. Everything Hitchens mentioned has been grounded by the great theologians- maybe with the exception of dietary restrictions and some minor things of the like.

Finally he has shown to lack an understanding of first cause arguments by supposing that they are "desitic" ones. When in fact most first cause arguments are about a sustaining cause that exists at each moment creation does (he divine intervention is more intimate and common place than we think). If he had studied theology properly he would realize that this first conserving cause tends to necessitate many of those other properties that he doubted could be proven.

Point 2

> I'm uncomfortable with the being that sustains the whole universe having knowledge of what he sustains. I don't like that the being who we all derive our existence from ultimately has the power.

>" He can convict you of thought crime!"

This isn't really a point. Yes God will ultimately judge you, people like this belief because they feel that even when people can manipulate and avoid justice in the world like they always do, ultimately things will balance our fairly. He constantly acts as if God is a big man with a beard in the sky as well ,which is embarrassing to say the least.

The rest is just a vague analogy, not worth a rebuttal.

cont
>>
>>417520

Point 3

> Every theist is a divine voluntarist

Well thats just false, many theists believe that our moral intuitions were placed in us by God so that we would know what is right and wrong even if we grew up in a bad society. Of course the akward part of this is that in meta-ethics no one has come close to rationally demonstrate a categorical morality. Not to mention that societies have radically different moralities, where is that human intuition that grounds universal morality Chris ? It seems pretty fractured to me. The closest we've come to a categorical morality is teleological ethics- and those end up leading us to God anyways.

Point 4

> Now we have better explanations!

No we don't. Hitchens assumes that our need to explain diseases and the like is what grounds religion, historically this is false. Things like the consistency of the order of nature and its existence is generally the main reason. The rest of the point is just unfounded progressivist drivel that is merely stated, not argued for. He also ignores that theists are not against naturalistic discoveries and explanations since they are seen as God's handiwork. He is also clearly ignorant of the history of science since it has always been intimately linked with religious people trying to find God's handiwork in the divine.

cont
>>
>>417531

Point 5

> God watches us for 95 000 years and then finally intervenes with human sacrifice and mass murder in THE BARBARIC MIDDLE EAST- he did this to make us moral. How absurd.

I assume he is talking about the old testament? 95 000 years is a blip on God's radar since he is eternal. It would be like complaining that I waited half a second to help a friend out instead of being there in a quarter of a second. When God intervened properly and gave us the full truth he did it with Christ, who performed a bunch of miracles and told us to stop throwing rocks at prostitutes and being greedy. I mean maybe Hitchens was getting at something else, but this is barely a coherent point. It is very sophistical.

I would expect this from a first year university student. For a grown man, his lack of knowledge on a subject he is willing to speak on publicly is really embarrassing. Pure sophistry, if you want to read some good arguments against theism go to J.J. Mackie or Hume.
>>
>>417544
>I assume he is talking about the old testament? 95 000 years is a blip on God's radar since he is eternal. It would be like complaining that I waited half a second to help a friend out instead of being there in a quarter of a second
The thing that bugs me the most about this argument is that it's not even a blip.

God is transtemporal. There is no 'waiting'.
>>
>>417580

Thats true actually. I should have worded it better. God has one universal act that extends over all of time since he is eternal. It is true that there is no waiting technically.

Though one could still ask way God chose for that action to be delayed for so long on our side in his single act, in that case still any finite amount of time is inconsequential since he is eternal. Its arbitrary to say "why did he have that part of his act be postponed for x amount of time?" . because there is nothing more privileged about one time rather than another when they are all equally finite and incommensurable with his eternity.
>>
>>417520
>Actually Aquinas grounded the majority of God's properties that specified him as the God of Catholicism

He did so from an argument from authority.

>Aquinas grounded his sexual ethics in the natural world as well

Worst ethics system ever. It is merely an afterthought to 1) avoid the Euthyphro dilemma and 2) justify the absurd biblical laws.

>lack an understanding of first cause arguments by supposing that they are "desitic" ones

They are deistic in the sense that they don't prove a God that cares about how you use your penis.

> people like this belief

People like the idea of eternal torture? Hmm...

>The closest we've come to a categorical morality is teleological ethics

>in meta-ethics no one has come close to rationally demonstrate a categorical morality

Who is Kant?

>Things like the consistency of the order of nature and its existence is generally the main reason.

I would consider that a reason to believe there is NO god, since all we have is a blind mechanical universe.

> It would be like complaining that I waited half a second to help a friend out instead of being there in a quarter of a second.

No, it would be like visiting one of your kids for one day then claiming that you raised all your kids and you love them
>>
>>417625

>He did so from an argument from authority.

No he didn't. He showed how the being of pure actuality proven in the 5 ways ends up having all of those properties.

>Worst ethics system ever. It is merely an afterthought to...

Actually it's Aristotle's system of ethics.One that Aquinas realized fit with Christianity fairly well.

>They are deistic in the sense that they don't prove a God that cares about how you use your penis.

The point of deism is a God that simply created the world, but does not intervene. A theistic God intervenes. These arguments prove the latter.

>People like the idea of eternal torture? Hmm...

For those who deserve it yes

>Who is Kant?

Someone who's secular categorical moral system ultimately failed because the categorical imperative is arbitrary.

>I would consider that a reason to believe there is NO god, since all we have is a blind mechanical universe.

We need to account for why we have regularities we do in creation, what keeps them the same, what maintains creations existence at every moment, how we account for the existence of derivative the causal series that make up creation, etc etc etc. Considerations on general order of nature shows the need for a first cause that can chose between all the logically possible options since the way creation is is no where near necessary.

If we could show that our universe's "laws" and the like were logically necessary then we would need nothing to explain why our universe is the way it is. But if something isn't necessary and several options can hold we need a way to account for one set of options holding over the other for every moment that they do. Without something necessarily bringing it about we need something that can chose contingently between options, we need something we a kind of intellect.

We also don't have a "blind mechanical universe", physics abstracts from reality so create imperfect systemizations. Reality is the ground of physics, not the other way around.
>>
>>417725
>He showed how the being of pure actuality proven in the 5 ways ends up having all of those properties.

He did not. If he did I ask that you post his logic here, so that we may see how you move from first mover to a god that is concerned about war, sex, and animal sacrifices.

>Actually it's Aristotle's system of ethics.One that Aquinas realized fit with Christianity fairly well.

Really? NLT says that the highest aims are well-being and happiness?

>The point of deism is a God that simply created the world, but does not intervene

A deistic god could easily be one that actively creates the world, but it would still just be a pure creator-god. In fact if the deistic god exists separate from time then that is the ONLY way a deistic god could exist.

>For those who deserve it yes

And what finite crime deserves an infinite punishment?

> because the categorical imperative is arbitrary.

As arbitrary as anyone else's, see "Is-Ought Problem".

>Without something necessarily bringing it about we need something that can chose contingently between options, we need something we a kind of intellect.

Chaotic inflation explains it pretty well. And taking the multiverse as the "brute fact" of existence makes a lot less assumptions than a god with a bunch of silly divine attributes, it also has much more explanatory power.
>>
>>417764

I was talking about the series of properties that made him a theistic God ( intellect, will, love etc) and not just the first cause.

I don't have the room to post every single argument. But Questions 1-26 in book 1 of the Summa ground those.

Sex is grounded by teleological ethics, procreation is seen as the purpose of sex, so the less chance of procreation the worse your sex is.

When does Jesus or God tell us about animal sacrifices or to go to war in the NT ?

>Really? NLT says that the highest aims are well-being and happiness?

Yes, and happiness comes from achieving the ends that God sets us out to desire, with him being the ultimate end and the ultimate happinnes.

>A deistic god could easily be one that actively creates the world, but it would still just be a pure creator-god. In fact if the deistic god exists separate from time then that is the ONLY way a deistic god could exist.

Deism is the belief that a God created the world as self sufficient and left it to its own devices, this contradicts a conserving God whose act of creation extends to every moment.

I think you typed your second comment out wrong because I don't see how that follows from anything- you probably meant something else than what you typed.

>And what finite crime deserves an infinite punishment?

One that has an infinite degree of severity- hence why things like pre-marital sex are'nt considered things that will land you in hell. You should read Kant's " Religion within the bounds of bare reason" he actually ends up moving back towards theological ethics and (falsely imo) claims that all sins must by definition have an infinite severity.
>>
>>417966

>As arbitrary as anyone else's, see "Is-Ought Problem".

Teleological ethics overcomes the is ought problem. It is our enlightenment morality that has that problem. We can make evaluative statements objective so as long as ends are involved. The definition of a farmer is to produce crops, we can say that insofar as someone is trying to be a farmer that they ought to produce crops. This is unproblematic.

>Chaotic inflation explains it pretty well. And taking the multiverse as the "brute fact" of existence makes a lot less assumptions than a god with a bunch of silly divine attributes, it also has much more explanatory power.

I'll look into chaotic inflation, can you give me the cliff notes of what exactly it is and how it explains contingency.

Can you explain how a multiverse theory as a brute fact explains the contingently I mentioned, ( add in how it is that it has less assumptions and more explanatory power ?) You've pointed to explanation but not how it is actually supposed to explain anything. Even some literature on the subject would be fine, obviously this is a more complicated issue than what can be fit into 4chan posts so I'm fine going off and reading some stuff on my own if you don't want to elaborate yourself.
>>
>>415184
It is absolutely easy to personify evil urges as the will of some outside force. It's the easiest thing in the world to blame others and never take responsibility for your failings/shortcomings.

That in no way validates the existence of the devil or makes attributing evil to some external power the right thing to do. It's delusion and cowardice, honestly. The world would be a lot better off if people started acknowledging that they are sometimes motivated to do evil things and are equally capable of wrestling back those urges themselves instead of waiting for something else to deliver them.

It's called being a fucking man. Take responsibility.
>>
>>412476
*leans trilby*
>>
>>417973

Sorry I typed that out too quickly. Too many spelling mistakes. Lets do that last bit again.

I'll look into chaotic inflation, can you give me the cliff notes on what exactly it is and how it explains the contingency of the natural order that I mentioned?

Can you explain how a theory that claims that a multiverse is a brute fact explains the contingency that I mentioned, ( and add in how it is that it has less assumptions and more explanatory power please) You've pointed to an explanation but not how it is actually supposed to explain anything. Even some literature on the subject would be fine, obviously this is a more complicated issue than what can be fit into a few 4chan posts, so I'm fine going off and reading some stuff on my own if you don't want to elaborate on it yourself.
>>
>>417973
>Teleological ethics overcomes the is ought problem.

No it doesn't, it just ignores it like every other normative ethics system.
>>
>>418002
Read this http://pastebin.com/XGfzNagT
>>
File: atheism.png (557KB, 800x1188px) Image search: [Google]
atheism.png
557KB, 800x1188px
>>
>>418168
honestly if magical beings sent from god visited me I would be religious

not sure what this comic is trying to prove
>>
File: 1443541971325.jpg (540KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]
1443541971325.jpg
540KB, 1680x1050px
>>
>>418216
>gets refuted
>fedoraposts
classic

Pretty sure every atheist in the world would be religious if they were visited by a supernatural being
>>
>>418198
Yeah, this. If God or something that was obviously a servant of God tried to contact me, I'd certainly be a shitload more open to the idea of religion.

>>418216
Oh don't get fanny flustered because the comic didn't make as salient a point as you thought.
>>
File: aliens_large_grande.jpg (56KB, 600x571px) Image search: [Google]
aliens_large_grande.jpg
56KB, 600x571px
>>418216
You do know that being a complete idiot only embarrasses you, right?
>>
File: HELL.png (2MB, 1300x1158px) Image search: [Google]
HELL.png
2MB, 1300x1158px
>>418219
>>418230
My dear sirs, you have misinterpreted my language entirely. I was expressing hearty concurrence with your proposed sentiment; namely that the comic strip did a rather poor job of presenting a reasoned and well researched argument that was ultimately not very persuasive in the slightest and did not even include a single citation.
>>
>>418246
I'm insecure about my religious beliefs: the post
>>
>>418246
The poster in that picture is pretty fucking spot on. May he continue to rock out with his cock out.
>>
File: Welcome to my world.jpg (141KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]
Welcome to my world.jpg
141KB, 720x1280px
>>418241
That's hardly an argument my dear fellow it is nothing but ad hominem.

>>418251
Your have not refuted my thesis which is that the comic strip failed in every regard to construct a factual argument.

>>418262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0rV88Ev-og
>>
File: 1442129216813.jpg (17KB, 277x397px) Image search: [Google]
1442129216813.jpg
17KB, 277x397px
>>418297
>your
and you were trying so hard, too.
>>
File: Flaming tip.gif (828KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]
Flaming tip.gif
828KB, 320x180px
>>418319
How do you mean?
>>
>>418052

Part 1 The Big Bang

> is event is called the Big Bang, from which scientists can explain almost everything that has happened since

This is a bold claim to make. Science is very much undecided many of these things, especially how life could come about as a “natural accident”- but all these so far is entirely irrelevant to the theistic argument I presented which was based on the contingency of how the natural order works consistently and those contingencies by which it works.

>The argument is basically: why did God create the universe in this way in such a long process instead of completing it all at once.

>“You would think a god would simply create the whole universe at once, or much more quickly at least, and only make it as large as would suit us.”

Why though ? What could necessitate a perfect being who has perfect freedom to make it one way rather than another? Why would God make the universe just big enough for us? These aren’t arguments at all, they have no deductive backing, and they are just speculative questions about why God chose the contingencies he did. But the whole point is that they are contingent, nothing could necessitate their being one way or another other than and intellect and will that is prior to them.

Another issue is that this person clearly has no understanding of the theological tradition, God is said to only have a single act, so he did act all at once to create creation on his part. What amount of finite time it takes to unfold is entirely arbitrary.

Being able to work backwards from one physical process to another physical process doesn’t answer the big question of why we have the system that these processes act according to in the first place and why it holds for every moment in does when nothing logically necessitates it to.

1/3
>>
>>418339

Part 2 The Multiverse
So through Chaotic inflation the whole universe actually has many regions with very many different sets of properties, and given that the process is endless it will instantiate every set at some point, and this explains the set that our world corresponds to since every set must be instantiated by this process. Our set of contingencies is just one of the whole set of possible worlds that will be instantiated.
While this process does go on forever, this doesn’t actually explain how our particular set came about, since nowhere does the theory claim that the universe could not instantiate repeats of the same set of contingencies. Just because it goes on infinitely does not mean that every set of contingencies must be eventually instantiated. So this argument falls short of its goal and cannot properly explain the contingencies of our world.

Part 3 The Ultimate Being
> But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
This is just false, and shows that the author has no engaged in the theological tradition. From God being the first cause- a being of pure actuality- Aquinas showed all of the divine attributes hold throughout the first 26 books of the Summa. So there is evidence, from the best theological and philosophical minds, that these properties do hold for the first cause.

In the rest he assumes that his multiverse thesis holds as an explanation, but it doesn’t as I’ve pointed out.

2/3
>>
File: Confirmed autists.jpg (127KB, 494x640px) Image search: [Google]
Confirmed autists.jpg
127KB, 494x640px
>>
>>412827
I'm atheist.
I'm also an anti-communist.

Now what?
>>
>>418346

One thing that that negates the whole theory is that he claims that the first being ought to be this “multiverse” that is constantly inflating.

First cause arguments prove that the first cause is a being of pure actuality. But to go to one state from another, as the multiverse does, is to have a potency actualized. But a being of pure actuality can have no potency in it. Given that the “multiverse” inflates, it is unable to be the first cause since it must have potency in order to change and inflate.

The failure here comes from not actually reading ones intellectual opponents and instead working off ones owns assumptions about the way they are thinking.

This theory was entirely unconvincing to me. Nor does it show a strong understanding of the issues at hand.

3/3
>>
File: Remember.png (301KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]
Remember.png
301KB, 800x600px
>>418361
yuo must haves reeducation comrade ))
>>
>>412827
What? Hitchens became a neo-con later in life.
>>
>>418362
>actuality
>potential
>contingency

Define these in rigorous scientific terns, otherwise leave them out
>>
>>418417

Contingency and necessity are being used as logical terms here. There are different senses of necessity and contingency that can be used, but I am just using the logical notions. To be logically contingent is to be such that there is no logical necessity that it is. So for example, if something is A it is contingent that it is also not B, but if something is A then it is logically necessary that it is not not A.

Being in actuality to something is to actually have it or actually be it, to have it potentially is to have the capacity for it but not have it yet.

The point of the first cause is that if everything in your causal series has its actuality derivatively, because they go from potency to actuality, then you have nothing in the series to grant actuality to any of the derivatively actual ones. What ever our first cause will be has to be a being that has its actuality underivatively. It causes first, so there is nothing that can cause anything about it- or else that would be the first cause rather than it.

Remember the first cause is acting at every single moment, so its not like a creature can go back and cause something in it after it has caused them to exist or to change in some way, because that causal power would be coming from it in the first place in the moment it acted, and we would have an instance of circular reasoning.
>>
>>418486
>logical terms

That's nice. We're talking about the real world now. Let's keep it to science
>>
>>418417

Also this is a philosophical question. Once you move past " my experiment gives me this result" and move on to what the result actually means ontologically you have moved from science to philosophy, and thus philosophical terms are more appropriate.
>>
>>418494

But science is just a method of employing a set of abstractions used to describe the world in a mechanistic way by eliminating those aspects that aren't apt for quantification. They do this through an inductive method that gives no conclusive conclusions on its own. And the whole point is just for the sake of pragmatic results, learning how to manipulate those aspects of nature that can be manipulated.

The "real world" is what science abstracts from. If we are asking ontologically about how they world works then invoking the mathematical abstractions that are rooted in how it works give us nothing. It is our ontology that gives credence to our scientific results and how they actually correspond to some degree of truth, not the other way around.
>>
>>418515
>>418496
When describing things about the real world I prefer science. It's much more effective, as our space faring civilization is evidence of. Using ambiguous "philosophical" words is not useful. And anyway, if what you're saying has any relationship to reality you should be able to translate it to science
>>
>>412660
>Misuse of no true scotsman right after
>>
>>418539

But I've already explained that science is derivative from ontology when it comes to describing reality. Sure science can relate to what I'm saying but there is no reason to focus on science when one is doing philosophy. Nor is there anything ambigous about the terms I am using. They are certainly general, but we are talking about the most general features of reality, being itself, as opposed to some specialized field of knowledge like what the sciences give us.

Doing is not knowing. The fact that science gave us rocket ships has nothing to do with fundamental ontology. You would have to show how the existence of rocket ships negates the terms that I am using for this to be at all relevant.
>>
>>418568
>They are certainly general, but we are talking about the most general features of reality

As far as I can tell they don't exist. You haven't rigorously defined them or shown how we can test them.
>>
>>416555
lol
>>
>>412476
I could say that I believe religion has been important in the development of culture worldwide and that many individuals benefit from having belief in something higher than themselves but at the end of the day it's much easier to just

DUDE FEDORA LMAO
>>
I'm so glad /his/ exists and both the autistic atheists and christians have flocked here.
>>
Religion, as it can be defined, is the cornerstone of many a civilization. Some peoples will tell you their culture is areligious but nevertheless have ritual traditions and folk beliefs that hold their society together.

Hitchens' perspective on religion is that of a privileged white male living in a quasi-secular society whose culture is developing slightly differently than the rest of the world, and that's okay. But his perspective is insular at best, and paternalistic and culturally chauvinistic at worst.
>>
>>419576

Try getting a phd in Religion sometime. You will hate both groups and also hate your life if you ever decide to read this board again.
Thread posts: 323
Thread images: 49


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

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.