>"Dude... God isn't real... LMAO."

I mean, probably not. I don't know though.

>>80743431
yeah, that is not the point of the film at all, turbopleb

>>80743458
TWBB didn't have a point.

>first year film student

>>80743484
ur dum

post modernism needs to fucking die

ok god isnt real. now what to replace my moral values with... oh wait there isnt anyting! we need god to fight off the filthy retarded heathens

>>80743431
spent 2 and a half hours just to hear him say "I drink your milkshake"

File: spooked.jpg (62KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x616px

>>80743523

>>80743523
>now what to replace my moral values with...
Please don't tell me this is actually the way you think.

>>80743530
"He has anger issues... also he drills oil" The Movie

>>80743523
postmodernism is not inherently athiest

>>80743458
>Ambition is bad lmao
Is much closer to the actual message.

Karma.

>>80743431
I may have to watch this one again....

I love Daniel Day Lewis and PT Anderson, but this just struck me as a dud.

I think the name "There Will Be Blood" was used specifically because it's a slow slow pointless movie, it's insinuating that there will be a payoff at the end, but goddamn that was a disappointment.

But I'm willing to accept that hype can ruin a movie, it was built up as one of the greatest ever and certainly the greatest PT Anderson movie, and what I got fell very short of that.

But I may have to see it again with fresh eyes and lower expectations.

I saw The Master with no expectations and it was a million times better.

It's all buildup with no payoff. Well, there's a small payoff but it's a joke.

>>80743523
>This is what Untermensh actually believe.

>>80743523

>Without God as a crutch I automatically become an amoral piece of shit
>Even with God as a crutch I'd still behave like an amoral piece of shit, only I'd claim God approves

Hello /pol/

>>80746710

I am not articulate enough to put the words together to explain how much I disagree with you but if you were in the room I'd just grab you by your shoulders and shake you.

>>80743523
Do you really need the threat of eternal damnation to behave like a decent human being? What kind of a man are you that the only reason you are civil is because you are afraid of punishment? You're literally an animal who avoids shitting and pissing on a carpet only because it's afraid of getting smacked with a newspaper.

>>80743733
"I shitpost on 4chan.. I also shitpost on Reddit" The Post

>>80746975
from where does morality derive if not God?

biological morality exists only to the point in which it begins to limit my own reproductive potential

>>80746710
>I may have to watch this one again
fuck you

>>80746710

PTA is a very emotional film-maker. His movies always, in one way or another, ground themselves in extreme visceral emotion. By extension, I think he's given to thematic whimsy, as well.

So, I think TWBB is a very emotional denunciation of capitalism and of acquisitiveness. I think PTA is equating the will to power and to financial success with bloodthirstiness and hatred for humanity.

It's a very extreme movie in that way, but I personally really like it.

>>80746710

Funny because I watched both movies this week and TWBB blew me away as one of the best movies I'd seen in years and the Master was a boring soulless dud of a movie hanging off the performances of Phoenix and PSH

Do you understand Eli? That's more to the point do you understand?

>>80743523
Holy shit, im-fucking-plying.

You need to raise people to understand punishment and teach other people how to punish without going to far. That's it. Jesus fuck.

>>80743431
>religion is bullshit
>daniel drilled for oil, built a pipeline, and made people's lives better

the free market is the closest thing we have to God. it's a universal invisible force that harnesses man's selfishness and converts it to the betterment of society.

Daniel was "bad" but did good. Eli was "good" but did nothing.

>>80743458

It is.

Daniel Plainview fell down a silver mine and nearly died and dragged himself to civilization because there is no God.

With that money, he started drilling for oil, and some guy down in there died because there is no God.

Later he raises the guys' bastard as his own, because it helps with business deals, because he only wants money because there is no God.

Later when Plainview has made it, the self-righteous preacher comes back, Plainview gets him to say God is a superstition, and he murders him, because there's no God.

>>80743523

"As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill. And, ultimately, 'freedom of religious belief' — the right to worship false gods." -Slavoj Zizek

>>80743763

Postmodernism holds there is no absolute truth. From that you get moral relativism, atheism, etc.

>>80743458
Bad guy of the film is a Christian priest that exploits a town. Good guy is an atheist that lifts the town out of poverty, protects a little girl from abuse, adopts a kid and raised him like a son etc.

Yeah the point of the film is fuck religion.

>>80748027

Most people aren't decent human beings. So yes, the idea that you are being watched helps get people to behave, and God is the ultimate version of that.

>>80748400
>So, I think TWBB is a very emotional denunciation of capitalism and of acquisitiveness. I think PTA is equating the will to power and to financial success with bloodthirstiness and hatred for humanity.

I think it indicates that the oil industry had beginnings that were rotten to the core.

Then people fool themselves into thinking that good fruit can come from a toxic tree.

>>80749037
>the free market is the closest thing we have to God. it's a universal invisible force that harnesses man's selfishness and converts it to the betterment of society.

No. A free market left to run free becomes a monopoly, just like bigger fish eat smaller fish.

The bigger fish doesn't exist for the betterment of society, it exists to feed itself, and prey on smaller fishes.

>>80749443
>no sniffing

Fake quote.

>>80743431
What does that have to do with my favorite movie?

>>80749494
>good guy

>>80748286
From mankind, idiot. If it came from God, where did he get the idea? It must have been a thought-up concept, so why would you attribute it to a mystical being? Especially when you're a grown adult who should be well past the point of literally believing in magic.

>>80749524
Buy what if you're not a brainlet who literally believes in magic? What if you've been living in the real world long enough to understand that fantasy concepts like miracles don't real? What then?

>>80750016
>From mankind, idiot.

Name one moral rule that all of mankind agrees on.

>If it came from God, where did he get the idea?

God said love thy neighbor as thyself. Where would God get such an idea? By incarnating as mankind.

>It must have been a thought-up concept, so why would you attribute it to a mystical being?

God doesn't have to be a mystical being.

>Especially when you're a grown adult who should be well past the point of literally believing in magic.

God doesn't have to be supernatural in any way. In pantheism, God and the universe are the same thing.

In that case, a moral rule like "love thy neighbor as thyself" is about God preventing harm to Itself, by Itself, like when Jesus said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Matthew 25:40, "when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me"

>>80750067

With advances in technology, surveillance takes the place of ancient belief in gods. Now someone really IS watching your every move. The main motivator that prevents people from doing bad things is fear of getting caught.

And God could exist and miracles not exist. One does not necessarily mean the other.

>>80750016
>If it can from God where did he get the idea?

your seem not to understand the concept of God, it exists as the upper ceiling of existence, a system above our own, and the ultimate source of all things. To say that their is a system above Him from which concepts can either be conceived or learned means you've invalidated his supremacy, thus rendering Him non-divine.

>from mankind

this is why the argument that states their can be no morality with no God would end up being correct. If it comes from man that means it would inherently subjective, as upon what truth could it be based? Biology? As i said above, biological morality extends only so far as i does not limit my own reproductive potential.

>>80743523
Clearly you don't understand the Natural Laws of Mankind, as laid out by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and to a lesser extent the Ubermensch himself.

Pleb. Read a book sometime, it'll do you good. There's a reason that all societies, including non-christian and non-theistic ones share a small set of basic universal laws that are almost word-for-word identical. "Thou Shalt not Kill" exists everywhere, dumbass, not just in Judeo-Chrisitan society.

And before you get wise by saying that those cultures condone ritual sacrifice and death as a punishment, I would remind you that the Holy Bible condones ritual sacrifice of humans and death as a punishment as well.

>>80750265
You're just making your own goalposts at this point, none of that is an argument. Going "you can't ask where God got his morality, otherwise he wouldn't be God" is asinine. If you're claiming God is a real entity which exists, you have to subject him to logic. As it is, you're using him as a philosophical concept and nothing more.

And as for subjectivity...well, yeah, that's entirely true. Most of western society will tell you racism is immoral, but ask /pol/ about it and see what they say. Pretty much everything you believe is subjective, you just think of it as objective because you have a fragile, narrow and inflexible worldview.

>>80750265
>If it comes from man that means it would inherently subjective, as upon what truth could it be based?

I think atheism does entail moral relativism (and even encourages things like the regressive left to apologize for Islam because "we cannot judge other cultures by our own").

But years ago, Sam Harris (an atheist) argued that we can use science to answer moral questions, and that morality concerns the wellbeing of conscious creatures. I think that's a "utilitarian" stance. However, it doesn't really settle questions like "Is it moral for someone to smoke cigarettes?" (since cigarette smoke does harm to themselves).

Negative utilitarianism (NU) holds that the only things that matters, morally speaking, is the reduction of suffering. Death is the elimination of suffering, so NU would seem to entail that all life should go extinct in order to completely reduce suffering. Some people do think all life should go extinct. Others argue that killing people in order to reach that point would be more suffering, therefore wrong. In 1958, R. N. Smart argued that NU entails that someone who was able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do it, creating the concept of the "benevolent world exploder" (think the Death Star in Star Wars). Although, a more painless way would be like in the movie Spaceballs, a spoof of Star Wars, where they suck the oxygen off of Earth.

>>80750463
>subject him to logic
Again, no you can't. Thats the entire point. If logic can be used to dissect and classify an entity, it means that logic is inherently of a higher order then said entity. God being subject to anything, including logic, removes omnipotency.

>>80750419
>There's a reason that all societies, including non-christian and non-theistic ones share a small set of basic universal laws that are almost word-for-word identical. "Thou Shalt not Kill" exists everywhere, dumbass, not just in Judeo-Chrisitan society.

Yeah, like you said, except for human sacrifice, or even cannibalism. And in the military.

>>80750525
Again, you're trying to claim he's a real actual thing which exists, but talking like he's an abstract philosophical concept. I don't think you understand what logic is.

File: 1421098402996.jpg (50KB, 400x580px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x580px

This is a fantastic film. Contrarians / people with bad taste will try to tell you otherwise

>>80750537
Christ you're dumb. What's your point even meant to be here?

>>80750572

In classic logic, something is either/or, true or false.

In quantum logic, something can be all possibilities at once, simultaneously.

The point is that classical logic is manmade, and reality doesn't necessarily conform to it.

File: oilcore.png (1MB, 1260x792px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1260x792px

>>80743431
fuck this was a good movie.
how can other movies even compete?

>>80750611

The point is that there is no moral code universal to all humans in all cultures in all times.

"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't carry over. Even "thou shalt not eat people" doesn't carry over.

There is no taboo that persists throughout all human cultures.

Riddle me this, /tv/.
Everyone knows that ghosts exist. So why wouldn't an afterlife exist?

but God isn't real

>>80749494
>Good guy

>>80750713
>Everyone knows that ghosts exist.

Suppose everything is happening at once. Suppose a ghost is just a kind of "recording" of reality from another time, that for some reason people can see now. In that case, a ghost isn't stuck in an "afterlife", it's just an after-image, just when someone looks at the sun and later blinks their eyes and sees dark spots in their field of vision.

>>80750799
Explain to me what makes this reasoning any more plausible than a religious one.

>>80750572
oh ok. I get it, omnipotency extends only to the point of being scrutinized by language or proofs. And logic existed before God. Logic is eternal and uncreated. You don't really grasp omnipotence friend.

>>80750872

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I think some physicists argue all events are happening simultaneously, or some physicists argue that time either does not exist, or that particles can move forward or backward in time. In that case, photons from 1850 could theoretically travel to 2017 and appear, as a "ghost."

Although I also reject the premise that "everyone knows that ghosts exist."

>>80750872
if ghosts are dead people, shouldn't all ghosts be naked?

how are there ghostly clothes?

>>80750889
Your entire argument is a handwaving excuse to deflect those who question religious dogma. "Nuh uh it doesn't work like that, God can't be questioned just because". Only you've actually swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It's pointless arguing with you because the goalposts are entirely arbitrary, whatever I say you're just going to say it doesn't apply to God. That's the beauty of supporting a fantasy, it's entirely fluid.

>>80750657
>quantum logic
...is a system devised to support theoretical particle physics, allowing for calculations and hypotheses regarding particles and an u n observed quantum state. You've heard the term somewhere and decided to use it without understanding. In any case, it's completely irrelevant to my point.

>>80750712
Refuge in pedantry, got it. The exact same applies if you sub god in as the source of morality; god kills, and advocates the killing of, many.

>>80750205
>With advances in technology, surveillance takes the place of ancient belief in gods. Now someone really IS watching your every move.

you should read some books instead of just relying on cutscenes from deus ex to explain philosophy to you.

people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god or think they are being filmed. human society has ingrained into every facet of itself the belief in the "big other", the implied registrar of all action and thought, without whom life would not have meaning. drop the video games and read some lacan.

>>80751007
When you die you get a choice between going to heaven naked or roaming the earth fully clothed. Ghosts are self conscious people. Source: god

Contemplating the existence of something that cannot will not be measured in any empirical way is colossal waste of time.

Whether you're pro-Yahweh or anti-Yahweh its pure mental masturbation.

>>80751079

Another guy was saying you can't subject God to logic, you said "I don't think you understand what logic is" and I explained how classical logic is manmade, it's a manmade system that reality (which includes God) doesn't necessarily conform to. Quantum mechanics is much weirder than that.

And if God really is an Absolute Being, what makes you think God would conform to manmade logic?

>>80751159
>people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god

Sounds to me like a pretty clear indicator of morality being an inherent human concept, as you've just said yourself if exists regardless of belief in god, but I doubt you'll entertain that notion.

>>80751182
It's not manmade though. The world wouldn't stop following logical rules if humanity vanished tomorrow. If there are four apples on a tree and one falls down there will be three apples left. Human participation or observation is not required here, that's a fundamental truth that cannot be changed. All humans did is notice the way things are and write them down.

>>80751176
But why even lend it credence? It's Russell's Teapot

>>80751107

No, you don't get it. For those who claim that morality only comes from humans, they are left with moral relativism, and how can you say any moral code is better or worse than another? Without an ultimate authority, there is no authority at all when it comes to morality, it's all he said/she said. But the whole point of having moral codes is so that others follow them. If someone invents a moral code that only they themselves follow, they might as well have no moral code at all, because they can always just invent a new one later.

You could argue that God kills, and advocates killing. But only according to certain religions. However, just because a human writes or says that God does something, doesn't make it true.

That's the big question. If God exists, how can you know that a human description of God is correct?

>>80750981
>In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I think some physicists argue

oh jesus christ don't tell me you've skimmed some wikipedia articles. or did you have this explained to you by a science fiction novel?

here's a rule of thumb: when a sentence starts with "according to quantum mechanics", it will always be followed by either a shitton of complex math or a moronic fairytale. i'm not seeing any math in your post.

>>80751159
>you should read some books instead of just relying on cutscenes from deus ex to explain philosophy to you.

I've never played Deus Ex, but I have read The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, about the past 2,500 years of philosophy in the West. How about you?

>people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god or think they are being filmed. human society has ingrained into every facet of itself the belief in the "big other", the implied registrar of all action and thought, without whom life would not have meaning. drop the video games and read some lacan.

Lacan is bullshit. Let me guess. You like Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

>>80751315
Credence is a ego thing.
So what if your gf is asking if the living room carpet should be grape purple or plum purple.
Fuck the carpet just buy something and move on.

This argument you guys have going on is pure gold, im betting neither of you will give in and you just end up getting consumed by eachothers "idiocy" for a couple of days.

>>80751171

The clothes didn't die. So why would there be ghost-clothes?

>>80751176
>Contemplating the existence of something that cannot will not be measured in any empirical way is colossal waste of time.

Like what? Human suffering? How do you measure that?

>>80751381
>The Passion of the Western Mind

lol

you're seriously being this smug about having read a single-volume introduction to a subject?

look out people i've read a high school textbook

>Lacan is bullshit.

i mean how can i argue with a man that read "philosophy for dummies, second edition"? the whole thing!

>>80751422
well, if the clothes are made from plant or animal material, they actual did die, the cells at least

even plastic material is derived from dead organics

really there should only not be metal, but plenty of ghost knights...

>>80749494
how did he remotely seem like a good guy to you, you downsyndrome

>>80751413
What an irrelevant analogy

>>80751569
should have been food related

File: 1477546201148.jpg (83KB, 612x587px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 612x587px

>>80743523
kikes rule and should be wiped out, sluts are retarded, whites are the best, holocaust revionists make alot of good points, etc. but christianity is still retarded

>>80751322
>how can you say any moral code is better than another?

For nuanced issues, you can't. This isn't an argument. For broader issues, like murder, we are social animals with an evolutionary imperative not to kill each other, steal from one another, etc.

>if god exists, how do you know that a human description of god is correct?

By extension, how can morality come from god?

>>80748286
Morality is present in every society, not exclusively human society. Take a look at chimps, elephants, dolphins or other higher brain function mammals. All of them have social rules and behavioural tendencies to make societal commune possible. It is of evolutionary benefit for morality to exist for social animals, even if it doesn't boost your own reproductive chances directly, it increases stability and survival chance of communities which in turn increase reproductive chances. Don't think that all evulotionary traits are directly linked to sex.

>>80751569
The only reason to participate in a meaningless dead-end debate is if you want to swing your dick around and assert ego.

There is no outcome, no answers.

File: tumblr_static_9dy35uq6yjwog4cww44coscok.jpg (67KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 353x334px

>>80751381
>I've never played Deus Ex, but I have read The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, about the past 2,500 years of philosophy in the West.

>>80749417
that all could mean hes an ambitious dick, doesnt mean god isnt real. oil men built this country they were some of the first great capitalists and im sure plenty of them were meanies dude

Who would win in a fight, Jesus, Muhammad or Buddha?

>>80751413
A better analogy would be if there's somebody at the door, you say "it's probably the mailman" and your girlfriend says "what if it's the president?" Until you go check she could technically be right, but there's no reason to believe the president has come to my home.

>>80751710
if buddha is as big and fat as he is in the statues and it was hand to hand combat prob him

>>80751634
Social groups increase viability, and "ethics" in species create cohesion. However this only remains relevant if behaviors are observed. If one could surreptitiously, say, rape the wife of a friend with neither of them knowing, and have her concieve a child, one has increased his own individual reproductive potential without the group shattering behavior being observed. No biological morality would be truly be violated, assuming this behavior always remained unnoticed among future generations.

the fact that morality is observed in all human cultures is a wash in regards to God, as, assuming Christian theology at least, this would be expected. One could be a good person regardless of believe in God, since non belief does not invalidate the existence of something, Christianity instead has issue with the notion of being good without God's involvement which, Him being the ultimate source of good, be either viewed as impossible, of attempting to claim divinity oneself

>>80751710
jesus would have asked the other two to beat the shit out of him because of his inversionary ethical eschatology, but buddha would stay out of it

>>80751287

Classic logic is manmade

>The world wouldn't stop following logical rules if humanity vanished tomorrow. If there are four apples on a tree and one falls down there will be three apples left.

No, there wouldn't. The human eye sees an apple as "one" thing. If humanity vanished, maybe a different animal would see an apple as "one" thing. But they certainly wouldn't see it as there being "three" apples left. Plus, saying there are "three" apples suggests each apple is identical to the next, otherwise how would you group and count them? But apples are not identical, but for human purposes they might as well be, so it's "good enough" when humans group them together, because human perception did not evolve to perceive truth, human perceptions were tuned to fitness. And in the quantum world, an apple isn't "one" thing at all.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
>Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman explains why human perceptions of an independent reality are all illusions.

>According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.

>Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth.

>Human participation or observation is not required here, that's a fundamental truth that cannot be changed.

When it comes to math? Yes, four minus one equals three because those are symbols that humans have agreed on in a consensus reality, and addition itself first requires division, seeing things as separate "things", thingification. For a monist who sees reality as one thing, there can be no addition.

>All humans did is notice the way things are and write them down.

The human brain did not evolve to perceive truth. That's the thing I don't get about atheists. The human brain did not evolve to understand reality, so why believe that the human brain ever could understand reality?

>>80751744
Yes your analogy is better, but involves determining likelihood.

The average christ warrior or amazing atheist doesn't deal in likelihoods.

>>80751328
>i'm not seeing any math in your post.

Are you the guy who said "everyone knows that ghosts exist"?

All I'm doing is explaining Reggie Watts' take on ghosts. In Spatial. On Netflix.

>>80751817
>hur hur they're both as bad as each other aren't they I'm so above it all

At leaat Christfags take a stance, even if it is retarded. You're just a faggot

>>80751782
All you're taking about, again, is human observation. I'm talking about what it is that we observe, and that's something which exists independently of us. So there's nobody around to assign numbers to apples, or even invent the concept of math; the apple still falls, and the total amount of apple left in the tree is less than its was before.

>>80751511

All you can says is "lol", like a retard.

>The Passion of the Western Mind became a bestseller, selling over 200,000 copies by 2006. It "became a staple in some college curriculums". It gave Tarnas' work international respect and was hailed as an important work by Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Stanislav Grof, John E. Mack, Stanley Krippner, Georg Feuerstein, David Steindl-Rast, John Sculley, Robert A. McDermott, Jeffrey Hart, Gary Lachman, and others. According to Christopher Bache, Passion is "[w]idely regarded as one of the most discerning overviews of Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks to postmodern thought."

And yes, Lacan is bullshit. Read Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek.

>>80751849
Why is having an opinion on something incalculable and immeasurable considered a virtue?

Sounds like a surefire way to make retarded statements that hold no water.

>>80751939
I redirect you to my mailman/president analogy, which you JUST read, for fuck's sake. Dismissing it as "unknown" is a false equivalency

>>80751934
All you can does is appeal to authority, like a retard

>>80751630
>For broader issues, like murder, we are social animals with an evolutionary imperative not to kill each other, steal from one another, etc.

This is why I doubt people who insist morality evolved or empathy evolved. If that were true, why does stealing, murder, and bullying still exist?

>how can morality come from god?

In pantheism, God is everything that exists, including every man, woman, and child.

Matthew 25:40, "when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me"

Jesus said love thy enemies, love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek. None of those reactions are natural. Revenge comes natural, forgiveness does not. Anger comes natural, patience does not.

If God exists, it's hard to know if a human has given an accurate description of God. But if God does incarnate as human beings (which is the story of Jesus, God become Man), then commands to love thy enemies would be about God Itself avoiding self-harm, and the problem of evil is due to amnesia, God forgetting that it is only God who suffers, and who causes all suffering.

>>80751994
Your analogy needs some work though. You'd have to include the president of every cult of belief.

How do you determine how much more or less weight should Demiurge or Shiva be given compared to YHWH in this equation?

It's a wild goose chase.

>>80751677

Funny, because a fedora would be busy playing Deus Ex on a Sunday, instead of reading a book by Richard Tarnas which essentially reaches a pantheist conclusion.

>>80751680

How do you think Plainview determined God is a superstition? He fell down a silver mine and nearly died and dragged himself to civilization, all by himself. His prayers were never answered. He figured he was all on his own, and lived his life in competition with others like he was all on his own.

And his wealth came about due to lying and murder from the start. And what we're left with is pollution.

>>80752077
...if morality comes from god, how does that answer your question as to why stealing, murder etc still happen? More to the point, how is that POSSIBLY something which needs to be pointed out to you? You're getting flimsier and flimsier here. You've almost arrived at the classic problem of evil here.

>>80752077
What you're doing towards the end of here is something I see a lot; as you encounter questions you can't answer, you're walking back your definition of god until it becomes ever more abstract, to the point where there may as well not be a god at all.

>>80751905
>that's something which exists independently of us.

Except it doesn't. You're positing the existence of an objective reality, where human observation does not exist, based on what? Subjective reality from the point of view of the human mind?

That's like suggesting "time" existed before any lifeform existed to observe it. For all intents and purposes, there was no passage of time before observers emerged to observe it, or before memory evolved.

>the apple still falls, and the total amount of apple left in the tree is less than its was before.

But those are all human linguistic categories, based on things the human eye sees. Something like a bee doesn't perceive that at all.

>>80751934
loool

lacan is bullshit, so i should read zizek? zizek is literally the biggest lacan fan on the planet and barely writes about anything else

you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? i guess that one book you've read didn't cover this

>>80752021

Oh? I thought that's what you were doing by mentioning Lacan.

>>80752303
I'm pretty sure celestial bodies revolved around one another before any human intervention. In case you didn't know, we get our day/year cycles from these big things in space revolving around one another and their own axis.

this thread is disgusting. how come godfags and /pol/acks try to alter the course of every single thread into some inane discussion about their dipshit beliefs?

is there anyone more retarded than a self righteous christian?

>>80752344
I'm a different guy. Lots of people think you're a retard

>>80752411
This is a more interesting discussion than any I've seen on /tv/. Better than some dumb shit posting another fucking thread about some actress' feet.

>>80752303
You're still trotting out the same line and I don't know how to explain any simpler. Some other anon will have to take over, you require special remedial tuition.

>>80752206
>...if morality comes from god, how does that answer your question as to why stealing, murder etc still happen?

I suppose most theists would say "free will"

But I mentioned that in the post you just replied to.

>the problem of evil is due to amnesia

In pantheism, where God is everything and everything is God, evil comes about (stealing, murder, etc), because God takes new forms, makes new identities for itself, makes new memories for itself (and therefore forgets it is God, God gives itself amnesia) and therefore does not realize that when it harms others, it is only harming Itself.

But the Golden Rule is very common throughout various religions and various cultures, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and in pantheism that would ultimately come from a fundamental truth that whatever you do to others, you are doing to yourself.

>>80752107
Lol, why would I give any of them any weight whatsoever?

>>80748799
TWBB is amazing but The Master is perfection. Fuck you.

>>80752454
i mean, its better than the garbage capeshit and footfag posts that constitute most of neo/tv/, but lets not act like this isnt a conversation that has played out like a million times before

>>80752271

I haven't changed my definition of God at all in this thread.

One could argue that in pantheism, where God is the universe, that there may as well be no God at all. But in pantheism, the universe is divine, divinity exists. In atheism, the universe is mundane, there is no such thing as divinity, there is not even a spark of divinity in any human being.

>>80752479
Because if you don't, you're discounting the slim chance the president of ancient Mesopotamia has booked a first class to come to your door.

>>80752174
oil men were great capitalists that massively help build infrastucture in america. you think the director makes every protagonist a paragon of what he think is true and virtuous? christian commie fagg. hes obviously not meant to be a good guy. maybe youre aspergers has deranged your soggy brain too much for you to see that

>>80743523
This is literally what religious people believe. So dumb they need to be told what to think and how to act.

>>80752527
meant for>>80752439

>>80752529
why does it matter if there is such a thing as divinity? are you so insecure about the merits of your own existence that you need there to be special sauce permeating your body and the universe to tell you that you matter?

>>80752529
Yet the universe is still the same. Therefore "divinity" is a fantasy

>>80746710
You're crazy if you think the master is better than there will be blood

>>80752342

Zizek has certainly been heavily influenced by Lacanian psychoanalysis, and was even married to the daughter of a Lacanian psychoanalyst once.

But philosophers are well-known for oneupmanship, and philosophy itself is largely about criticizing philosophic ideas of the past. A person can also borrow ideas or terms from someone else, and Zizek has even been accused of misinterpreting Lacan.

But I am fascinated that you think you can predict how many books someone has read from your smartphone, phoneposter.

>>80752373
>I'm pretty sure celestial bodies revolved around one another before any human intervention.

Does motion exist if there's nothing to observe said motion? If it does, what started it in motion? The Big Bang? Okay, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the first second?

>>80752827
>what caused god?

Regression of causality is literally baby's first creationism

>>80752411

OP mentioned God right in the OP. Funny how you think people discussing God is "altering" the course of a thread.

If OP had only wanted to talk about TWBB, they would have posted some other text.

>>80752421
>Lots of people think you're a retard

It's common for stupid people to think others are stupid. I'm actually a genius.

>>80752454

You're insisting that an objective reality exists apart from observation of said reality. Except there is literally no way to prove that.

>>80752827
>does motion exist if there's nothing to observe said motion?

Yes you fucking clown

>>80752827
Religionfags sure love to get nitty gritty with the tiniest details when their own doctrines can't even stand the light of day.

We don't know everything. Human are too limited as a civilization or even a species to tackle the minute details, but we're trying. Our equipment and knowledge is ever expanding.

Meanwhile religionfags mold their worldview from Play Doh.

>>80743523
>TELL ME WHAT TO DO

>>80752926
I, too, did a first-year descartes module at university

>>80743523
>dad dad DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD WHERE ARE YOU DAAAAAD
>oh hi Go-, I mean dad :)

>>80752926
>believes in magic
>requires "proof" to believe in objective reality

wew

File: Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg.png (49KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x600px

>>80752550
>oil men were great capitalists that massively help build infrastucture in america.

To what end?

Since 1900, burning petroleum has leds to tons of carbon emissions, and it really took off after 1950.

Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have basically initiated a new extinction event (and humans may be included in that).

>>80743523
You don't need God or a religion to have a worldview of what's right and wrong. It''s simply subjective, and it always has been throughout humanity, regardless of the believe systems of the time.

>>80753031
Humans as a species won't be included, but we will. Once the available landmass shrinks below sustainable levels, the wealthy will tighten the screws, and anyone who doesn't already own land in a high place will be fucked. Around 50% of the human race will die, and it'll be the bottom half, from the most densely populated areas.

>>80752567
>why does it matter if there is such a thing as divinity? are you so insecure about the merits of your own existence that you need there to be special sauce permeating your body and the universe to tell you that you matter?

If divinity exists, then yes, life is more valuable, and minimizing suffering is valuable.

If there is no divinity, you're just a meatbag, 3 billion billion billion atoms arranged in the shape of some guy who feeds his ego by insulting people over the Internet. Your whole existence was an accident.

>>80753086
Why does perceived value have to come from above?

Can't we value ourselves?

>>80752577

If you claim the universe is "not divine", how can you tell?

If you call all that exists, the "universe" instead of "God", how do you know you're right?

Consider the idea that divinity does not exist. And yet the concept of divinity has emerged from the universe itself. Why would a godless universe randomly produce the concept of God?

>>80753140
>why would a godless universe produce the concept of god?

Because humans create fiction. Why would a Harry Potterless universe produce the concept of Harry Potter?

>if you claim the universe is not divine, how can you tell?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence to suggest divinity, so why would I believe it? You are familiar with Russell's Teapot, yes?

>>80753140
The concept of god is tied to human evolution, it's a coping mechanism.

Why is your god with a capital G?

>>80752867

Well, if you believe in cause and effect, then every cause has a prior cause, going all the way back in the past, until there is either an infinite series of causes, or a cause with no prior cause (a first cause, a causeless cause). Which also means time either goes back into the past forever, or the past stops (and time starts). But if time could start (the first second) without a prior cause, why believe everything requires a prior cause?

When people say the universe began with the Big Bang, it makes sense to ask how did the Big Bang begin? What caused the Big Bang? Asking the question doesn't necessarily mean that God caused the Big Bang. For example, Stephen Hawking argued that the Big Bang could have begun from Hawking radiation seeping out of a black hole, implying a black hole existed prior to the universe. But where did the black hole come from? Do you see how regression is a big issue when it comes to time?

>>80753086
>I want something to be true therefore it is

Just because one thing is more comforting to believe doesn't make it any more plausible. Besides, if you really sit and think about how amazing if is that you have consciousness and thought, you'll realise you're really not as insignificant as you think you are and there's no need for divinity for you feel special.

>>80752940

Doesn't motion have to be measured? What's going to measure motion if there is no observer? I think I've heard that at the speed of light there is no motion.

File: 1300874169865.jpg (68KB, 492x478px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 492x478px

>>80751934
>Lacan is bullshit. Read Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek.

>>80753246
Do the hairs on my ballsack exist if I never take off my pants?

>>80752950

The first second isn't the tiniest detail. It's the beginning of time, kind of big detail.

And yes, human civilization and equipment is expanding. Ever notice what happens to a bubble that keeps expanding? It pops.

If humanity goes extinct in the next 1,000 years, it will be due to technology, not religion.

>>80749562
I'm sure the millions of men that fed their families and built the country with oil money feel the same.

>>80752967

Do you think an observer-independent objective reality exists?

>>80753217
>why believe everything requires a prior cause?

EXACTLY my point. You seem like you forget the context of the conversation with every post you make. You posited that the big bang must have been started by something, therefore god most exist. By asking the rhetorical question "what caused god", I'm pointing out that god is no answer to the regression problem. If you can simply asspull "well god has no beginning" - and it IS an asspull - why can't the same be said for the big bang? In fact, why can't we just say "we don't know"? If we existed before Newton, and you asked me why things fall downwards, I'd have to say I didn't know. But gravity still existed back then, we just hadn't discovered it.

By the way, Hawking actually theorises that time itself has no "beginning", and the big bang is merely the "earliest" point we can perceive linearly. Black holes have nothing to do with it.

>>80743431
>Dude, I'm retarded... LMAO."
kys nigger

>>80753246
>at the speed of light there is no motion

It's like you've half-watched a a YouTube pop science video while drunk

>>80752988
>>believes in magic

It's called a strawman when you intentionally mischaracterize another person's argument.

Here's a question.

How can you believe an objective reality exists even if no human existed to see it, without proof. Yet believe that God cannot exist? Funny how you don't need proof for one, but need proof for the other.

I bet you also believe aliens exist, sight unseen, don't you?

>>80753327
Yes of course, because my life experiences suggest to me that's far more likely than the alternative, that life is all an illusion. That shit is fun for entry-level philosophy students but that's it.

>>80753296
Most likely technology in the hands of religion.

>>80753375
>"believe"
I like this thing called probability. I think life outside planet Earth is probable.

If the universe is a huge as modern science leads us to believe, it would require a bigger leap of faith to claim we're the privileged few in an infinity of possibilities.

>>80753115
>Can't we value ourselves?

Sure, but any value you invent would be as imaginary as any god you invent. Value would be just as much a fantasy as God.

If we're just molecules hurtling through space, then all the "meanings" you invent are just as delusional as all gods. But then it makes no sense to attack others for their delusions.

Personally I think truth is preferable to delusion.

>>80753375
You're just turning my own point around, without actually answering it. And, given that all the evidence of our senses suggests that objective reality DOES exist, it's not equivalent. The assertion that it doesn't would be a contradiction of all available evidence, and therefore it is that which is the claim and that's which requires proof, not the other way round. You're asking me to doubt them evidence of my senses, and then trying to use that as a reason to NOT doubt something which has never been observed by anyone.

>>80753375
Not that anon but through logic. Logically the universe existed before I did, or else I wouldn't have come into existence (through birth) and thus it existed before all humans. The universe will exist after me. Why? Because it existed after all the humans that died before me.

>>80753375
It's not a mischaracterisation at all, I'm afraid. The entire concept of god is supernatural. We call it by an different name, but it's a story about magic. You might as well believe in witches and vampires.

>>80753463
Only humans have the faculties to determine our own version of "truth" through observation.

God is an outdated human observation.

>>80753346
>kys nigger
The irony of you calling someone else retarded is palpable.

>>80753182
>Why would a Harry Potterless universe produce the concept of Harry Potter?

Nobody claims Harry Potter created the universe. Or that Harry Potter exists inside every person. God is an Absolute.

>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence to suggest divinity, so why would I believe it? You are familiar with Russell's Teapot, yes?

I am familiar with Russell's Teapot. But again, nobody claims teapots created the universe. Nobody says "Teapot Is Love."

By not believing in God, an atheist must believe that the Big Bang caused itself, a paradox. Is that not itself an extraordinary claim? What could an atheist believe caused the First Second?

And some people argue that the evidence to suggest divinity exist come from various molecules, like psilocybin or DMT, entheogens, "God-containing plants."

>>80744350
bad? He made a fortune

>>80753544
halfplablplab palfullflaf flabbergast

>>80753187
>The concept of god is tied to human evolution, it's a coping mechanism.

Not when a god is wrathful.

Although, some people argue that human belief in gods evolved as a spandrel, a "a phenotypic characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

Specifically that theism evolved due to agent detection, which evolved due to "the high cost of failing to detect agents and the low cost of wrongly detecting them." Basically, for survival purposes, it's always better to assume that everything in your environment is an agent acting intentionally and wants to eat you, so it's better to run away from any sound thinking it's a predator and be wrong, than to assume the sound wasn't an agent acting intentionally and be wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

And "God" is usually used instead of "god" to refer to the biggest one, the ultimate one, the final one, an Absolute, a Creator.

>>80753584
Harry Potter created the universe. Harry Potter exists inside every person. Teapot is love.

There, now I've claimed it, you should be able to see for yourself just how mind-numbingly stupid your first point is. God exists because people say he does? Come on now.

Your second point...is just the same one I've already argued down, again. How are you not getting this? Just go back and my last post again - or, more probably, for the first time. You've added nothing I haven't already dealt with.

>>80753584
Do you think god is hiding inside magic mushroom? Is it even worth bringing up?

The big G is sure hard to find these days. I remember when he used to talk to people so they could write a book about him.

>>80753055
knowing right from wrong is definitely not subjective and if you truly think that you should probably stop being such a faggot.

>>80753218
>Just because one thing is more comforting to believe doesn't make it any more plausible.

In pantheism, God is the universe. Is it more comforting to believe that God is forever alone, so God plays pretend with Itself in order to live in a illusion that it has family and friends and conversations? That's actually pretty sad, that God is stuck playing solitaire forever.

>Besides, if you really sit and think about how amazing if is that you have consciousness and thought, you'll realise you're really not as insignificant as you think you are and there's no need for divinity for you feel special.

Some say the human body is just the universe looking at itself. In pantheism, it's just God looking at itself.

Others say that God evolves, from a state of non-consciousness to states of higher and higher consciousness. That certainly makes more sense than a godless universe having consciousness emerge accidentally, which is like a dead person gaining awareness, like a zombie.

>>80743523
You're making the rest of us look bad.

>>80753690
Having a whipcracking big boss at the cloud top has had it's hand in shaping humanity.

The idea of God fucking people over has had undeniable benefits throughout history.

God being a modeled an asshole is most definitely a coping mechanism. It has prevented a lot of undesirable people from doing undesirable things.

>>80753781
Lots of people would tell you you're wrong for using the word faggot. You'd tell them they're wrong for censoring you. Now go look up the word "subjective"

>>80753319

I don't think their lives or the lives of their families was worth putting the lives of all life on Earth at risk.

>>80753829
But by this point all you're doing is just replacing the word "consciousness" with the word "god". Why is it unlikely for consciousness to naturally evolve until you change its name? Besides, if you're making any argument about the plausibility of something coming into being, I have to point out the supernatural is orders of magnitude less plausible than the tangible.

>>80753584
"God-containing plants"

Do you also believe that there are pixies inside your computer, or that photographs steal a portion of your soul?

File: Revelation 19 11.png (508KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1920x1080px

Atheists having literally ANY criticisms of religion is a massive hypocrisy. To criticize anything one must be working from an objective frame of reference, as if morality (INCLUDING a preference for "truth") is subjective then you're every bit as crazy as "arguing" over why someone is wrong for liking vanilla icecream over chocolate and lecturing them on why that is false. It's literally fucking mental.

Furthermore, in addition to working from an objective framework (i.e. an objective system of morality), you HAVE to believe in true free will. If everything is deterministic (which atheism is regardless of what Ayn Rand says), i.e. it's all dominoes, every current and subsequent event is caused by a series of preceding events, etc. then you are no more logical for chastising a human for violating some hazy moral standard (which the above showed is already cuckoo-for-cocoa puffs for an atheist to argue to begin with) as you would be for trying to argue with a fucking cloud for being "bad", or for screaming at a rock tumbling down a hill for falling the "wrong" way.

There is not a single atheist that has an answer or reconciliation for this. Nor will they ever. And every single one of them, insofar as they make ANY arguments for atheism including with themselves, are engaging in an act of profound lunacy and inconsistency.

Christianity actually has the answers to this. For we are not just cosmic dust robots, but that we are a sum greater than it's parts, that God breathed into our nostril's the breath of life and man became a living soul, that there exists a ghost inside of the machine.

Atheists live for nothing, fundamentally.

>>80753976
>atheism is deterministic

Ask me how I know you're seventeen

>>80752791
i love when you can tell from a post that the person is frantically googling the topic to cover up their ignorance

>>80754006
Ask me how I know you're going to die a meaningless death.

Not a single person in this thread is qualified to discuss god since according to Catholic lore, the only the Pope knows whats up.

>>80754118
I can tell from the way you type, your whole stance is based around a feeling of insecurity.

>>80754118
>Not a single person in this thread is qualified to discuss god since according to Catholic lore, the only the Pope knows whats up.

Well it's a good thing that the Papacy has about as much Biblical support as sprinkling babies with water and wearing stupid hats.

>>80754107
Just like you senpai

>>80754107

Religion makes life meaningful now? Lol okay.

>>80753338
>You posited that the big bang must have been started by something, therefore god most exist.

No, I mentioned that the notion of cause and effect implies either infinite causes, or a First Cause, a Causeless Cause. And some people do describe God as eternal, which would qualify God to be a Causeless Cause, something that could "start" time and the universe.

You can ask "what caused God?" But more people insist God is eternal than those who insist the universe is eternal. By saying the universe has a cause, the Big Bang, it raises the question of what caused the Big Bang. Much more people say God has always existed than those who say the universe has always existed (although some insist God is the universe).

Why can't people say the Big Bang has no beginning? Because people say the universe is maybe 13 billion years old, with the Big Bang happening prior to that, which raises the question of what happened prior to the Big Bang.

You can say "we don't know", but you still conjure a paradox by saying everything has a prior cause except for one thing, the Big Bang. Yet you don't allow for others to say everything has a prior cause except for one thing, God.

In the book The Grand Design, Hawking said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." But does that mean that gravity existed prior to the universe? That the laws of physics existed before the Big Bang?

>By the way, Hawking actually theorises that time itself has no "beginning", and the big bang is merely the "earliest" point we can perceive linearly. Black holes have nothing to do with it.

I can't find the exact quote, but Hawking has argued that time does not exist inside black holes, and that the Big Bang spawned from such a singularity.

>>80753404

But your perceptions and life experiences are only evidence for a subjective reality that requires a mind, not for an objective reality that exists in the absence of minds.

>>80753459
>If the universe is a huge as modern science leads us to believe, it would require a bigger leap of faith to claim we're the privileged few in an infinity of possibilities.

And I think the emergence of life is extremely improbable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life is a very improbable phenomenon and likely to be extremely rare.

>>80754570
People insisting something isn't an argument, brainlet, it's an asspull

>>80754570
>And some people do describe God
Ok. The show is over let's go home.

Your dedication to fairy dust mental gymnastics is admirable.

Always amazes me how religious people get their panties in a bunch over the supposedly haphazard morality of atheists ("If morality is subjective then I could rape an infant if I felt like it lol"), while using doublethink to defend their own values, i.e. "God is a source of objective morality" and "God cannot be proven because he transcends empirical observation". Religious people can't demonstrate the existance of God, let alone that he's a legitimate source of morality, so their own beliefs rest on an insecure foundation of wishful thinking.

>>80754705
The emergence of life is indeed unlikely but the universe is so big it doesn't give a fuck.

Ever played a Korean MMO? The likelyhood of getting that shining sword of legends is improbable but grind long enough... anything is possible.

>>80754705
I know how unlikely it is for life to emerge. I think you're severely underestimating the size of the universe. It's roughly 100 billion stars times 100 billion galaxies, and within our own galactic neighbourhood we've already found several goldilocks exoplanets. The odds of life are millions to one against, but there are billions upon billions of candidates.

>>80753829
You're even using an incorrect definition of pantheism which is a belief in multiple gods. Divinity can't be measured. The concept of your God is only like 2000 years old compared to 4.5 billion years of the history of the earth and 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans.

>>80743523
you've been watching too much Jordan Peterson

>>80753468
>given that all the evidence of our senses suggests that objective reality DOES exist, it's not equivalent.

Perceptions are evidence of subjective reality, not evidence of objective reality that exists in the absence of sensory organs.

>You're asking me to doubt them evidence of my senses, and then trying to use that as a reason to NOT doubt something which has never been observed by anyone.

No, I'm saying that if your eyes perceive something a certain way, that's evidence of your perception, not evidence that that thing is actually the way your eyes perceive it.

File: 1486522328183.png (413KB, 840x824px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 840x824px

>>80743523
this. humans can't create their own values. they can't even tidy their room.

>>80753471

From your perspective, the universe didn't exist before you were aware to perceive it. And from your perspective, the universe will cease to exist when you die.

You could say "I know the universe will go on without me." But you exist inside the universe, you don't actually exist separate from the universe, the universe passes completely through you. I'm saying the universe is you. The universe is gaining eyes and losing eyes. But what existed before the universe?

>>80753516
>The entire concept of god is supernatural.

No, in pantheism, God is completely natural since God and the universe are the same thing.

And Deists don't believe in a magic god either.

Although those who don't believe in God must believe that life can rise from the dead, and that dead matter can become aware of itself, which is like believing in zombies.

>>80755064
We don't know.

Anyone saying "God" doesn't know either, they're just pretending to know. If we're required to back everything up with proof, why isn't religion?

>>80755106
If your God isn't supernatural, then that's what you believe too. Life clearly exists, so I don't see the need to invent a mythology to justify it.

>>80753720
>God exists because people say he does? Come on now.

I didn't say that at all.

But if there is no god, a godless universe produced the concept of god, a Creator (which Harry Potter is not, which is why your analogy to Harry Potter is flawed).

>Your second point...is just the same one I've already argued down, again. How are you not getting this? Just go back and my last post again - or, more probably, for the first time. You've added nothing I haven't already dealt with.

What's my second point? About what caused the the First Second? Or about entheogens being evidence for divinity? Incidentally, under entheogeons people often lose their perception of time.

>>80755064
You're retarded. Probably a troll and probably under 18 and just discovering baby's first philosophy.

From your point of you nothing matters because the universe finitely exists for your lifetime. The universe can exist separately from you and you can still exist within it. These aren't mutually exclusive.

>>80755064
Why is it important what existed before the universe?

It takes great arrogance to even think humans will ever even be able to get to the bottom of every little secret.

Just because we're cucking our own planet with our peculiarly developed set of brains doesn't mean our capacity for understanding amounts to much on a larger scale.

>>80754902
Yeah I got that, it's really not the advanced concept you think it is. My point is that the evidence of my perception is still more evidence than there is for god. The mental gymnastics required to doubt your senses yet not doubt god are Olympic tier.

>>80753751
>Do you think god is hiding inside magic mushroom?

Well, in pantheism God is hiding inside everything, that's what God does, plays hide and seek with itself forever.

But, speaking of mushrooms...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
>The Marsh Chapel Experiment, also called the "Good Friday Experiment", was a 1962 experiment conducted on Good Friday at Boston University's Marsh Chapel. Walter N. Pahnke, a graduate student in theology at Harvard Divinity School, designed the experiment under the supervision of Timothy Leary and the Harvard Psilocybin Project.[1] Pahnke's experiment investigated whether psilocybin (the active principle in psilocybin mushrooms) would act as a reliable entheogen in religiously predisposed subjects.

>Almost all of the members of the experimental group reported experiencing profound religious experiences, providing empirical support for the notion that psychedelic drugs can facilitate religious experiences. One of the participants in the experiment was religious scholar Huston Smith, who would become an author of several textbooks on comparative religion. He later described his experience as "the most powerful cosmic homecoming I have ever experienced."

>>80755211
Oh that's right, it was another anon I responded to. See here: >>80753338

>>80755211
A godless universe exists in which life developed and that life developed intelligence which, curious about its own existence and the mechanisms of the universe, invented supernatural explanations (we'll get a good harvest if we sacrifice a pig because pigs have life and plants have life so spilling life clearly helps more life to grow [not entirely wrong just not entirely right either]) and these explanations eventually became organized and changed into Christianity and that all things in the universe are done by one force (your god).

>>80754118
>jesus once made a joke about peter's name
>peter is rumored to have died in rome
>therefore the current bishop of rome is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF PLANET EARTH

that's it. the entire concept of the papacy is based entirely on this bizarre non sequitur. no other justification exists.

I've noticed that a central issue between atheists and theists is that theists desire a reference point that they can look back to for all "deep" questions about morality and the physical universe, whereas atheists are comfortable saying "I don't know, I/scientists am/are still trying to figure it out."

Atheists are comfortable with the position of not having every answer readily available while theists are not, hence why so many theists think that "if you don't know, then that makes my position correct," is logically sound in debates.

The real question is not if a god exists.
The real question is can we live without him.

I think gods are fiction but we need them. Certain segments of society absolutely can't do without a watching eye.

>>80755378
>HA! You can't prove something? Well then, the answers in this book of conjecture and guesswork must be correct!

>>80753905

If metals suddenly became conscious one day, all on their own, would you call that supernatural? And yet that's exactly what evolution suggests, awareness rising from the dead. And life rising from the dead, like Jesus himself. All life a zombie. From a dead planet, the living begint to walk the Earth.

Many people assume God has a consciousness. And that God is eternal. It's much easier to believe that consciousness begets consciousness, than to believe (paradoxically) that non-consciousness can develop consciousness, and that dead things can become living things.

Although, some people argue that God is forever going through sleep/wake cycles. And that those cycles are even equivalent to Big Bounce cosmology, where the universe begins and ends and begins again forever.

File: Bill_Wilson-0.jpg (79KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 716x768px

>>80755407
Yeah but now we have a new watching eye for the modern age, a real one

>>80753938

Go take a high IV dose of DMT and get back to me.

>>80755275
Pantheism is the belief in many gods. At best you're Shinto now. Congrats.

Also define religious experience? It sounds like a biased experiment with no control groups.

>>80753976

This.

>>80755433
This is false because it wasn't sudden but gradual change over billions of years. Disregarded everything after like 2 sentences of your post.

>>80754088

I love when you can tell a person is a retarded phone poster because they type all in lowercase and they're comments contain zero information content or hyperlinks.

Lacan is still bullshit, as is most psychoanalysis.

>>80755433
But then where did God come from? That's a big claim with no evidence. As for how consciousness arose? We don't know. Niether do you. That doesn't mean there isn't an answer; we used to not know lots of things that we now do. Not knowing is what makes us seek answers, leads us to invent things, innovate, create. You'd have us just invent a story for everything and be done with it.

>>80755433
Considering everything living that is not up to our cognitive standards inferior is a classic symptom monotheism-induced superiority complex.

Protip: We might not be such hot shit after all.

>>80752514

The Master was like watching paint dry. Good performances out of the leads only carry you so far when there's nothing interesting going on in the movie whatsoever. It wants so badly to be taken seriously and over analyzed but it's so straightforward and simplistic in its message and symbolism.

Immediately struck me as the kind of movie that people will latch onto as 10/10 masterpiece movie off the decade because it's atypical in structure and they'll use buzzwords like "character study" to justify why PTA didn't bother making any besides the two leads. "You just didn't understand it go back to your summer blockbuster, pleb!" is what they'll say as they delude themselves into thinking the movie has real depth because they're easily impressed by Joaquin Phoenix doing his best Mentally Retarded Jack Sparrow and PSH uses basic Oscar baiting tricks like talking quietly and distinctly only to yell things like PIG FUCK to show what great acting range he must have.

>>80755458
I've done hallucinogens. It's chemicals screwing with your brain. If you genuinely believe it's magic, you're roughly on the intellectual level of an aborigine.

>>80749494
You're obviously a butthurt chrstian if you think the oil salesman was supposed to be a good guy.

>>80753976
A lot of romantic language there -- along with falsities.

Japanese version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kepYfi59jgo

>>80749417
>Daniel Plainview fell down a silver mine and nearly died and dragged himself to civilization. Thanks Obama!
>With that money, he started drilling for oil, and some guy down in there died. Thanks Obama!
>Later he raises the guys' bastard as his own, because it helps with business deals, because he only wants money. Thanks Obama.
>Later when Plainview has made it, the self-righteous preacher comes back, Plainview gets him to say God is a superstition, and he murders him. Thanks Obama!
I could also write a summary of John Wick and end every sentence with "because there is no God". You are claiming a relation without elaborating on it, you just make sure to present two things as related.

Well this thread beats the ones on /his/ at least. I don't think I really hated religion until I spent time on that shithole

>>80755635
Except he prays, and is unanswered, and from then on becomes ruthless, determined and self-serving. If you can't read the implicit meaning of that, you should stick to capeshit.

>>80755430
Exactly. Watch some evolution vs. creationism debates and, if they aren't tightly moderated, the creationist will always start asking questions that have nothing to do with evolution because they have the mindset of "if I can get you to say that you don't know something, then that means you are wrong about everything and I am right about everything."

The mere act of being unsure throws every idea you have out the window because religion grants surety, and that is what they truly value.

My favorite description of that debate tactic is "guess how many fingers I'm holding up, or else god exists."

>>80754718

The origin of the universe is a valid question. Although some may argue that "origin stories" themselves are just that, stories. However, existing for eternity is a recurring feature of God. Time is either eternal, or time has a start. Imagine a clock that is not ticking, and suddenly starts ticking. That is the first second. What could cause time? Something that exists outside time could cause time. Something that has always existed does exist outside time. And God has supposedly always existed.

But I'll take a guess and say you don't like believing in God because you like doing whatever the fuck you want, and you don't like having to feel guilty about it.

>>80755433
You have no idea what evolution is. You may as well have asked "How come there's still monkeys?" for how much you just fucked your own argument.

>>80754728

Are you saying you've never heard God described as eternal? No? You're just being retarded? Okay.

>>80755758
The point is, I've heard plenty of things described as plenty of things. Trying to convince with such a sentence is a bit silly.

>>80755729
Quite the opposite, I don't like believing in god because I refuse to worship a being that has the power to stop baby rape and chooses not to.

>>80755729
I don't believe in God because I'm a grown man who understands that magic isn't a real thing that exists in the world we live in, and I know the difference between evidence backed scientific proof and somebody making shit up and calling it real. Everything you say about the nature of god is just that; made up shit. And if you really need religion to know not to be an asshole, you must be a real piece of shit on the inside.

>>80754765

That's not doublethink. Either objective morality exists, or all morality is subjective and relative.

It's easy for a theist to say child rape is wrong, evil, wicked. For an atheist, it all comes down to personal feelings.

Matthew 25:40, "when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me." Jesus said harming others is harming God. An atheist can simply say "harming others doesn't harm me, I can't feel their pain."

>>80754774
>The emergence of life is indeed unlikely but the universe is so big it doesn't give a fuck.

Yes, the universe is big. Does that mean we should expect to find a T-Rex on another planet?

File: 1479653540387.jpg (119KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 620x349px

>>80743523
He has a point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs&ab_channel=CSLewisDoodle

>>80754779

Yes, billions and billions of planets. And only one with evidence of life. One out of billions and billions.

It makes no sense for atheists to believe in extraterrestrial life in the absence of evidence, but not believe in God due to absence of evidence.

>>80755696
>Except he prays, and is unanswered, and from then on becomes ruthless, determined and self-serving.
Except this is wrong, he is as ruthless as he was, only the situations change and allow him to show it and the only moment he explains why he is like that he talks about himself and people around him and not God.
>If you can't read the implicit meaning of that, you should stick to capeshit.
PTA fans' argumentation, everyone.

>>80755825
>I don't believe that God exists, but an object morality does

you believe the philosophical equivalent of aether, congrats

science is a shitty substitute for morality, btw, the last 200 years put that to the test

>>80755826
>For an atheist, it all comes down to personal feelings.

For a member of a community/tribe/society it all comes down to whether baby rape has positive or negative impact on community/tribe/society.

Would all believers start raping babies if their master decided to fuck off and start a new pet project on the other side of the universe?

>>80755758
Harry Potter is eternal.

People saying something doesn't make it true, asshat.

>>80755826
This sounds an awful lot like you're saying child rape is only wrong because god says so. So if god said it's was right, would that be OK? If the Pope turned around and...hmmm, come to think of it, that's absolutely the worst possible example you could pick as an example of religious morality.

>>80755909
When did I said an objective morality exists? Morality is a human invention based on our social instincts and tribal pack animals. It varies from culture to culture.

>>80755675
Humanaties was a fucking mistake

>>80755826
And yet Christians harm others all the time and justify it. They claim their morality is objective, but they are more than willing to twist it to fit their own personal desires. Their morality is just as subjective.

Also, child rape is a bad example because "don't have sex with beings that cannot consent" is something atheists can largely agree on, and something which the bible does make plenty of exceptions for.

>>80755909
Science is not a substitute for morality at all.

>>80754865

Are you thinking of polytheism?

I defined pantheism just fine, "God is the universe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
>Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.

And no, pantheism is not only 2,000 years old. Hinduism is much older than that. See the book The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

>>80755899
You know the distances involved? Please tell me you don't believe we've actually observed, in detail, every planet - even 1% of planets - in our own galaxy. Even the few we've already been able to observe, we can only detect because of how they affect the light from their stars. For all we know there could be advabxes civilisations on exoplanets that are NEARBY and we wouldn't be able to detect them. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>80755857
Even better, instead of finding a gigantic stupid lizards we could find the true explorers of the universe who might make our cognitive capabilities bear more resemblance to plants in comparison.

Actually they'd probably find us first.

If the universe is as vast as we think it is anything is possible.

File: enlightened Atheist man.gif (3MB, 312x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 312x250px

>>80755593
>A lot of romantic language there
It's called passion.

>along with falsities.

Nope. Atheism inherently means subjectivism. Atheism places morality into the "society makes the rules so that's how we determine that stealing, rape, etc. is wrong" or the "morality is determined by the 'greater good' it does for society" camp, both of which are based on subjective preferences. An atheist making any other claim doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. Either way "truth" would be every bit as much a subjective preference as "rape is bad" is to them and so trying to argue for atheism as the truth is itself insane and self-refuting, as the entire concept of argumentation is that their exists an objective framework that can be agreed upon. That's why it would (rightfully) be considered literally insane to have a completely serious debate on whether green Skittle eaters were "correct" while red Skittle eaters were "wrong".

And yes, all atheism is deterministic. Compatibalism/"soft determinism" that you see some of them argue for is just hard determinism repackaged with a bunch of twisted definitions and word salad because the proponents feel icky inside about what their theories imply. And if you're a determinist you're every bit as unhinged for arguing against humans for atheism being "true" as you are for arguing with a tree for growing "falsely". It's all just collections of dust of varying complexity obeying the laws of causality.

>>80755111
>If we're required to back everything up with proof, why isn't religion?

Religion doesn't claim to be scientific. Religion is also more about how to live your life, and many stories in it are parables with moral lessons, as opposed to strict historical origin stories. When religion talks about what existed before the universe, it's typically a matter of faith.

But when a scientist talks about the origin of the universe, it's also usually a matter of faith. Incidentally, the Big Bang theory originated with Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest and physics professor at a Catholic university.

In religion or science, there are typically premises that people just accept, and that shapes their paradigm.

>>80743523
If you don't believe in God, I mean, where's your moral barometer? How can you have a moral barometer without religion? *rapes little boy*

File: 1451970332691.png (491KB, 411x580px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 411x580px

>>80755956
I don't mind some parts of it. It definitely gave me a new appreciation for philosophy.
Religion is beyond cancer though. It's fucking discount philosophy for people who can't argue without a heap of unfalsifiable shit backing them up. And then they start arguing with each other and it all goes downhill from there

>>80755826
And why does a religious person choose to believe what they believe? Since God can't be proven to exist it all comes down to choice, or "personal feelings", so the question is really what makes theist morality legitimate and how do you demonstrate that it is so without resorting to what is essentially wishful thinking ("If there's no source of objective morality society will be thrown into a pit of rape and murder"). That line of reasoning implies to me that fear is basically the backbone of that person's belief, because the alternative is too scary to consider, which makes religion just as much a choice based on feelings.

>>80754865
>You're even using an incorrect definition of pantheism which is a belief in multiple gods.

Retard alert.

>>80755948
So then what makes something wrong? When you find it off-putting? The line becomes different for every individual, and for certain people, hardened criminals and sociopaths, they are literally incapable of viewing anything they do as wrong. Should these people be exempted from punishment, for having no shame, or being devoid of that base desire to end suffering you and I share? No, they should be punished anyway? For a greater end to suffering, should we instill our subject morality on them? Down and down we go debating amongst ourselves until we achieve an impossible consensus when in reality their already exists a readily available, objective Truth.

>>80743431
It ain't about that, it's about how "god" failed at the advent of 20th century cut-throat capitalism, how even the sacred was subdued and subjugated by the market forces it initially rallied against, and how that relationship continues today, unhealthy or not.
There might be separation of church and state in America, but there isn't one when it comes to capital, yet capital is the one that ended up calling the shots.

>>80756157
What is good or bad is subject to time and place.

300 years from now people might look at circumcision like you look at baby rape.

>>80755220

I'm not retarded. I'm not a troll. I'm not under 18. And I've probably read much more about philosophy than you. Your intuitions and predictions are wrong. Can you accept that?

What I gave was certainly a solipsistic view of life on Earth. But there is also this:

"The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men. As far as he is concerned he wipes out the world." -G. K. Chesterton

>>80756110
But it does claim to hold answers. You can't just excuse yourself from the same standards of proof and evidence we require for everything else in life.

File: 1479843705512.png (230KB, 300x297px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 300x297px

>le Christianity is the basis for our moral code meme

It's time for you fags to take the Varg pill.

>>80743523
>post modernism is about god not being real
How do you simple fucks even get the internet at your trailer park?

>>80755222
>Why is it important what existed before the universe?

Lets just say that humans like solving mysteries.

Some would even argue that the human drive to solve mysteries, to reveal truth, has to do with the evolution of people towards God-realization.

>>80756090
Then why does the bible make so many exceptions for rape and murder in their own stories? Hell, the story of Abraham teaches that murdering because you believe that god has commanded it is the most morally righteous thing and will get you three religions that call you their patriarch.

So how come you honor Abraham, but that woman who drowned her children because she said god commanded her to do so a decade back was thrown in the loony bin? It's because our secular source of morality, society, has determined that murder is not justified just because someone commanded it of you.

"Atheist" morality (which is a stupid phrase) has a stronger stance on the objective wrongness of murder than Christian morality.

>>80756157
>when in reality their already exists a readily available, objective Truth

That's what you need to be able to prove though, and you can't. You also can't use "I'm uncomfortable with this concept" as an argument. If you can't grasp the idea of being the master of your own fate, of maintaining your own moral compass without a big strong leader figure holding your hand, you're a brainlet pussy. I bet you're a Hillary supporter too

>>80756283
Federal government subsidizes their utilities, and then they bitch on the internet about how the feds don't do anything for them except hold them back.

>>80756229
You're STILL googling as you go aren't you

>>80755240

You're claiming that your senses give you access to objective reality, when really they just give you access to subjective reality.

Plus, if there is no God, the human brain did not evolve to understand the universe, or perceive truth. In fact, evolution should cast doubt on all your perceptions. It was scientists who believed in God (rightly or wrongly) who believed that the human mind could even comprehend the universe, since they believed God created the human mind and the universe.

>>80756311
Uh, because God, as the ultimate authority in the universe, and the one who, in the end, decides anyway when individuals die, possesses the right to take the life He had willing given.

>>80743523
The amount of fedora tipping to this post gave me a chuckle.

>>80756466
>He
What was Jesus then, He-Man?

>>80755329

Edward R. Harrison supposedly said "Given enough time, Hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where its going."

If that happened in a godless universe, still sounds a little supernatural to me.

>>80756458
>Plus if there is no god, the human brain did not evolve to understand the universe, or perceive truth

Lol what are you even on about

>>80756411
Except strongly religious people went for Trump, and even used the biblical story of King David, a murderer and rapist who was loved by god, to justify their vote.

>>80756411
wow Im a brainless pussy, and yet, under your delightful moral relativism, this stance is as inherently valid as another will ever produce.

>>80756458
Again, you don't understand what evolution is. It's like I'm watching "A Matter of Faith" all over again.

>>80756466
Prove it

>>80756555
I know, but the idea of needing a god figure to provide your morality and keep the human race in line seems a lot like big-government neoliberalism.

>>80756311
>How come God doesn't conform to my atheistic, postmodernists views on morality?

Now I'm just waiting for the whole dead babies, muh hurricanes, why doesn't god do what I think he should do, etc. spiel to come out.

Again, you have no fucking metric to judge a single word written in the Bible from.

>>80756466
So, just to be clear, if you believed that God ordered you to rape a baby, you would consider that a morally justifiable act? How is your morality in any way objective if it can change on the whims of another being?

>>80755378

Well, it's not always "I don't know" with atheism, because if someone doesn't believe in god, then there are only a few scenarios they must believe in that led to their current existence, like with the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. Atheists will mock Christians for believing Jesus rose from the dead, yet atheists believe all life rose from the dead, 4 billion years ago.

Plus, atheists likely believe in the existence of hidden evidence, waiting to be uncovered, evidence they take on faith as existing but unseen. So even atheists have their faith.

>>80743523
>now what to replace my moral values with...
But religiosity correlates with violence.

>>80756662
>Lets set up a scenario where God is different then how he is"
doesn't work, again, if God is omnipotent, you can set up a system above Him. If you set a hypothetical framework above Him, you are not dealing with a Diety. If you attempt to change His nature, you arguing against the eternals self consistency

>>80755466
Polytheism is belief in many gods. Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe. Panentheism is the belief that the universe exists inside God, and that God timelessly extends beyond it.

And a religious experience? It's a spiritual experience. To describe it to someone who's never had one is difficult, like describing what an orange tastes like to someone who's never tasted an orange. Although I guess euphoria may be a common feature. But yeah, that the Marsh Chapel Experiment did have a control group, they got niacin as a placebo instead of psilocybin.

>>80756572
What is valid is subject to time and time is moving away from the gods.

What is valid? Valid as in you're not going to get burnt on a stake?

Burnt like those nice ladies practicing herbal medicine. Witch hunts they were called?

Or stoned like the rape victims in muslimland today.

The more you look at human history the more you see the effect of time and place in action. Even within already established belief systems.

>>80756678
Your last point - well, yeah, but there's a track record of unknowns becoming knowns so it's not blind faith. We used to not know what gravity was, and now we do. We used to not know how old the earth was, and now we do. Everything you use in your day to day life is a result of somebody figuring out something that was previously unknown, so it's not exactly that much of a leap to suggest that we will someday have answers to most of the big questions.

>>80755499

Do you think a corpse could gain awareness, even after billions of years? But yeah, eventually awareness is sudden. You wake up.

>>80756872
and the last 150 of secular society has certainly put an end to human suffering

>>80756617
It's got nothing to do with big or small government, neoliberalism, or anything like that. It's authoritarianism, the desire to have a strong singular authority that will dictate your morality and ideas for you and save you from the awful human condition of uncertainty.

Like I said above, it all comes down to whether you desire to understand the world on your own terms, even if that leads to confusion and an ongoing search for answers that will likely continue until the moment of your death, or if you seek absolute surety from an unquestionable, and the theists here have made it clear that they believe god is unquestionable, authority who will give you a set of answers you need not consider.

the truth is Plainview hated Eli out of jealousy of his faith and love from people and at the end whe he gave up on his faith and conviction so easily and his human nature was displayed it killed Plainview inside [\spoiler]

File: 1462824042806.jpg (40KB, 355x417px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 355x417px

>>80756902
>he's literally thinking of an individual corpse lying dormant for millenia and suddenly waking up

>>80743523
Explain the Crusades and try to say the endless rape and murder was just.

Morals don't come from a God whether you believe in one or not. Morals are not stagnant laws but everchanging societal constructs based off the benefit of *typically* two or more parties. Look back at history from any part of the world, or turn your head to the present day and you will inevitably see how fluid morality inherently is.

>inb4 fedorable

File: 1311626491256.jpg (23KB, 337x367px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 337x367px

>>80756929
>absolute surety
>unquestionable

>>80756659
I believe raping babies is wrong, you believe that there are situations in which it can be justified.

If god is truly the pernicious tyrant your bible depicts him as, then why do you honor and worship him?

>>80755521

Well the story goes that God has always existed. Or even that God created the universe so God could simulate not existing.

I'm saying that it's easier to believe that a conscious being can create other conscious beings (like a parent having children), than to believe an unconcious thing (say, a rock) could one day become conscious.

>You'd have us just invent a story for everything and be done with it.

No. Plenty of scientists throughout history have been theists. And they were motivated to understand the universe becaue they believed that God created the human mind and that the universe is God's creation. If they believed that the human brain is just an accidental result of billions of years of accidents, and that the universe has no design, that's kind of a motivation-killer, because why believe the human brain could ever understand the universe? Do we think ants can comprehend the universe?

>people believe in an invisible, unmeasurable, entity that can hold entire universes together, encompasses all matter in it and does not obey the laws of physics called 'dark matter'
>people don't believe in an invisible, unmeasureable entity that can hold universes together, encompasses all matter in it and does not obey the laws of physics called 'God'

really jogs the noggin desu

>>80756678
>yet atheists believe all life rose from the dead, 4 billion years ago.

"We" don't believe shit because "we" are not a hive mind that adheres to some commonly accepted dogma. Hell, I bet your average atheist doesn't really concern himself with how life started on any deep level, but if he wants to, there's scientific data based on the best tools and measurements we currently have to fall on. And it's by no means conclusive, as far as we know, life might preceded the universe or be a constant that's always been there or whatever. As long as there ain't no "god" in the equation of what an atheist theorizes or "believes" on the subject, he remains an atheist.

>likely believe in the existence of hidden evidence, waiting to be uncovered, evidence they take on faith as existing but unseen. So even atheists have their faith.

Faith = Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. What often separates the atheist from the devout is the lack of "complete" in that sentence. That usually applies to everything, even their disbelief in god. However, just as you can likely assume the sun will rise in the morning, an atheist assumes the world wont stop if he continues to find the existence of any prime remover unlikely to the point of caring about it. Your mileage will vary though if you only seek out arguments with autists on the internet.

>>80757061
>the story goes

Exactly, the story.

>suddenly become conscious

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that adults who believe fairy stories are brainlets

>>80757042
Yeah, how bout that whole Incarnation and Crucifixion, real jerk moves on God's part

>>80756828
That's a neat trick. "You can't ask me questions that require any consistency because my belief system has exempted itself from that. We're totes objective and absolute though."

>>80757042
>I believe raping babies is wrong

Explain so objectively. You're so scientific and smart after all!

>>80755538

Pretty sure that humanism and speciesm doesn't depend on monotheism. Plenty of secular, atheist humans think humans are the apex of intelligence.

The Book of Genesis says Adam was made to rule over the animals. However, that idea persists in science (with animal testing) and in corporations (which are atheistic) and just general ideas of ownership of plants and animals and things and the planet.

>>80756921
The point was anyone can chisel golden rules to holy tablets but those holy tablets will get revisioned, crumbled and buried so that 2000 years from now the archaeologists can wonder what the fuck was going on planet Earth in the year 2017. If they still count years like that.

ITT 4 artists argue about God for 270/300 posts with only the first 30/300 being about the movie

File: julius.jpg (8KB, 220x276px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x276px

>anybody who doesn't believe in God is Reddit!
>Rick and Morty is Reddit because Rick doesn't believe in God!
>I won't justify my belief in God with any proof, because there isn't any, but anybody who disagrees with me is an edgy Redditor!

You Christfags should actually defend your shitty beliefs instead of resorting to buzzwords.

>>80757204
OP was literally

>"Dude... God isn't real... LMAO."

What did you expect? A civil discussion coupled with an in depth critique and analysis?

>>80757027
I think it's bullshit, but I can't think of any other way to describe the religious desire to have all of the answers to life's great mysteries spoonfed to them. Sureness would have been a better word, but look at the theists in this thread, they are repeatedly stating that no human can or should question god's moral proclamations. Unquestionable is the most direct way to define it.

>>80755560

Well, in the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Rick Strassman...

>I met myself as the Creator.
>"Creator of ...?
>The Creator of all. I've had that realization >before, but not at this level.
>"One of our volunteers likes to say 'You can >still be an atheist until 0.4.'"

referring to 0.4mg/kg of DMT.

That doesn't mean it's magic.

>>80749417
Bilbo Baggins took the ring from Golum and kept it for himself because there is no God.

A bunch of Hobits were tasked with taking the one ring to Mordor instead of an army because there is no God.

Later, Boromir tries to take the ring from Frodo because there is no God.

In Mount Doom, Golum bit off Frodoa finger because he wanted to have the ring for himself, because there is no God.

>>80755635

You think Daniel Plainview believed in God?

Are you forgetting where he makes the preacher admit God is a superstition, and then murders him? And how he scolds that guy for hitting a girl with a Bible?

>>80757262
I expected memes honestly

>>80757128
It was so nice of him to forgive us for crimes committed by people who lived several millennia before us. He even made a show of making a bloody human sacrifice so that the symbolism would stick in people's brains. So much better than just saying "I forgive you for your ancestors not following the rules I made."

>>80757070
>tfw no one can refute my post

So I win the thread?
/thread

>>80755739

Well, I may have lazily conflated abiogenesis (the origin of life) with evolution (how life changes), but if more people recognized the difference then they'd have to admit that evolution does not concern the origin of life (except as a kind of lower-level, chemical evolution, molecular evolution).

Still, we are left with dead matter giving rise to life, rising from the dead.

>>80755821

1) If God exists, that doesn't mean God must be worshipped
2) If God exists, that doesn't mean God is good
3) If God exists, that doesn't mean God has the power to stop anything.
4) If God exists, consider the possibility that all suffering is committed by God, and all suffering is experienced by God

File: irish monk.png (194KB, 1251x585px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1251x585px

>Atheists claim there is no objective morality, we should just do what is best
>Following the teachings of Christianity would be by far the greatest system to organize a society around
>NO WE CANNOT DO THAT FEDORA FEDORA ATHEISM MLADY BANANA BANANA

Really makes you think.

>>80757147
Don't fuck that which cannot consent. Every human has the right to determine their own sexuality so long as it does not violate consent. If we discard the concept of consent in terms of sex, then we discard the concept of consent in all relationships between humans.

Society falls apart as government is run by consent of the governed, laws are obeyed under the idea that we have all consented to live together in the society that follows those laws, and the economy descends into chaos as the very idea of legally enforceable contracts is discarded.

>>80755825

God doesn't have to be magic. Deists don't believe in a God that performs magic at all.

And yes, the planet is full of billions of people and they do need religion to not be an asshole. Calling people a piece of shit doesn't stop them from acting like selfish pieces of shit.

No wild animals believe in God, and it's kill or be killed.

>>80757219
The buzzwords are there because they literally cant.
What "God is dead" means, at least in one sense, is that devout no longer have the argumentative or the literal power to keep us heathens from functioning openly and affecting society with our non belief anymore, nor can they ignore the hard evidence and progress that cares nothing about what was written by desert people thousands of years ago. And they are often blissfully ignorant of how non devout they've themselves become in their beliefs and conduct, how they directly conflict with their doctrine and scripture. Organized religion has already lost in the parts of the world that matter, and in lieu of conflict and another dark age will continue to stay irrelevant and reliant of stagnant chatter and buzzwords until its but a distant memory.

>>80755821
>this argument again

you're fucking dumb if you think every person deserves to be saved.

>>80757497
You're still wrong. Stop saying "dead," it's "inorganic." The difference is immense.

>>80757425
? are you implying the crucifixion doesn't apply to personal sins?

>>80757628
>Every human has the right

Proved "rights" objectively, and that every human has them.

>If we discard the concept of consent in terms of sex, then we discard the concept of consent in all relationships between humans.

Not true. If it's all subjective than it's perfectly valid to just pick and choose what types of consent are fine.

>>80755918

See the book Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Crowds of people can believe in all kinds of crazy shit. For example, in Africa they might believe that raping babies can cure AIDs. Their superstition probably doesn't come from on high, it's just a rumor and based on specious reasoning. And it can become a social contagion. Memes are units of culture that replicate by imitation.

>>80757128
Explain to me how crucifying jesus absolves the sins of others? Like, by whatever mechanism is the guilt transferred, or what? Especially bearing in mind that the very concept of sin, guilt, and forgiveness were all invented by god, who is all powerful. Why go through this weirdly complicated process of creating a son to die "for us"?

File: 1461970862801.jpg (101KB, 608x649px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 608x649px

>>80743523

>This is how /pol/'s right wing era actually thinks

>>80757559
That's a lot of ifs. I still see no evidence other than "He HAS to exists, because otherwise morality is a difficult question that people struggle with their entire lives."

>>80757731
If this isn't what you actually believe then you're fucked up. Have you no instincts, no inherent sense of right and wrong?

>>80757787
>morality is a difficult question that people struggle with their entire lives
Nah, its almost a non issue made into a difficult question for people struggle with their entire lives by various religious authorities that benefited from it, with basis in outdated philosophy that included magical beings and laws.

>>80755927
>Harry Potter is eternal.
>People saying something doesn't make it true, asshat.

You're getting closer to how the Greeks originally spoke of gods. Beauty is not subject to death, so beauty is immortal, so beauty is a god. The ocean is a god, war is a god, wisdom is a god. These things are not mortal.

>This sounds an awful lot like you're saying child rape is only wrong because god says so.

If it's only a human opinion, human opinions easily change. That's why atheism is morally bankrupt. Like you said, people saying something doesn't make it true.

Every wild animal is atheist. And rape happens all the time in the animal kingdom.

>>80757560
No, because all someone has to say is "God told me to do so," and they can justify whatever immoral actions they desire. You also have the awkward position of what to do when a criminal claims they have repented and Jesus has forgiven their sins. Do you just let them all go? If you follow Christian morality, then there is no reason to punish someone that Jesus has forgiven.

>>80757676
So what did that baby do to deserve it?

>>80757629
We must live on different planets, have you seen the state of the missle east? Everyone there in devoutly religious and they're committing some of the worst atrocities ever, in the name of that religion.

File: tommy wiseau.jpg (16KB, 480x376px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x376px

Does nihilism come packaged with the belief of subjective morality?

>>80757834
>I'M SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU BELIEVE THINGS WITH NO PROOF
>LEARN SCIENCE BRO
>But please ignore me I'm allowed to assert whatever the fuck I want and don't even try to have foundations that they're based on

It's okay, I used to be a hardcore, Dawkins-reading atheist. I know how hard it is to be backed into this area because you know deep down that you have no where to go.