> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>If nothing matters why are you still scared of death?
Because the meaninglessness of life only makes death that much more terrifying/hollow, moron. There's a reason people tend to gravitate towards religion in their last days and it has nothing to do with how "real" it is.
People gravitate towards religion because it suddenly dawns on them that it's probably true. That God did create the universe, create and design our nature, that we were created to be gods and rulers of the universe with Him, but that we fell into sin because we loved it more. It dawning them there is no other alternative. The "I'm scared because it's all meaningless and hollow" makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Proof?
Proof of what?
>That God did create the universe, create and design our nature, that we were created to be gods and rulers of the universe with Him, but that we fell into sin because we loved it more. It dawning them there is no other alternative
I can answer your question with another question: if God doesn't exist, how did we get here?
So it dawned on you that it could be true, so you were afraid. Thanks for proving my point.
>I can answer your question with another question
That's not answering my question, thats called deflecting because you don't have a satisfactory one.
No, your answer to my question will lead into my answer to yours.
So in other words you don't have an answer and you're hoping I'll do all the legwork for you? Why don't you just say something with conviction rather than being a mincing coy homosexual?
Because I have found the best way to approach this topic is to understand your beliefs first. If God doesn't exist, how did we get here? What do you believe account's for the creation of physical matter, our conciousness, ability to reason, and make value judgements of good and evil?
>Because I have found the best way to approach this topic is to understand your beliefs first
Because you're position is indefensible on its own, so you depend on trying to drag down the credibility of othe potential explanations to the sorry level of Abrahamic religions. At least boomers had the honesty to just say "I got faith I ain't gotta explain shit"
Have you honestly given my questions any serious thought at any point in your life? In my experience atheists move goal posts over and over, often contradicting themselves, when I explain Christian theology,, so I want to start with your beliefs first, get them in writing, and go from there. My "proof" will be easily discernable once we can first understand your beliefs, and what the alternative to a universe with not God would be. It has nothing to do with dragging down credibility. And if it is, isn't that what you're trying to do with mine?
Your arguments can't stand on their own merit. Sad, really.
>If God doesn't exist, how did we get here? What do you believe account's for the creation of physical matter, our conciousness, ability to reason, and make value judgements of good and evil?
I don't know, nobody does. Not having an answer to this doesn't make the lazy answer more likely to be correct or some kind of default choice.
>I don't know, nobody does.
Not true at all.
>Um I have the answer to something almost certainly unknowable because....look I just do OK??
You should be lucky he has these answers! Now pay the man or else you WILL face eternal damnation. The .an said so, and he has all the answers!
It isn't unknowable. Name the alternative to a Universe without God. I'm still waiting.
It's extremely intellectually lazy to act like a bad answer has to be true just because we don't know what the real answer is.
So you simply don't believe in anything, except you're certain God doesn't exist? Or you simply don't know what you believe? The only intellectually lazy thing is never giving it any serious thought, which it sounds like you haven't.
I don't have any religious beliefs. I don't have certainty that god "doesn't exist" because the concept of god is pretty much designed so that this certainty is impossible, but I see no compelling reason to think its real.
And "I don't know" should be a way more acceptable answer for a variety of questions like this, and making shit up just to comfort your existential anxiety isn't a good solution to anything. It doesn't mean I haven't given it thought, it means that a lot of things on that kind of cosmic scale are literally unknowable at this point for us and we need to find a way to be OK with that.
>
I think you're being disingenuous. This statement:
>I don't have any religious beliefs. I don't have certainty that god "doesn't exist" because the concept of god is pretty much designed so that this certainty is impossible, but I see no compelling reason to think its real
Is both a religious and cosmological statement. What is your concept of God? If you think the concept is such that it's impossible to believe he "doesn't exist", yet at the same time you see no compelling reason to think it's real, it sounds like your answer is not "I don't know". As I said, you're being disingenuous anon.
>Is both a religious and cosmological statement.
How do you figure?
>What is your concept of God?
I'm talking more specifically about the modern western concept of a personal creator god but you can apply the same statement to pretty much every religion I've studied.
>If you think the concept is such that it's impossible to believe he "doesn't exist", yet at the same time you see no compelling reason to think it's real, it sounds like your answer is not "I don't know"
How is it disingenuous? I think it's impossible to be absolutely certain he doesn't exist, because the modern conception of god is non-disprovable, but I also see no reason to think it's true.
I'd say you're an agnostic button say you see no reason to think God exists, so you're really an atheist. Define God in your own terms, that is really theonly way to clear this up.
I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any kind of god, sure. I think most agnostics are just atheists that don't care to argue about it.
Finally, some honesty. See how easy that was?
I have no idea what you're talking about broski, I haven't changed how I've represented my beliefs (or lack thereof) at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
I suppose what I find most amusing is that you wouldn't outright say you're an atheist before, but now you're citing a wiki article that defines different types of atheism.
Where did I deny being an atheist? Why do you find this label a "gotcha" anyways? I pretty much explained exactly what I believe earlier and it matches up fine with soft atheism.
I think most Christians don't care whether or not someone believes in Yahweh, they just want more people to embrace their values and traditions. If they can you to go to church and pay that tithe, that's just a bonus
I’m
and I just wanted to say that your logic is heavily flawed. I’ve been back and forth on the whole religion thing and this dumb thread helped me realize how lacking in arguments the religious side is. The concept of “I don’t know” is more powerful than your cope and deflection. You’re not proving anything to anyone and you don’t want to me convinced, obviously.
If it’s a concept beyond understanding then why do you continue to purport it? You just shot yourself in the foot. Don’t use a claim you don’t understand and then throw the lack of understanding back at your opponent. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. To answer your hypothetical question that we can both admit is pointless since no one understands it, I would not desire to do anything if I was already a perfect being. Perfect to me means complete. No wants or desires needed.
Christians royally fricked up once they started labeling their god and savior as a perfect being. An imperfect and powerful universe creator is still amazing and worthy of worship and following, but they had to play their hands a little too much and throw in perfect and all-knowing. Nothing about that god screams perfect and all-knowing. Not his creations, not his actions, nothing. Now Christians are stuck defending their religion while still having to uphold those dumb labels that contradicts everything they say. The Greeks and Romans had the right idea.
>I know because I prayed and I felt it in my heart n sheeit
Discerning truth through emotion makes you a woman
> Because I have found the best way to approach this topic is to understand your beliefs first.
Found the sophist. If you need to base your debate on your opponents views you don’t actually have any arguments outside of israelitey rhetorical tricks
Sophistry is teaching what the public will already willingly accept, at least according to Plato. He likened it to a beast master who knew how to appease an animal, rub it's belly, make it turn over, and follow it's desires. I don't think I'm doing that right now.
I'll define God in no uncertain terms, as I have been taught, and how I understand it, since you refuse to: He is the creator of the universe, and all things in it. Not just physically, but in their function, in their design, how they are able to interact with and incorporate with one another. He is also the creator of all concept and theory within the physical universe, of all abstract conceptions and understandings. He designed our nature, designed what is good, what is pure. He gave us reason and the faculty of intellect to discover Him through His creation. He created us to be rulers of the Universe with Him, but we fell into and chose sin since we loved it more. Through the existence of Jesus Christ, God gave us a way to re-unite our natures with His again, and to one day re-assume our rightful place as rulers of the universe with God, during the second coming.
There, I have defined my definition and belief of what God is. That is how I define Him, and the cosmological story of our nature and existence. Now, I am waiting on your definition. Then we can have a mature, adult discussion about it. I am very much looking forward to your response, and the adult-minded conversation that will follow.
How are people supposed to define something they have no belief in? I don't believe in god as you describe him or as any other religious system I've heard of describes him.
For starters, you have to have a definition of something, or some idea of the concept, to disbelieve in it. So what you would say is "I understand your concept of God, but i don't believe in that". Fair enough, you don't have to. However, my initial question was:
> If God doesn't exist, how did we get here? What do you believe account's for the creation of physical matter, our conciousness, ability to reason, and make value judgements of good and evil?
And this is what I am eagerly awaiting an answer to.
>> If God doesn't exist, how did we get here? What do you believe account's for the creation of physical matter, our conciousness, ability to reason, and make value judgements of good and evil?
I don't know. And as I said earlier in the thread, the fact that I don't have an answer doesn't make your answer a good one or one that I'm willing to accept.
I'm not asking what you 'know' or not. I'm asking what you think accounts for the universe. I don't think "I don't know" is acceptable. It's a cop-out.
>I don't think "I don't know" is acceptable. It's a cop-out.
How is it a cop out? It is a full and truthful answer to your question.
Then we will start there: Why do you not believe, that there is intelligent design in the universe?
Because there's no evidence of it.
Then how do you account for the functions on earth that indicate that there is intelligent design? For example, water boiling at the same temperature, food providing sustenance, sleep refreshing your body?
None of those things indicate or necessitate intelligent design
Then why is it that if I broke into your house, and raped you, it would be viewed as 'bad'? Why is it that if I broke into your mothers house, and raped and murdered her, you would feel indignant? Why is it that if I broken into your home, you would feel fear, and if I stabbed your shoulder, you would feel pain?
'cuz I don't wanna be raped or stabbed in the shoulder. nor do the other people who all agree that doing that is "bad".
But why do they all agree? Why is the unanimity across all human nature, from all time periods, from all cultures, that denounce rape, murder, war, stealing, adultry, drunkeness, drug use? You would truly maintain that all of it is chaotic? That it is all random? That there is no designer to our nature at all, that has engrained it upon our nature and existence? You would seriously maintain that belief?
they don't all agree. most cultures consider rape a-ok, as long as you're raping people from other groups. same with murder, war, slavery, stealing, etc.
We are getting away from the point: If there is no intelligent design, what accounts for the principal functions in the universe that indicate intelligent design? Water boiling at the same temperature does indicate principal intelligent design in the universe. Because it happens repeatedly at the same temperature. but your answer is simply that you 'do not know', is that it? Which to me, sounds like it's all chaos and random, if God didn't create it, and make it so, since you refuse to believe in God. You say you 'do not know'. But if foundational principals, that are based in observable facts, happen repeatedly, and never change, if it is not God, what is it? You say "I don't know". But if it is not God, there must be an alternative. And the only alternative is random chaos and chance. There can be no other answer. And this is why I am saying you are disengenuous, and you have been from the beginning. If God doesn't exist, there is no basis for any principal in the universe except chaos. But the universe is not chaotic at all. It is actually extremely orderly and pattern based.
>drunkeness, drug use
No one thinks this is bad
>all cultures...denounce rape, murder, war, stealing, adultry, drunkeness, drug use
eh pretty much all cultures were fine with war until the last few centuries or so, and a lot of the other stuff you list is fairly spotty as far as being "denounced" across civilizations. things we'd call rape now have been okay under certain circumstances across many civilizations. many societies utilized drug use and drunkenness as part of their religious tradition.
things like unwarranted bodily harm, murder, etc are easy to agree on across civilizations because a society cannot exist if people are free to kill each other at will. none of this requires anything supernatural.
All you need is the golden rule, anon. I wouldn't want those things to happen to me so I'm not going to do those things to other people. It's just basic empathy. No moral code needed.
What principal do you have for the moral rule? Why do you not want those things done to you? You do know the golden rule came directly from Christ's mouth, right?
>What principal do you have for the moral rule? Why do you not want those things done to you?
Because I don't want to experience pain. Pain being impulses and stimuli sent from my nerve endings to my central nervous system which are interpreted by my brain. The purpose of said stimuli being to warn that the system is being damaged and with enough damage will cease to function. As I said, the self-preservational instinct inherent in all living things does not require any moral guidance to exist. It is simply the byproduct of a system that is designed to continue functioning, because evolutionarily, systems that are not designed to continue functioning tend to cease to function.
>You do know the golden rule came directly from Christ's mouth, right?
No it did not. It existed a good three thousand years before he did. Look up The Eloquent Peasant from Ancient Egypt.
>Because I don't want to experience pain. Pain being impulses and stimuli sent from my nerve endings to my central nervous system which are interpreted by my brain. The purpose of said stimuli being to warn that the system is being damaged and with enough damage will cease to function. As I said, the self-preservational instinct inherent in all living things does not require any moral guidance to exist. It is simply the byproduct of a system that is designed to continue functioning, because evolutionarily, systems that are not designed to continue functioning tend to cease to function.
Who designed all of that? Or would you maintain that all of our physical functions are the random by-product of chance and evolution?
>Or would you maintain that all of our physical functions are the random by-product of chance and evolution?
I would.
Believing in evolution, which I believe is a myth, cannot even get going without accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences cannot be accepted for a moment unless rational inferences are valid: for every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by such inferences that you can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any paleontology, any archeology. To reach the positions held by the real scientists--which are taken over by the myth--you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the myth of evolution asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational--if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel--how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? You say in effect ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from biochemistry which results from physics’. But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’.
Yes, my assessment of the world and the way it works is based on my subjective prejudice. So is yours. The only difference is that I do not assert that my view of the world is universal, and you do. Rather I assert that worldviews are individual. The fact that we have such differences in this regard can serve adequately as proof of this. The difference between science and religion is that science believes all of its conclusions are theoretical and subject to change, and religion believes that its conclusions are divine, immutable and absolute. While you Christians are correct to criticize science for at times becoming dogmatic, the difference is that science is only dogmatic when it is being misused or misapplied. Of course science can be corrupted. Anything can. But religion is dogmatic by design. It is corrupt by nature.
>Yes, my assessment of the world and the way it works is based on my subjective prejudice
Well what I highlighted is not that you belief in evolution is a subjective prejudice, but that it is purely illogical. Whatever the real universe turns out to be, it cannot be based in evolution. Religion on the other hand is based on faith in the bearers of the revelation, and for Christians that would be the Prophets, Christ, the Apostles, and the early fathers of the Church. At the same time, the Christian faith is highly logical and coherent. The problem is most Atheists have never studied Christian theology seriously. I would respect an atheist more if he read the church fathers, the ISV Gospels, had a firm grasp and understanding of it, and then said "I don't believe in that". But none of them do. At least I have yet to meet an atheist who has.
I would argue the exact opposite, actually. The number one way that Christians become lapsed is by reading the bible. This is because the more deeply you delve into it, the more inconsistent, illogical and antiquated it becomes. Evolution operates by the opposite principle, the more thoroughly it is investigated the more credible it becomes. I would argue what you criticize Atheists for is also true with Christians and evolution, they reject it in part because they do not understand it. In fact it behooves them not to. I would also argue evolution is self-evident in nature and the way nature operates whereas the Christian faith is predicated on supposing a layer of reality that is elevated and exempt from the guiding principles of nature and the laws of physics, and that it does so without a shred of evidence of any kind.
I'd love to keep discussing with you but unfortunately I have to go, schedules being what they are. But I would like to say that I've enjoyed our discussion and I appreciate your civility. You largely avoid hostility and confrontation, instead preferring to ask questions and discuss ideas. I respect and appreciate that and it is unfortunately rather rare in this day and age, particularly on this board. Best of luck to you.
Evolution is so self-evidently true and predictive that you lose a lot of credibility by denying it, to be honest. It's something very observable on a micro level, and even on a macro level with things like bacteria. There's a reason lots of religions have bent their doctrine to allow for it.
We need to distinguish between evolution as a science, and evolution in the mythopoetic popular mind.
In the science, Evolution is a theory about changes: in the Myth, it is a fact about improvements. Thus a real scientist like Professor J.B.S. Haldane is at pains to point out that popular ideas of Evolution lay a wholly unjustified emphasis on those changes which have rendered creatures (by human standards) ‘better’ or more interesting. He adds, ‘We are therefore inclined to regard progress as the rule in evolution. Actually it is the exception, and for every case of it there are ten of degeneration.’ ("Darwinism Today, Possible Worlds, p.28.) But the Myth simply expurgates the ten cases of degeneration. In the popular mind the word ‘Evolution’ conjures up a picture of things moving ‘onward and upwards’, and of nothing else whatsoever. And it might have been predicted that it would do so. Already, before science had spoken, the mythical imagination knew the kind of ‘Evolution’ it wanted. It wanted the Keatsian and Wagnerian kind: the gods superseding the Titans, and the young, joyous, careless, amorous Siegfried superseding the care-worn, anxious, treaty-entangled Wotan. If science offers any instances to satisfy that demand, they will be eagerly accepted. If it offers any instances that frustrate it, they will simply be ignored.
Biological evolution is genetic mutation + selective pressures. Good mutations get rewarded. Bad mutations get consumed. It's not a perfect system but like generative AI, it produces surprising results.
Indeed there is no such thing as a perfect system. Another reason why religious belief is fundamentally illogical. It presents itself as a perfect system and yet it rapidly becomes a comedy of errors and inconsistencies when it is scrutinized.
Are you an idiot? Or do you just blather like one?
>It presents itself as a perfect system and yet it rapidly becomes a comedy of errors and inconsistencies when it is scrutinized.
Just wait until you find out that governments and academic/research institutions are the same way.
Survival instinct as a means for successful reproduction in order to propagate the species. Morality is not needed in order for a person to not want to be stabbed.
Not wanting to be harmed, and the belief to not harm others, is a moral principle. it is true, instinctually, in the moment of being harmed, you will defend yourself, for fear of being hurt. But that principle is based in morality.
>That's not answering my question, thats called deflecting
You're the type of guy to read a parable and think "wow what was the point of that?"
You're the type of guy who replies with moronic non sequiturs
Explain what part of my post doesn't follow.
Explain why you're unable to explain your position without knowing the listeners take on the topic
If God does exist, how did he get there?
He rode a segway
God is eternal component of reality. That's the point. Atheists claim everything was created from nothing. Completely illogical.
>presuppose God
>no further explanation necessary
>declare victory
Kinda based in a moronic way I have to admit
If you already have no problem believing that god didn't have to be created in order to exist, why would you insist that the universe need to be created in order to exist? Your argument is fundamentally illogical and hypocritical.
That the universe began is an observable, scientific fact
No, it's actually just a theory. One of many. Either way god is not necessary for the theory to make sense.
cause and effect is an observable fact. Atheists are the ones saying observable facts are wrong. Theists simply believe in something that doesn't invalidate logic.
Duurrrtts in da bibble
Theosis
I've actually been close to death in the hospital and so I know that's bullshit. Fear is the only reason I sought out a priest, just to cover my bases existentially speaking. I didn't actually believe what he was saying, but my anxiety forced me to sit through all of it.
>I didn't actually believe what he was saying,
If you don't believe then it doesn't work. Are you fricking stupid?
Has it worked for you? You're swearing not very christian.
I was trying on the off chance it would work, but it didn't. It didn't even make me feel any better about dying to be honest. Priest was kind of a gay tho so it might be that
>dawns on them that it’s probably true
Or it’s just Pascal’s wager in practice. Better safe than sorry.
Anyone who follows that nonsense is not a true believer. Faith in God means you love Christ. It doesn't mean you're scared of Hell and are just hedging your bets.
Ever wondered why modern Christianity seems to be more obsessed with you falling in love with a man more than trying to understand what he taught?
Pascal's wager is idiotic. There are thousands of belief systems in the world and the vast majority of them are mutually exclusive.
christcucks are so funny. Whats it like having a religion based on guilt?
t. homosexual neopagan
>People gravitate towards religion because it suddenly dawns on them that it's probably true.
No they simply get scared of the possibility of going to hell.
>People gravitate towards religion because it suddenly dawns on them that it's probably true. That God did create the universe, create and design our nature, that we were created to be gods and rulers of the universe with Him, but that we fell into sin because we loved it more. It dawning them there is no other alternative. The "I'm scared because it's all meaningless and hollow" makes no logical sense whatsoever.
>People gravitate towards religion because it suddenly dawns on them that it's probably true
it's called cope
>Religious people are better people because they are coping
lol it's the other way around. Adam hid himself from God, like you do. Atheism is cope. Accepting God is work.
No.
They do so because they fear death so much that they want to believe there's life after it, so death is not really death.
That is the ONLY reason why people buy into religion (other than using it to gain power, but few manage to do so)
Ever wondered why there's no religion that says "when you die, you die and so long?"
>Ever wondered why there's no religion that says "when you die, you die and so long?"
there are nihilistic sects of Buddhism that believe this, although they’re moronic
No I'm scared of death because im scared of nothingness
No matter how numb and down a person may be, even a psychopath, that is nothing compared to True Nothingness.
When I think too much about this it drives me nutty. To go from the current way of thinking I'm in now, to not even darkness, not even blackness.
Just pure Nothing. And that terrifies me
>so what? You won't be able to think of it when you're dead, whats the problem?
Exactly
You will literally not exist to experience the nothingness. It's not like your disembodied consciousness is floating around in a black void
humans and pretty much all animals have been naturally selected to have a survival instinct, that fear of death is always going to be there even though it's not really a rational thing, whether you believe in an afterlife or not
I'm excited to see what it's like, if I do
Yes, religion is mostly based on fomo in the current day, everyone is aware of this. Nobody needs answers anymore, we have science.
science itself admits it doesn’t have all the answers
Yet
whatever you say
Better answers already than some fairy tale either way. The second religious leaders started incorporating science in to their story that they previously would have burned the founders on a stick for you should’ve realized
>you can only have one or the other
weirdly binary thinking
Yesss, let the agnosticism flow anakin, soon you will be trained in the dark arts
Why do you think religions are constantly tweaking their dogma to better fit with modern sensibilities and our latest understanding of the material world? This idea that religious mythologies and stories have ALWAYS been understood as allegorical or metaphorical is just a cope
Doesn't really follow. Many scientists throughout history were religious, or even religious leaders. Christians are why you have Chemistry. Muslims are why you have Algebra. Most people are fricking stupid. Doesn't matter whether they're religious or not. People who "trust the Science" are just as likely to be moronic as people that say "trust God."
>Why do you think religions are constantly tweaking their dogma to better fit with modern sensibilities and our latest understanding of the material world?
Because most clerics are about two degrees away from snake oil salesmen. You can find a mountain of Christian Philosophy, just like you can find a mountain of Islamic Philosophy, but the vast majority of Priests, Pastors, and Imams are fricking idiots. Most people are idiots.
>People who "trust the Science" are just as likely to be moronic as people that say "trust God."
Only a theist would say this. And then they'll probably say something about how science says trannies are women
>Only a theist would say this.
Or anyone that's ever been to college and took a course on data analytics or statistics. Numbers can be skewed. Data can be falsely represented or outright excluded. Causation can be wrongly assigned.
That doesn't mean it's a better idea to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and start believing in works of fiction
>That doesn't mean it's a better idea to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and start believing in works of fiction
Plenty of people believe in works of fiction to a degree. I hear people quote fricking Yoda all the time. Do you sperg out about that too, or are you just allergic to Jesus?
>science exists because of religion
Ok buddy
Cope. You have the privilege of living in a time where men work miracles and call them mundane.
They're quantifiable scientific miracles and not religious ones. You just played yourself.
More cope.
First of all, I'm not who you think I am. Second, when someone answers your question with a question the two are either related or have the same answer. Think critically Anon, you're not stupid.
>Second, when someone answers your question with a question the two are either related or have the same answer
Asking disingenuous rhetorical questions isn't the same thing as rationally explaining your position, moron.
I'm sorry you feel the need to be spoonfed thoughts. Your education system failed you.
I'm sorry that you tards are coy and evasive because you believe in shaky moronic nonsense so you can only cast doubt on other belief systems to make your own seem as equally palatable.
No wonder you can't figure out how a question answers your question. I even told you that I'm not the same person you were having that discussion with. Your head's as thick as a stone.
It doesn't matter if you're that other moron or not, since you wanted to chime in like a homosexual with some dumbass point
Ok.
no, religion is a cowards way out, sort of - a pill which solves all problems, forever. I realized this quite recently by myself
>have someone die
>grief
>think about how wonderfull, unbelievable would be to 100% KNOW that I will see them again
>not only will I see them again but I will see them again in an undending paradise where we will be reunited FOREVER with God
>realize that if I held this belief literally all my problems would be "solved"
>realize I cant hold belief cause I cant force myself to believe
>ib4 hypnotize yourself
I envy actuall 100% believing anons, but, it does seem like a cowards way through life, and if, you think, you honestly believe - why grieve over anything? after death you will have unending bliss, forever - there is literally 0 reason to be sad about anything in this world if you have faith
I have not read the bible, but as far as I know christians do believe in paradise so my point stands
>I have not read the bible
That's pretty clear, since you don't understand that you have to be ever vigilant against sin and your own flaws as a person. The idea that you get into Heaven just because you believe you're getting into Heaven is bullshit spouted by false prophets. You can't just ask for forgiveness, you have to repent. There are many "Christians" out there that haven't cracked open a Bible and "know" that they're going to Heaven. That essentially demonstrates they're already lost, because they're denying responsibility for themselves.
this doesnt matter to my point at all
we are assuming that you get into heaven(which you will if you arent a bumbling moron who cant follow rules/repent, or genuinely evil)
>we are assuming that you get into heaven(which you will if you arent a bumbling moron who cant follow rules/repent, or genuinely evil)
Assuming you're going to get into Heaven is one of the surest ways to be barred from it.
Which is why reason will only ever provide you with a rough and jagged range of right and wrong.
>Assuming you're going to get into Heaven is one of the surest ways to be barred from it.
you refuse to understand my point - I assume that you, the believer, follow the scrupture, how can you be a believer WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE SCRIPTURE, and if you follow the scripture YOU GET INTO HEAVEN
either you are refusing to understand or you cant understand
>I assume that you, the believer, follow the scrupture, how can you be a believer WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE SCRIPTURE, and if you follow the scripture YOU GET INTO HEAVEN
Well see that's one of the problems: A lot of Christians don't know the scripture in the first place, only what they've been told about it. Another significant problem is that the scriptures have been translated and transliterated many times, often losing euphemisms and cultural references/symbolisms in the process.
>either you are refusing to understand or you cant understand
Right back at you.
I don't go to Church. I've been to many, but I've never found one that's not plagued a gaggle of clucking hens and wieners.
What I said is all the more true then. You interpret your holy text as you see fit. Otherwise you'd be living in an Amish community and would not be talking to me from a computerized device right now.
The way that you decide what does and does not make sense to you in the book you read is the same way I do without the book.
>Right back at you.
what is your point then? that its hard to follow the rules to get into heaven, even if you have 100% unshakeable faith? why? rules lost in translation? what is the reason? if you follow the rules diligently you will get to heaven, no?
if your point is that
>not all chrustians follow/know the rules
then you are an idiot refusing to address my original point
If your point is that
>rules and scripture have been lost and edited, we cant get to heaven anymore
then, thats it, Christianity has been corrupted and should be abandoned untill God shows us the path once more
>what is your point then?
I've made my point pretty clear: Assuming that you're guaranteed entry into Heaven is something that people who haven't read the Bible do. You are not guaranteed a spot just because you want one. It's not an RSVP, it is a constant battle with the world.
You do not follow every word of the bible to the letter. You interpret, or you trust the interpretation of your priest. You take what you agree with and reject the things that you find to be antiquated, unapplicable or even immoral. What are you using to make those determinations? Reason. You and I do the same thing, you simply use your text of choice as an intermediary and I do not.
Beyond the whims of the subject, does it matter whether someone is a coward or is brave in the face of a materialist reality? What has your bravery won you? What will it have won you when you die?
>things like unwarranted bodily harm, murder, etc are easy to agree on across civilizations because a society cannot exist if people are free to kill each other at will. none of this requires anything supernatural.
The supernatural is not necessary for a society to agree upon a set of rules that allow it to function, there is advantage and utility in that. But I don't see that as a true ought to guide an individual's behavior, the smooth functioning society seems to merely be something I can take advantage of when it's convenient and I can ignore the rules when I can seek out whatever advantage I will. Assuming I'm cunning or resourceful enough to skirt the rules of course. I otherwise owe no one or no God anything.
What I believe people are really arguing about is what should be the be all end all metaphysical principle to govern mankinds' behavior, which of course doesn't need to be supernatural. I do find it hard to apply a universal principle without the supernatural, and for that reason I appreciate atheists like Nietzsche or Max Stirner who can provide the universal principle of "do as thou wilt", which of course can be great good or evil, or mere comfortable mediocrity and they appreciate how there's no real value to any of those options (even if Nietzsche prefers the great evil).
Nah anon was trying to say that the fact that all societies agree that murder is wrong is somehow proof that there is divine, innate inspiration for our law, which is dumb for the reasons laid out.
Please present evidence for your claims.
Yeah it just doesn't sound plausible. It's highly anthropocentric. That strikes me as too convenient. We happen to have awareness, AND it just so happens that the God of the cosmos looks like us, has our values, and loves us and wants us to be happy? Why, except humans find it impossible to put anything above themselves? Why are so many deities in religion humanistic? The pagan gods were flesh and blood like us.
I don't know how anyone can look at a modern religion, usually built on the rubble of a previous faith, and conclude it is correct.
The only argument that has any grounding for me is the Prime Mover. But I would never assume what that Prime Mover was, or if it had an intelligence or a will behind it. I am willing to admit that something probably started the universe. That's all I am willing to admit. I cannot ascribe values to that thing. And since that Prime Mover existed before time and space, I must conclude it requires neither time nor space to exist, so looking for evidence of it there is pointless.
>it suddenly dawns on them that it's probably true
On what fricking planet?
This. Deathbed conversions are based entirely in fear, not in truth.
I genuinely believe you and all people like you should be killed. You are a blight. Even if you were correct, if humanity instead embraced science and became transhuman, we could eventually make it so nobody would ever have to die again, thus supplanting your evil creator and objectively creating more material good, forever.
>religion is the only thing standing between us and The Jetsons
Dude, we've never been more secular and troony madness has gripped America. People don't become more rational in the absence of a belief system. They become less rational. This is because most people simply don't have the capacity to grasp Aristotelian philosophical principles.
Marx was half right about religion. It does make people feel good; it also keeps them in line. All the secular societies of history have been massive, spectacular failures.
Philosophy is hard, religion is easy. Both can be abused. See modern "philosophy".
Growing pains, nothing more. Religion has poisoned us on the genetic level. It would take thousands of years to fix it naturally, but thankfully other options exist.
>the meltdown of society and death spiral birthrates are a mere growing pain
Your comment is superfluous and out of context. It's even weirder than you can see the problem but insist that secularism is not the cause. Secular communistic societies were humanitarian disasters, because they believed a single life was essentially worthless.
We need a new religion, one that is not based on supernatural nonsense. A humanistic, merciful religion. The teaching of Jesus are good ones, but Christianity is the bloodiest religion in history, mostly because of the organized Church built around his mythology. A religion for the new man could not be based on a prophet. It becomes a cult of personality, and then that superior figurehead is wielded as justification for horrendous things.
It would have to be based on objective, observable reality. But it could not be purely empirical. Empiricism is the realm of science, and even science was perverted by the I Fricking Love Science crowd. It must be grounded in humility and love, as Jesus taught.
Jesus without the supernatural baggage. This is what Thomas Jefferson thought was the ideal.
>It's even weirder than you can see the problem but insist that secularism is not the cause. Secular communistic societies were humanitarian disasters, because they believed a single life was essentially worthless.
>We need a new religion... a humanistic religion
lmao the irony
Utter moronation. troony-human moralizing makes me retch.
Your progressive theology is a religion. I don't understand how people become so chock-full of unexamined presuppositions, you think their head would explode.
I didn't say religion is bad, dipshit. Science can be a religion. Fanaticism is useful.
If literally everyone but 250 men, 250 women died to achieve this, those are acceptable parameters. One way or another, humanity as it has been allowed to be will not continue.
>I didn't say religion is bad, dipshit.
>Religion has poisoned us on the genetic level.
And we will fix it with science, by making science the religion. Fanaticism, on demand. No more pesky individuality.
>we
>can't even program hello world
>dreams about uniting with xis pc
there are limits of no self awareness
>If literally everyone but 250 men, 250 women died to achieve this, those are acceptable parameters.
Holy shit anon believes he'd be one of the 500!
I will die, but so will you. I genuinely hate you, specifically. You pesky little shits incapable of bowing out. There is nothing special about. Nothing worth saving or preserving. The whole point is we'd create something more. You are a blight.
I'm sure we'd get along fine in person. Anonymous image board communication leads all of us to be a little ungrounded.
Subconsciousness is based af
Their ego always pretend s to be certain and not weak and ''muh'' logical. But the subconscious always It hits atheist monkeys the hardest and crush their ego that they couldn't cope or even lose to tears when they have cancer, extreme fear or about to die.
HELL YEAH!! I'm so happy this cartoon humiliated atheists/nihilists THIS hard
Then stop being a baby and find meaning in your life instead of acting like a homosexual
destroyed reddit and trannies as well
>moron confuses nihilism and atheism
btw if you're going to go to heaven for being a good goy wouldn't fear of dying make you just as exposed
No one knows where they are going. Even the best and most virtuous people are afraid. In fact they tend to be the most afraid: the harder you work at correcting and eliminated sin from your life, the more scared you will be, since you realize how sinful, selfish, egotistical, etc you really are.
>No one knows where they are going
sounds like agnostic chads are the only ones who are allowed to fear death
imagine believing in christianity and not knowing if you're worthy of heaven or hell. if i believed in that nonsense i would give up my worldly possessions and live in the service of others because this life is nothing compared to an eternity in heaven/hell, the fact that virtually no christians do this show how full of shit they are when they cope about the afterlife
>imagine believing in christianity and not knowing if you're worthy of heaven or hell
You don't know for certain until the final judgment. It's why many denominations pray for the departed at set intervals, that God will have mercy on their souls, no matter how virtuous they were.
okay but people don't even try. "it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" yet most christians have no problem living in luxury. love thy neighbor turn the other cheek etc yet they have no issue getting involved in petty spats, putting people down etc.
like they're not even trying dude, nobody actually believes this shit it's just a cope
Those examples you've instanced are of very bad Christians. Very few people are actually "Christian" in practice. It's why someone really trying to live all of the sacraments is aware how truly sinful and unworthy of forgiveness they are. But that awareness makes what Christ did all the more incredible.
are you really trying anon?
More often than not, yes, I am trying, and it's very hard. I'm often falling far short of a true Christian life.
do you actually think jesus would want you spending time on Cinemaphile
I don't know that he'd care. It's not what you do, it's how you do it, and the state of your ontological nature while doing it. Christ spent his time around homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, etc. But he was still pure.. He'd probably appreciate I'm defending His existence and truth, at least.
>No one knows where they are going
I'm going to heaven to be with our Lord and Creator. That's literally how this works. I'm sorry you're not sure but if you want to know then it's all laid out in The Bible
atheism is generally a pre requisite for nihilism
>2k years
>of atheist philosophy
Is this a stealth redpill on how Western atheists basically rely on Christian ideas to justifiy their positions?
>mfw realizing gaytheists presuppose transcendentals by using a Christian framework without God
The Greeks were questioning the nature and existence of the gods hundreds of years before Christ.
The evidentialist argument for Christ is for theists. That's why the Greeks converted. It almost never works for prideful atheists.
So if I hold a gun to your head you should not fear death because soon you'll be with your god
Yeah
According to the Bible, yes. Revelation 2:9-10.
That's how it works, bucko
Unironically yes, Saints say fearing death is "ignorance".
ayo pull the trigger homie
Why are evangelicals always such bitter pseuds?
Score one more for The Thinking Atheist!
shilling friends
never watched a single episode lmao
UMMM even in rick and morty s02e01 when Rick realizes he is about to die he begs god for forgiveness before finding the time collar and managing to fix it and survive
The transcendental argument followed by the cosmological destroys atheism.
For theists the evidentialist argument destroys every religion except Christianity
There are 8 billion people alive right now, and you are one of them. There have existed in total around 117 billion Humans now and in the past. Yet, that figure is still an insignificant spec of data when compared to the total number of all other living and conscious species that are living or have ever lived: Including all other billions of mammals, billions of fish, billions of reptiles, billions of birds, billions of insects, billions of plant life, all in our world alone. For your life to have "no meaning" would mean that you were just lucky enough to be one of the random 0.00(repeating)1% of living matter to be born as a Human (the most advanced and most significant species in the known universe), instead of being born as one of the quintillions of other irrelevant forms of life which truly have no meaning. A far likelier scenario seems to be that your life DOES have meaning, and that you are unique, one of few of us blessed by Almighty God to a higher form of existence.
Except all the measurable and testable evidence points to everything existing by random chance and God either doesn't exist, or he's purposely concealing his existence on every level we've ever observed.
I don't know either way, but I sure get tired of you evangelical fricks using a religion you don't even adhere to, let alone understand as a cudgel for shutting down critical thought.
>Except all the measurable and testable evidence points to everything existing by random chance and God either doesn't exist
This is factually incorrect. Educate yourself.
I still don't get why that god doesn't want me to jerk off.
Because it is a perversion of your sexual faculty that was designed for procreation and pleasure with a woman. He technically doesn't want you having sex at all, either.
How could god want anything if he's literally perfect?
Because He loves us and wants to share his perfection with a creation that is sentient and independent of Himself.
A perfect being shouldn't want anything. It's perfect, thus shouldn't lack anything or want anything. Unless you want to argue that god isn't perfect.
>A perfect being shouldn't want anything.
Why wouldn't a perfect being want to create something to share in His perfection with Him? That is free to choose Him or evil? Because he loves us so much. If anything it makes what God and Christ did all the more incredible. This is Sunday school tier stuff anon.
Because when you are perfect, you lack nothing. You also posess the wisdom to realise you don't need anything and thus stay perfect.
I know 4th grade logic is hard and if you want to believe a perfect being needs you to love it be my guest. It rightfully doesn't care and at worst, it's just hubris on your part
>Because when you are perfect, you lack nothing.
He created us because he wanted to share in His perfection. Or do you think a perfect being would be selfish, and not a giving, infinite creative force? Selfishness and hording his perfection all to Himself doesn't sound very perfect to me, anon.
Why would he want anything when he's perfect? God doesn't want to share his perfection because he doesn't need to.
Because selfishness is not a perfect trait. Infinite love and selflessness is perfection. God is an infinitely giving and creative force. The universe infinitely expanding is a representation of His infinite creative power. Your concept of God and perfection is backwards.
Who said anything about selfishness or selflessness? Not the anon you’re responding to by the way, but I’ve never thought of the whole “perfect” thing like that and it makes sense to me. A perfect being would have no wants. He wouldn’t think to create anything or do anything if he’s truly perfect. If you’re not getting this then you might be cognitively slow.
If you were "perfect", which, by the way, is a concept beyond our understanding, would you sit around and do nothing? Or what you create infinitely, because you are infinite perfection?
Because He loves you and He wants what is best for you and gooning in your basement all your life instead of finding true love is not what is best for you.
>something that is purely actual, with no unrealized potentials
you know this would rule out a god that interferes with our universe after creation as that would qualify as unrealized potentials?
>i'm going to flood the earth today because i got mad at humans
>i'm going to become a human and die for everyone's sins
these scenarios are not purely actual
>these scenarios are not purely actual
Would God's Omniscience not invalidate those examples? He is experiencing all that we experience right now, and He has already experience it, and He has yet to experience it. He is past, present, and future, with no actual concept of time. So when He became the First Mover by setting the events of our Universe into motion, it would not be contradictory for him to move things after that? He can open the dam and let the river out, then choose to insert a hand into any part of the stream to alter it.
>he is past, present, and future, with no concept of time
you could pull this same cliche to invalidate any state that would otherwise be an unrealized potential. how do we know our perception of time is even valid?
Either way, I just don't see how those examples qualify as "unrealized potentials". An unrealized potential would be an unplugged kitchen appliance. God reacting to the events on Earth and interceding in certain circumstances does not seem to be an unrealized potential to me. God has the potential to interfere with our lives in certain ways, but I would not call it unrealized.
you don't see how god suddenly plugging himself into a human body, impregnating a woman, being born and walking around doing magic when he wasn't doing any of that before would signify unrealized potential??
If He didn't know it was a possibility before that moment, then sure. If He did always know it was a possibility, and only chose one specific time to exercise this power, then it wouldn't be unrealized potential. Especially not if we talk about Him being outside of time and space. The second he set in motion the events of the Universe was the same second he was born onto a 4.5 billion year old Earth as Jesus Christ.
>Especially not if we talk about Him being outside of time and space.
even though your "purely actual" line of argument is nonsense outside of a causal, linear conception of time
Maybe, but that's irrelevant, because we're talking about God here, and God does not exist in a linear time or place. If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
>argument depends on a-->b--->c-->etc
>but also things do not exist in a linear time or place
okay, it's been fun
nta, but things in the physical world do exist in time and space, and therefor they do rely on a chain and sequence of reasonings. God, being a spirit beyond our finite understanding, exists outside of that.
Aquinas did some good work but Caths put too much emphasis on him and he's the root of what eventually led to Western Christianity's departure from the faith of the Church Fathers
>man has sex with a woman
>hundreds of millions of sperm cells
>repeat this process daily
>eventually, someone will have to be born
And just because it was me, this is somehow extraordinary? You have this all backwards.
if a different sperm cell hit the mark, would it still be “You”
are you your siblings? are you siblings you?
yes
>draw powerball numbers
>can you imagine the odds? god did this
Nihilists are gays.
Here's the truth: Nothing really matters unless it matters to you. The beauty of that is that you have a certain freedom to choose from which things matter to you and which don't.
Also, stoicism is a meme. Its most prominent figure literally had slaves tending to his every need, of course he could rightly claim "lmao why are you trying to change things you can't control? I gave that up and I am perfectly fine. Also, more wine Slavius! If you don't move, you'll get to meet the lions face to face in the next circus and you bet that's something I CAN control."
what show
I was an atheist from my 12 years of age trough my 16 years of age. Since I always liked history, after researching about ancient cultures, I realized that it would be too much of a coincidence for everyone to be telling the same story. Once you study enough, you realize existence is much more.
I’m not reading the thread, I just want the sauce
Smiling Friends
That didn't occur.
Atheism, nihilism and views based on relativity are for youth who didn't experience life yet or menchildren. When I was 16 I was very nihilistic, didn't believe in god and was generally a contrarian. Since I turned 20 with every year I am more and more sure that objective truth exists, decadence is real and absence of religion is bad regardless if you believe god exists or not. I also was pro-lgbt and all that shit until I actually started to hang around with the leftie progressive crowd and realized they actually are like right-wing caricatures - just a bunch of lowlife scumbags with sexual deviations and mental health problems.
Just will yourself into believing insane Canaanite nonsense to own the progressive scolds! It's that easy!
You can believe in whatever you want, but religion is an important mediator for society and every attempt to replace it failed so far. When people don't have anything to believe in they either come up with their own gods or become insane, depressed and weak
>I'm interested in objective truth
>which is why I believe in a Bronze age superstition because it's socially expedient
Sounds like you're only interested in truth when convenient and comfortable
Can you quote exactly where I said I believe in any god at all?
What religion are you?
I don't follow any religion
I think 99% of people are good and don't need to be afraid of divine retribution in order to do good.
redditors literally can't physically comprehend there are religions other than christianity
I know what you're saying. It's just a dumb argument I'd expect to hear from a youth pastor or a Bible teacher.
I'm a gnostic, so I don't completely disregard religion.
>When people don't have anything to believe in they either come up with their own gods
You say this with so little lack of self awareness that it’s pretty funny
Community moral and ethical standards being good for society doesn't make some moronic supernatural bullshit true. Midwit take.
I specifically said that you don't have to actually believe in any god in order to understand that religion in general is important for a healthy society and yet you still couldn't resist an urge to say "uhmm.. actually, didn't you know god doesn't exist???". Cringe moron.
Idk, you post kind of sucked at actually explaining your stance. Why is god necessary for any of this if moral standards are objectively good for society? Are you just so misanthropic that you believe it's impossible for people to do the right thing without the fear of supernatural punishment?
>you believe
I don't believe, I see it every day. And I don't think it's a divine punishment that stops people from being morons, I think that feeling of community and purpose in life that stops people from being morons. Religions is just an essential mental practice for staying sane
Which post do you think I ignored and which standalone post do you think is mine, schizo?
Can you elaborate or you don't actually have an argument?
>Can you elaborate or you don't actually have an argument
I’m not arguing with you. And I thought my post was obvious in its implication, but whatever. You point out people creating their own gods when you believe in a man-made god.
I replied 2 times already I don't believe in any god. Why did you automatically assume I do?
I assumed you were lying when you said that. Because by your logic if you don’t believe in a god then you would have already created your own or in your own words “become insane, depressed and weak”. Which camp are you in currently? And why should I listen to an insane man?
English is my second language so I probably just write things too poor for people to understand. My position is that religion is not just a "divine punishment fearmongering" tool, it's something that unites people, shapes culture and customs and creates traditions. It has very important aspect to it that helps people coexist with each other and you don't need to actually believe there's a guy on a cloud in the sky in order to follow religion as an institution.
I think that killing innocents is bad because it causes suffering. I think suffering is objectively bad thing and happiness and wellbeing are objectively good things. But if you want to start this "morality can only exist with god" conversation I am ok with you saying morality can only exist with god.
>It has very important aspect to it that helps people coexist with each other and you don't need to actually believe there's a guy on a cloud in the sky in order to follow religion as an institution.
This idea promotes the attitude that it's OK to deceive people to get them to do what you think is best, which becomes a problem pretty quickly once it's someone you don't approve of doing it.
No, morality can not only exist with god. Objective morality can only exist with god. Your stance isn't very consistent, anon. If you don’t think we need to believe in religion to be like you, a person that believes in objective morality, then we shouldn’t bother having religion. Or do you think you’re capable of being good without god yet others need it?
>Or do you think you’re capable of being good without god yet others need it?
I said here
why do I think religion is important, I don't think it's only about keeping people from killing and raping each other. What do you mean by "morality" and "objective morality"? Why are they different things?
Morality is inherently subjective. Go to one country and they might have beliefs and practices that are inherently wrong or cruel in another country. Right and wrong aren’t objective.
The concept of objective morality claims that the things that are right are always and forever, without question, universally right with no room for nuance. The same for the things that are wrong. Objective morality is only defensible from an angle of a higher power. Something beyond us has to say “this is wrong and this is right”, because anyone within us making that claim won’t have a leg to stand on.
With that said, not even the Bible is consistent with its morality so god also seems to suck at being objective.
I’m not arguing against that. I have my morals on what’s right and wrong and I like to live my life in that way. But I don’t believe that my morals are universal or ever will be. And I don’t believe that someone that has different morals are worse or amoral.
I think a lot of things can be objective when we look at them from the position of causing harm and suffering or causing happiness and wellbeing. Can you justify killing innocent? With the limitation that it has to be possible in real life, so no "a million people gonna be forever tortured if we won't kill this newborn baby". In a world of hypotheticals and "thought experiments" it sound very cool that morality is subjective, but in real world I think a lot of things can be universally agreed upon to be immoral and I think there's an objective truth in real life. The same way how in mathematics you can always put another 0 to the right of a decimal point on length but you can't do this irl
I think you're intellectually out of your depth in this discussion
I think if it really was it would be easy for you to reply with counter-argument instead of passive-agressive insult
Morality is written on our hearts because we are made in the image of God, but God also directs us with His laws in order for us to not be deceived by ruinous powers. To sin is to divorce ourself from Him, thus opening ourselves up to corruption, deception, etc. He is absolute Truth and has given us all the tools to deal with moral questions.
>Morality is written on our hearts
This is literally toddlerbabble
mmmno I don't think so. People do have an innate sense of what higher morals are. Some pagans understood this.
>Attach yourself to what is spiritually superior, regardless of what other people think or do. Hold to your true aspirations no matter what is going on around you.” Epictetus
You already know what Epictetus means.
Those who gravitate to being "lower" are simply more corrupted by sin and pride.
I think in the world we live in there’s zero chance of objective morality. It’s ironic you talk about hypotheticals, because that’s the only way your objective views would work. Here’s the thing: almost everyone agrees that murder is wrong, yet almost everyone disagrees on what constitutes as “murder”. We also will disagree on what constitutes as an “innocent”. I don’t know if I’ll make sense to you and I don’t plan on continuing this conversation since I need to go back to work, but really think about the applications of your morality and think of how it differs with people that you know. Think of something like rape, or anything else that you deem horrible. Do we all agree on what constitutes as rape? Are there arguments every day on what that means?
If killing innocents is wrong, why does it happen? Is it sometimes necessary or never necessary? And how do you prove your views as the moral and correct one without a higher power? How do you live your life and what do you do that others might consider wrong? Why do you do it?
I’m not arguing for morality being needed or not. I think everyone should have their own morals. I’m arguing that we don’t live in a world with objective morality and we never will.
>but since morality is subjective and my personal views on raped little girls are different from his, can we really be mad at this?
Yes, you can. Why wouldn’t you? Don’t speak on topics you don’t understand just because it makes you mad. You can make laws and have consequences in a world without objective morality. For example: our world.
>almost everyone disagrees on what constitutes as “murder
No, only very small group of extremists argue what should be considered a murder.
>We also will disagree on what constitutes as an “innocent”.
No, we generally don't disagree on what is considered innocent in society. Only a few edgy morons do that, usually just to be a contrarians.
>Do we all agree on what constitutes as rape?
Yes, except when evil people start to change definitions to create social pressure levers
>Are there arguments every day on what that means?
Since 2012? Yes.
>If killing innocents is wrong, why does it happen?
Because evil people do evil things? How existence of immoral people destroys existence of objective morality?
>And how do you prove your views as the moral and correct one without a higher power?
Suffering and happiness are not as subjective as people like you want to make them because, again, real world is not a hypothetical and most of our behavior, likes and dislikes are linked to us biologically. Hungry and cold = bad. Warm and full = good. Considering clear deviations and mentally ill cases where person takes pleasure in suffering like wanting to remain hungry is very stupid argument and logical fallacy.
>You can make laws and have consequences in a world without objective morality.
uh, no you can’t. otherwise those laws have no leg to stand on
>otherwise those laws have no leg to stand on
what does this even mean? people obey all sorts of laws that have no basis in any kind of objective morality already
Majority approval and threats of violence/incarceration. No objective morals needed.
If there is no objective value judgements of good and evil, then what you said isn't true either. Nothing is true then. There is no foundational basis for any thought, theory, or belief. Unless you believe in objectivity, you cannot believe in thought.
Your leap in logic is a huge one. We're talking about objective morality not objectivity as a whole. Objectivity exists.
>i think raping little girls is immoral, but my neighbor abdula doesn't think so, so he raped my daughter
>but since morality is subjective and my personal views on raped little girls are different from his, can we really be mad at this?
you are a delusional moron who lives with the head up his own ass
>But I don’t believe that my morals are universal or ever will be.
then you don’t have morals. this is cognitive dissonance
People can be good out of the kindness of their hearts. I treat people with decency and respect because I want them to like me, not because of God.
I think by "create own gods" he meant new gods like how people make cults from politics right now
Yeah I figured that too, but that doesn’t leave him exempt from the past gods we created.
So you aren’t religious yet believe in objective morality? Based on what?
This thread is a bunch of cope. No atheist is interested in defining God as they understand Him. Which is ironic to me: If you have such strong feelings the concept of God doesn't exist, you should be able to define that concept as you understand it, and in no uncertain terms. I think really gets it right, that those who are atheist are simply manchildren or who haven't experienced what the world is like yet. We are one hundred replies in and no atheist has given a concrete definition of the "God" they don't believe in. How am I to believe it is anything other than man children who want to escape responsibility for their own actions, and shortcomings in vice? I am almost certain no atheist here can give a serious definition of the God. No Christian has had an issue defining God. I will happily be proven wrong.
>If you have such strong feelings the concept of God doesn't exist
as explained to you already in this thread, these "strong feelings" are not necessary for atheism
more cope. You can't have strong feelings for indecisiveness or uncertainty.
Who said anything about strong feelings except you? What are you even trying to argue at this point? You are so far in the weeds.
>losing argument
>better samegay with a standalone post and ignore the previous replies
>Oh shoot I’m losing again
>better do it again
>objective truth exists
>absence of religion is bad regardless if you believe god exists or not
>Bronze age YHWH appears on a monthly bases, sends judges, speaks to people, does fricking magic, razes cities etc.
>suddenly actual intelligent people like Greeks, Romans and later Anglosaxons take over history recording
>no more magic for you
Really makes you think
I mean, when you look at how quickly the Muslims were able to take over despite how badly both sides should have beaten them, it makes you think Yahweh may have been on their side.
Greeks, Romans and Anglosaxons CONSTANTLY "talked" to their gods in religious rituals, you utter moron.
Yet they didn't record it as actual history. For Greeks it was the mysteries, for Romans it was rituals and temples and organised religion, they did sacrifices too; but no fricking Roman historian ever claimed Apollo came down from the Heavens to tear down the walls of Alesia or some Exodus shit with the Sea splitting open.
Bible goes full fantasy novel, then I'm supposed to listen and believe these goatfrickers who actually got to see the magic in action while not even getting a teeny tiny sign? Frick you.
>The Iliad doesn't exist
>The bible is a total fantasy novel
lol what a birdbrained idiot
The Illiad isn’t a historical book. Quit acting like a moron.
What do you think the Iliad is about?
You didn’t argue its contents, you argued its category. Why are you acting dumb? It’s not a historical book.
What do you think it's about?
>Greeks, Romans
>"no more magic"
You have no idea what you're talking about lmao.
Read Diododus Siculus. Read Xenophon. Read Eskilus. Read Sophocles. Read Tacitus.
Actual historians, not a fricking magic in it, unlike the bible and trumpets bringing down walls.
You tryna tell me the talking donkey is cap?
Elaborate. I dare you.
>Atheist Philosophy
More like nihilist philosophy, but any show can do that. The first two season of rick and morty were staunchly anti nihilist.
what are atheist alternatives to nihilism? because from a layman's perspective it seems like nihilism is the logical endpoint of every atheist philosophy
>what are atheist alternatives to nihilism
secular humanism is probably the most popular one historically
Sure, but it's based on nothing but subjectivity and emotions, which brings you back to nihilism
a moral system based in rationality, empathy and the desire to make the world better is a lot more difficult due to the absence of any moral absolutes, sure, and it takes a lot of work. I find it to be a lot more sincere than people who are trying to avoid doing bad things just out of fear of supernatural punishment, though.
>a moral system based in rationality
Rationality doesn't exist without God. See the Critique or Pure Reason and the transcendental argument for God.
>Rationality doesn't exist without God
how come rationality exists and god doesn't then?
your presuppositions, like the existence of logic for example, require God
God is the antithesis of reason. Belief in the supernatural is belief in something that violates every natural law. Which means natural laws are not absolute, they are purely contextual. Same goes for morality. God is wrathful. He is prideful. He declares himself exempt from his own moral code. I don't look to him for moral guidance. I look to reason.
>I don't look to him for moral guidance. I look to reason.
Then you should be very careful, because ethics are premised on logic. Logic only has to be structurally valid. It does not have to be correct.
What is and is not "correct" is purely subjective anyway.
>God is the antithesis of reason
Jesus Christ is the Logos and you can not have transcendentals like reason or math without God. It's actually unreasonable to use logic to justify your claims because you end up conforming to circular reasoning by using logic to prove logic. You say God is the antithesis of reason yet you haven't even observed the presuppositions of your own worldview, which is unreasonable.
Nta, he is incorrect. Applying human values to God is unreasonable. A prime mover is quite reasonable. The Big Bang looks like a creation event to me. All of existence sprang from nothing.
Human values are informed by our biology, as upright primates living on the surface of a planet. Presuming the Creator shares those values, when He is necessarily a completely different sort of creature, is ridiculous.
Indeed the Prime Mover probably isn't an entity. Language fails to capture the essence of a will without physical form.
NOOOOOOOO HOW DARE YOU HOW DARE YOU HOW DARE YOU WITHOUT GOD EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED AND NOT PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Materialism / nihilism just makes death even scarier because this life is all there is and once it's over, it's over. Legit do not understand this reddit rick and morty meme take.
When I was an atheist it was this line of thinking that made me question why people care about prolonging climate change if it's unavoidable anyway
I’m not even a Christian but I pretend to be one because it goes against the grain and makes people mad.
Rick has always been a Foxhole Theist. When he is totally fricked he starts praying.
How so? You're going to be far more afraid of death if you believe you blink out of existence when you die than if you believe you go to paradise for eternity.
What is there to be afraid of if you don't exist? moron
>You're going to be far more afraid of death if you believe you blink out of existence
I'm not so sure of that. I think the idea of simply ceasing to exist would be pretty comforting as compared to being judged for everything you've ever done, everything you're doing, and everything you will ever do. Any Christian that's 100% convinced they're going to Heaven is probably more likely to go to Hell.
It's been a while since I've seen a classic atheism vs religion thread on Cinemaphile. Kinda based honestly.
Atheism is the religion of the midwit
Atheism is a religion in the same way "not eating a sandwich" is a snack
You are already an atheist when it comes to 2,999 of the 3,000 established belief systems that exist across the globe. I'm only slightly more of an atheist than you are.
>300 replies
grim
So I guess Christ doesn't exist because one jap stepped on His image?
Kys you falseflagging atheist gay.
Is this supposed to make me not wanna kill myself?
If God is real then why do Black folk exist?
me when a disabled trans woman of color is speaking
atheists fricked monkeys
I heard a neat little theory from some early fathers who basically reasoned that the modern races/ethnicities who are more blessed are the ones who contributed the least to the construction of the tower of babel. In other words Black folk worked the hardest (lol) to rebel against God and got punished for it more than everyone else. It's not dogma but it's funny to think how these sorts of opinions were held by people in the early church
Do idiot christcucks whining about trannies realize that woke culture literally stems from prottie culture? Meanwhile Easter Europe and East Asia are largely irreligious and don't have that shit.
"Muh atheistm = troony acceptance" is one of the weakest copes I have ever seen
It is impossible to prove that a god or gods do or do not exist, therefore, I don't really care that much.
Though I will resist if anyone tries to push their beliefs on me. That goes for all muslims, israelites, christoids, trannoids, niggoids, etc.
it's philosophically impossible to prove definitely that anything exists or doesn't. You can¡t prove that Pokemon don't exist somewhere on Earth.
It's just that, well, a grown person beliveing that Pikachu is somewhere around is pretty sad.
>You can¡t prove that Pokemon don't exist somewhere on Earth
t. CWC
Television and movies
(I have posted in every coomer thread)
they destroyed it with a strawman?