Do new atheists exist? how do they differ from old/classical atheists?
Look at all those Jews promoting a Jewish religion against a Christian one.
New atheism is bullshit btw.
>>1176419
"New Atheists" tend to just be real hardline logical positivists, its not a new philosophy its just very popular among modern Atheists.
Athiests like Nietzsche had a very different worldview
>>1176432
this. Apart from Dawkins everyone in that pic looks jewish af. Don't take me wrong, I am not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless
>>1176432
You do know that Christianity was invented by jews, right?
>>1176419
Only one of those people achieved 'prominence' in their respective fields.
>>1176419
why did they pick such a cringey picture of hitchens? I realize the one that made the picture is probably an autist or emulating an autist, but it just seems like a shame, he was cool
>>1176450
Better look up origins of Ashkenazi Talmudism
>>1176462
not a single person in that picture didn't achieve prominence in their field, what are you talking about.
>>1176470
Only Dawkins rewrote textbooks. Rest of them are fairy dust.
>>1176463
i think the entire picture in general is cringey tbf. "They're right, you're wrong" like please fucking kill me
>>1176486
None of the rest are scientists, that's not what they set out to do.
Well lawrence krauss is, and he did.
>>1176490
Harris - Failed neuroscientist turned author. BTFO'd on this view on morality
Dennett - Philosopher, nobody takes his cog sci i'lmao consciousness don't real' philosophy seriously
>Lawrence
>changing shit
kek
>Hitchens
Statist shill. Didn't break any significant story.
>Maher
Just lol
>>1176506
>>Maher
>comedian and talk show host
>hugely successful
I dunno what more you could expect
>hitchens
>Widely acknowledged as one of the greatest debaters of all time
>successful author
>>1176419
Agnostic/Pantheist speaking.
Atheists aren't ideologically bound any dogma other than "God doesn't exist," and even regarding these three words pages and pages could be written dedicated to how different Atheists see each term.
Some theists claim I am an Atheist, and some Atheists claim I can't be, this is how sensitive the subject apparently is.
And so, yes, I do think there is an ideological class of vocal Atheists who pick these media pundit role models. But I don't think it's very useful to dwell on them if you're trying to combat the notion of Atheism in general.
Just like it's not useful to focus on Bolsheviks alone if you want to critique Marxist ideas.
> another thread where people trying to oppose the truth that is atheism without any logical arguments
>>1176520
can you definitively prove that a god doesn't exist with 100% certainty?
>>1176520
Does your brand of Atheism merely posit the nonexistence of anthropomorphic deities? Platonic deities? Ontological deities? What about wishy-washy, but arguably more ancient definitions of God, where God is defined as the very material procedure of nature itself, taken as an unascertainable whole?
Many Atheists get very impatient with any idea of God that isn't a ridiculous anthropomorphic spook barely disguising the political ideology underneath. Anything Spinozoan is dismissed readily as irrelevant nonsense, despite being a potential bridge for humanity from dogmatic theism to secularism.
Sincerely, not a religious person.
>>1176536
It's all probability nowadays anon, atheists have it good in the probability game
>>1176544
So you're saying that atheists CAN'T prove that a god doesn't exist?
>>1176536
Not him, but to be fair, the burden of proof is on the positive claim.
That is, due to sheer infinity of things that could be versus things that are known to be, things must, for practical purposes, be considered irrelevant until they are proven relevant.
God is one of these things. But is difficult to know where to start since humanity has neither agreed on an operational definition of God, nor even a categorical imperative for for believing. It is difficult to know where to proceed with "disproving" God if the conceptual goal posts can be moved by any person claiming belief.
>>1176463
I think it was a tribute to Camus.
It might be cringey or whatever but it's one of the better pics of Hitchens anyway, who didn't look that great even before the cancer.
>>1176549
Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes the initial claim?
>>1176548
That is agnosticism, which is not mutually exclusive to atheism
So some atheists say they can't, others say they can
>>1176562
That's really avoiding my question. If atheists can't back up their point that a god doesn't exist then
>the truth that is atheism
isn't correct
>>1176562
The person who says that they can is extremely rare, I've never met one. Atheism is just lacking belief, it's usually Christians who attack a strawmen of atheism that insists they know positively that god isn't real.
>>1176548
but you can't know anything with absolute certainty when you get down to it. like the other anon said it's about probability
>>1176442
>not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless
top kek
>>1176570
I'm definitely not giving my opinion because I just want to relay some information to you, not my opinion
>>1176556
>>1176556
Yes, and historically, the initial claim is "There are supernatural entities and you should believe on them for [insert theoretical incentive]."
The claim "God doesn't exist." is meaningless unless someone first posits the existence of a thing called a God, and properties for that thing.
>>1176548
They can do it relatively easy from contradiction in God's definitions and properties for example. Most Gods can be easily proven to be non-existent from that. Some very non-trivial one can survive that but this is only because definition is too broad. It isn't like anyone cares about such Gods anyway. Like who seriously believes in pantheism for example?
>>1176583
>Like who seriously believes in pantheism for example?
well the universe does indeed exist, so technically I believe in that God. only thing is that I think it's retarded to call the universe God and I will refuse to do so because of the baggage the word carries and the wishy washy spirituality such a thing implies
>>1176575
that's my point, i was only disputing
>the truth that is atheism
for what it's worth, i'm apatheistic, so i don't really care whether god exists or not
>>1176581
no, his claim was that atheism is a truth i.e. god doesn't exist. therefore, unless he proves his claim to be true with evidence, atheism is not a 'truth'
>>1176583
sixty-four cups sit on a table, three are fine, one contains poison. sixty-four people stand by the table, each telling you that a different cup is the poisoned one. you taste three and none of them are poisoned. can you logically conclude that none of them contain poison based on your findings?
>>1176599
sixty-three are fine**
>>1176487
hence the "I realize the one that made the picture was probably autistic"
>>1176599
>no, his claim was that atheism is a truth i.e. god doesn't exist
>i.e. i dont know what atheism means
>the whole cup thing
in your example poison doesnt exist in reality and you only suffer when you die of your own causes if you drink the wrong cup
>>1176599
>that's my point, i was only disputing
>the truth that is atheism
so you don't think someone can say they don't believe in God because you cant no nuffin? that's rather silly. since we can't know nuffin we can't even positively claim germ theory is correct or general relativity by this logic
>>1176419
Kek'd at the pantheon of le New Atheism
>>1176514
>sophistry is something to be proud of
Plato would be rolling in his grave
>>1176599
>no his claim was that atheism is a truth.
This is correct, but this can be considered a sub-argument of the larger issue that's been discussed for thousands of years.
Again, the claim that Atheism is true is meaningless unless we first have claims deities, supernatural entities, a God or Gods, etc.
The whole argument starts with Theists because ideologically-speaking, Theists brought the concept of the divine to this earth (though they would have us believe that God brought it)
In order to disbelieve in the divine, the notion of the divine must first be presented.
This can only come one of two ways:
1) Direct, inarguable experience with the divine (this is problematic for reasons that I hope are already apparent to you).
2) Someone presents you with the notion of the divine.
Most people receive number 2), with number 1) usually appearing in highly ambitious, political people, oddly enough.
So since the very notion that the definition of Atheism rests upon has its origins in the notion of the divine being presented, in order for Atheism to *prove* its negative claim (God doesn't exist) we need *at least* the following things.
1) An operational definition of what God is, that can be consistently disputed without changing mid-argument (this is difficult).
2) A measurable way to prove or disprove God. Since God is often given attributes that are unfalsifiable (he exists outside of any measurable material reality, for instance, or can only be ascertained through faith, for instance) this is even more difficult.
3) Consensus among theists as to what God is (this is the most difficult of all).
>>1176615
"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods"
>https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
that sentence alone doesn't make sense
>Atheism is not a disbelief in gods
>it is a lack of belief in gods
they're the same thing, what the actual fuck
>>1176621
no, i'm saying that atheism isn't a 'truth' because you can't definitively prove god doesn't exist
>there's only one type of atheism
>all atheists believe that removing religion from the face of the earth will bring about a utopia
>no atheist has ever or will ever believe that studying religion and religious history, while not necessarily agreeing with any of it, is important
Wait, these memes still exist? I thought those died out around 2010.
>>1176648
>no, i'm saying that atheism isn't a 'truth' because you can't definitively prove god doesn't exist
yes, it isn't truth in a logical positivist sense. but I think it is likely to be true from the evidence we have
>>1176648
>"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods"
>https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
Other categorical semantic models instead choose to distinguish between "weak Atheism" (your definition, difficult to distinguish from Agnosticism), and "strong Atheism" (the actual dogmatic disbelief in divine claims, under any circumstances).
If the latter is not Atheism, what should we call it?
>>1176648
>they're the same thing, what the actual fuck
i dont believe in a god
i belive god doesnt exist
those are 2 different statements, if you say thta you dont believe a god exists then you go around the retarded "fucking prove it then faggit " nonsense and hammer down the fact that you dont have the burden of proof. 1 is a negation of a claim and the other is a claim itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGYaR4s52v4
>>1176666
> what should we call it
Autheism, like atheism but more autistic
>>1176677
congradulations, you disproved the meme version of atheism that almost no one follows
>>1176689
you mean apart from the guys OP's image?
>>1176677
>there we have it, that was my point.
yup, you realized that we dont assert that god definitely doesnt exist
care to prove he actaully exists now?
>>1176419
these are mostly a bunch of colonialist smug motherfuckers
t. an atheist
>>1176698
but we already have a term for what you're describing, it's called agnosticism. why not just call yourself that?
>care to prove he actaully exists now?
why? i don't care if he exists or not, and it isn't provable whether he does exist, it'd be ludicrous of me to make such a bold claim
>>1176696
but they are a meme. also I've never heard Dawkins positively claim that God does not exists
>>1176714
>but we already have a term for what you're describing, it's called agnosticism.
agnosticism means you dont know, literally no one knows, its like saying youre a human when someone asks whats your name, you can know what you belive in though. you could also say that youre an agnostic atheist or agnostic whatever the fuck else but that takes up more time and no one really gives a shit unless you want to play the semantics games
>it'd be ludicrous of me to make such a bold claim
so whats the point on doing this shit if you dont even believe in god?
>>1176726
>so whats the point on doing this shit if you dont even believe in god?
I said that I don't care whether he exists, not that i don't believe in him, i just don't like seeing claims of absolute truth when it comes to god bc it's fuckin dumb
>>1176734
for god's sake we've already been over this. we in this thread aren't making a claim of absolute truth
>>1176739
>we in this thread aren't making a claim of absolute truth
but how can his strawman be true then? explain yourself gaythiest
>>1176739
but the guy i first replied to was, jesus christ i've said this already.
>>1176442
>I don't hate an entire group of people based on /pol/ memes
>I don't trust kikes
>>1176536
You can't formally prove he exists either anon. So really there is no point in believing in god if he's unprovable, just as there is no point in being 100% certain he doesn't.
>>1176744
>usury
>slave trade
>communism
>libertarianism
>hollywood
>the mossad
>the state of Israel and its war crimes
I guess truth is one giant meme after all, isn't it Daniel?
>>1176743
no he didnt you fucking idiot, he said atheism is the truth, and since we dont have dick for evidence of god that makes atheism the correct possition aka TRUTH
>>1176743
well I didn't see that comment. besides that for quite awhile you've been arguing with people who haven't made such a claim and yet you still in response one of us said we were making a claim of absolute truth
>>1176749
>communism
>libertarianism
Pick one, McMemester.
>>1176747
i never said i could you fucking muppet, read the thread
>>1176754
>thread about new atheism
>new atheism actively disputes religion
>"hey wait atheism can't prove god doesn't exist"
>"hurr durr you're a fucking retard atheism is the truth"
fuck off
>>1176755
I tried to make it clear that i've only been arguing with that guys point when responding, but it mustn't have been clear. that's why i tried to stop when i made >>1176677
that post. my bad, I guess we're done here then
>>1176749
Only two of those are surely bad, I think two more are subjective, and the rest are alright. What kinda bullshit list of "bad" stuff is this?
>>1176442
>I am not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless
>>1176764
>new atheism actively disputes religion
>"hey wait atheism can't prove god doesn't exist"
>"hurr durr you're a fucking retard atheism is the truth"
so it cant despute religion inless it claims that it knows that god definitely doesnt exist?
>>1176645
it's not sophistry, it's logically reasoned arguments.
unless you mean maher. Maher is a joke
>>1176725
None of them do, not even Ben Stiller or Hitchens.
>>1176419
>Maher
A less funny version of George Carlin.
>Krauss
Probably smarter than he makes himself look.
>Hitchens
He's a good speaker, but that's pretty much it.
>Harris
Thinks that everyone on the planet wants to debate him & gets upset when they don't. Has an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.
>Dennett
Same thing with Krauss.
>Dawkins
Pretty good evolutionary biologist. His problem came when he stepped a single foot into the shallowest region of philosophy and proceeded to declare the entire field bunk.
>>1176859
>logically reasoned arguments
Top kek, you actually believe this don't you? Is that why he got shit on by William Lane Craig?
>>1177136
>William Lane Craig
>muh Kalam
>muh causality
Jesus, are you still in high school or something?
>>1176419
More like neo-cons.
>>1176419
Question
Why do a tv show host, a physicist, a journalist, a neuroscientist,a cognitive scientist and an evolutionary biologist think that they're in any way qualified to talk about religious philosophy
>>1177649
Because they all fucked yer mom and that makes you both reconsider your life choices and puke so hard you start praying for it to stop.
>>1176419
replacing religion with nationalism, selfishness etc etc sucks even more.
>>1176581
>Yes, and historically, the initial claim is "There are supernatural entities and you should believe on them for [insert theoretical incentive]."
Historically, it's not even a claim. It is self-evident.
>>1177649
Because God pales in comparison to the power of money
>>1176419
>been atheist most my life
>my mom and granma raised me catholic, the east euro kind where guilt is just a word, my dad didnt realy go to church, doesnt realy believe
>mom was(still is technicaly, if in pension) a biologist, never any problem there
>god was never a vulgar thing to us, the way americans make it out to be, creation never mentioned, realy it was all about personal relation an things like sin and saints
>regardless, by the time i was 11 the whole story made no sense, i just sort of took it as a joke
>so since i was about 12 im technicaly completely atheist
>no problem
>about the time i get into college the god delusion comes out
>well hello captain obvious - pay it no mind
>the whole creationism vs evolution fight happens
>more newatheist crap comes out, more and more obnoxious, more and more antireligious
>start being about crap like ''religion is the source of all evil and the cause of 99.99% of all wars evar''
>harris comes out with his ''objective morality'' bullshit
>wtf are they even on about
>suddenly evolution is the basis for atheism
>as in life experience and knowledge of reality arent enough, you need science to back it up
>as in if we lived some few hundred years ago surely they would all believe in god cause muh proofs
>all the sudden from being just a generaly accepted wiev of things it becomes this stance that you back up with like science and shit
>all the sudden muh proofs this muh proofs that
>shit we learned about in grade school argued about like were in some fucking islamic state
>all the ''horsemen' becoming more and more daft as they fight one retarded creacionist after another autist id-ot
somewhere around 2011 i started being ashamed to tell people im atheist
in my country atheism used to be just a standard thing
mostly based mine on a fucking sense of humor and some sane logic, my mom was a catholic biologist for fuck sake, and she read sartre and everithing
shit like that is why people dont like newatheists
>>1177649
why can they not?
>>1176419
The only thing they are right about are being wrong.
>>1176432
Friendly reminder that BCE and CE are Jewish terms and if you use them, you're a good goy.
>>1177160
>he thinks causality is bunk
what made you think that?
>>1177792
Nice evidence to back up your statement that you got there
>>1176419
'New Atheism' is what old atheism would be if it was designed to be fed to morons in the form of memes that get repeated ad nauseum in non-scholarly arguments. 'The God Delusion' is an example of this; the book is just a big fat pile of New Atheist memes that fedora'd neckbeards spam on message boards because they're too lazy to read real philosophy yet still want to feel smart.
>>1177899
Not him, but Hume.
>>1177900
Does subjective experience count?
>>1177960
Anecdotal, but share anyway
Fuck off and read the bible, dumb atheist scum.
>>1177136
>he got shit on by William Lane Craig?
You must be the first person to think that ever.
>>1177970
God spoke to me. I have a very close relationship with Jesus. I saw cancer being vomited out. also, theres a vid of a guy breaking his neck twice, demonic possession, ill show it to you all when i get home in minutes.
>>1177970
Speaking hypothetically.
>>1178008
> bible
> badly collected set of semitic folklore
> even being relevant in modern theology
>>1178152
>modern theology
>being more relevant than iron age semetic folklore
>>1176419
Sam Harris can be a bit of an arse.
I like Dawkins, and Maher is funny.
>>1176419
They're mostly arrogant cretins about something that most sensible people just quietly accept and move on with their lives.
To be fair, they have fairly good reasons for being arrogant and obnoxious, but that doesn't make them not assholes.
>>1176859
>logically reasoned arguments
All of his arguments are "person in history did something bad, therefore God cannot possibly exist" and also a general series of historical half truths that are twisted around always to make religion the bad guy (i.e WWI was a war of religion is something he unironically thought)
>>1178220
You don't need to be a nice person to be right and religion isn't only accepted by sensible people... If you think about it crazy people wouldn't read book from them anyway so their critic kind of addressed not to where it should be.
>>1177649
Dawkins mostly got triggered by creationism still existing, and also thinks intelligent design is nonsense, and wrote his one book on the topic after writing several books about the claims related to evolution and biology.
>>1178236
> person in history did something bad, therefore God cannot possibly exist
It is logical if mean only perfectly benevolent God here. Of course divine can simply be a neutral or insane or whatever like Azathoth from Cthulhu so it isn't a decisive argument for all possible cases.
>>1178260
>It is logical if mean only perfectly benevolent God here
It still isn't logical
Problem of evil is a meme
>>1178257
> intelligent design is nonsense,
It certainly is. There are many example of barely functioning living organism so even if design can somehow be here, intelligent would be oversold.
>>1177745
Because they're on the same level of qualification as the faggot drunk at your local bar that shits has pants after blacking out every night
>>1178268
It is only a meme if you deny good and evil as real and even in that case good God doesn't exist. For all other scenarios contradictions would be here if you ignore meme cop outs like freedom of the will.
>>1178257
How is intelligent design not nonsense? It's essentially "I MEAN, LIKE, THERE'S SERIOUSLY LIKE LITTLE TO NO CHANCE THIS COULD HAPPEN, SO SOMEONE HAD TO MAKE IT HAPPEN BECAUSE I PERSONALLY HAVE NO CLUE HOW THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED" the belief
>>1178152
I baited this thread, i was the guy there, anyway , i have a friend who keeps insisting the bible is evidence and that if i dont decorate the bible im an ignorant fuck who CANNOT argue with him on religion. Fuck him.
>>1178288
But somehow priests are really qualified to make a serious statements about evolution theory or such?
>>1178294
If intelligent design is nonsense why bananas are perfectly shaped for human to be the human food?
>>1178308
>>1178308
Thanks Cumfart
>>1178321
th-thanks god
>>1178239
I did say they had good reasons for their assholish tendencies, did I not? Fuck man, I even genuinely like Hitchens endless put downs of religious people, but that doesn't make him not an asshole.
>>1176419
>how do they differ from old/classical atheists?
They don't. The term "new atheists" describes a group of people who showed up recently and gained a relatively big fanbase by being publicly angry at religion.
>>1178257
I think the backlash to Dawkins' book was sort of missing the point. It wasn't supposed to be a sophisticated philosophical treatise. It was just one guy's common sense reasons for being an atheist and responding to some common objections an atheist might hear in their day to day. Cosmological, morality, etc.
>>1178296
Just tell him that he is begging the question, which he is, and thus doesn't have an argument
>>1177685
Then why did everyone disagree on the details, from the get-go?
And why is the one unobservable phenomena "self evident" in your eyes?
The closest I've come to a justifiable argument for this is (I believe) Cicero's quote "Nature herself has imprinted upon all minds the idea of God."
but I believe a more correct version of this quote would be "Evolution has resulted in creatures who look deep into the past for an ultimate cause."
>>1176419
Why the fuck is Bill Maher in that picture? I mean I like him. Or I used to anyway when he was better. But he's a comedian
>>1178397
How is he different in qualifications from Hitchens?
>>1178302
Did I say they were?
There are plenty of priest with various levels of education in scientific matters though and you know it
A priest with a PhD in evolutionary biology? Sure
One without it? No
>>1178291
>cop outs
Exactly why it's a meme
People like you just aren't worth talking to because anything that disagrees with you is just a "cop out"
There's literally no such thing as an actual "problem of evil" and it has nothing to do with whether or not evil exists
>>1178399
Not him, and he isn't, but Maher is shit qualitatively, while Hitches (although also shit) can at least show some semblance of rationality behind his rhetoric. Maher is literally just "lol religion" and nothing else
>>1176555
Yeah but he was pushing 60 by then. Hitchens looked pretty good for 60 considering his lifestyle
>>1176706
>colonialist
Go to bed Noam
>>1176442
>I am not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless
Funniest post I've seen all week desu
>>1178412
> anything that disagrees with you is just a "cop out"
Not anything. Just excuses like free will. We didn't even know if our will is truly free or not. So it is like trying to base one weak assumption on another as weak as previous. Do you have an argument about how evil can exist, but God can be perfectly good? I never heard one that would be conceiving. To call this a problem is a joke because here exist direct, simple contradiction and ways known around it as you can deny benevolence of God or categories of the good and bad. I don't ever care what path here is right or you chosen by you because I genuinely more interested in logic behind it than in solutions or whatever side on theism and moral is right one.
>>1178485
>nothing of substance said
>""I don't like that answer therefore it's logically incoherent"
Take your fee fees somewhere else
>>1178412
>problem of evil
It depends on what you expect God to be ok with I guess.
>I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." -Charles Darwin
>>1178509
> Take your fee fees somewhere else
Maybe you should bring logic in the conversation instead? My basis of reasoning is clear. Free will is an even harder problem and bigger meme than problem of evil. You can't choose the speculation that fits your agenda as your answer and call it a day. I know this is a hard line of reasoning for all this religious people who do that their entire lives as it is already based around tons of speculation.
>>1178294
>nature spontaneously self-organizes
>the cascade of physical action and reactions that eventually culminated in life happened "randomly", ie acausally (lol)
>universe literally "programmed" to produce life where conditions are right, apparently positing an intelligence or theology responsible for this is too much for autists to handle
>>1178549
teleology*
>>1178549
>It's impossible for things to spontaneously self-organize, but God doesn't need a causal explanation, and spontaneously self-organized.
>God existed by himself forever, with the innate capacity to create an entire universe, but is not complex enough to require his own explanation, or context of existence.
> God, who cannot be measured or observed, from a realm that cannot be measured or observed, created the universe through means we cannot understand or explain.
Why does your explanation make more sense, again?
Reminder that "intelligent design" is not the teleological argument for the existence of God
Dr. Kenneth Miller (devout Roman Catholic) has show more than once that it's literally just repackaged creation science (think Kent Hovind), but with the word 'creator' being replace all'ed in Microsoft word to 'designer'
>>1176419
>Baruch Maher
>clearly Jewish man whose name I don't know
>Jewstopher Jewtchins
>Shmuel Harris
>bearded Jew
>Richard Dawkins née Ryszárd Laszlo Dawkinstein (Hungarian Jew)
>>1178568
>spontaneously self-organized.
This is where your argument fell apart
At the strawman
No theologian from deists to Muslims has ever claimed that God (as per the classical theistic tradition) came into being
>>1178549
>universe literally "programmed" to produce life
>universe literally has the potential to produce life
>>1178568
>the being/reality/principle responsible for causality needs a causal explanation
>what is divine simplicity
>le we cant measure it so it doesn't exist ebin maymay
This isn't facebook. Your arguments are meme-tier
>>1178575
*theologian or philosopher
>>1178509
> I don't like that answer
If you think about it, free will isn't even a good line of defence in court. Imagine if you created weapon of mass destruction and give it to a robot that can freely choose to kill humans with it or let us live. If it decides to kill everyone, you would definitely be some sort of villain here. The trick of shifting all of the responsibility to whoever directly in the end of causation chain is a very weak one.
>>1178573
But in seriousness, of the 6 men in OPs pic 3 are genuine Jews and one, Christopher Hitchens, has confirmed recent Jewish ancestry.
>>1178575
Right. So your perfect explanation for everything always existed and requires no causal explanation. Infalsifiable, untestable, essentially-meaningless claims, that can only be used to further a social agenda (not only does my being exist, but he thinks all the ways I do about people!)
Nonetheless, why does your being spontaneously decide to make stuff after an eternity of just... doing nothing... even though he was always capable of doing it but just hadn't gotten around to it... and leaves no evidence of his existence outside of mutually-exclusive cultural documents and philosophical claims laden with human bias.
>>1178549
> happened "randomly",
It happened chaotically and chaos is a form of the causation that even studied with a non-stochastic methods in mathematics.
>>1178605
>begging the question multiple times
>doesn't know what timelessness is
We're done here
>>1178605
Your conception of God is childish. You're attempting a reductio ad absurdum by trying to make us scoff at the image of a God waiting around for some span before he CREATED time. And muh evidence. Existence is the evidence you dip.
>>1178605
> even though he was always capable of doing
This is an easy one. Before there was anything there was no time and therefore no "always" for being always capable.
>>1178609
Yeah, so thanks for confirming evolution as a phenomenon is as causal as anything else.
God isn't a watchmaker, he's the one who built the factory that eventually, sooner or later. creates the watch by itself
>>1178613
> Existence is the evidence
Existence isn't the evidence of existence. It would be a circular logic if it is.
>>1178600
Nice false equivalence
But no it's nothing like that
>>1178613
not that anon, but why do we need a cause for time? it doesn't even logically make sense. causality is a property of time. without time you can't have causality
>>1178618
>he's the one who built the factory that eventually, sooner or later. creates the watch by itself
So really just the demiurge or a deist God?
>>1178276
The day I learned that there were organisms like Geobacter that relied on the awful energy output that is reverse (relative to us) electron flow, it blew my mind. These things barely grow. They fucking REDUCE NADH (or NADPH I can't remember).
What the fuck, God? Why would you do this to an organism?
What is the justification for the idea that God has a mind, intelligence, and/or an ability to act with intent?
I love how when backed into a corner many theists will attempt to define god in some extraordinarily vague, abstract terms that would imply an entity we can't possibly understand, but the second you give them even a moment of leeway, they'll go straight back to "oh and he said you should do exactly x, but never y and z, because the first is what gets his dick hard and the other two kill his boner."
Standard motte and bailey argument.
>>1178618
The problem here is that God doesn't need to use such round about ways if he really all-powerful as he can just make watch. You ends up with some relatively weak God who need to create factories.
>>1178583
I'm sorry, I'm not the one saying "ebin" "le" and "maymay."
Look. What useful statements can we make about a being we can't measure? Only by making even more unverifiable assumptions can we begin to make statements about the being's properties, and those statements usually end up being suspiciously political and cultural, and used to justify all sorts of nonsense.
Divine simplicity basically posits that God is a self-aware void. God mentally processing things should require energy. If there is no energy consumed, then the intelligence cannot process. By placing God outside of material phenomenon, the Theists are just moving the goalposts to an inaccessible place.
They start with the conclusion, and rewrite the rules over and over to support the conclusion. This is highly suspect.
Moreover, please, tell me, how can a being be the *cause* of *causality* if a cause cannot exist before causality does?
You are simply proposing an intelligent entity we can make no verifiable claims about, and then all claims that are made put him in an inaccessible place, and other shitlords claim to know what the entity thinks so that they can feel justified in telling people what to do.
It is a circular trap. It's why you fucks will never shut up.
God, as people conceptually wield him, is like a desired object that a tall bully holds out of the reach of a small child. The child wants to look at the object an examine it, but the bully holds it, and won't let the child have it.
Here, the bully's arm extends all the way to the edge of the universe, a conclusion is assumed, and then when it is challenged, it is assigned unverifiable, unmeasurable properties. This is repeatedly claimed to not be a problem, but the actual point.
It is cultural insanity on autopilot. It saddens me to no end.
>>1178610
I do know what timelessness is.
It's something you have to believe in.
You start with belief, and then dance around to keep it.
I start with nothing, and ask why I should adopt your assumptions.
Of course you're done, here.
>>1178638
this. our entire concept of a mind requires time. how can a mind think if it is outside time, perfect and unchanging?
>>1176514
>greatest debaters of all time
kek, that's a good one
>>1178621
> It's nothing like that
It is exactly like that. Most of arguments trying to pretend that first cause™ isn't responsible for the some results of its actions because people in the end of causal chain can decide one choice out of infinities that should be attributed to will of a God.
God isn't real, you can't just sell all this shit like the Bible, then have it all be completely disproved and still pretend like I have a reason to believe that God exists. Fuck agnostics
>>1178655
> what is timeless decision theory
The real problem is that mind requires a worlds to be around it. The only solution here is to say that God is from future. He created world retroactively after somehow ascending to true power of divinity or shit like that. Another alternative is to say that God is an insane or created universe by chance.
>>1178613
I am working within the framework offered.
I don't have a conception of God, because unlike shitlords, I don't start by assuming.
Theists not only have a conception of God, but they have many, that get more and more specific the closer you get to their cultural dogma.
But really the cultural dogma came first, and they conceived of God as an inexhaustible argument to justify themselves. This is why there are so many dogmas. So many Gods.
The framework offered to me is one that starts with an assumption, and then plays semantically with the asymptotic edges of reality, to justify itself to no apparent purpose (until one sees dogma).
Existence is the evidence? Why? Because God created it?
But God had to have EXISTED to create EXISTENCE.
You need the result in order to have the thing you want. God needs to exist, before he can create existence, but if he exists, then existence already existed.
It is the same as with causality.
Why. Should. I. Start. By. Assuming.
The more specific theists get in defining God, the more and more God resembles nothingness itself. Interesting, only then, they distinguish God from nothingness by tacking on a personality that happens to agree with their idelogy.
It is a parlor trick. You are dressing up the void as You, and then demanding I bow to You, your culture, your ways, your dogma.
God is the start, the end goal is submission. There is no need for the concept other than roping in people to dogma.
>>1178650
Good post.
>>1178664
>then have it all be completely disproved
It hasn't
>>1178676
> Because God created it?
The one of the most logic theories here is that an existence as a whole is the God. It holds most of the divine attributes of all things that are proven to exist. People just too afraid to sign under notions of that as they use religion as their escapist tool.
>>1178650
>our reality doesn't apply to what is responsible for reality ergo it can't be true
I can understand disliking theists for ascribing a personality to the Absolute, but beyond that you're just flailing at the fact you can't grok transcendence
>>1178676
The Godhead is the Living Void (void because that's the only way I can describe the very metaphysically freaky sensation of trying to ponder how there even is Something instead of Nothing, living because despite the impossibility of wrapping my mind around it, there's still existence, and not just existence, but an intelligible and at times comfortable one).
Personal God is just the pinnacle of being, the summit of manifestation. the hypostasization of the nameless Tao/the Absolute into the Manifest.
Personal God, because he is the source of being, is a false marker. the true God is the Ineffable beyond him. The categories of existence, non-existence, being, Nonbeing, they just don't apply to the Absolute. This isn't moving the goalposts but a very wise decision to just let the Mystery be the Mystery, unless you know how Something came out of Nothing and can intuitively explain it
Both atheists and theists are generally too fuxking ignorant about reality to know what they're talking about
>>1178702
> transcendence
If doesn't work very good with absolute. It doesn't matter if God transcend our reality because to be really absolute he need transcend his own meta-reality too and so on. Of course he can't logically transcend every reality while existing somewhere anyway.
>>1178700
>existence as a whole is the God
so pantheism, or in other words atheism but calling the universe God to sound spiritual
>>1178662
>It is exactly like that
It is not like that
>>1178731
No, it's not atheism. Pantheism carries a major implication that's distinct from atheism. If the universe and everything within it is God, that means we're all part of something greater than us. This has serious implications in our moral reasoning.
>>1178702
> The categories of existence, non-existence, being, Nonbeing, they just don't apply to the Absolute.
This is some Lionel Suggs-tier of stacking words upon a words to sound metaphysically important.
>>1178741
>If the universe and everything within it is God, that means we're all part of something greater than us. This has serious implications in our moral reasoning
how? I don't call the universe God but I do think I am part of something greater than myself. I am a part of the universe, which is indeed greater than me. how does morality come into this? there are no moral absolutes that you can derive from the universe
>>1178757
Marcus Aurelius said it well, I implore you to read Meditations. But the gist is that if we're all part of the same divinity, we're all just components of a greater organism, and so acting against one another would be much like parts of your own body acting against itself. So the natural conclusion is that it's our duty to cooperate with each other towards the greater functioning of this organism, much as upper teeth cooperate with lower teeth.
>>1178770
uh except that almost all the organisms on earth require conflict with other organisms in order to live. especially animals. even if you avoid eating animals you are still eating plants, which are a part of your "greater organism". do they have less right to live just because they aren't conscious?
>>1178742
>doesnt know about the Absolute even as a concept
Come on man
>>1178785
The idea here would be that they're serving their functions as part of this greater organism in so doing. Remember, this isn't atheism, there are actual spiritual beliefs present here. In Stoicism for instance, it was believed that rational organisms (considered to be man) ruled over the lesser organism, as the gods ruled over man.
Of course Aethiest. I think you're full of nonsense. There is no magic man. Stop being so stupid.
>>1178795
all you are doing is placing buzzwords on top of what we already do. and why does this "greater organism" even need to help other parts of itself? My body needs to cooperate in order to survive as a whole. the universe will survive no matter how much I respect other organisms. even if all life dies out the universe will still be 99% unchanged as non-living matter. have you even considered that your "greater organism" is mostly comprised of non-living things and therefore not organisms at all?
>>1178702
>both theists and atheists
It's the theists who are ascribing all those ridiculous qualities to the Absolute. Atheism is just a response to what the theists claim.
>>1176676
i don't get it
Sam Harris triggers people because they know he's right.
>>1178232
if communism is bad, wouldn't libertarianism be good?
>>1178257
Not just that.
he was triggered by 9/11 and Islamic terrorism.
Dawkins is just triggered by religion existing and being used to justify terrorism and socially unacceptable things.
>>1178294
It's worse than nonsense.
It's well-funded nonsense.
>>1178825
Which is why life must exist to make the universe good to itself you nit. Autism alert
>>1178925
>to make the universe good to itself
what the hell were you even trying to say? that the universe needs agency in order to be altruistic towards itself? Is this the goal of your "greater organism"? why should this be the goal?
>>1178945
a self-perfecting, self-actualizing system
>>1176419
>lumping Bill Maher with intellectuals
>>1178956
but how do you define what is more perfect? and ultimately the universe is an absolute failure at producing life. life is such a small percentage of matter in the universe and eventually stars will run out of hydrogen to use as fuel and/or become too spread out for hydrogen to compress back into stars. without stars producing energy life cannot exist
>>1178921
What's worse is that American politicians are fighting tooth and nail to have it taught in public school science classes. In my state this shit actually happened. Thanks a lot, Jindal.
>>1178995
This is hardly happening anymore
>>1178974
>implying you have a metric for what would a constitute "successful" at producing life
>implying the universe isn't staggeringly young on even the most conservative cosmological time scales
>implying the universe isn't a self-configuring system that by virtue of fundamentally being perceptually stable medium that underlies all phenomena defined as 'real' it possesses a syntax and by extension there is exists a theoretical absolute knowledge of that syntax ie reality
ayyy lmao
>>1179010
>implying you have a metric for what would a constitute "successful" at producing life
I do though. Life is a small percentage of everything the universe produces and much of the universe is seemingly made to be hostile to life. the universe only appears made for life on this small rock that has been shaped for billions of years by single celled organisms to a point that it was hospitable to more complex life forms. and why do you assume that of all the things the universe makes that it was made for life? it seems moreso to be made for producing stars, black holes, neutron stars, even just helium. everything you've said is nothing but baseless assertions
>>1178650
Actually they reach God as a conclusion of Aristotelian metaphysics.
doing a thesis on epistemic claims made by new atheists. what would be a fair way to characterize new atheists and their claims.
>>1179032
>hostility to life =/= not designed for life
>implying hostility to life isn't the motor for exactly the kind of self-perfecting system I'm talking about
>evolutionary time scales are long =/= not designed for evolution
>le ebin neutron stars ebin astronomy maymay
Just stop.
>>1179053
>implying hostility to life isn't the motor for exactly the kind of self-perfecting system I'm talking about
black holes sure as hell aren't powering the formation of life. you haven't even defined what the system is perfecting, I can only assume it has to do with life. not to mention that the universe is destined to fail at self-perfecting by producing more and more complex life. as I have mentioned hydrogen is a limited resource that stars are gradually gobbling up. over time less and less massive stars capable of supernova, which is a big driver of compressing hydrogen clouds for star formation, are forming, meaning that eventually there will be no stars to produce the energy needed to fuel the production of life forms. from dust to dust. your self-perfecting system fails
>>1176419
Pretty much all of those guys are cunts. Smart guys, but cunts nonetheless.
>>1179072
life. first there was One, now there was Many, so that the many might become perfect through One, without sacrificing their individuality
>>1179084
ok, garbled nonsense with a cultish tinge that hardly addresses anything I posted. I think we're done here
>>1179108
>This Universe is good not when the individual is a stone, but when everyone throws in his own voice towards a total harmony, singing out a life- thin, harsh, imperfect, though it be. The Syrinx does not utter merely one pure note; there is a thin obscure sound which blends in to make the harmony of Syrinx music: the harmony is made up from tones of various grades, all the tones differing, but the resultant of all forming one sound.
>Similarly the Reason-Principle entire is One, but it is broken into unequal parts: hence the difference of place found in the Universe, better spots and worse; and hence the inequality of Souls, finding their appropriate surroundings amid this local inequality. The diverse places of this sphere, the Souls of unequal grade and unlike conduct, are wen exemplified by the distinction of parts in the Syrinx or any other instrument: there is local difference, but from every position every string gives forth its own tone, the sound appropriate, at once, to its particular place and to the entire plan.
>>1178995
The money's there since the late 70s. jindal's probably the latest in a series of senators trying to fuck shit up.
>>1178733
Do you have anything other than your emotional hang-up for an argument?
>>1178999
>This is hardly happening anymore
Where do you delusional retards come from? How do you think we've come to the point where half of amerilards believe in creationism?
>>1176514
>Widely acknowledged as one of the greatest debaters of all time
HOW DARE YOU
>>1178386
>Then why did everyone disagree on the details, from the get-go?
They could hardly disagree on the details from the get go, if they didn't agree on the basic fact?
Surely if, as you claim, historically the existence of god or gods is the first claim, there must have been a point at which everyone agreed on the nature of god, because the claim had just been posited.
>but I believe a more correct version of this quote would be "Evolution has resulted in creatures who look deep into the past for an ultimate cause."
And for this, I'm sure you have a proof.
>>1178624
>not that anon, but why do we need a cause for time? it doesn't even logically make sense
Because time is a property of the universe, inextricably linked to space.
>>1178638
If God is the beginning of all causal chains, then his actions cannot emerge from any outside causal pressure. What could force God to create the universe? If nothing could, it would have to be of his own will, I.E. his ability to act with intent.
>>1179045
"Any philosophical inquiry that suggests anything other than modern Britain is the pinnacle of the universe is prima facie absurd."
>>1176549
>burden of proof
Spooks. Which king dictated this law, and who died and made him king?
>>1176419
New Atheist implies additional views to simply not believing in a deity. It's pretty vague but generally includes views like thinking religion is a net ill on society, a duty to publicly challenge religion, etc.
>>1179920
It's not actually a law, it's just good argumentative practice. Anyone that tries to claim it as a logical rule is misusing it.
Modern Atheists lack a belief in a deity because they believe in the standard-model, and a deity isn't a necessity of the standard-model. Classical Atheists just lacked the belief.
>>1176462
I count prominence in at least
comedy
physics
journalism
biology
>and all six are very prominent in butt hurting christfags
>>1178549
>I don't like or don't understand something
>therefore it's false
>>1179044
>mfw people still take Aristotelian metaphysics seriously
>>1179903
Your post does not answer the question asked. Provide a mechanism for how God could possibly actualize his intent, indeed even have it, without time and space as a medium?
>>1180086
>Your post does not answer the question asked.
Yes it does. The question is why does time need a cause. I provided one.
>Provide a mechanism for how God could possibly actualize his intent, indeed even have it, without time and space as a medium?
You're asking for a pre-existing cause God would be dependent on to actualize his will?
>>1180090
And what is any of this based on? It sure can't be observations, since this apparently takes place outside of reality. Is it some axioms you made up? Where are you getting any of this from?
Also, you do know that thought systems like Aristotle's are still systems dreamt up by humans and therefore always potentially fallible, right? That it has Aristotle's signature on it doesn't make it some flawless piece of knowledge that cannot be contested by default
>>1180121
>And what is any of this based on? It sure can't be observations, since this apparently takes place outside of reality. Is it some axiom
You got some absolute source of knowledge you'd like to share, here?
>>1177742
Are you Czech by any chance?
Also the reason why atheists seem so poisonous in the US is because they are acting against the much more fundamentalist Christianity there (mainly Baptist and Evangelical) were you have things like Creationism and biblical literalism.
It's not like modern European Catholicism.
>>1176514
>one of the greatest debaters of all time
He was a demagogue. Witty and full of himself enough to just about convince an impressionable audience that he was right and not just a blustering exhibitionist.
By the way 4chan is an 18+ site, maybe you got lost on the way to reddit?
>>1180126
No, but then again I don't make bold claims about the personal thoughs of an entity that willed the universe into existence, all of which you wildly assume out of thin air
>>1176419
>Do new atheists exist?
Atheists are few and rare, and are just misinformed people, most people claiming to be atheist lie.
Case in point:
>see evidence of the existence of God
>start trying out religions, shit goes bad for me
>Try the bible by the book, shit goes even worse for me
>I even was locked up in an insane asylum one day while playing vidya at home without doing fucking anything to anybody, they even claimed a number as a reason to lock me up (this is illegal, you have to actually explain what did I do), then I actually looked for the number code and yes, it was inexistant.
>then I fucked up royally, I even went full violence against people.
>of course I was instantly locked up, wanna know what happened the moment I prayed to God that I never knew His law and I wanted Him to send me His people to know it and His Christ?
>Instant release from the nuthouse
>apparently when people behave violently you just release them instantly, but if they are peacefully playing vidya at home and shit like that, you lock them up for a month or so.
This is how "atheist" they are. And how "christian" jesusbois are.
>>1180165
>>I even was locked up in an insane asylum
And reading your post gives me the impression that letting you out was a horrible idea
>>1180165
seems like you're insane my dude, that "evidence" was probably just psychosis
>>1176433
Sam Harris isn't a logical positivist. His views on morality are directly opposed to positivist ontology and epistemology.
Not everyone that opposes relativism is a positivist.
>>1176506
>BTFO'd on this view on morality
Only in the minds of people that proudly knock down strawmen. I've never seen a satisfying refutation of Harris' claims that weren't already addressed in Harris' book itself.
>>1180090
>You're asking for a pre-existing cause God would be dependent on to actualize his will?
I'm asking for a method that allows him to. I'm not ascribing any causality to it, if anything I'm asking how it's even possible action can exist without causality (i.e. time and space).
>>1180152
>He was a demagogue.
An entertaining demagogue who was correct on pretty much everything. I've just recently come across some 20+ years old footage of him talking about the Clintons, it's uncanny how much of what he said is still true and vindicated by current events. He saw through Hillary like she was glass.
>>1176536
>100% certainty
Technically, I'm an agnostic atheist, since I don't claim 'there isn't a god', but simply 'God is unknowable and personally I don't think there is a god or gods, but I can't proof a negative.'
But still I think the claims 'there isn't a god' and 'there is a god' aren't equally dogmatic or lacking of proof.
The whole 'lol can't proof there is no god hypocrit' shtick is just moving the goalposts. Even if you ignore the burden of proof question, almost all religious doctrines make way more truth claims than just the mere existence of some intangible supernatural force. The suppposed existence of god is connected to an entire cosmology and history which are based on falisifiable claims. Claims about the origin of humans and the age of the planet for example.
>>1180207
SAM HARRIS, THE MORAL LANDSCAPE, AND SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
A Critique of the Moral Optimism of Sam Harris. Polemical Comments.
Neuroscience and Morality.
Can science determine moral values? A reply to Sam Harris
all these are journal articles that are worth reading if you have access to them. not a definitive shut down by any means but should give you an idea.
>>1180247
Another anon here. The people on this board, at least, are fundamentally incapable of opposing anything Harris said without strawmanning. Linking to articles and book is retarded, am I supposed to reply to you by just reciting parts of the articles and refuting them one by one?
If you think there's some gaping flaw in his reasoning, you're free to bring them up.
>>1180247
I'll try to find them, maybe I've already read some of them. Do you have author names?
>>1176506
Sam Harris failed his way right into marrying a complete fox
>>1180247
I see I already have the last one you mentioned. It's been a while since I've read it, but based on a quick look at my markings I wasn't impressed.
>>1180255
I'm not going to bother re-hashing points. I don't care that much. I was just linking to other peoples discussion of this.
>am I supposed to reply to you by just reciting parts of the articles and refuting them one by one
that's generally how debate works so feel free to do it if it means that much to you.
>>1180257
Brian Vroman
Szocik, Konrad
Gert, Bernard
Carel, Havi
receptively.
>>1180267
>I'm not going to bother re-hashing points. I don't care that much. I was just linking to other peoples discussion of this.
Cool.
>that's generally how debate works so feel free to do it if it means that much to you.
The point is you're bringing it up in a format that is the opposite of a debate. I'm glad the other anon is interested enough to look these up, but I'm more interested in how an anon can make these points instead of throwing around copypasta.
>>1180267
Not that guy but that is obviously not how a debate works. There is nothing wrong with providing reading material like you have but it certainly isn't real discourse.
>>1180247
I also read the firt one by Brian Vroman. That one truly is cringeworthy with the fictional dialogue format. It also is strawmen central and treating certain axioma's a self evidently true while accusing Harris of doing that.
>>1180281
lol, I'm reading it now, and I totally agree about the cringey dialogue.
What is sam harris' point about morality anyway? it seems like nobody is escaping from this "strawman" fallacy.
>>1180289
It hinges on how we define the word "morality". Once you admit that it is about conscious well-being, basically the rest of his book is ironclad.
>>1180303
what are the reasons for admitting that it's for conscious well-being?
>>1180289
He posits it can be objectively measured by comparing human experiences.
Because he rejects many other cultures as objectively immoral, he is rejected by many other liberals and often maligned as a racist or "islamophobe" by progressive media such as TYT.
Which would of course ignore the facts that muslims are not of uniform race and he has also written a book entirely about Christianity.
https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww
>>1180318
What are the reasons for accepting any definition?
Its use in discourse.
>>1180318
being happy feels good and pain feels bad. That's pretty much it. Harris is a neuroscientist so his theory very much fixated on how to induce chemical happiness in sustainable and logical ways, like, not fucking your son's butt, for example.
>>1180267
Thanks for references.
I have 'Can science determine moral values? A reply to Sam Harris' on my computer as authored by Whitley Kaufman (Neuroethics (2012) 5:55–65).
Are you mistaken or did another author write a piece with the same title?
I just found the one by Konrad Szocik, which I haven't read before.
The one by Gert I can't access right now. Might try later.
>>1180351
>How did he cross hume's gap?
It's not using science to cross the gap, it's using science (broadly) as a tool for determining action once that gap has been crossed.
>>1180289
As it appears to me: It argues against two common views on morality. First, moral relativism, popular to varying degrees within the left, which views morality as inherently subjective, determined by culture etc., and on which no factual claims can be made. Second, non-scientific objective morality (I can't remember how Harris calls it, these are my words). Traditionalists and many religious ideas do assert that good and evil can be determined, but base moral viewpoints on something outside of humans: God(s) or 'natural law'. This avoids the potential nihilism of moral relativism, but creates the trap of dogmatism.
The axioma Harris posits is: moral claims actually are about how actions (or lack thereof) influence well-being of conscious creatures, even if people say otherwise, implicit claims about human well-being are smuggled in. (The Christian fundie will say: "Homosexuality is inherently evil because it goes against the nuclear family as ordained by God, how Gay's feel (well being) is irrelevant." But ofcourse, there is the threat of eternal hellfire and suffering which icentivises parents, for example, to 'cure' their children from homosexuality, in order to save their souls from eternal suffering.)
As people, including Harris himself, has noted, this resembles consequentialism. But it doesn't completely fit traditional consequentialism, which has the tendency to equate wellbeing with amount of people surviving a specific moral dilema, ignoring human psychology which, for better or worse, tends to prioritize family and friends over strangers.
Based on the axioma of 'moral claims are about human well-being' he posits that morality falls within the range of science, since science provides us with insights about how our experience works, and how to achieve those experiences. It's important to realize that harris eplicitly defines 'science' in a very broad way, as just having respect for reason and evidence, and not just formal science.
>>1180318
What else is there? Well-being is everything, every positive experience falls under well-being, and moral claims that appear to not address well-being implicitly smuggle it in anyway.
It's true that Harris just asserts this axioma, but as he claims, you have to accept the value of logic and evidence as axioma's before valuing scientific methods (and law, and journalism, and all other human activities aimed at truth finding). A logical argument in favor of logic presupposes the value of logic. Providing evidence to support the value of evidence presupposes that same value.
This is why Harris isn't a logical positivist. He doesn't claim there is a clear distinction between facts and values. Certain values are needed before something can even be described as factual. This almost sounds as post-modernism or at least constructivism, but it draws very different conclusions. Not, there is no truth, everything is subjective and contains 'hidden values', but, there is no absolute truth, values are unavoidable in every endeavor, but we can still make a hierarchy of ideas based on what is more likely to be true, and that includes not just 'what is the world' but also 'how should we act in the world'.
>>1180342
Your use of 'chemical' before happiness suggests you think there is another form of happiness.
All happiness is related to 'chemicals'.