Thread for atheists and those who are interested in being atheists. Questions and answers welcome.
These quotes are insufferably stupid and cringeworthy
Hey it matches the thread perfectly! Good job OP!
FALSE FLAG THREAD
>>308405
Less cringe worthy than the creationists defending a world wide flood
FaLse
L
a
G
>>308405
Autism
What the hell? Christian threads get a ton of traffic, but atheist threads don't?
What a load of bs.
>>308575
Non-belief is difficult to talk about and easy to understand. Those questioning their views always need to reassure themselves.
>>308586
This
>Despite the fact that the majority of Europeans and many in other parts of the world accept the theory regardless of their religious propensities, the States seems to stand out as firmly divided on the issue. Finally, the younger generation seems to be bringing this disturbing trend to an end. A survey by Pew Research Center reports that up to 73 percent of American adults under the age of 30 expressed at least some sort of accepting attitude towards evolution – marking a huge jump from 61 percent in 2009, when the survey was first conducted.
Most importantly, 51 percent accept evolution without a guiding supreme being, another jump up from 40 percent, meaning that a majority of young Americans completely accept the theory without invoking a religious explanation.
not really >25 years ago though
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/finally-more-young-americans-accept-evolution-over-creationism
Wow, great thread atheists!
You tell those dumb Christians!
Or just quote a bunch of pretentious celebrities with a high school education, whatever.
>>309235
Nope, this is a false flag thread though.
>>309240
KEK
FREAKING EPIC XD
In my opinion, though in actuality I think this is pretty tenable, if you're an atheist and not a skeptic atheist you are doing it wrong.
Por ejemplo,
>atheists say the concept of God is incoherent, bc circular logic
>doesn't realize this is an epistemic argument used against not only God, but all knowledge period.
I just don't understand how someone could be an atheist and be up science's ass. Don't you all read Hume? Kant?
Not a troll, but how can one immediately dismiss the idea of there being a God? How can you be 100% that there is and never was a God? There isn't even a sliver of doubt in your mind? That's the only fault I find with atheism, "you can't prove God exists so therefore he just doesn't exist" is the only real supporting proof you guys have. Although religious folks can't prove he does exist, and yet they still believe with 100% certainty. So why be atheist and not agnostic, I guess that's my real question?
This thread is painful to read. You're lowering to the same level of fundamentalist Christians by posting fucking Facebook tier quotes.
>>309267
I just don't believe in god
For quite some time I've been completely indifferent to religion and spirituality in general
>>309267
Bill Maher once said on Real Time that he thinks the difference between agnostic and atheist is just semantics. Although he didn't elaborate, I think he means this: the position of there being no higher reality, power, god, etc. is not very tenable. I'm sorry, it's not. Even great atheists like Nietzsche had this idea of the "eternal reoccurance of the same"
>>309267
Which god though? Zeus, Yahweh, Shiva?
The answer from my point of view, as an agnostic atheist, is that I don't know if there is a creator of the Universe or not, but I see no evidence that one does exist and I have very little time for the thousands upon thousands of cults that claim to have knowledge of what the (alleged) creator of the Universe thinks based on divine revelation.
>cue angry theists insisting there are allowed to decide my opinions for me and that if they stamp their feet hard enough they can insist I'm not allowed to be an agnostic and an atheist.
>>309287
>agnostic atheist
So your uncertain but still take a stance? As in you lean the way of atheists, but still find yourself agnostic? I'm the anon your replying to, so still uncertain of the terms and how you could mix them.
>>309297
Agnosticism isn't (necessarily) some 50% belief that any given religious claim is correct, although that is how some doubting theists misuse the term.
An agnostic thinks there is no way that you can *know* if the claims are true and therefore doesn't believe in them.
>>308650
> Put a Catholic, a Calvinist, and a Mormon in the same room
"Alright is Jesus Christ the Son of God and your Savior"
> Yes
"Okay, now describe your litur-
> [Screaming]
> Put a Nihilist, Positivist, and a Marxist-Leninist in the same room
"Religion is the opium of the masses"
> Yes
"Now describe your perspective of soci-
> [Screaming]
I love how someone made that chart thinking they were going to make Christians look petty, when the comparison is so disingenuous that you would have two parallel lines if you just changed the top label to "Existence of theistic beliefs" to mimic the bottom one.
>>309297
Different anon, but the way I would describe agnostic atheism (which most atheists would describe themselves as), and the reverse of agnostic theism would be largely based off the answer to 'Do you believe there is a god/gods' with 4 general answers. No I do not believe in god and do not think god is possible, No I do not currently believe in god but I cannot rule out the possibility of there being a god/gods, Yes I currently believe in god but i can't prove god exists, and Yes I believe in god I am certain of this, it is beyond doubt.
>>309339
But if we are talking solely about the position you take towards to existence of god, not the ideology you may then subscribe to, then the consistency on the ideas towards god is more uniform for atheism than for different religious interpretations which are inextricably linked to the belief in god for many people
>>309381
Which god? Why not gods rather than god?
>>309267
my metaphysical commitments (reality is fundamentally without order) make any reasonable conception of god impossible
>>309407
Couldn't be bothered typing both options desu senpai
>>309407
also the picture only mentions atheism and christianity
>>309425
Eh?
It doesn't even mention Christianity.
>>308428
Jefferson was a deist
>>309474
That means he thought a god created everything, but that god is completely hands off afterward and has no relevance to reality, and reality just sustains itself.
Closer to atheist than theist, really.
>>308575
Shallow platitudes by overrated famous people isn't likely to generate much of a discourse.
Jesus fucking Christ this thread is still going
Honestly you guys could be talking about something that's actually fucking relevant and holds weight in real life
Instead you're just "intellectually" bickering about personal beliefs
>but my super special ideas are right and their ideas are wrong!
You know what? Congratulations, you're fucking right.
Watch how magically still no one gives a flying cunt and still does what they want
You're all faggots, start posting relevant shit
Atheist here.
What's the point of an atheist thread? Since we all agree that God probably doesn't exist, what point does this have other than circlejerk? There is no possible discussion among atheists unless it's not related to atheism. You're just shitting up the board.
>>309509
Orthodox Christians have the same beliefs and they have threads.
>>309509
This fucking guy
I like this guy
>>309511
It has history AND culture. Atheism is just a statement of non-belief.
It's not like we need "does not like apple" conferences.
>>309542
Atheists define themselves in a lack of belief (of a God); Deists believe in a god and creation. You're in denial, which is stupid since nobody said you had to play "claim the historical figure to bolster your ego and shroud your insecurity."
>>309518
He was a secularist though, which is the important thing. Whether deism is a religion or not really depends on how you define religion.
>>309552
But theists define themselves by a god that creates and sustains and intervenes. So deists agree with atheists out of two out of three things, they don't believe in a god that intervenes or that god is needed to sustain reality, they conceive of a god that is irrelevant after creating things. So like a delinquent dad---yeah, you technically have a dad, but not really a dad in the full sense of the word.
>>309542
>rich history and culture
If you call opinions of random dudes "rich history and culture" as if they can compare to rich histories, cultures and tradition by various religions, from catholic/orthodox tradition as appropriation of Roman tradition/rites, to philosophical disagreements (and conclusions) of different Buddhist sects to even just India being so rich in everything, or just Chinese religion and how it ties itself greatly to statecraft, like Legalism vs Confucianism.
You fail to understand that religion is part of the human experience, and more often than not, IS culture.
Yeah. God doesn't exist. Now what? Are you going to fabricate atheist architecture, atheist painting, atheist music, atheist military organizations if the entire crux of atheism is "I don't believe".
>>309509
>>309521
I pretty much agree with everything you have said.
There's nothing wrong with one thread though.
>>309604
Of course not. There shouldn't be such a thing as 'atheist' architecture, painting and sculpture, there should just be architecture, painting and sculpture.
>>309614
>There shouldn't be [adjective tied to culture] architecture, only architecture
>No roman architecture, no modernist architecture, no brutalist architecture
Uh-huh
>>309603
Theists believe in truth through divine revelation, deists don't. That is the crux of the issue.
>>309603
Atheism isn't a gradient, it's a literal non-belief.
Deism is a belief in god, how that god behaves or what you should do to honor/dishonor/whatever is entirely irrelevant.
>>309645
Trying to compare atheism to Modernism or Classical architecture is just plain silly.
>>309650
You don't have to believe in truth through divine revelation to be a theist, you just have to believe in a god that sustains and intervenes creation.
>>309655
Deists believe in "god", but "god" in their sense is completely different from in theistic sense, you don't even have to believe god is sentient to be a deist.
>>309655
No it isn't. The deist movement was a move away from theist supernatural claims that god intervenes on Earth.
>I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine, Age of Reason.
>>309486
>deism is closer to atheism than theism
Please read a fucking dictionary before posting.
Oh, and graduate high school as well.
>>309657
I'm comparing modernism with another facet of human culture: religion.
Which atheism is not.
>>309655
Atheism is tied to fedora culture. Fedora culture and irony is atheism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopeFgwApCM
>>309677
Deist was literally just a stand in for atheism, so you could defend yourself against accusations of not believing in god.
"Oh, no, no, of COURSE god exists, you'd have to be a fool to believe he doesn't! Of course, he's completely irrelevant to us and doesn't care about us and we don't need him, and you'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise."
>>309658
Just out of interest. Do you think deism supports the claim that Archangel Gabriel came down to Mohammad and gave him revelations from Yahweh, or do you just happen to think it only supports your own concept of divine revelation?
>>309407
Why does Gervais always sound like he just watched the history channel and wants to sound smart with random bits of information that weren't really necessary?
>>309666
>Deists believe in "god",
So it's a religion. And not atheist. Doesn't fucking matter how different the practice was, it was a belief in god and therefore a religion.
>>309673
Literally irrelevant, every other religion is not what defines what is atheist and what isn't. God's intervention on earth has nothing to do with it being a religion.
>>309703
Because Ricky is a smug cunt. That's his shtick.
>>309690
>Deist was literally just a stand in for atheism, so you could defend yourself against accusations of not believing in god.
This is the first thing new atheists claim about the founding fathers believing in a God.
You don't have any evidence whatsoever that they called themselves deists to avoid persecution.
>>309713
Can it really be called a schtick when that's your personality as well?
>>309720
They were secularists that wanted to avoid the wars between Christians that had consumed an entire continent.
>>309743
Is it now ad hominem to say that a person with no knowledge in a field shouldn't make claims related to that field?
>>309750
P
R
O
O
F
P
L
E
A
S
E
>>309381
That's exactly my point. The bottom line is literally just charting people saying 'No' to the question of 'Do you think God exists.'
Now, don't get me wrong, that's a perfectly valid definition for atheism, but it's also one that's incredibly broad.
If the top bar was answering yes to "Do you believe Jesus Christ is your saviour," then it would also be a straight line throughout time, because it's an equally simplistic question/answer.
Ironically, that smugness actually makes atheism look *worse,* because it completely glosses over thousands of years worth of philosophy from individuals who didn't subscribe to a faith or religion. Believe it or not, even the normiest of normies tend to find fedora atheists obnoxious and arrogant even if they themselves are secular too.
>>309720
>>309750
I love this New Atheist meme about the Founding Fathers all being secret atheists who just called themselves deists to avoid being burned at the stake by all those evil Christians, when deism had centuries of philosophical writings and it's entirely possible they *actually* believed in it.
It's like Protties trying to claim their style of Christianity is the one Jesus and the Apostles wanted, but the evil Catholics suppressed it because of their Babylonian fish hats and Satan worship, and it wasn't until 1500 years later that someone happened to rediscover the 'correct' Church.
I guess every American government since 1776 has been doing it wrong until the New Atheists decided to coerce people into taking down Nativity scenes and stopping prayers that had been standard procedure for centuries.
>Questions and answers welcome.
I mean, what do you ask?
>Does God/do gods exist?
>"probably not lol"
Atheism is a pretty boring subject.
>>309758
That still isn't attacking the content of the quote.
Are you suggesting that more credible scholars have claimed a sginificantly fewer number of gods have been worshipped?
>>309765
Are you completely unfamiliar with the Reformation? Or the culture the Founding Fathers of the US sprang from i.e. the constant battle between Catholicism and Protestantism in England?
>>309805
WE WUZ FRANKINS
if you're an atheist who regurgitates fucking harris/dawkins/krauss/hitchens/maher et al, you're everything wrong with new atheism
>>309811
>Are you suggesting that more credible scholars have claimed a sginificantly fewer number of gods have been worshipped?
I'm saying that more credible scholars wouldn't claim that the mere number of worshiped deities factors in to the likelihood of their existence or non-existence.
>Or the culture the Founding Fathers of the US sprang from i.e. the constant battle between Catholicism and Protestantism in England?
Can you explain to me how this is evidence for the founding fathers actually being atheist instead of deist?
>>309810
Go to reddit and it's a bunch of 14 year olds talking about "coming out" to their parents as atheist. As if they're unbelief is their entire identity or something.
>>309805
I, personally, love this "New Atheism innit" meme.
The 'New Atheists' are half a dozen scholars or so that wrote books in the wake of 9/11 and then went on book publishing tours, primarily disgusted at how religion made people fly planes into buildings in 21st Century.
There is no New Atheist school of thought in history that I am aware of, maybe you could elighten me without making ridiculous strawmen to attack.
>>309811
The American Constitution only mandates against the creation of a state church, or the intrusion of state policy into church affairs.
Most fedoras like this >>309827 nowadays are under the impression that Secular = Lacitie/State Atheism. It is actually perfectly legal to have a prayer before opening a government meeting, or to wish people a merry Christmas and God Bless America.
>>309836
It's a more formal term than fedora or r/atheist.
>>309836
When atheism stops being a stance to a y/n question and starts being an actual ideological movement, you get new atheism/atheism+.
Basically, atheists who don't want to bother with all that ideological baggage calls these new fuckers new atheists. Because there is a difference between disliking apples and lobbying for banning the sale of apples.
Id say if you wanna preach something bring analytics that disprove the upsides to using christianity as a way to control the masses. Cringeworthy quotes that lowly preists could wreck by referencing canon have no use here.
>>309836
>religion made people fly planes into buildings in 21st Century.
If you honestly think Islam was literally the only factor involved in the September 11th attacks, you're worldview is extremely simplistic and short-sighted.
Dawkins is guilty of the same anti-intellectualism. People are actually looking up to a man that goes off on xenophobic rants on twitter, and who writes smug books dealing with matters he is not versed in.
http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/post/111561484839/re-atheism
>>309879
>tumblr
Can you stay there next time?
>>309836
Osama bin ladens beef was with the world trade organization, not america.
He said some stuff like calling the us military crusaders, but it was glancing and not his primary cause.
Thats why terrorists attacks became less intense after 911
The more you know.
>>309267
My perspective is that, if you can't prove or disprove a proposition (like the existence of God), it's just not worth thinking about.
>>309872
I can't say I'm an atheist, but I admire the man's contribution to science. Hell the guy fucking coined the idea of memes, with memes being to ideas what genes are to genetics. Pretty brilliant shit.
I just wish he kept to that instead of his ideological war on religion.
>>309865
>>309868
>>309872
None of these posts seem to be a claim there is a "new atheist" school of historical thought, which was the claim I was disputing.
And quite honestly while there are multiple geoplolical issue involved in Jihadism, Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism, I would personally, support the contention that if a religion that *can* be interpreted as *kill the unbelievers and you will live forvever in a world with 72 fucktoys and a pemanent erection* as a factor in Islamist violence.
You can call me reductionist if you like.
>>309836
>scholars
lmao
also, read this: http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGNAA
>>309836
>religion made people fly planes into buildings
LOL
any other insights you'd like to share? i'm ready for another giggle m8
>le new atheism meme
This shit is just Ahmed and pussy whipped liberals trying to discredit red pilled philosophers.
>>309948
>red pilled
>philosophers
>liberals
isn't it past your bedtime?
>>309922
Case in point:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2011/02/response-to-jonathan-haidts-response-on.html
This bitch nigger seriously thinks there's no liberal bias in academic. LOL
>>309952
Sam Harris is redpilled af fa m (as fuck family). Whiny leftists don't like him because he doesn't fit their stereotype of an illiterate redneck.
This is a false flag designed to make us look like immature assholes. This is why nobody will take atheists seriously.
>>309929
Are you really disputing 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam?
I mean, literally, nothing at all?
>>309963
the fuck does liberal bias have to do with anything?
sam harris is honestly just the cringiest, most embarrassing excuse for a philosopher out there. he has no idea what he's talking about, he has 0 academic credentials, and is a complete joke in philosophy circles.
>>309892
You really think that Osama Bin Laden's motives had nothing whatsoever to do with religion?
>>309952
>>309963
Sam Harris is an atrocious philosopher whose only claim to fame is the fact that he's edgy and appeals to people who want their own edginess validated rather than intellectually challenged. He's like someone tried to 're-interpret' Hume with a box of crayons and their own shit.
>>309972
>>309978
He's stating his opinion in a really dumb way, but I think that anon is trying to get at the point that blaming complex issues with one word answers is stupid.
It's like saying the Russian Revolution was caused by Communism. Sure, that was the ideology behind it all, but there were a fuckton of factors behind the things that actually caused people to rise up.
>>309972
what role do you think islam played in 9/11?
>>309986
I think teaching people from birth that that *could* potentially live forever in magicland thanks to defending their religion and encouraging people to have religious identifiers is unhelpful before I even really got started on specifics of doctrine.
Latest spiel from rapidly mentally deteriorating Richard "Swanfucker" Dawkins: http://time.com/4126983/richard-dawkins-ahmed-mohamed-isis/
>>310002
have you read much of the available literature on terrorism?
>>310011
simply epic m8 :)
>>310022
Could you tell me where I am going wrong rather than casting vague aspersions?
>>310011
>New atheist
>not leftist/liberal
Pick one.
>>308394
>Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world
>People actually believe this
lmao
>>310051
Dawkins is now officially conservative since he made fun of that brown clock kid so that makes him racist and Sam Harris has never been liberal since he criticizes the sacred doctrine of Islam.
>>310045
scott atran's work is hugely important for understanding modern terrorism, as he's one of the few to have done actual field research on the topic:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2015/04/25/scott-atran-on-youth-violent-extremism-and-promoting-peace/
http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00509568/document
if you're interested in reading further (and have access to jstor):
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27503829
http://www.jstor.org/stable/421717
http://www.jstor.org/stable/424809
it's also important to remember that islam-fueled terrorism has only been responsible for around 3% of all terrorist incidents in europe, and 6% in the us. even if it were somehow a causal factor, it's far from the only one.
>>310061
Cute.
>>310098
also, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the victims of terrorism are muslim. its motivated far more by politics and sociological factors than religion.
>>310110
Indeed. It is motivated by differences in doctrine that non-believers would consider laughable.
That's what happens when you base your world view on the idea that a 7th Century warlord is the most perfect human being ever to exist.
>>310135
okay. thanks for weighing in. stay euphoric bro.
>>310143
/pol/ tier post
>>309253
Atheist here. These quotes are full of shit, especially the one about religion being the cause of the most wars. Religion is just used as an excuse, or not at all. Most wars are over territory and resources, not fucking ideology.
>>310308
This fucking guy
Based anon is based
>>310314
I almost wish I could go back to my childhood days of religious belief because at least religious people have a fucking excuse to believe in illogical things.
An atheist clinging to illogical bullshit just devalues their entire position and makes us all look like hat tipping fedora-tards.
>>310405
I'm agnostic so I see value and bullshit in both
But even I hate people just regurgitating the same shit as me
Doesn't refine your view on the world at all, just makes you an ignorant cunt
>>310405
Pic related; a lesson everyone should take to heart.
>>308413
This, so obvious
>>310422
Wasn't the original Hebrew text for "seven days" anyway actually stand for "a really fucking long time" -or- "a week", and the translators just went with a week instead of "a really fucking long time"?
>>308394
>Gwyneth Paltrow
>>308394
I don't believe in God. I dislike "Atheists" who try to make atheism a thing. It's not a thing. It' a lack of a thing. There're no aleprechaunists or aunicornists.
Is it an American thing?
>>310544
Dawkins and Hitchens are British
>>310570
>Eternal Anglo
Huh. Figures.
>>310707
>>273717
>>308586
It's very interesting. Instead of holy scriptures of icons they use pictures with quotes from famous atheist "prophets" to justify their belief.
>>309267
Not to be insulting, but I went to catholic schools and I found the whole lot of it pretty silly. I just can't get behind the idea that there's a divine being or beings. It's not something I've ever been able to do, even when I tried to be open to the idea.
But nowadays I would call myself an Apathiest more than an Athiest. I can't ever be 100% certain that there's no divine beings, but the existence or non-existence just doesn't have any influence over my life anymore. The existence of God/s could be proven or disproven tomorrow and I don't think it would change much for me.
>>309892
Bin Laden's beef was with Israel and it's allies, which include the United States. The actual objective of the 9/11 attacks was to draw the US into a very long, costly war which would drain and destroy their economy.
It didn't destroy the US economy, but it certainly weakened it a lot, which left it a bit vulnerable when the GFC rocked up.
For example: when the patriot act was made into law, Muslim investors ripped $1 trillion out of investments in the US dollar.
>>310727
>Gods were apparitions of observation, judgement and punishment. Other sentiments towards them were secondary.
>The Human Organism always worships. First it was the Gods, then it was fame; the observation and judgement of others
>>308394
Can I be an atheist without being a reductionist/positivist?
Can I be an atheist if I entertain the possibility of Maya?
Can I be an atheist if I more or less ignore people with firm belief in the supernatural?
>>311751
You can be an atheist if you don't believe in God.
>>311323
A bomb is a bad choice for close range combat.
>>309267
Occam's Razor.
God is not required to make any systems function and there is no proof for the concept.
And in cases where the question is raised of "Well how do you explain that?" the answer of "My god" is just one of a multiplicity of roughly equally likely statements, not all of which are even religious, and is rendered almost useless.
>>312321
>Geist is not required to make any systems function
>>312364
>>309267
>Not a troll, but how can one immediately dismiss the idea of there being a God?
The complete and utter lack of evidence is a pretty big problem
>>312364
Using German instead of English doesn't magically make your position better, you know.
>>312408
What do you think of miracles?
>>312467
The same thing I think when I hear an urban legend
>>312430
Geist doesn't have any English translation. It used to translate as "ghost", but the meaning of ghost has changed a lot over the last 400 years. It can be translated as "spirit" but also as "mind".
It's terminology.
>>312554
Still not making the point any better.
>>312480
People aren't willing to be ostracized and put to death for urban legend they willfully concocted and which offers no material or sexual gain.
>>312574
All distinction is imposed by Geist, there is not distinction inherent in reality, all distinction is totally arbitrary, including the distinction between something and nothing.
>>312575
You sure about that?
>>312581
Yes. Those people were led by *one* person, not a bunch of them, and they believed in their religion.
>>312579
Sure buddy.
>>312575
"he is willing to die for it therefore it must be true." is a shit argument.
I don't need you to die for your miracle I need you to prove your miracles. Plenty of pagan miracles are also recorded doesn't make them true.
>>312602
"He is willing to die for it, and therefor he must believe it," is not a shit argument.
Therefore the Apostles believed it. Therefore they didn't "willingly concoct" it.
The only other option is they all hallucinated it. Are you contending that?
>>312601
Therefore Geist must exist, or else the distinction would not. And Geist independent of the material indicates God.
>>312612
>The only other option is they all hallucinated it.
Or that their 'story' was made up by Paul, who had neither met Jesus, nor the Apostles
>>312612
>The only other option is they all hallucinated it.
Kind of. Plenty of delusional matrys are out there not just in christianity but also in islam and in paganism
You have pagans under the time of Justinian who chose death over conversion. Doesn't make their gods true.
>>312622
The explain
A: The pre-Pauline creed
B: The Incident at Antioch
>>312631
>Plenty of religious people have been prepared to die for their beliefs, it does not make their beliefs true.
It makes it certain they believe them.
>Fascinating.
So how do you account for this from a purely material point of view?
>>310468
Where did you get that?
>>312638
not him but here is my beliefs about christianity
>marry lies about his virginity to save her ass from getting stoned
>jew jesus born
>jew jesus become apocalyptic messiah, saying end times are near(mind you he is not the only one and plenty of apolcalyptic messiahs did existed around his era)
>jesus gets rekted
>his followers have delusions of him being resurrected.
the same delusion can also be seen in widows talking to their dead husbands and swearing they didn't die. "He dindu really died I saw him" was not spesifically the case of jesus.
“Again and again, men have led round the circles the Materialized Spirits of their wives, and introduced them to each visitor in turn; fathers have taken round their daughters, and I have seen widows sob in the arms of their dead husbands. Testimony, such as this, staggers me. Have I been smitten with color-blindness? Before me, as far as I can detect, stands the very Medium herself, in shape, size, form, and feature true to a line, and yet, one after another, honest men and women at my side, within ten minutes of each other, assert that she is the absolute counterpart of their nearest and dearest friends, nay, that she is that friend. It is as incomprehensible to me as the assertion that the heavens are green, and the leaves of the trees deep blue. Can it be that the faculty of observation and comparison is rare, and that our features are really vague and misty to our best friends?” Preliminary Report of the Commission Appointed by the University of Pennsylvania to Investigate Modern Spiritualism in Accordance with the Request of the Late Henry Seybert with a Foreword by H.H. Furness, Junior (1887, 1920).
>>312638
>A: The pre-Pauline creed
Didn't have Jesus proclaimed as Divine (that was after Stephen the Martyr) and didn't have the Resurrection (this was mostly a story pushed by Paul)
>B: The Incident at Antioch
Had nothing to do with the Divinity of Jesus or the Resurrection, had something to do with Christianity establishing itself as separate from Judaism
>>312643
>It makes it certain they believe them.
good for them. doesn't make their beliefs valid.
>>312643
>It makes it certain they believe them.
So?
>So how do you account for this from a purely material point of view?
I don't speak German.
>>312643
Account for what? The fact that there are differences between things?
>>308575
Seeing how this isnt an atheist thread, but an atheist mocking thread, you shouldnt be surprised.
Besides, there isnt much to discuss. Atheism is the lack of religion. How do you discuss the lack of religion?
>>312651
>Didn't have Jesus proclaimed as Divine (that was after Stephen the Martyr) and didn't have the Resurrection (this was mostly a story pushed by Paul)
See
>A second reference to this appearance is Lk. 24: 34, which contains the cry, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Because of the awkward insertion of this verse in the Lukan narrative and its similarity to Paul's "he appeared to Cephas ," most critics regard this exclamation a s a pre-Lukan kerygmatic tradition which Luke, lacking an accompanying story, has inserted at this point.
>Had nothing to do with the Divinity of Jesus or the Resurrection, had something to do with Christianity establishing itself as separate from Judaism
It shows that Paul didn't fabricate the Apostles.
>>312652
So they hallucinated it?
>>312653
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist
>>312689
Again, the Gospels were written under the command of Paul and are probably taken from the oral tradition, which is a method of distributing information that is horribly unreliable. To say that this is what the Apostles genuinely believed is highly dubious
>mfw 4chan was literal atheist fedora central back in 2012
What the fuck happened
>>312689
>So they hallucinated it?
It's actually fairly common to see hallucinations of a loved one after they die.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist
I already looked it up. You're saying we can't tell the difference between things without ghosts?
>>312699
Paul's formula is "the Lord appeared to Cephas." The formula in Luke is "he has appeared to Simon!" indicating a pre-Pauline formula used here, especially because it was awkwardly inserted
>>312702
>It's actually fairly common to see hallucinations of a loved one after they die.
Yes, but it was women who initially witnessed it, and all the Apostles were highly skeptical.
>I already looked it up. You're saying we can't tell the difference between things without ghosts?
I'm saying all distinction on things is superimposed by spirit, or mind.
>>312701
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S6706189
>>312701
Not to invoke the le /pol/ boogeyman yet again but I'm blaming /pol/. Atheism became increasingly uncool as it became associated with reddit and SJWs so in order to "fight degeneracy" cultural Christianity began to become popular. Which somewhere along the line turned into actual Christianity and here we are today.
>>312714
Again, so what? All of this comes out of an oral tradition, which makes it pretty much impossible to find out where it came from. It could have been from a different sect of early Christianity all together.
With something as chaotic as an oral tradition, that's anyone's guess
>>312732
Christianity rose is prominence on /lit/ as much as on /pol/, and there it was very much associated with socialism
>>312735
So Peter was in two sects at once?
>>312724
>Yes, but it was women who initially witnessed it, and all the Apostles were highly skeptical.
You're stating things as facts based on sources written by anonymous writers decades later in a language the people being talked about didn't speak.
>I'm saying all distinction on things is superimposed by spirit, or mind.
Mind and "spirits" are not the same thing.
>>312744
What are you talking about? I said nothing about Peter, I said that the sources for all of this are oral, and therefore highly unreliable
>>312748
>You're stating things as facts based on sources written by anonymous writers decades later in a language the people being talked about didn't speak.
There are historical sources much further from their events that are taken as authoritative.
We also don't know if they're that much later. The major method used for dating the Gospels so late is that they predict the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, so it is presumed they must have been written after said destruction.
>Mind and "spirits" are not the same thing.
Geist means both, Spirit and mind. It's used in German for the Holy Ghost/Spirit, as well as to mean mind.
Geist is academic terminology.
>>312760
Simon and Cephas are both names for Peter. Luke used the name "Simon" (Peter's conventional name), indicating the existence of a pre-Pauline formula.
>>312761
>There are historical sources much further from their events that are taken as authoritative.
There are lots of ways to determine how solid historical sources are. Ones written by anonymous, biased authors that contradict each other and talk about zombie invasions are not generally considered good sources.
Even if they were good sources it does not change the fact....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ghost-stories-visits-from-the-deceased/
>>312761
Okay, are you making an assertion about psychology, that having a mind is required for making distinctions between stimuli, so a human can but a rock cannot; or are you making a metaphysical assertion, that differences in the material world are the -result of- some sort of extra-material spirit?
>>312774
Actually, contradiction on details indicates actually supports their authenticity. For instance, in a court of law, if witnesses agree with each other on every detail, then there's a good chance they collaborated beforehand and developed one agreed upon narrative they all support. But if there are discrepancies in details, it indicates a variation of sources and witnesses.
>>312785
Both, but I'm basing the latter upon the former.
Firstly, do you agree that all distinction in reality is completely arbitrary and therefore must be imposed by mind?
>>312787
The Gospels are supposed to be divinely-inspired and thus infallible, however. They're not witnesses in a court of law, they're supposed to be mouthpieces for a literally omniscent and omnipotent being. The circumstances are wildly different.
>>312793
No. Differences in reality exist without observation; a hydrogen atom is not a helium atom and will behave differently, even without an intelligence present to observe the difference.
>>312770
I'm not talking about the characters, I'm talking about the sources themselves. The source for all of this was ultimately the first few chaotic decades in which nothing was written down yet, and Christianity as we know it today was nothing more than a few groups of people passing telling stories to other people, who themselves passed it on. Nobody knows for sure what actually happened in these few decades, as all we have from this period are texts that were written down decades after the fact. What we're discussing here is basically a void of knowledge, which is buried on layers of interpretation and reinterpretation by perhaps dozens of different groups of people, all with their own specific interests and experiences that are all injected into these stories, making the whole structure of narratives an incoherent mess.
If you're dealing with something so vague and confused as a group of stories from oral traditions, extracting infallible historical truths from them is completely asinine
>>312787
1. We aren't talking about actual eyewitness testimonies.
2. Minor differences and major differences are not the same thing.
3. Even if they were good sources it does not change the fact....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ghost-stories-visits-from-the-deceased/
>>312796
>The Gospels are supposed to be divinely-inspired and thus infallible, however. They're not witnesses in a court of law, they're supposed to be mouthpieces for a literally omniscent and omnipotent being. The circumstances are wildly different.
Infallible in both Orthodox and Catholicism means the doctrine is not fallible, not that the Bible doesn't get details wrongs. It was guided by God but written by man.
>No. Differences in reality exist without observation; a hydrogen atom is not a helium atom and will behave differently, even without an intelligence present to observe the difference.
What individuates these atoms from the rest of reality?
>>312797
A: Nonetheless, a pre-Pauline formula shows that Christians believed in Christ's Resurrection before Paul.
B: Christianity maintained a continuity, since Peter, a leader of the Church, was alive the whole time and was a contemporary of Paul's.
>>312839
>A: Nonetheless, a pre-Pauline formula shows that Christians believed in Christ's Resurrection before Paul.
Yes, and we have no idea where this formula came from, or which Christians we're talking about. To conclude from this that the Apostels believed Jesus was resurrected from something as horribly unreliable as an oral tradition is extremely dubious, to say the least
>B: Christianity maintained a continuity, since Peter, a leader of the Church, was alive the whole time and was a contemporary of Paul's.
What source is this based on?
>>312810
1. We're talking about people who got their info at least in part from eyewitnesses
2. There are not major differences.
3. If twelve people who were initially very skeptical about a ghost, changed their mind each one by one, and were willing to die for that belief, willing to be ostracized from their community and their religion, willing to face prosecution with none of them relenting, I'd be inclined to consider the possibility of the ghost's existence. I wouldn't say that proves the ghost's existence, but I'd say it doesn't make it wildly unreasonable to believe in said ghost.
>>312859
>Yes, and we have no idea where this formula came from, or which Christians we're talking about. To conclude from this that the Apostels believed Jesus was resurrected from something as horribly unreliable as an oral tradition is extremely dubious, to say the least
It's far more dubious to say people were saying Peter saw Christ Resurrected within the Church as a profession while he was still alive and a leader, despite him not saying that.
>What source is this based on?
Pre-Pauline confession
Incident at Antioch
>>312860
*persecution
>>312839
>Infallible in both Orthodox and Catholicism means the doctrine is not fallible, not that the Bible doesn't get details wrongs. It was guided by God but written by man.
That's what I get for being brought up Protestant, I suppose.
>What individuates these atoms from the rest of reality?
I don't individuation needs to be imposed on things; simply the fact that things exist is sufficient for them to be different.
I might be misunderstanding the question, though.
>>312860
>We're talking about people who got their info at least in part from eyewitnesses
Not a shred of evidence of this.
> There are not major differences.
Here's a few although it is far from a difinitive list.
https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/gospels-refute-one-another/
> If twelve people who were initially very skeptical about a ghost, changed their mind each one by one, and were willing to die for that belief, willing to be ostracized from their community and their religion, willing to face prosecution with none of them relenting, I'd be inclined to consider the possibility of the ghost's existence. I wouldn't say that proves the ghost's existence, but I'd say it doesn't make it wildly unreasonable to believe in said ghost.
You don't have a shred of historical evidence that is even true. The only historical evidence there is relates to Peter and his martyrdom (and the sources for that aren't that great). There is nothing but Christian mythology about the other apostles being martyred, the gospels don't even agree on their names, there is not enough information from the gospels to pinpoint them in history anf there are no non-biblical sources about them or what happened to them after Jesus' ministry.
>>312872
>within the Church as a profession
They didn't exist at the time. Christianity at the time was a few groups of obscure people with somewhat common beliefs
>Pre-Pauline confession
>Incident at Antioch
I just explained why those are horribly unreliable
>>312881
>the fact that things exist is sufficient for them to be different.
Ah, but the entire distinction between existence and non-existence is also equally imposed, between something and nothing. And within something, a tree existing isn't enough for it to be different, because it can be apprehended as infinite parts or as one part, or it can be apprehended as a part of a forest, or as part of a planet, or as part of reality itself, or as part of something beyond the distinction between is and isn't. All these distinctions are only superimposed.
>>312913
None of those distinctions are metaphysical, however.
>>312887
>Not a shred of evidence of this.
Certainly there is. The idea that the initial witnesses were hysterical women, for instance...if anything, that would bring discredit to the idea of Christ's Resurrection, so it would be strange if it were fabricated.
>https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/gospels-refute-one-another/
What? "Gospel was y was written by someone different from Gospel x" is a contradiction?
>You don't have a shred of historical evidence that is even true. The only historical evidence there is relates to Peter and his martyrdom (and the sources for that aren't that great). There is nothing but Christian mythology about the other apostles being martyred, the gospels don't even agree on their names, there is not enough information from the gospels to pinpoint them in history anf there are no non-biblical sources about them or what happened to them after Jesus' ministry.
If the Apostles switched sides, then they'd have suffered for it in the Gospels, don't you think? Yet the Apostles (next to Judas) who has the most ill light cast on him in the Apostles is--*Peter*. He was willing to die for Christ, and yet he's the Apostle who is called Satan by Christ, and denies Christ. If this is how the most prominent Apostles is treated, then it would seem strange for Apostles who betrayed Christianity to get easier treatment.
>>312938
They aren't physical. What is distinction made out of? It doesn't exist physically.
>>312946
They exist within the human mind, which is itself a physical object. So the distinctions are, in a sense, physical, they just don't reside in the object being distinguished.
>>312964
Then what distinguishes *a* human mind from *human mind* in general?
>>312940
>Certainly there is. The idea that the initial witnesses were hysterical women, for instance...if anything, that would bring discredit to the idea of Christ's Resurrection, so it would be strange if it were fabricated.
That's not evidence. That is speculation based on the sources themselves that are not credible.
>What? "Gospel was y was written by someone different from Gospel x" is a contradiction?
No the contradictions are the contradictions stated.
>If the Apostles switched sides, then they'd have suffered for it in the Gospels, don't you think? Yet the Apostles (next to Judas) who has the most ill light cast on him in the Apostles is--*Peter*. He was willing to die for Christ, and yet he's the Apostle who is called Satan by Christ, and denies Christ. If this is how the most prominent Apostles is treated, then it would seem strange for Apostles who betrayed Christianity to get easier treatment.
What the hell are you even talking about? There are no decent historical sources for what happened to to any of the apostles after Jesus' ministry.
>>312964
So they exist in the sense that God does?
How do you defend the concept of existential inertia?
>>312985
>That's not evidence. That is speculation based on the sources themselves that are not credible.
That's evidence that the sources are based on first-hand accounts rather than fabrications.
The sources stand up to all the criteria imposed on ancient sources regarding their admissibility.
>No the contradictions are the contradictions stated.
But none of those are even contradictions. For instance, "Exorcisms not mentioned." How is that a contradiction? The focus of the Gospel of John is very different, that doesn't mean it contradicts the other Gospels.
>What the hell are you even talking about? There are no decent historical sources for what happened to to any of the apostles after Jesus' ministry.
It's clear that they didn't become Apostates.
>>313012
>That's evidence that the sources are based on first-hand accounts rather than fabrications.
No it isn't.
>The sources stand up to all the criteria imposed on ancient sources regarding their admissibility.
No they don't.
>It's clear that they didn't become Apostates.
I have no idea whether they did or didn't and neither do you because there is literally zero information on this subject (other than for Peter).
>>313007
To add, if you have problem with the concept as well what do you support instead.
>>311313
That looks like leftist propaganda.
The invasion of iraq costed 800b and most of it went back into u.s. produced weapons and to paying u.s. soldiers.
My statement initially is a theory itself however.
>>312973
Each human mind, while sharing similar structures by simple fact of biology, nonetheless each have undergone unique experiences and are thus different. Like how a hydrogen atom in the ocean is different from a hydrogen atom in the sun; they're both hydrogen, but they're interacting with different environments in different ways.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'human mind in general.'
>>312991
In the sense that 'people believe in God, and their actions are thus influenced by God, even though God has no existence outside of these people's beliefs,' yes.
>>313053
>Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'human mind in general.'
I mean why multiple minds instead of one mind? Since the distinction between minds is arbitrary and imposed as much as any fantasy of the imagination.
>>313058
>Since the distinction between minds is arbitrary
No, the distinction between minds is physical; each human mind occupies a distinct physical space, the brain, separated from other brains by time and distance and linked by language.
>>313082
The distinction between physical spaces is arbitrary, though.
>>313007
Well, based on my limited understanding, it's simpler than the main competitor, divine conservation, since it only requires one object- the universe; instead of two- the universe and God.
Also, I think divine conservation also requires that God possess existential inertia, to explain how God continues existing.
This is based on literally thirty seconds of Googling, though.
>>313084
No, they aren't. Not unless you're using some weird metaphysical definition of 'arbitrary'.
>>313110
>No, they aren't. Not unless you're using some weird metaphysical definition of 'arbitrary'.
What distinguishes one physical space from another, inherently? Are you arguing that reality is made up of Euclidean points?
>>313126
>What distinguishes one physical space from another, inherently?
Distance. It may be an abstraction that your mind uses to understand the universe in which it occupies, but it is a demonstrably accurate one.
If I place a pen on a desk in front of you and ask you to interact with it, you will be able to. If I then say that I placed a similar pen on a desk on the other side of the planet and asked you to interact with it in the same way, you would not be able to.
Concepts are only ways that the computer that is your brain packages information for ease of use/access. They serve the same purposes as folders on your desktop.
>>313126
The arrangement of physical matter within space is what distinguishes spaces; space is defined by the orientation of these objects to one another, and distance from one another.
A thought experiment, to illustrate. Say you have a single object in an otherwise empty universe; a sphere, for simplicity. This universe possesses no space, since there is no way for the sphere to move; all places it can move to are identical, and thus the same. However, if we were to add a second sphere, now there would be space, since now there's a distinguishing characteristic; distance and orientation towards the second sphere. Movement now possesses meaning, since perception of the sphere would change with distance, there is now a distinction between one space and another.
>>313157
This all indicates that the distinctions are more than arbitrary. Yet logically, they cannot be, since natural increments don't exist, unless Euclidean points exist outside of our imagination.
>>313183
What is the natural distinction between the sphere and space? Between existence and non-existence?
>>313201
The natural distinction between existence and non-existence is that one exists, and the other doesn't.
Really, I just don't know what you want from me at this point.
>>313190
>natural increments don't exist
There's Planck length, time and (presumably) mass, the smallest measurable units. Mass/energy, at least, is certainly quantized, by the mass of whatever the smallest existing particle is.
Besides, incrementation is simply a method of measuring distance, and is distinct from the distance itself.
>>313236
>The natural distinction between existence and non-existence is that one exists, and the other doesn't.
The distinction between something and nothing is not inherent.
>Besides, incrementation is simply a method of measuring distance, and is distinct from the distance itself.
One space is defined as greater than another based on a great quantity of increments.
>>313251
*greater quantity
>>313251
>The distinction between something and nothing is not inherent.
How do you come to that conclusion?
>>313262
Nothing can be apprehended as something. "A square foot of nothing", etc.
>>313304
That nothing can be apprehended as something is a fact about human minds, not about the actual nature of existence or nonexistence.
>>313304
Humans understanding the concept of 'A lack of matter and energy' as 'Nothing' has absolutely nothing to do with the properties of the universe.
This is what people mean when they say you are only playing 'language games'.
>>310473
This guy wants to talk about "ethical laws?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelbau-Dora
Daily reminder if you hold superstitions you are the same religious person and NOT an atheist.
>>313323
So does nothing exist? Or not?
>>313468
Belief in the impossible due to incorrect data about the world is not exclusive to the belief in a deity. It is entirely possible for one person to not believe that god exists, but that bigfoot does. Unless this is a no-true-Scotsman.
>>313487
'A state of a lack of matter and energy' exists objectively, which is the concept that humans who speak English apply to the word 'nothing'. Other than that, you are being so abstract that I don't know what you mean.
>Heathen thread
There is but one God and his name is Anime
>>313530
Amen brother.
>>313524
>'A state of a lack of matter and energy' exists objectively, which is the concept that humans who speak English apply to the word 'nothing'. Other than that, you are being so abstract that I don't know what you mean.
If something doesn't exist, then it is nothing, right?
>>313577
No, it is at least a concept in the mind of a human. A mind made of matter and energy. Since the mind is made of matter and energy, it follows that so are the thoughts and concepts it uses. Since the thoughts and concepts are made of matter and energy, they are not nothing, but that still doesn't make them anything more than thoughts and concepts.
>>313615
Are you suggesting that everything which does not exist outside the mind of a human exists within the mind of a human?
>>313626
No, just things that we have a concept of. A unicorn exists only in the human mind and not in the physical. An apple exists in both. An askdfjklsjdflkjkej exists in neither.
>>313626
Everything that a human has thought of exists in the mind of a human; that's a smaller category than 'everything which does not exist outside the mind of a human'. There are plenty of things that don't exist either physically or conceptually.
>>313646
And that which is nothing outside of the human mind, does not exist outside the human mind, yes?
>>313674
It is not as simple as that.
A unicorn, the idea of a type of horse that has a horn, does not exist outside of a human mind.
An automobile, the concept of a complex machine consisting of many smaller parts made to move something, does. 'Automobile' is a useful descriptor of that assembled collection of parts.
>>313713
Then an automobile is not nothing outside of the human mind, so that isn't really relevant to my question.
>>313722
My point was that the concept of 'automobile' does not exist outside of the human mind, as it is just a descriptor that people place upon it in order to communicate better.
>>313736
But the Easter Bunny is nothing outside of the human mind, yes?
>>308394
stupid woman voicing a populist opinion to moisten her upvotes, besides if she believes that religion is false aka a human construct as opposed to the mandate of god why does she not realise that the humans that invented it are to blame instead of the religions themselves?
>>313752
'Easter bunny' exists only as a concept in the mind of humans, yes.
>>313765
Therefore the Easter Bunny is nothing outside of the human mind?
>>313772
It is still the firing neurons in the brain.
>>308394
culture is what separates the world
race is what separates the world
faith is what separates the world
political ideology is what separates us
not being a seething coalesced mass is what separates us
classic example of how Marxists are at war with reality itself. Bawwww da world is not how I fantasize it to be with my ideology... so lets FORCE my ideology on others! Wait... this sounds familiar to some of the things I dislike but can't quite put my finger on it.
>>313773
And what of nonexistent things which don't exist as neurons?
>>313803
No one could possibly know. My experiences would lead me to doubt their existence, but there is no way to know about the unknowable.
