How do you respond to Russell's teapot?
Fuck off back to reddit
>>499615
Sorry that this thread triggers you. You should go to r/Christianity, it's a safe place with no atheism posts.
>>499615
It's actually a fair point. The best theologians have long acknowledged that the claims of their religion are absurd and unprovable. With that in mind religion must prove it's worth by it's utility. That is whether or not beliving it does any good. In fact this is even more importaint than proving their God is real.
If the religion has no utility than even if the God he would not have the title of God, he would have to be considered a Demon. On the other hand if the religion were false but a noble lie than there would be no reason to stop believing just because it's not true.
>>499637
>what is the theism-mysticism distinction
>what is the metaphysical God
you haven't disproven shit
>>499637
>If the religion has no utility than even if the God he would not have the title of God, he would have to be considered a Demon
Can you repeat that in English please?
>>499645
>metaphysical God
Another word for "my bullshit is unfalsifiable, therefore true"
>>499668
It's very simple. If God's way of life that he sets out is deemed by the individual or society to be bad than we would have to conclude that he is the bad guy, a demon. His title of God is forfeit.
If we decided that the beleifs of a religion were bad than if the spirit being they worshipped did exist than things would be very different. Because the religious people would no longer be harmless idiots worshipping a fiction, they would be demon-worshippers.
>>499671
Clueless
>What is the God whose death has been announced? Nietzche himself replies: "Only the god of morality has been conquered." He asks: "Is there sense in conceiving of a god beyond good and evil?" The reply must be affirmative. "Let God slough off his moral skin, and we shall see him reappear beyond good and evil." What has disappeared is not the god of metaphysics, but the god of theism, the personal god who is a projection of moral and social values and a support for human weakness.
>As far as worldviews are concerned, we are dealing with a conception of reality freed from the categories of good and evil, but with a metaphysical foundation, not a naturalistic or pantheistic one. Being knows nothing of good or evil, nor do the great laws of things, nor the Absolute.
>The "other world" attacked by European nihilism, presented by the latter as sheer illusion or condemned as an evasion, is not ANOTHER reality; it is another dimension of reality in which the real, without being negated, requires an absolute significance in the inconceivable nakedness of pure Being.
>>499632
have you been on r/Christianity, they are one of the few religious/non that is not filled with cunts and a tyrannical mod team.
>>499697
>If God's way of life that he sets out is deemed by the individual or society to be bad than we would have to conclude that he is the bad guy
>presupposing that 'GOD' = good from the start and fits a very defined definition that you agree with.
Your argument fails.
>>499697
>we would have to conclude that he is the bad guy, a demon
We wouldn't have to conclude that at all. I don't see why you'd assign Abrahamic terminology to a god that isn't the Abrahamic one
i agree with his paragraph
if some randomer in the street said a flying teapot yada yada yada, then no, i wouldn't believe
it is precisely because of the multiple books, multiple prophets, eye witness testimonies, prophecies being fulfilled, etc that convinces me of their authenticity
i have no reason to believe some silly teapot guy. it's a retarded comparison, as shown by the fact that there aren't 2 billion teapot believers on the planet right now
>>499709
None of that addresses anything he said, good job wasting our time
>>499722
I think you and the other guy are out of your depth here, reddit
The metaphysical God is the deepest affirmation of one's Being. How the fuck is that "unfalsifiable"?
>>499731
Not the other guy, but anything that is claimed to be metaphysical is by its very own definition unfalsifiable.
>>499763
It's an inner disposition of being, I don't need to prove a transcendent principle to live my life in reference to it. Atheists can hem and haw about the theistic god until the cows come home but they have nothing to say about the transcendent
>>499637
>The best theologians have long acknowledged that the claims of their religion are absurd and unprovable.
Literally who?
>>499601
Explain why everything doesn't work if there is no God.
If it fits the puzzle perfectly, we can be absolutely certain the piece goes there.
Russel is nailing the 99% of god/gods.
The irrelevant Hindu and Pagan.
Literally only one that answers everything and literally fits the model of reality.
>>499601
how did it get there? we have not sent manned ships out that far. there is no record of a teapot on any unmanned flight.
>>499804
>The irrelevant Hindu and Pagan.
Back to reddit, friendo
>>499804
>Literally who?
Think of the modern ones. Kierkegaard suggests the leap of faith to give life meaning.
>>499812
r u sirius
>>499601
My response is this:
If someone told me a teapot was flying, I'd try to analyze their speech to see what they really meant.
A common theme throughout philosophy and religion is that through knowing and eventually owning yourself, combined with taking upon virtues, one will acquire true happiness. Happiness is essentially the well being of your psyche/state of mind/soul. "Happiness" can be compared to Christian Salvation and Buddhist Nirvana.
>>499715
>>499717
At the end of the day a society or individual still needs to decide for them-self whether someone fits the definition of good.
>>499804
Kierkegaard. His understanding of God is based on faith and God can never be proven. He even tells us that trying to prove God is a sign of weak of faith and weak religion. Dostoevsky even tells us that even if his God were proven not exist he would still be a Christian.
Because the teapot is an object, where God is not.
How fucking hard is for autists to think about abstract non-material things? What is the autistic definition of self, soul and personality - electrochemical impulse?
>>500344
To add to this faith is a very strong argument. It's a necessary argument for a lot of secular things but fedora's do not realize this. We cannot derive objective answers to a lot of life questions, for instance the is/ought problem. However faith as an arguement comes with certain attachments. To start with it's a personal and subjective understanding, you cannot claim to have universal truth when your argument comes from faith and proselytizing is not a position one can take up strongly.
>>499601
I see your teapot and raise you one infinite regress present in current cosmology.
Then I present the argument from motion...
>>499791
Digital fist bump to my German metaphysics bro.
>>499601
Literally Reddit.
>theists are just guessing that there's a god, that's what faith is.
kill yourself please.
The argument from motion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdjjqFSEJ_Y
The argument from desire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71Gq9a1qxE
The ontological argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr36HID62wM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNdL_ANjAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIkVU0AcSMw
>>500422
>trying to logic god into existence
>>500398
>immaterial
>interacts with the material
Fail
>>500398
I'm not trying to sound hostile but what's the arguement against infinite regression? The natural world is already capable of handling infinitity. Black holes have infinite mass, density, and gravity at the center.
If Aquinas is just going to axiomatically assume infinite is not a part of nature than he has no argument at all. In fact he would be objectively wrong in this.
>>500931
To be fair it is literally exactly the same thing as trying to logic him out of existence.
>>499601
it's just an illustration of the problems inherent in the fallacious argument from lack of contradictory evidence sprinkled fedora, the flavor of the month.
It's basically a meaningless and elementary explanation of a basic philosophical fact for uneducated plebs who can't into basic logic and reasoning.
>>499601
Please.
Go back to r/atheism.
>>500946
how do you get to now with an infinite past?
>>500985
Holy fuck, I hope you drown in your macchiato based on the way you type.
>>499601
Would a respond be the lack of consequence from the existence of a teapot
>>500965
I don't have to use tricky logic to say I have no reason the teapot is there
>>500385
Because abstract non-material things don't fucking exist. There is no point wasting one's time over something that is an abstract idea, a delusion of man. All that matters is factual data or well supported theories of sound mind.
The idea of the self, soul, and personality does not matter. They are the subjective thoughts that have no definition, thus wasting anything upon them is an exercise in vanity.
>>501370
i dib my hat to you sir
>>501370
is math a lie?
>>501370
>They are the subjective thoughts that have no definition, thus wasting anything upon them is an exercise in vanity.
Read this sentence, then read your post again from the beginning.
>>501310
Time in modern physics isn't like how most people perceive it. What we call the past and future are linguistic constructs. There is only the present and the present is always changing. It actually makes more sense for there to be no 'start' of time, the models work much better when there is no start or end.
Also if you want to see how easily nature handles the concept of infinity think about the Xeno parades. There's an infinite number of phases involved in just walking across a room. Either motion is an illusion (in which case Aquinas is wrong) or infinite regress is the case for all motion (in which case Aquinas is also wrong).
>>499637
>The best theologians have long acknowledged that the claims of their religion are absurd and unprovable.
Yeah. One of them. And he was Danish and died 150 years ago.
Rest of them don't.
>>501661
>It actually makes more sense for there to be no 'start' of time, the models work much better when there is no start or end.
You have. Absoultely. No. Fucking. Idea. What you're talking about.
Stop. Posting. Please.
>>500946
Because it's basically mathematical induction gone wrong. Let Pn be members of a series of causes. P0 is the present while P1 is the cause of P0 and this goes backward for all n. For all n you know that P(n) implies P(n-1) but to have an infinite regress it implies that there is no n large enough that it can start the chain of causes by itself.
To allow an infinite regress it to say that ... P1 is true even though we have no base case to even start the causal chain.
>>499615
>burden of proof is reddit
>>499601
Non-fedora atheist here. I'm not even religious and I'll see your Russel's Teapot and raise you Pascal's wager.
Additionally, this makes the classic atheist mistake of conflating religious oppression and practices with the idea of the existance of god. They are separate questions and if you can't argue against one without the other, you need to git gud, nigga.
>>501732
But Pascal's Wager is simply sophistry, meanwhile Russell's Teapot actually raises serious questions about religious epistemology.
If religious people cannot know if their God exists, they can only believe on retardedly low standards of evidence, comparable to a teapot flying around planets, then there is really no reason why anyone should take them seriously.
>>501732
Pascal's wager is one of the most misunderstood ideas ever, and bloody awful at it.
>>501736
Nice handwave, dismissing something as sophistry. It's a tactical belief. It's something that costs you nothing to adhere to but costs you everything if you choose not to adhere to it and you're wrong. Sooooo... what's you're response to that?
Additionally, you didn't answer the charge of conflating two separate questions.
>>501747
>It's something that costs you nothing to adhere to but costs you everything if you choose not to adhere to it and you're wrong. Sooooo... what's you're response to that?
My response to that is that it's assuming what it has to prove.
Why should I listen to Pascal's hucksterism? And what if I choose the wrong God to "feign" belief in, in hope of a divine reward(presuming that whatever god in question only wants worship)?
>Additionally, you didn't answer the charge of conflating two separate questions.
There's nothing to conflate. If people didn't believe God existed, there wouldn't be any religious oppression, so the fact of religious oppression is very much tied into the idea of the existence of god(s).
>>501747
It doesn't cost you nothing if you need to spend your life in a lie, you might not even believe yourself. And unlike Pascal's wager, it isn't a binary wager. Your chances of winning a lottery isn't 50/50 (Either you win or you don't), neither is the outcome a jackpot or nothing at all. You have hundreds of possible deities, what if you chose wrong and burn in hell? What if the deity wanted you to be independent and not worship anyone, but be good for the sake of altruism, and you were good for selfish reasons to get to paradise. Pascal's wager makes too many assumptions (only 1 god, only 1 possible outcome, the odds are even)
>>501757
>There's nothing to conflate. If people didn't believe God existed, there wouldn't be any religious oppression, so the fact of religious oppression is very much tied into the idea of the existence of god(s).
Buddhist feudalism.
>>501763
>implying Buddhism isn't a religion
>>501757
>My response to that is that it's assuming what it has to prove.
Pascal's wager makes no assumption either way. It's a blind bet. Additionally, having a chance of being right or wrong in your choice of religion still betters your odds. Atheism is putting all of your eggs in one basket in this analysis.
>There's nothing to conflate. If people didn't believe God existed, there wouldn't be any religious oppression, so the fact of religious oppression is very much tied into the idea of the existence of god(s).
You're assuming a universal truth about religion when it is not the case. Bahai'i and Sikhism, for example, are doctrinally opposed to all religious persecution. The religion of the mongols held no requirements for those outside of it's faith to recognize it's gods.
You are conflating the idea that religion makes people shitty when it's the human condition that makes people shitty.
Additionally, without religion and religious oppression, oppression would still exist.
>>501769
>Pascal's wager makes no assumption either way. It's a blind bet. Additionally, having a chance of being right or wrong in your choice of religion still betters your odds. Atheism is putting all of your eggs in one basket in this analysis.
Pascal's Wager fails to truly pierce what it means to believe in a concept or an idea. Nobody can pretend to believe in God, they either sincerely do, or they sincerely don't, it can't be fucking gambled.
Nobody is going to go to Church and actually pray and follow all the tenets of an established religion, just because of some mathematician's hucksterish sophistry.
>You are conflating the idea that religion makes people shitty when it's the human condition that makes people shitty.
Religion usually does make people shitty, and in the scenarios where it doesn't, the people in question would likely be doing good deeds regardless of their religion.
But of course, I do indeed concede that religion isn't the cause of ALL suffering in the world. Only a retard would say such a thing, but it is the cause of a lot, and if we were without it, we could focus on the non-religious evils that exist and try to remove them as well.
>>501788
>Pascal's Wager fails to truly pierce what it means to believe in a concept or an idea.
One can choose to believe based upon that idea and dedicate themselves to it fully. Pascal was on the outside looking in. Any argument that relies upon an assumed knowledge of the inner workings of other individuals with their own unique psychology, needs and motivations is automatically false.
>Nobody is going to go to Church and actually pray and follow all the tenets of an established religion, just because of some mathematician's hucksterish sophistry.
Blanket statement combined with unfounded dismissiveness. There's no need to respond to this any further.
>Religion usually does make people shitty, and in the scenarios where it doesn't, the people in question would likely be doing good deeds regardless of their religion.
This is a self-contradictory statement. On one hand, you begin with the assumption that religion will make people shitty. On the other hand, you indicate that good people will be good regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
Both of these things cannot be true.
>But of course, I do indeed concede that religion isn't the cause of ALL suffering in the world. Only a retard would say such a thing, but it is the cause of a lot, and if we were without it, we could focus on the non-religious evils that exist and try to remove them as well.
Another statement grounded in an assumption. Namely that we aren't doing anything about non-religious evil. This is patently false. It's more like we're cause agnostic about religion.
Source: The 20th century.
>>501788
>Pascal's Wager fails to truly pierce what it means to believe in a concept or an idea. Nobody can pretend to believe in God, they either sincerely do, or they sincerely don't, it can't be fucking gambled.
People confuse the wager with its payoff matrix. The actual wager is more along the lines of "I bet if you adopt the rituals and attend the services and say the prayers, you will eventually begin to believe". The payoff matrix (damnation;salvation;death;death) is just a cost/benefit analysis.
all the teapot argument does is make a point about burden of proof, as such there is no response necessary as long as the religious person has at least one logically coherent argument as to why they believe god exists. then you can go on to debate the merits of that argument.but all the teapot doe is stop people from saying "hurr you cant prove god doesnt exist therefore he does :DD"
>>501805
>Pascal was on the outside looking in
No he wasn't. He was a Christian trying to convince non-Christians that salvation was on offer if they just pretended to believe in Christian doctrine, that much is pretty clear.
>On one hand, you begin with the assumption that religion will make people shitty
Yes, I do, because it's not a hard assumption to prove. There has not been reported any rapes and abuses of children in any secular charity organization that I know of, and yet this seems common-place practice for the Catholic Church these days.
>Another statement grounded in an assumption. Namely that we aren't doing anything about non-religious evil. This is patently false. It's more like we're cause agnostic about religion.
And apparently you can't read, because I specifically said we could "focus" on the non-religious evils if the religious evil was gone.
>>501808
>"I bet if you adopt the rituals and attend the services and say the prayers, you will eventually begin to believe".
Which seems even more hucksterish to me. The same can be said of going to a fortune-teller and having your hand read.
>>501816
The problem with the teapost is that Atheism carries with it the same assumption that the theists carry; namely that their null hypothesis is the correct one.
In truth, both the existence and non-existence of a higher power are both untested, unsupported hypotheses. As such, the teapot cuts both ways.
>>499601
I don't. My faith is intuitive, not rational. I also do not think it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt anything, including itself.
>>501829
>Yes, I do, because it's not a hard assumption to prove. There has not been reported any rapes and abuses of children in any secular charity organization that I know of, and yet this seems common-place practice for the Catholic Church these days.
>The documents also allege that Fogle received images and videos of nude children from Russell Taylor, who served as executive director of Fogle’s childhood obesity charity. Taylor also distributed pornographic images of children who were as young as six to Fogle, the documents allege.
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/19/jared-fogle-ex-subway-spokesman-faces-child-sex-and-child-pornography-charges/
Because you only see what you want to see.
>And apparently you can't read, because I specifically said we could "focus" on the non-religious evils if the religious evil was gone.
And if non-religious evil was gone we could focus on religious evil, but the human condition being what it is, neither of those things will happen. What's your point?
OH, and please respond. You're dodging questions again.
>This is a self-contradictory statement. On one hand, you begin with the assumption that religion will make people shitty. On the other hand, you indicate that good people will be good regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Both of these things cannot be true.
>>501830
>In truth, both the existence and non-existence of a higher power are both untested, unsupported hypotheses.
Not him, but that really doesn't matter.
One is far more likely than the other given our scientific knowledge of the universe.
If you think that the existence/non-existence of higher powers are completely identical in their level of argumentative and scientific evidence, then you are displaying serious ignorance on the subject.
>>501843
>One is far more likely than the other given our scientific knowledge of the universe.
>The problem with the teapost is that Atheism carries with it the same assumption that the theists carry; namely that their null hypothesis is the correct one.
Wait, are you arguing for my point? 2/10 cherry picking. report to /pol/ for remedial training vis a vis learning how to cherry-pick arguments without shooting yourself in the foot.
>>499601
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc
>>501370
>All that matters is factual data or well supported theories of sound mind.
can you prove that?
This argument implies God is a physical being actually floating around somewhere, when in actuality he's a transcendental being.
On top of that, God or not, a lot of religious practices are still valuable.
If we take Buddhism for example; you can disregard Buddhist cosmology completely but the actual practices still contribute to living an equanimous life, and as for as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
>>501840
>Because you only see what you want to see.
Touche. Though I will say that it's way more surprising when the great moral Church does it if you ask me, considering preaches that it is the only salvation and the only moral thing left in the world. But hypocrisy is a hell of a drug apparently.
>And if non-religious evil was gone we could focus on religious evil, but the human condition being what it is, neither of those things will happen. What's your point?
My point is that religion doesn't need to exist, at least not in the form that it takes in Southern Baptist America, and among Wahhabi preachers in Saudi-Arabia.
>>501843
>One is far more likely than the other given our scientific knowledge of the universe.
But we're talking about a being that must exist outside of our universe by necessity.
>>501860
>Touche. Though I will say that it's way more surprising when the great moral Church does it if you ask me, considering preaches that it is the only salvation and the only moral thing left in the world. But hypocrisy is a hell of a drug apparently.
Guess what. It's made up of people. And the church is way better behaved today than it was in it's past. You lack context.
>My point is that religion doesn't need to exist, at least not in the form that it takes in Southern Baptist America, and among Wahhabi preachers in Saudi-Arabia.
This is a subjective value judgement based upon people that you don't like. Opinion discarded.
>>501861
>But we're talking about a being that must exist outside of our universe by necessity.
Go to bed Aquinas.
>A being that must exist outside of our universe by necessity
>But can of course create tidal-waves and brimstone showers on Earth at will any time he wants
>>501869
>This is a subjective value judgement based upon people that you don't like
Everything is a subjective value judgement you fucking fag.
The difference is I can actually argue for mine, but you just shitpost like a fucking 12 year old.
>>501873
>But can of course create tidal-waves and brimstone showers on Earth at will any time he wants
A being or beings that must have faculties far surpassing our own.
>>501874
So you have no counter-argument. Additionally, you ignored one of mine.
>This is a self-contradictory statement. On one hand, you begin with the assumption that religion will make people shitty. On the other hand, you indicate that good people will be good regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Both of these things cannot be true.
What say you?
>>501875
>A being or beings that must have faculties far surpassing our own.
How do you know that? Why can't he be just locked outside in perpetual darkness, unable to touch his creation?
Please bridge the gap between deism and theism, I'll excited to hear how.
>>501873
>supernatural beings acting supernaturally is illogical
m8....
>>501880
Gaben can create anything he wants in City 17
City 17 has no way to measure Gaben but Gaben is the reason he exists
>>501880
Then what locked him outside?
WE GNOSTICISM NAO, NIGGA!
>>501879
Look, I ignored it because it's retarded.
I never said that religion makes every single religious person into a shit person, you just assumed that's what I meant because I didn't preface my sentence with "some".
Tough shit you pedantic cunt.
>>500422
every one of those arguments can be used to prove the existence of the teapot...
>>501856
>This argument implies God is a physical being actually floating around somewhere, when in actuality he's a transcendental being.
Nope. It implies that however you want to define god then then burden of proof is on the person making the claim that it exists to prove it exists.
>>501881
>Supernaturalism is logical
>>501890
>I never said that religion makes every single religious person into a shit person, you just assumed that's what I meant because I didn't preface my sentence with "some".
You implied a negative influence caused by religion and you did so here >>501757 here >>501788 (In fact, you used the term "usually" rather than "some") here >>501805 and here >>501860
So....
>This is a self-contradictory statement. On one hand, you begin with the assumption that religion will make people shitty. On the other hand, you indicate that good people will be good regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Both of these things cannot be true.
What say you?
>>501856
>If we take Buddhism for example; you can disregard Buddhist cosmology completely but the actual practices still contribute to living an equanimous life, and as for as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
its practices contribute to you being a lifeless husk without ability to be influenced by the physical world around you?
good job i guess?
>>501904
Yes, and I supplied an example where it is a negative influence, i.e the Catholic rape and abuse scandal.
I can give you more if you want. Female genital mutilation in Africa, Islamic State currently causing havoc in the Middle-East, Wahhabi preachers spreading anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, the Lord's Resistance Army spearheaded by Joseph Kony who has cocaine-addled children in his troop etc.
All of these examples are directly influenced by religion in some fashion, and while there are certainly counter-examples as well, I think we would be better off without it all.
>>501909
>its practices contribute to you being a lifeless husk without ability to be influenced by the physical world around you?
>good job i guess?
Are you guys capable of making an argument without resorting to "Everyone around me is dead-eyed sheeple!"
>>501898
>muh burden of proof
except we're not the ones trying to convince you God exists... you're the ones trying to convince us he doesn't
we're more than happy that you don't believe... in fact, it's biblical. there are people who reject God, that's the way it is
but you won't see the religious filling their twitter feeds with autism like Dawkins and The Amazing Atheist.. because you can't deal with the fact we don't accept your personal necessity for proof defined by your parameters
>>501911
Your stated position was that it actually makes you a shittier human being.
In the real world, there are secular and religious charities. There are secular monsters and religious monsters.
Now is this guy really a step below kiddy-diddling priests?
The truth is that you're confusing correlation for causation.
ipsum esse subsistens hasn't been disproven m8
>>501923
>Now is this guy really a step below kiddy-diddling priests?
Absolutely not, but mistaking my derision of religion for endorsement of "secular" psychopaths is clearly a ridiculously retarded move on your part.
Do you honestly believe that most atheists thinks that maniacal and fanatical ideology is any better than religion?
Because as far as I'm concerned they are cut from the same fabric.
>>501919
>Infinite regression stops when I say so because magic
>>501925
That's because falsifying the unfalsifiable is impossible
>>501931
>natural laws apply to supernatural beings because I say so
>>501920
Saying we don't care and then chucking out a bit of ad hom is in no way a refutation of Bertram Russell's teapot.
>>501914
sorry but why would you think "removing yourself from worldly desires" is a good thing?
>>501940
So you have knowledge of something no one can have knowledge of? How did you achieve this?
>>501950
like i said, Russell's teapot is of no relevance
if it was, then i would have read the pic in the OP, thought to myself "good point" and become an atheist instantly
why am i still not an atheist?
>>501927
My point is that there is no useful correlation. The historically accepted reason given for the profusion of Christianity throughout Europe, for example, is that it got people to stop killing each other long enough to pay their taxes.
I do not think that you endorse the crimes of people like him and you've indicated that you do not and I accept that at face value. The point is that the new atheists mistake correlation for causation. That we're still the same violent apes that we always were and always will be.
>>501940
Of course natural laws don't apply to supernatural beings; supernatural beings don't exist.
>>501940
where was it even demonstrated this being is supernatural?
>>501955
Because you prefer a comfortable lie over a painful truth?
>>501955
>why am i still not an atheist?
because you fail to understand what the teapot is about?
for what reason would anyone believe a china teapot between Earth and Mars exists?
>universe exists
>theory is that it was created
bears no resemblance in logic to
>.........
>there's a china teapot between Earth and Mars
that's some seriously retarded logic.
>>501920
>you're the ones trying to convince us he doesn't
actually no. we're trying to convince you there is neither evidence nor logical arguments for the existance of god
not believing in something =/= believing it doesnt exist
>>501954
deduction
>>501961
it has been described as not of this world
>>501962
that doesn't make sense though.
if it is clear that there is as much chance of God as a china pot (i.e. practically zero) then i don't have any comfort. unless you're saying i'm an atheist but pretending to not be one, or that all religionists are atheists who pretend to believe in a God.
>>501956
>The historically accepted reason given for the profusion of Christianity throughout Europe, for example, is that it got people to stop killing each other long enough to pay their taxes.
Which makes sense to me, taken at face value too.
Social cohesion clearly is very useful.
>The point is that the new atheists mistake correlation for causation.
It really depends on what you are talking about. There are certain "evil" things that only come about through religion.
It's pretty clear to me that an entity like ISIS would never exist without the culture of literalism in that region beforehand, and the very very overt violence in certain passages of the Quran.
But if you agree with me, that it is not a good thing that ideologies like that of Pol Pot and Nuon Chea exist, you have to at least concede the same for if not all religion, some of it, hence my specifying of Southern Baptist fundamentalists and Wahhabi Muslims earlier.
>>501955
>like i said, Russell's teapot is of no relevance
Then you are in the wrong thread, sweetheart. Did you get lost on your way to >>/b/?
>>501966
we're aware of your little logic games, but it doesn't convince us. claiming a china teapot in space is the same as thinking the universe must have been created isn't a very convincing argument to stop me or any believer in a creator, in believing so.
>>501969
it hasnt been demonstrated how or why this being would be supernatural, so why would you presuppose it is
>>501980
> nat•u•ral (năchˈər-əl, năchˈrəl)►
>
> adj.
> Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
> adj.
> Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
> adj.
> Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
> su•per (so͞oˈpər)►
>
> n.
> Informal An article or a product of superior size, quality, or grade.
> su•per•nat•u•ral (so͞oˌpər-năchˈər-əl)►
>
> adj.
> Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
> adj.
> Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
> adj.
> Of or relating to a deity.
the major flaw in Russell's teapot, is that it assumes that a believer in God is trying to convince a non believer that there is a God.
then it makes sense, because the non-believer can say where's the proof. but for the vast majority of believers, they aren't trying to convince non-believers.
there's also a blurring between whether God exists or not, and religion. whether any man made religion that has ever existed or will ever exist, are true or not, doesn't actually get to the issue of whether there is or isn't a God.
>>501979
>we're aware of your little logic games
logic games?
while certainly there are games (entertainment) which work by logic. just using logic isnt a game
>>501979
>claiming a china teapot in space is the same as thinking the universe must have been created isn't a very convincing argument to stop me or any believer in a creator, in believing so.
well you didnt understand russels teapot at all.
it has nothing to do with "thinking the universe must have been created" , although that concept is equally as retarded as everything else you believe
>>501972
Well, yes, it does.
Right now, you have an absolute way to order and structure the world. You even use this absolute logic in your post.
If you become an atheist, that is thrown instantly out of the window. You now have to admit that knowledge is generated solely by human brains, which are fallible and have incomplete information about reality. Something highly uncomfortable, but nevertheless much more realistic than an epistemic and ethical deus ex machina
>>501968
Of something you by definition can't know anything about?
That'll be a really short deduction then
>>501988
>the major flaw in Russell's teapot, is that it assumes that a believer in God is trying to convince a non believer that there is a God.
uh no
it juxtaposes the evidence of a belief in a god with the evidence of a belief in something absurd.(they both have the same amount)
it doesnt need anyone to try to convince anyone else of anything
>>501954
m8 who ever said no one had knowledge of it?
>>501999
Then you may explain how anyone gains reliable knowledge about the supernatural.
>>501989
>using logic isn't a game
yes it is.. it's a man made game, whereby you're imposing a rule whereby if i can't give you proof of God, then until i do i MUST assume there isn't a God. and then saying if i refuse to do so, then i'm doing the same thing as someone who wants to believe that a china teapot between Earth and Mars exists... i have reason to theorise a God, you have no reason to theorise a china teapot between Earth and Mars
>>501991
except i don't have order and structure if Russell's teapot is true.
and you must think that Russell's teapot is clear as day, and that anyone who isn't insane would hear it and think "why would i think a God exists, because obviously the teapot between Earth and Mars doesn't"
i'm not mentally ill or educationally subnormal, like the vast majority of christians. i understand what you're trying to say with Russell's teapot, and i don't agree with what you're trying to say it implies
the very fact i haven't become an atheist means obviously your Russell teapot analogy isn't watertight... you can argue that i'm living a lie, and i secretly so understand Russell's teapot how you understand it, and i'm playing pretend whwn i go to church, just for the companionship etc... all i can do is give you my word and say i'm not doing that. if you don't believe me then fair enough. but that's pretty much the only thing you could say.... that i'm pretending to believe in a God
>>501988
That's not a flaw, that is you trying to switch the burden of proof not based on any solid argument but simply saying "you are trying to convince me, I'm not trying to convince you, na na na na na na, check mate atheists".
>>501988
If every religious person would keep their beliefs in god as a personal business it wouldn't really be a problem. The problem arises when problems in society or nature are explained with the works of god (Gays can't marry, because it is against God. Evolution can't be taught, because it is against God). And that is scary, if you place your beliefs in a fully non-empiricist ideology that cannot provide useful data, what is the use of it as part of society.
However belief in god =/= religion. Religion itself is a collection of cultural aspects, which might be corrupted by supernatural beliefs.
>>502011
Theists are incapable of keeping their religion private.
>le things just exist
Explain this atheismos.
>>501997
you're assuming the believer requires evidence
a believer only requires evidence if they are trying to convince a non believer
>>502005
all men known God in their hearts anon :3
>>502005
Events and contacts
>>502011
evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, because it isn't a fact, it's a theory
as far as marriage goes, marriage is a religious invention, so it's not being truthful to pretend that religionists are trying to infect some completely secular custom that has nothing to do with religion
>>502015
>things just exist
Isn't that exactly the argument theists make for god when challenged? Oh hey he just exists, that's what god is.
>>502015
I don't have the answer. So I'm not going to pretend I do.
>>502029
gib burden of proofs :DDDDD
>>502026
2/10, try again.
>>502010
there is no burden of proof. whether you believe or not isn't relevant to me.
i didn't need proof to believe that there must be a creator.
>>499791
>Inner disposition of a being
Prove that exists
>I dont need to prove a transcendent principle to live my life in reference to it
No, but you also dont need to prove a theistic god to live your life in reference to it either, your claim of transcendence is simply attempting to claim that the normal rules dont apply and then fall back on the usual non falsifiable claim.
>>502006
>yes it is.. it's a man made game, whereby you're imposing a rule whereby if i can't give you proof of God, then until i do i MUST assume there isn't a God.
1. a game is entertainment so no its not a fucking game
2. thats just basic common sense
>>502006
>i have reason to theorise a God
a bit of semantics here but no, you dont "theorise" a god because theories work on physical or logical laws. which god is apparently above of
>>502006
>i understand what you're trying to say with Russell's teapot, and i don't agree
its not a matter of opinion.
1 + 1=2 doesnt work because you agree it does.
from what ive gathered. you think evidence to god isnt needed because you somehow decided he exists or must exist based on something else.
mind you russels teapot is ONLY ABOUT EVIDENCE. so if youre basing your belief on some first cause or creator thing youre right that russels teapot wouldnt work. but then again so wouldnt your church. because at best a first cause argument can only prove a deity that started a universe but doesnt interact with it (to our knowledge)
>>502033
That's a complete non-sequitur.
>>502034
science is facts derived from tests and evidence
no one has taken an animal, put it in a petri dish for a few million years, and come back to see if it's become a completely different animal
>>501975
Southern Baptists are way less violent then ISIS, even during the civil rights era when they lost their fucking minds. Keep in mind that the abolitionist and progressive movements both started in churches.
I specifically chose Pol Pot for a reason. Like ISIS he had a very absolutist world view. Like Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, he eschewed a personality cult. And like ISIS, the Khmer Rouge never put the fucking breaks on anything. Germans held off on liquidating the Half Jews married to German Citizens during the war because they needed them in the industry.
As for the Khmer Rouge? Glasses and a watch. That was the minimum standard to get executed by the regime and they never once put practical considerations before ideological ones. Yes, I am arguing that the Khmer Rouge is our closest analog to ISIS. So yes. Non-believers do get up to the same kind of shit.
Does it tarnish Atheism by association? No. Should ISIS tarnish religion by association? Also no.
>>502017
as i said it has nothing to do with convincing, its just a logical argument
it does however also show how belief through faith is retarded and why it doesnt work (millions of religions which contradict each other)
God can be known through direct experience.
Checkmate fedoras.
>>502036
>i didn't need proof to believe that there must be a creator.
why not
>>502040
yes, it is a matter of opinion, and i don't agree with what you think Russell's teapot implies
i agree that 1+1=2, because it is a fact... the comparison between believing in a china pot in the physical world, between Earth and Mars, and thinking there is a God, is not apt.
>>502046
No one has been inside the core sun, yet we can detect it is pretty damn hot. No one knows what causes gravity, yet we can make calculations of its effects.
And we can see micro evolution in bacteria (whose life cycle is much faster than ours), and put a bunch of micro evolutionary effects into one, and bang you have macro evolution.
>>502036
Okay, dear. But unless you have alzheimers you will probably remember this thread is about Bertram's teapot.
>>502040
>russels teapot is ONLY ABOUT EVIDENCE
>believing in a china pot in the physical world, between Earth and Mars, and thinking there is a God, is not apt
I thought it was showing the deficiency of circular semantic arguments.
>>502052
if believing in God was retarded, then either you think 87% of the world's population is braindead, including me, or you simply don't agree with my and other believer's opinion that logic suggests you need a creator to have the result of the universe and life
you may disagree with my opinion, but it's not the equivalent of someone believing in something factually not true, like "i think red is blue" or "there's a rabbit with 6 heads under my bed"
>>502057
because i came to the conclusion, through just thinking about what i consider to be most likely to be true.
>>502047
>Does it tarnish Atheism by association? No. Should ISIS tarnish religion by association? Also no.
false dichotomy
was the khmer rouge idelogoy their non belief in anything?
no of course not , they believed in some retarded ideology about how everyone working a plow will benefit society.
if you lumped together people by what they dont believe you could also argue that hitler and ghandi and tina turner are the same because they all arent muslims
>>502063
bacteria evolving to slightly different bacteria, in days, weeks and months, doesn't prove that dinosaurs became chickens over 10s/100s of millions of years
>>502006
>yes it is.. it's a man made game, whereby you're imposing a rule whereby if i can't give you proof of God, then until i do i MUST assume there isn't a God
Technically the way to play this game is to start with some prior (it is unknown whether or not there is a god) and then using available evidence increase the probability of one side being correct or incorrect.
The assertion that there must exist a god, or alternatively that there must not exist a god is a non falsifiable one, simply because (disregarding some of the self defeating quirks of logic that surround the notion of a "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being") gods are generally defined as (a) not following the normal rules or (b) being undetectable.
By definition if I assert that there exists an object with the property that it is undetectable my statement is both non provable and non falsifiable. However, unless you can demonstrate that the property of being undetectable is unique to a singular god then I can also assert the existence of any other object with the property that it is undetectable with the same prior probability of existing as a god.
This is in essence Russell's teapot, not that it demonstrates that god does not exist, but rather that the probability of a god that is undetectable existing using prior evidence is equal to an unobservable teapot existing (in this case in orbit around mars).
>the very fact i haven't become an atheist means obviously your Russell teapot analogy isn't watertight
This is a non argument; the fact that any person may disbelieve something after being provided with a correct or incorrect argument; your lack of change in your state of belief simply reflects your prior state of belief rather than anything about the argument itself (again, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect).
>>502047
>Keep in mind that the abolitionist and progressive movements both started in churches.
Also keep in mind that slavery is endorsed in the Bible, and the slave-holders used the Bible as justification for their behavior probably as much as the abolitionists did. Only history has proven who is "right" I guess.
>Does it tarnish Atheism by association? No. Should ISIS tarnish religion by association? Also no.
I don't think they are analogous at all. Pol Pot was no doubt an atheist, since he was a Communist, however, to the extent that the Khmer Rouge persecuted religious people, this is clearly because they saw religion as a threat to their own power.
Meanwhile, ISIS exists because of Islam.
>le things just exist
>le transcendental being
Who Nontheism master race here?
>>502073
I don't believe 87% of the world (if that even is the real number) believes in a creator, or at least in sense as you make it. Also even if >50% would believe in God, it wouldn't make god factual. That's not how it works, just like how democracy doesn't answer to the question what is right, just what is most accepted notion.
>>502072
i disagree with the comparison between the requirement of proof between 2 situations, where one (whether God exists or not) is a darn sight harder to prove than whether a physical object exists in a certain location in the physical universe. and where supposing the existence of the object is completely arbitrary. it's being intellectually dishonest to think that people since humanity has existed, considering the existence of a higher power, is the same as randomly claiming there's a flying teapot somewhere
>>502084
The Khmer Rouge was explicitly Atheist and managed to completely extirpate all religious influence from Cambodia.
The USSR was as well but they put the fucking brakes on that shit when they realized that it might start a revolution. The Khmer Rouge paid no such mind to things like that. Again, they never let practical considerations get int he way of ideology.
Does this tarnish Atheism by association? No.
>>502087
Chicken itself is a form of Fowl, and quite new at it. Fowl itself is from a bird of earlier age. Not everything living millions of years ago was a dinosaur, nor was every dinosaur a t-rex. And the large selection of related animals, yet completely evolved to their surroundings is pretty good evidence of how evolution works.
>>502097
>missing the point
i'm not saying the number of people who believe in a creator makes it factual, i'm saying that if it was as retarded as randomly thinking a flying teapot exists, you wouldn't have that proportion of people believing it
you could count on one hand the number of people on the planet who would believe in a flying teapot if Russell walked up to them and claimed it
>>502091
Orthodox Marxist-Leninist and Maoist doctrine calls for the forceful dismantling of religion.
>>501829
>Which seems even more hucksterish to me. The same can be said of going to a fortune-teller and having your hand read.
Probably not, unless the predictions were either true, uselessly vague or confined to a time after one's death. In those cases, repeated visits might well produce belief. But the payoff matrix will not be inclined to value the latter two possibilities all that highly, so it's unlikely Pascal would recommend that course.
Like I say, a lot of people misunderstand the wager.
>>502116
Absolutely.
But Orthodox Marxist-Leninism and Maoism is not simply "atheism".
>>502073
>then either you think 87% of the world's population is braindead
i dont want to come off as a reddit tier by this, but have you seen how most of the population reacts to most logical things?
have you read a youtube comment lately?
generally most of the population lives by emotions and instincts to a large degree , because thats how we evolved.
>>502073
>or you simply don't agree with my and other believer's opinion that logic suggests you need a creator to have the result of the universe and life
because logic doesnt work on opinions, its simple math.
you just use an incorrect equation to come to a different conclusion that me, but that doesnt make our equations subjective, it doesnt make them opinions.
>>502073
>because i came to the conclusion, through just thinking about what i consider to be most likely to be true.
and how did you get to that conclusion. how do you measure probability when you have a being thats immeasurable and no statistical data
>>502113
it's an interesting theory you have, but it's not a fact. even a 100% atheist, if they were being intellectually honest, would have to say that it isn't a fact
scientists in 10 million years time have the capability of being able to prove evolution, because a scientist in 2015 could set up a whole set of cameras in the amazon, and record for 10 million years, and a scientist in 20 million years time will be able to see if animals have evolved or not. but until then, evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory
>>502115
There's no need to be so sensitive. If someone disagrees with you on something then it is normal to defend your position, not simply say "stop calling me retarded" as if someone disagreeing with you is some grievous insult.
>>502118
>unless the predictions were either true, uselessly vague or confined to a time after one's death.
So, exactly like religion then.
>>502119
No it is not. It's one tenet that is part of a larger package, however. Despite this, ISIS kills people because they are of the wrong religious affiliation (Un-Islamic). Communists and the Khmer Rouge in particular killed people for having the wrong religion. (Non-Atheist.)
Again, Correlation. Not causation.Anyway, I have work in five hours so I need to get some sleep.
>>502105
>Does this tarnish Atheism by association? No.
because once again , why would it. atheism isnt an ideology or a belief system. communism is.
most atheists today are humanists (ideologically) and sceptics (belief). both of these were incompatible with communism and cults of personality.
so once again. trying to lump people together by a characteristic they both lack is retarded.
i dont lump together abraham lincoln and hitler on their ideology because neither of them were clean shaven
>>502124
By that logic we can't take the word of God as truth, because someone creating something a long time ago, is merely a theory. But when it comes to theories, certain theories have more facts backing them, and in this case it is evolution.
>>502127
>So, exactly like religion then.
Not really (I think you missed the 'true' provision there, btw). Religion has numerous rituals, communal interactions and self-reported benefits, to listen to its adherents. It also, and this bears repeating, features a markedly different payoff matrix.
And the fact that I'm saying all this shouldn't lead you to suppose I'm a theist; I'm not. It's just that people misunderstand the wager, that's all.
>>502138
Atheism is absolutely a belief system, founded on the belief of a non-existance in god. What you're describing are agnostics. Theists and atheists both have a null hyposthesis, they just differ on what that is. Agnostics have no null hypothesis and reject the question outright.
Never buy into your own PR.
>>502122
>i dont want to come off as a reddit tier by this, but have you seen how most of the population reacts to most logical things? have you read a youtube comment lately?
people may seem retarded, but ask them if they believe there's a china teapot between earth and mars. i bet 99.999% will say they don't believe you. now, if believing in God was just based on people's low-level mental functioning, then why would they believe there is a God, but not believe in your flying teapot? i'm saying it's because they aren't of the same believeability
>because logic doesn't work on opinions, it's simple math
then why are there genuine believers in God? not specific religions, where you can give the argument about deluding yourself into comfort of eternal life.. why do so many people believe that there is a higher power? if it was as retarded as thinking 1+1=3, they wouldn't believe it
>and how did you get to that conclusion. how do you measure probability when you have a being thats immeasurable and no statistical data
i didn't measure anything. it's an instinct that you can't get life and the universe from nothing, or from no external knowledgable force. i'm not claiming it's a fact, that's why i don't have proof.it's what i think makes most sense
>>502115
>, i'm saying that if it was as retarded as randomly thinking a flying teapot exists, you wouldn't have that proportion of people believing it
a flying teapot is meant to be absurd as an example.
however things like jesus can also be shown to be absurd (a self ressurecting zombie man who needs to kill himself to forgive himself)
its just that religion has hundreds of years of indoctrination and apologetics.
you think if the teapot wasnt the dominant religion 2000 years ao you wouldnt be sitting here saying how we can question the divine nature of the holy stout while arguing some stupid example like a zombie man?
>>502143
There really isn't anything to misunderstand.
Saying I should believe in religion because I might be wrong and get nothing when I die, but gain everything if I believe and die, is just white noise to me.
I could just as easily replaced religion with a white unicorn in the Wager instead and it would literally be the same white noise.
>>502153
you're switching the argument up, like many atheists do
this isn't about a specific religion. i thought the flying teapot analogy was to be a comparison to whether a creator exists, not Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh
>>502155
>There really isn't anything to misunderstand.
Yep. People definitely misunderstand it.
>>502164
Are you being sarcastic or something?
>>502129
>Communists and the Khmer Rouge in particular killed people for having the wrong religion. (Non-Atheist.)
they also killed people for having any opposing political beliefs (non- communist)
because once _fucking_ again. ITS ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED, AND THEY BELIEVED IN COMMUNISM.
>logic was developed through metaphysics and doesn't work on naturalist assumptions
>metaphysics assumes being
>being takes part in absolute being
checkmate atheists
>>502124
>it's an interesting theory you have, but it's not a fact. even a 100% atheist, if they were being intellectually honest, would have to say that it isn't a fact
Ok, firstly you're a fucking idiot; but let's dissect why and how you are an idiot.
Science is epistemic not ontological, there are no absolute facts just theories.
Theories are modified, updated, removed or replaced as more information becomes available, a theory in the scientific sense is a "working model" or "the best current model", the theory of evolution has been updated and improved numerous times since it was first proposed, the current theory has been demonstrated to work with bacteria and is scalable, if it works with single celled organisms and every human starts as a single cell you can work it from there.
Furthermore, your assertion that "one strain of bacteria turning into another isnt evolution or a big deal" is utter bullshit, mono cellular life was the only life on this planet for between 50% and 75% of the time since life started on earth. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as you attempt to raise the notion that labelling evolution as a theory invalidates or weakens its position, and you have no concept that the evidence you're dismissing is actually exactly the evidence required to validate the current theory of evolution until further evidence comes to improve or replace it.
Lastly you have no concept of time; homo sapiens are only 100,000 years old, the difference between any two humans is at most 60,000 years of divergent evolution, the difference between someone from iran and someone from spain is at most 4000 years. Evolution is real, observable and the current theory. You are fucking retarded.
>>502169
communism = radical atheism
If you actually lived in a communist country you'd know they go hand in hand.
>>502154
And god existing is a theory, a remote one, but a theory. There is no law which would state that a supernatural (which itself would be outside of the natural laws) being couldn't possibly exists, however there are no evidence that would point us in that direction, thus belief in such theory is merely based on personal belief. Where as theory of evolution has evidence pointing us in the direction that this is how life most likely became what it is today. Evolution does not answer to the question how life began (it is one of the biggest mysteries).
And this is what Russels Teapot comes down to. There is nothing which would make china teapot in orbit between mars and earth impossible (teapots are known to exists, mars can be seen from earth, and well earth exists (unless we get really meta here..) and we know very much about orbits). However the evidence of such teapot are very slim, thus it is fully in the mind of the believer.
>>502147
>Atheism is absolutely a belief system, founded on the belief of a non-existance in god. What you're describing are agnostics
no theism refers to belief and gnosticism refers to knowledge.
if you dont believe in a god (either through lack of evidence or you think the evidence shows he doesnt exits) youre always an atheist.
>>502170
>logic was developed through metaphysics and doesn't work on naturalist assumptions
Logic can be derived as a tautology rather than a closed ontology. Using this derivation you no longer require metaphysics and the rest of your argument is bunk.
>metaphysics assumes being
Sometimes; it depends on your priors, you can construct an ontic without being.
>being takes part in absolute being
Again, this depends on your ontology.
You've really gone out of your way to misrepresent metaphysics here, why dont you fuck off.
>>502167
I am saying that you continue to misunderstand the wager, that's all. It's not, strictly speaking, a positive assertion that 'you should believe in God'. What it does is hypothesise that, were you to adopt the behaviour patterns of belief in God, the likelihood that you would begin to actually believe in God would increase significantly.
It does point to a payoff matrix, but that's been amply criticised here and elsewhere ad nauseam.
>>502170
>logic was developed
Genetic fallacy. J'adoube.
>>502161
>i thought the flying teapot analogy was to be a comparison to whether a creator exists
only based on evidence. russels teapot isnt a counter argument to kalaam or other (illogical) arguments
>>502171
>there are no absolute facts just theories.
maybe in some hippy "woah man, are my eyes real if mirrors aren't real" way, there are no absolute facts, just theories, but in the real world, there are facts (1+1=2, Obama is the President, the capital of Spain is Madrid, the air contains nitrogen and oxygen, plants get their energy from photosynthesis), and there are theories (evolution, God, there's a dead body on the floor, i think the butcher down the road killed him etc)
yes, theories are modified and updated.. you know what isn't modified and updated? that in 2015 the capital of Spain was Madrid, and Obama was the President in 2015
>>502169
And Atheism is a foundational tenet of communism.
>>502185
>and there are theories (evolution
So gravity is a theory, and not a fact?
>>502190
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
>>502182
well in that case, you can compare believing a half eaten carrot in an empty locked room where there's only a rabbit in the room, was eaten by the rabbit, with Russell's teapot
you didn't see the rabbit eat it, but you can't 100% prove it, therefore it's an apt comparison with believing there's a flying teapot between earth and mars
>>502179
Logic was developed by Aristotle and assumes ontological categories of supstance and relation.
>>502174
>If you actually lived in a communist country
well congratulations on failing completely.
>>502190
Not necessarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
>>502179
>were you to adopt the behaviour patterns of belief in God, the likelihood that you would begin to actually believe in God would increase significantly.
Yes and the inducement is an eternal reward. The point is that there is nothing that will convince anyone to choose falsely to believe, in hope of a hand-out. EVEN if there is a small chance you will start really believing it.
Do you honestly think that just saying "Try it a few times and see if you like it" to a heterosexual person will change him into a homosexual person?
I find that highly unlikely.
>>502175
>however there are no evidence that would point us in that direction
the very existence of life and the universe points us in that direction
>>502154
>how was that post being sensitive?
Your entire post was based on "stop calling me retarded" when no one had.
>>502195
>muh special idealist conception of communism hasn't been tried
go away
>>502192
Congratulations. You found a Marxist heresy that never controlled a single stretch of land beyond a tax-exempt building and was built by repudiating a portion of orthodox marxist doctrine.
You are really reaching right now.
>>502179
>What it does is hypothesise that, were you to adopt the behaviour patterns of belief in God, the likelihood that you would begin to actually believe in God would increase significantly.
how in the hell did you deduce that from pascals wager.
>>502201
you thought that because the word "retarded" was used in the post? it's pretty obvious the word retarded was describing someone who would believe in a flying teapot, not the poster
>>502185
>1+1=2
This is a definition and a tautology, you cannot prove this statement is true
>Obama is the President
I have observed evidence that suggests this as a valid theory, I cannot state whether this is true using pure logic. As a result it is epistemic not ontological and is a probability, not a fact. As it goes, my current state of belief is that based on prior evidence it is highly probable that the captial of spain was madrid, but I cannot be certain that I, or my sources are not incorrect in this statement.
> plants get their energy from photosynthesis
Funnily enough the theories around this process are far less understood than evolution.
You're confusing the terminology of a scientific theory (like gravity) whereby the term theory is used to represent the notion that we're using an epistemic model of the universe and that we lack absolute statements of truth with the conventional notion of a theory; which is a proposal. Scientific theories require this thing called a body of evidence, and a few other things like falsifiability.
Given that god is non falsifiable it is not a theory.
Congratulations, you're still an idiot, and worse than that you're conflating technical language with non technical then claiming that you are correct.
>>502199
>The point is that there is nothing that will convince anyone to choose falsely to believe, in hope of a hand-out.
It's only arguably concerned with 'choosing to believe'. I would maintain it would only represent 'choosing' in the same way that entering a raffle would constitute 'choosing to win the raffle' if and only if you win the raffle. Not what people think of as choosing at all.
>Do you honestly think that just saying "Try it a few times and see if you like it" to a heterosexual person will change him into a homosexual person?
Well, firstly, that's not really a necessary implication of the reasoning. Secondly, I'd say it's more likely than if they don't try it a few times. Don't you?
>>502202
youre really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
so after accusing me of not knowing about communism you accused me of not living in a communist country, now my ex communist country isnt communist enough for you i guess?
>>502204
>Congratulations
congratulations you may now know that most communist countries had freedom of religion
>>502200
Existence of life is as much evidence of god as it is for aliens, evolution or that we are part of simulation in very advanced Sims game.
>>502210
if you seriously think evolution is as much of a truth (i'll say truth instead of fact to avoid semantics) as Obama being the president in 2015, then you're simply deluded
>>502204
>You are really reaching right now.
Is 'reaching' some cool new slang for 'unequivocally falsifying my claim'? Because that's what's happened, son. You said a thing and someone proved that thing to be wrong. Accept it and move on; ain't nobody about to forget what just happened.
>every bad thing done by christians is the result of christian indoctrination
>every ideology attributed to christians is the result of christianity specifically
>every bad thing done by atheists is never the result of atheism itself
>atheism isn't an ideology because internet defines it as not being an ideology
I can't fucking stand this bullshit.
>>502209
Do we really have to resort to this ludicrous level of pedantry. He said...
>i'm not saying the number of people who believe in a creator makes it factual, i'm saying that if it was as retarded as randomly thinking a flying teapot exists....
..which was very obviously a complaint that Bertram's teapot made out religious people's beliefs to be retarded.
>>502219
taken a paternity test recently?
>>502221
Atheism isn't an ideology though and no matter how much it pisses you off or you whine it ain't suddenly going to magic itself into an ideology, not even if you erroneously claim that is based on "what the internet thinks".
>>502199
Beliefs and behaviors are formed through habit.
If you attempt to live a christian life you will absolutely find it more likely to adopt a christian worldview. This is nothing new.
>>502205
From the part of the Pensees addressed to "He who is so made that he cannot believe":
>You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. …
>But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
>>502234
The issue isn't whether they are the same, the issue is that there is the same level of evidence. It is intended to be a frivolous example.
>>502229
>And I stated that. I specifically differentiated them from the Khmer Rouge.
then why are you arguing that atheism is a core tenet of communism when communist states had religious freedom?
>>502224
>religious beliefs
but that's not what i was talking about. i was saying that comparing the belief in the existence of a creator is not the same as believing in a flying teapot.. and that if they were the same, then believing in a creator would be retarded... and you wouldn't get such a large proportion of non-atheists if the comparison was apt
>>502212
>It's only arguably concerned with 'choosing to believe'.
Yes, but people can't choose to believe something they don't think is true. This is not possible for me at least, I don't know about you.
If one don't believe any of it to be true, tell me how you could even convince someone to join the "raffle" ?
>>502235
No, you're a fucking retard.
Theism and atheism are equally valid positions. Taken in a vacuum, none of them are better or worse.
But they don't exist in a vacuum. Theism has existed in hundreds of varities and influenced philosophy, ideology, cultural behavior etc.
The same way atheism has influenced marxism and changed how people conceived of religion in marxist countries.
Just because you like to imagine your western notion of non-belief (itself a result of western philosophy) exists in a vacuum doesn't make it so.
>>502241
Because it was. Go read your Marx and then go read your Lenin. The early soviets liked to demolish churches and cathedrals to make way for governmental buildings but they walked that back because it was tremendously unpopular.
The Khmer Rouge never had that level of pragmatism, they went by the book as written.
>>502237
I don't believe you at all.
Going to Church and faking prayer is not going to make me believe in the resurrections and water in to wine.
>>502246
>Yes, but people can't choose to believe something they don't think is true.
I agree.
>If one don't believe any of it to be true, tell me how you could even convince someone to join the "raffle" ?
You could point to the payoff matrix.
The wager is interesting to me because it represents a quantum leap in the psychological sophistication of apologetics. Please don't confuse that with an actual endorsement of its reasoning.
>>502246
People tend to believe what they are taught. Why else would you think that majority of people inherit their parents religion, rather than a new one? Because they are born with a tabula rasa when it comes to supernatural beings, then they are taught that this is how the world came to be, and then the idea just starts living, because you don't know any better. Doesn't make the idea any more true, as it lacks any evidence.
>>502244
>i was saying that comparing the belief in the existence of a creator is not the same as believing in a flying teapot.
it is when looking from an evidential point of view
>>502244
>then believing in a creator would be retarded.
it is from an evidential point of view
>>502244
>and you wouldn't get such a large proportion of non-atheists if the comparison was apt
1. we cant number in all the factors ow hy so many people believe in something
2. the amount of people believing in x and that same belief being "retarded" are separate issues
>>502253
Then you're naive as fuck.
>>502250
>Theism and atheism are equally valid positions
.
one is a position AND THE OTHER ISNT
>>502268
Actually you're describing Agnosticism, not Atheism. Just glancing at the OP would tell you that Atheists are trying to prove a position.
>>502257
>You could point to the payoff matrix.
You could, but the payoff matrix presupposes knowledge of the mind of the God in question, i.e that worship is even something that this entity wants, even sycophantic false worship.
Given that, it's pretty clear that Pascal is talking about the Christian god, but for the sake of argument, he could be wrong too, and is literally burning in hell wrong right now because he followed his own Wager but didn't believe in Vishnu.
>>502271
Still better odds than Atheism.
>>502252
>most communist countries had freedom of religion
>yes i know that
>then why are you saying atheism is a core tenet of communism
>because these 2 countries
&
>how is atheism a core tenet of communism
>because they bulldozed churches to make governmental buildings
>>502262
How is that naive? I bet you millions of people go to Church every day and even pray in front of their families even though they have lost their faith completely.
>>502250
No you just can't get your head around the fact that atheism isn't a "thing" it is not an ideology or a doctrine. Some Marxists are atheists and make atheism part of their Marxist ideology. That does not make atheism an thing that "influenced Marxism".
I'm sorry this upsets and distresses you so much.
>>502268
I think you mean one position is related to the other position, of course a world without deities can be postulated, but atheism exists in a world where the position it disagrees with actually exists
>>502273
Actually it is the same odds, because the same wager doesn't close out the fact that there might be a deity, who only lets those into paradise (assume it exists) who didn't believe in anything. Or maybe he punishes those who followed a wrong deity, but lets those who were ignorant of all deities get a free pass.
>>502270
notz only did you completely miss the point of OP (russels tapot does NOT try to prove a position) , you also dont understand what atheism or agnosticism is
>>502273
Not really, if you ask me.
Considering there's literally an infinite amount of Gods that are exclusivist, you should expect to go to hell just by sheer probability.
>>502270
Agnosticism is a very clear position. It is the position that gnosis is impossible and that it is impossible to prove God exists.
>>502260
>it is when looking from an evidential point of view
but not from an actual real life point of view. you couldn't get 10 people on this planet to believe in an arbitrary flying teapot between earth and mars. but plenty think there is a creator.
>we cant number in all the factors ow hy so many people believe in something
you can reason though. and it's patently obvious that belief in a creator is not comparable to belief in an arbitrary flying teapot, otherwise more than 10 people out of 7 billion would believe in such a teapot
>>502282
>it does NOT try to prove a position
yes it does.
>>502279
okay i dont necessarily know what you meen by position here. or whats meant by "disagrees"
>>502276
It's a core tenet that was ignored in practice to retain legitimacy. Why is this a difficult concept?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion
>In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as retarding human development. Due to this, a number of Marxist–Leninist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union after Lenin and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism.
>>502285
Which is itself not taking a position on the question of god's existence. Unlike Atheism.
>>502292
were you implying that theism is a position?
because atheism is the position which opposes/disagrees/disputes the position which theism takes.
>>502286
Argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy which believes that if enough of something believes in something it makes it true, but this isn't the case. Even if 51% would stop believing sun exists, the 49% could prove it still exist with factual evidence.
>>502294
Its separability from communism makes its adoption by communists irrelevant to it in itself. I'm not going to ask why that's a difficult concept, because it isn't.
>>502286
>but not from an actual real life point of view
define this point of view please
>>502286
>and it's patently obvious
its not "panrtently" obvious in the slightest
its becoming more and more obvious you believe in something because the majority of people around you believe in the same thing, which isnt a bad way to live as your community cohesion is strong, but dont pretend its logical in any way.
the way youre trying to slip in words like factual, patent, objective...etc is dishonest
>>502290
tell me what position its trying to prove
Specific religious beliefs are one thing, but the cosmological argument and argument from motion are completely valid, and i find them very convincing. Before getting into philosophy I didn't really care, but the existence of an absolute being is very likely IMO.
