Reminder that religion was BTFO by Russel's Teapot, and Betrand Russel in general
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
>here are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress without which human society would stand still or retrogre
Religion was never BTFI in the first place. It has always been the refuge of second rate thinkers and their terrible ideas.
The fact that it's now dying (at least the literalist version of it) shows that the last centuries merely slowed down the inevitable collapse
>Neitzsche in a trenchcoat
>>483587
This is by far the cringiest picture I have ever seen. And I am not religious people.
The addition of a fucking comedian and a shitposting demagogue among a bevy of scientists is cream of the cringe.
>>483615
You must have seen more cringeworthy than that, anon. Have you been living in a cave?
>>483627
You got any popcorn with that?
>>483631
Of course.
>>483623
Yes I did see my share of religious cringe.
In protestant churches. Scared the shit out of me.
>Be Philippines.
>Be teen atheist edgelord at around 16 or something. Burn churches indoctrinate people with science! That kind of thing.
>Mom converts to Born Again.
>Tries to convert me, invites me to their services
>What_could_possibly_hurt_besides_its_bonding_with_family.jpg
>Cringey Christian rock lyrics
>"Speaking in tongues."
>Denial of evolution, violent bashing of country's Catholic majority & Muslim minority by pastors.
After that experience I became atheist so hard I my beliefs went full 360 degrees and I started accepting that religious beliefs are their personal business and pretty much did not give a shit about religion from that point on.
>>483646
>After that experience I became atheist so hard I my beliefs went full 360 degrees and I started accepting that religious beliefs are their personal business and pretty much did not give a shit about religion from that point on.
Then, quite honestly, you are a tad naive.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
>>483677
By your definition, naive is better than being an intruding asshole I suppose.
>Editorial
Yeap, I'm naive alright.
>The entire military/state apparatus of the US
>Going to war on whackaloon prophecies as opposed to political & economic reasons/hidden agendas.
K.
>>483694
Without being deliberately horrible your post was too badly edited for me to understad the point you were trying to make.
It is quite simple, when the leaders or Germany, Russia, the USA and Britain all claim to be making decisions on a religious basis, then no, religion isn't merely a personal issue.
The day every single religious person in the world shuts the fuck up and practices their religion quietly from home and doesn't try and influence politics or indoctrinate their children is the day you might have a point.
>>483731
I must ask, why is it ideologies other than religion are okay?
>>483735
All I ask is that religion is treated the same as any other ideology and that you don't ask for it to be excluded from criticism based on "being polite".
No one would ever dream of not criticising Conservatism or Gommunism or Liberalism or any school of philosophy based on "I don't want to hurt that person's feelings".
>>483759
Religion is relentlessly criticized. The reason people are beginning to find atheism obnoxious is that your manner of criticism is obnoxious and frequently makes arguments from ignorance.
>>483776
When did it become a valid defence of any political ideology, such as every religion, to squeak that criticism is "obnoxious"? You make my point with every word.
>>483788
Have you read Hume? Values comes from sentiment, not reason, and cringing is a sentiment. If people find atheism to be abrasive, then they will be repelled by it, just like you don't want to listen to loud, obnoxious music. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll become Christians, but it does mean they will be more irked by militant atheism.
>>483800
I find myself irked by and cringe from claims that the creator of the Universe (if there is one) came down to 0BC Palestine as a carpenter and sacrificed himself to himself. I get annoyed by loud and cringeworthy people shrieking about this on the street and threatening children with torture for eternity. I object to George Bush starting a war because he thought he was fighting Gog and Magog.
Try looking at things from someone else's perspective rather than crying about how much any criticism of your religion is a personal insult and how it should be a "personal matter".
No matter how loud "militant atheists" are about simply not believing in horseshit they couldn't become as remotely as "loud" or obnoxious as the religious brigade.
You are just making a "tone argument".
>stop saying stuff about my ideology
>it is mean and horrible and obnoxious
No lad, it is no different to if we were discussing tax levels or legislation or who to vote for in an election (just take a look at political cartoons).
Suck up the satire and the harsh criticism. Your religious ideology deserves no more extra special protection than any other ideology.
>>483847
We don't like Protestants anymore than you do, friend.
>>483615
Way to go, it's people like you who are making atheists a divided front and allowing religion to overrun our society.
>>483587
lol is that fucking adam savage in the background
>>485818
You act like atheists have anything to rally around. The closest thing to an atheist community has been shit like skepticon which is really more about i <3 science and positivism and I'd rather not be apart of that garbage.
In the western world religiosity is generally decreasing so I wouldn't worry.
>>483800
I for one cringed so hard that I started a monastery
>>483627
A strong belief system can unite people, but you can just as easily unite people with a secular ideology as you can with a system of religious beliefs. Just look at Hitler, he planned to replace belief in Christianity with belief in the state and Nazism.
>>483776
Christianity is criticised, Islam and Judaism are not because of "hate speech."
>all these faggots arguing about the theistic god
>never have anything to say about the Absolute
>>485924
Give me your definition of Plato's Absolute.
>>485930
>Plato's Absolute
>>485924
Not falsifiable, so pretty worthless.
>>485930
The consciousness that presupposes all experience, Being, the I that is I, what transcends the conditional
>>485938
It has many fucking names, the concept is the same.
>>485944
thousands of years of metaphysics BTFO then i suppose
>>485956
Something needs to seem valid first to get BTFO
>>483587
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
Are all atheists this much of a cuck?
>>485969
>the very thing that presupposes falsifiability, experience, the scientific method, and the agents that utilize the scientific method doesn't seem very valid
please study what you're trying to refute or just accept being called the pleb you are
>>485974
No, just fedoracore atheists like the ones in this thread
>>483587
>that pic
>>485974
>Bertrand Russell was born on 18 May 1872 at Ravenscroft, Trellech, Monmouthshire, into an influential and liberal family of the British aristocracy.[68] His parents, Viscount and Viscountess Amberley, were radical for their times. Lord Amberley consented to his wife's affair with their children's tutor, the biologist Douglas Spalding. Both were early advocates of birth control at a time when this was considered scandalous.[69] Lord Amberley was an atheist and his atheism was evident when he asked the philosopher John Stuart Mill to act as Russell's secular godfather.[70] Mill died the year after Russell's birth, but his writings had a great effect on Russell's life.
>>483587
that pic makes me cringe hard every single time
it always amuses me how much atheists spend of their time trying to make other people not believe there's a God
look at Dawkin's twitter feed. you'd think he would have more important things to do with his life. it reads like he's some autist on a chan site constantly posting on /christian/ threads.. except he's meant to be a normie with an actual life
if God really was the equivalent of a teapot, atheists wouldn't spend so much time talking about it. yeh, religion causes wars, so does drug trafficking. i don't see Dawkins worried about that on his twitter feed. it also amuses me when i see a Dawkins or Hitchens quote that ends with something like "no sane person could believe yadda yadda yadda", when clearly they do. unless he's saying 87% of the world's population is technically insane. which obviously isn't the case.
the root cause of the obsession with God for atheists, is that they can't stand the fact other people have a relationship with God. they want in on the action, and can't, because, presumably, they aren't part of the elect.
well, that's just the way God intended it. sorry, but that's life.
>>486260
Why?
>>486294
It's...a cult? You're worshipping a dead person as a deity.
>>486294
He looks like a transgender Nord.
Alternatively, he is being executed naked. Pretty cringey.
>>483587
>>483598
>>483627
>>483731
>>486308
Hitchens has quite a god-like, posthumous following.
One could argue that this classifies anti-theists as cultists.
>>486313
t. slave morality
>>486322
He was charming and charismatic. Doesn't make you deity or god-like. Being a good speaker and creating universes are different categories.
>>486334
Literally NK-tier
>>486322
>every famous dead person ever is now the god of a cult
>>486294
>>486334
The cringiest part of that is that the roman state probably did it to thousands of people. Jesus suffered no greater and probably in many ways better than most. No rape, or months on end suffrage in an era where the government does this to everyone. I do not understand how cults brainwash people into things like resurrection and ritual sacrifice. Doesn't this stuff creep you out?
>>486308
>dead person
no. the son of God who was manifest in the flesh. we don't worship the man, we worship the son of God
if we were worshipping just a man, we would be in a cult
>>486326
It is you who is the slave. You let your desires control you. Instead of disciplining yourself for the sake of self-improvement, you spend your time shitposting on a thai immigration forum.
"The first and best victory is to conquer self."
- Plato
Nietzscheans pride themselves with being above norms, when in reality most cannot deadlift more than 1pl8 or resist the urge to fap. (some) Christians, on the other hand, can easily resist degenerative desires as a result of Jesus' teaching on the subject. Who then is slave?
>>486340
Are you comparing Christ to Kim Il-sung?
>>486339
>smoked heavily
>drank heavily
>dedicated his life to appealing to autistic teenagers
Hedonism isn't "charming" or "charismatic", and we can now see the results thereof.
>>486363
> no. the son of God who was manifest in the flesh. we don't worship the man, we worship the son of God
So we've qualified the creepy cult part of a dead deity man.
> if we were worshipping just a man, we would be in a cult
Oh, I don't think you could enjoy the irony of that statement.
>>486379
> Hedonism isn't "charming" or "charismatic", and we can now see the results thereof.
He was during debates, discussions, and articles. Hitchens still lived a decent life with kids and till the age of 62. Sorry, we're all mortals who will die some day.
>>486381
i don't think you understand what Jesus did
he literally ascended into heaven, and was witnessed by many people
imagine if you were watching CNN, and saw on your TV a man physically ascending into heaven. you would believe
the bible is eye witness testimony
>>486365
>Instead of disciplining yourself for the sake of self-improvement
Desires.
>You let your desires control you.
Desire and control are intertwined. Without desires there's no control, but also no triumphs and ultimately life. "If I stop caring I win" is not an answer.
>>486386
> I think Jesus being a pacifist and a lover of mankind really compounds it, but the major torment he suffered (from an Orthodox perspective) wasn't physical, it was spiritual.
Those are a dime a dozen. My country has a long history of locking pacifists up. There's thousands of people just as kind and as gentle who get shot in the face every day.
>>486415
And there are plenty of Christians who were horribly martyred as well, they are held in high regard by the Church.
>>486410
> i don't think you understand what Jesus did
I'm going to take a guess and say; magic?
> he literally ascended into heaven, and was witnessed by many people
Guys, like he did the magic thing and people saw it!
> imagine if you were watching CNN, and saw on your TV a man physically ascending into heaven. you would believe
you would believe that CNN has upgrades their visual effects department.
> the bible is eye witness testimony
The Jewish magician making loafs of bread. The bible is lots of bad assertions and your eye witness testimony is lame.
>>486421
Yes, and they died for no reason other than to be used as pawns and emotional scapegoats for their religion.
>>486434
Why do you say that?
>>486446
They are used to show how 'real' their faith is to believers. Sacrifices don't make claims more valid. Thet just add to kill counts.
>>486413
Yes, but many of these are simply hedonistic desires.
We all get hungry. But the hedonist will eat cake and cookies, while the disciplined man chooses grilled chicken.
We all get horny. The hedonist faps to porn, fucks sluts, or worse... The disciplined man resists these desires wholly, or chooses to save them for a specific person.
We all want to look good and be strong. The hedonist wants do to this, but puts little to no effort into it. The disciplined man wants to do this, and hits the gym consistently.
The hedonist has desires; the disciplined man has goals.
My point is that it takes something like religion to encourage one to curb their desires from degeneration to progression. Thus, religion serves as a force of discipline. Going through this discipline is when one sets themselves on the path towards enlightenment/salvation.
>>486452
Then you, like the OP, are in full accord with Bertrand Russell on this matter?
>>483644
Holy shit that's hilarious.
>>486466
Pretty sure theyre exactly the people we need to be talking to.
As for the picture the major religions have iffy philosophies. A mix of good or bad. They're interesting nor do we still need them like we once did.
>>486471
It's an okay quote. I could think of things I would die for my partner.It would depend on that belief.
>>486481
>nor do we still need them like we once did.
Because you live in a world generated by their influences.
However, you statement does have some untruth to it. The decline of religion has been met with the rise of mass hedonism, and this hedonism has gained itself a seat in Western Civilization. The irony is that the decline of religion is what is causing the rise of the Untermensch/Last Man.
>>486501
Christians believe in love, and we will die for that. We literally worship love.
>>486366
>are you comparing worshipping a dead guy to worshipping a dead guy
>>486530
My partner isn't a deity. Love is a series of emotions and actions you have for an object or person. You can love anyone you want...doesn't make an "afterlife" or a "God."
>>486542
By love I mean "agape", not eros.
>>486550
I don't believe your deity exists so I don't believe that type of love is real. Your deity is inside your brain; you and yourself.
>>485849
>You act like atheists have anything to rally around.
Scientific rigor, Reason, Logic, Disbelief and disregard of compulsive religious coercion, Compassion for humanity and a drive to better it.
These could all easily be the things athiests could rally around.
If you've never grown up in a fundamentalist religious family/community you just cannot really understand what it's like or just how common it really is. Everyone in my family and the town I grew up in are ardently religious fundamental christians, that means the Bible is to be taken literally and is beyond criticism in any form, the world is no older than 10,000 years old, all scientists do is lie, if a president claims to be a christian he gets the vote end of story and everything he does is golden (sound familiar?), Israel is beyond reproach, the second coming is nigh and every bad thing that happens in the world is merely a sign of God's wrath and we must go to war with anyone and everyone that is not a christian. I am not embellishing a single thing here anons. I wasn't until I got out of highschool and left where I lived that I realized what was up. I was broken for a long time. You just do not get it, that way of thinking is poisonous and cancerous to humanity. It's not just christianity either, just look at fundamentalist islam, its the same fucking thing. It has to end.
>>485818
>Way to go, it's people like you who are making atheists a divided front and allowing religion to overrun our society.
I became atheist in a personal manner. If people want to believe what they believe its fucking fine by me.
Also upholding a loser like George Carlin as some sort of Atheist Paragon is just laughable as shit.
>>486562
But your love isn't?
>>486502
Religion has nothing to do the equation. Since there doesn't seem to be a deity you're basically saying "Understanding the truth leads to the fall of civilization." What a load of bullshit. We should be able to come together as societies without needing a slave driver.
>>486573
My love is nestled in my brain. Caused by whirls of emotions and affecting my decisions. The difference is my partner is real and helps pay bills.
>>486565
Atheism (as a modernist movement) and Protestantism are, remarkably, both a product of the same train of thought. Protestantism's fundamentalism, for instance, came from the Enlightenment reaction against any sort of knowledge that wasn't quantifiable factual datum, which lead to Protestants converting the Bible into a collection of quantifiable factual datum, being skeptical of other genres in the same way scientists were becoming skeptical of religon.
>>486585
Wow. That's easily replaceable.
And easy to have fall through.
>>486580
>science can answer questions of value, can tell me how to live a good life and find meaning in what I do
>quantitative descriptions of reality can offer spiritual solace
What a load.
>>486590
Yes...love is a mammalian emotion. It doesn't owe you anything and helps in pair bonding.
>>486585
The love in Christianity toward God stems a lot from gratitude as well. Think of it like this: think of all the gratitude and obligation you owe society, all the labor, all the innovation, all that has gone into creating your culture, your language, your way of life, your very existence. Christianity is just valuing that gratitude above all other values, to the point that we look to the wellspring of everything.
>>486597
> spiritual solace
Spirituals a made up word for fuzzy feeling. Sorry, that life doesn't fill that hole in your heart. Nature doesn't owe you anything.
>>486599
I don't think you love your partner.
>>486605
> The love in Christianity toward God stems a lot from gratitude as well.
For him creating hell? From him wiping out the plant a few times? Yahweh isn't the nicest character as far as fiction stories go.
> Think of it like this: think of all the gratitude and obligation you owe society, all the labor, all the innovation, all that has gone into creating your culture, your language, your way of life, your very existence. Christianity is just valuing that gratitude above all other values, to the point that we look to the wellspring of everything.
You can have culture and society without superstition. Stop following these blood magic cults because they're just down right silly.
>>486618
I think you're talking out your ass. I love my partner and will spend the rest of my life with her.
>>486613
So the only choice is between being a mindless sheep and being a cool dark undergrad whose got it all figured out like you right dude? Takes more balls to find meaning and transcendence in nature despite its imperfection than it does to be another cookie cutter Dawkins dick rider
>>486624
Hell in Orthodox Christianity is just feeling the fire and light of God's love and hating it. It's the same as heaven, except with antipathy toward his love.
God didn't wipe out the planet except in stories. Divinely inspired stories, but not documentaries.
There is a reddit tier fedora tipper itt thats given a platform to spout 9gag tier bs, and be a homo, considering the "partner" i thought this place was better than this..
>>486587
Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me
>>486632
> So the only choice is between being a mindless sheep and being a cool dark undergrad whose got it all figured out like you right dude?
Nice, a choice between a mindless sheep or you insulting me?
> Takes more balls to find meaning and transcendence in nature despite its imperfection than it does to be another cookie cutter Dawkins dick rider
Has nothing to do with Dawkins or anyone else that you're mad about. There's no evidence for a deity and thus I'm stuck not able to believe in one.
>>486647
It's the same train of thought that would lead to scientism.
>>486653
>There's no evidence for a deity and thus I'm stuck not able to believe in one.
That sounds like a failure on your end.
>>486641
> Hell in Orthodox Christianity is just feeling the fire and light of God's love and hating it. It's the same as heaven, except with antipathy toward his love.
Tell Yahweh I'll take neither of those. He can just go back to his side of the Universe.
> God didn't wipe out the planet except in stories. Divinely inspired stories, but not documentaries.
Luckily, there's no evidence for your deity or any stories like global floods.
>>486627
What if your partner stops producing positive feelings for you?
>>486665
> That sounds like a failure on your end.
Why? I have no control over why gravity exists or why there's no evidence for a deity. It seems that would seem to be the fault of your deity not existing.
>>486653
The fact you think the only two choices are either scientific materialism or mindless theism shows how little you know about the thought that's been given this subject. Science cannot provide the secure ontological ground for the character of a healthy society and its not individuals, that is a fact.
>>485922
That's what people that criticize Islam and Judaism try to make you believe
>>486667
Then it would hurt me terribly from the inside out. Though you can't make people love you.
>>486666
He permeates everything, he is required to sustain it. His love is more vital than our oxygen.
>>486678
>Then it would hurt me terribly from the inside out.
OK, so the moment this stops being personally gratifying, it would hurt you terribly, and that would be the end of your 'love'.
Her failing to help with your bills is also presumably and end to this 'pair bonding' relationship.
>>486671
> The fact you think the only two choices are either scientific materialism or mindless theism shows how little you know about the thought that's been given this subject.
Those are not true dichotomies so it sounds like something you yourself created. Maybe you're talking to someone else or you just got confused. The evidence I get for theism stems from feelings, eyewitness testimony and anecdotes.
> Science cannot provide the secure ontological ground for the character of a healthy society and its not individuals, that is a fact.
Not a fact at all. We can study moral and ethical guidelines and create our own guides on how to live a better life. We as animals actually get better at morals. It's why we frown on rape a lot more now. You don't need a deity to create a good healthy society.
>>486700
Can you explain what the criteria are of moral progress?
>>486700
Where does science fit into that? Sounds like philosophy bub
>>486689
> He permeates everything, he is required to sustain it
Things that don't exist don't permeate anything. They are not the requirement to sustain anything. Just a fictional entity that you're making up.
> His love is more vital than our oxygen.
Holy cultist. How does even typing that not creep you out?
>>486706
Easy. Take aside a hundred rape victims. Question them, monitor them and evaluate how their lives are affected. We can draw a conclusion and see if rape is empirically bad for human beings.
>>483598
>>483601
>>483615
>>483623
>>483627
>>483631
>>483644
>>483646
>>483677
>>483694
>>483731
>>483735
>>483759
>>483776
>>483788
>>483800
>>483847
>>483852
>>485818
>>485822
>>485849
>>485855
>>485855
>>485916
>>485922
>>485924
>>485930
>>485938
>>485944
>>485950
>>485955
>>485956
>>485969
>>485974
>>485982
>>486025
>>486092
>>486119
>>486260
>>486284
>>486294
>>486308
>>486312
>>486313
>>486322
>>486326
>>486334
>>486339
>>486340
>>486344
>>486345
>>486361
>>486363
>>486365
>>486366
>>486379
>>486381
>>486386
>>486387
>>486406
>>486410
>>486413
>>486415
>>486421
>>486427
>>486434
>>486446
>>486452
>>486463
>>486466
>>486471
>>486475
>>486481
>>486501
>>486530
>>486538
>>486542
>>486550
>>486562
>>486565
>>486568
>>486573
>>486580
>>486585
>>486587
>>486590
>>486597
>>486599
>>486605
>>486613
>>486618
>>486703
love, good friendships, security, purposefulness, creation, joy sanity, and peace.
>>486708
>Things that don't exist don't permeate anything. They are not the requirement to sustain anything. Just a fictional entity that you're making up.
No, one I've experienced.
>Holy cultist. How does even typing that not creep you out?
Erm, how are my sentiments not identical with yours? Because 2015 is almost over, I guess.
>>486718
Now take aside a hundred rapists.
>>486727
I would never wear a fedora. You're basically saying "You're ugly and fat so your point is invalid." Sorry, not how logic works now get off this board.
>>486718
Lol that you need SCIENCE to tell you this or the fact that SCIENCE only confirms moral intuitions we've had for thousands of years means SCIENCE should take the credit for formulating a new ethics instead of just being a tool
>>486729
How are these values any less arbitrary than power, good slaves, combat, nihilism, destruction, suffering, eccentricity and war?
>>486748
happiness is found, secured, and improved amidst them
>>483587
>Half the niggas in the pic don't care about the weird ass war on religion, just want to spread some science
>>486731
> No, one I've experienced.
That's because these explanation are crazy. The stuff that you could only believe if you were told it from a young age or at a vulnerable time.
> Erm, how are my sentiments not identical with yours? Because 2015 is almost over, I guess.
How is my loving a real person and you loving a dead man from a few thousand years ago different? One of us isn't insane would be my guess.
>>486736
Yes, because then we can figure out why they rape to begin with. We can then evaluate and decide what type of society we want to live in.
>>486753
Empirically prove happiness is a good
>>483623
Hey, fuck off. Bibleman was great. Nothing amused my pastor more than that brilliant motherfucker.
>>486739
> Lol that you need RELIGION to tell you this or the fact that RELIGION only confirms moral intuitions we've had for thousands of years means RELIGION should take the credit for formulating a new ethics instead of just being a tool
Couldn't have said it better myself. Morals come from our own empathic sense of values are altruistic animals.
>>486760
>That's because these explanation are crazy. The stuff that you could only believe if you were told it from a young age or at a vulnerable time.
But I didn't become a Christian until adulthood....
>Yes, because then we can figure out why they rape to begin with. We can then evaluate and decide what type of society we want to live in.
They rape either out of resentment, or because they find power to be arousing.
>>486753
Have you read Notes from Underground? Happiness comes to different people from different things, and sometimes, the more you try to formulate it, the more happiness can come most precisely from the freedom to reject the formula.
>>486767
Values that are rooted and a product of a transcendent good. Purely utilitarian, rational morality can justify nothing more than purely animal comforts for as many individuals as possible. Man needs a higher principle to orient his life and being towards if he wants something more than a roof over his head a full belly at night
>>486762
>>486788
In the simplest parlance, a value is a latent, ever-present desire, to be distinguished from the fleeting, momentary, or incidental desires. When anyone harbors, in their character an enduring desire for something, that is a value, as the term is understood in the social sciences. The object of this desire is then said to 'have value'. So when _everyone_ ought to hold such a desire for something, that desire produces a normative value, a value that everyone _ought_ to have. Many prominent experts agree with me and argue for the reduction of values to desires. (See Peter Railton and Gerald Gaus)
On close analysis, I believe there is only one core value: in agreement with many great philosophers in history (Aristotle, Richard Taylor, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.), I find this to be the desire for happiness. I believe that all other values are derived from this, in conjunction with other facts of the universe, and that all normative values are what they are because they must be held and acted upon in order for any human being to have the best chance of achieving a genuine, enduring happiness. When we say “you ought to value X” we mean that, if you do, you will improve your chances of enduring happiness, and if you do not, you will decrease those chances.
By happiness I do not mean mere momentary pleasure or joy, but an abiding contentment, a persistent, underlying sense of reverie that makes life itself worth living, in the absence of which life becomes shallow, unsatisfying, and ultimately meaningless. As David Myers puts it, real happiness means “fulfillment, well-being, and enduring personal joy”.
>>486762
>Empirically prove happiness is a good
What?
>>486793
I really, really, really think you should read Notes from Underground.
You can download the P&V version here
http://serious.freeonsciencelibraryguide.com/view.php?id=1401423
Just scroll down and clock "GET!"
>>486727
Dude in the pic believes in a higher power. Tru fax.
>>486806
If you think science can be a basis for morality, prove your standards for what is a good using the scientific method
>>486826
There are people in this very thread arguing for that position you faggot fucking Christ
>>486820
>If you think science can be a basis for morality,
I don't.
>prove your standards for what is a good using the scientific method
>Empirically prove happiness is a good
Happiness in the Greek sense is good by definition.
>>486808
>has no argument
>throws a book at you
K
>>486844
I don't really feel like arguing with you. Do you think such an argument would be fulfilling for either of us? There is nothing to motivate either of us from debating other than spite as this point. So instead I offer you something that you would probably find fulfilling, because you will not find any fulfillment or happiness or love, arguing with me. Would arguing with me affirm any of the values you listed?
>>486815
That would be very ironic if true
>>486313
>Religions are just a form of Philosophy with a Theological hat on
When you remove the theological aspects of a Religion as this post describes, what you end up with is fallacious conclusions that have not actually faced any amount of critical thinking. It is the Theological aspects of religion that allow this "under-layer" of Philosophy to exist without anybody questioning the Philosophy itself.
This post also fails to realize that they have implied that the Theological aspects have no value what so ever.
>>486876
>I don't really feel like arguing with you.
Then why are you attempting to argue with people?
>>487094
It looked like it might be productive. It's clearly not being productive here.
if we can't be sure anything exists outside our own perceptions isn't the belief in god just a choice, the same way that you choose to believe that yesterday existed, or your friends exist.
>>487173
Sure bro, if your autism was terminal
>>486738
>implying atheism isn't just an irrational ideology
Just admit you don't like Christianity because its Christianity.
There's more than enough evidence for any honest man.
>muh Pyrrho skepticism
>>487239
You're as deluded as fedora fags if you think the exoteric, dumbed-down Christianity they feed to plebs and funnies is the Truth and the Way. Your God is a small God
>>487239
Of course atheism is irrational, Zeus's existence is self evident
>>487256
>unironically posting a Dawkins macro
This is an 18+ website
>>487256
>born Viking
It's Norse you fucking stick in your ass fag. Fuck Dawkins.
>>487256
Doesn't this apply to atheism as well? If Dawkins weren't born in an age and place where secularism is pushed so hard, he would be religious.
>>487331
Of course, that's the point, pretty sure Dawkins wrote something along those lines, 'if I was born in country where x is dominant, i'd most likely be x.'
>>487362
This is only the something who has never studied the teachings of religion would say. Nigga literally thinks the foundation of Christianity on the arbitrary laws of Leviticus and not the moral example of Jesus as the apex of human spiritual attainment. And let's not even get into Christian mysticism, or mysticism in general
God I'm so sick of arguing with fedorafags who don't even know what they're trying to refute
>>486727
quality post
>>487354
Then that is not a very good argument to make for atheism, since by those standards it is no more valid than religion
>>487362
I can't believe most atheists actually believe this. Even from a scientific point of view, our current methodology of science is based on social evolution produced by a variety of factors, and is no more inevitable, from a purely secular point of view, than the human race is an inevitable result of evolutionary "progress".
>>487380
>apex of human spirituality was X
and this is why abrahamic religions are trash
>>487398
Because they aren't relativist?
>>487398
Because they believe man can be more than just a selfish animal trying to get a nut off? Back to /b/ friendo
>>487412
because they pin the entire axis of human spiritual thought on a single person, and use it to determine whether or not any actions - past, present and future- are moral or not.
This rigidity is a problem because it anchors morals to a certain place and time and uses it as reference.
>>487427
Well if you believe that person is God, doesn't that make sense?
>This rigidity is a problem because it anchors morals to a certain place and time and uses it as reference.
What's wrong with Christian morals?
>>487417
yes, only Jesus is capable of sacrificing because he was god in the flesh.
fuck anyone who came before or after him.
The apex of human spirituality is a carpenter who got strung up on a stick because a bunch of jews were butthurt he was ruining their business in a fucking temple town.
>>487434
No, the apex of spirituality was the quality of consciousness that was present in Jesus, which he would constantly remind others is possible for them as well
For fucks sakes he even says little kids are better suited for the kingdom of heaven than the common man, so how is Jesus an example of the kind of moral exceptionalism you're talking about? Read what he says and absorb it, don't listen to what some faggot who lives at wal-mart and never read past the second page of Genesis has to say about theology
>>487394
>Then that is not a very good argument to make for atheism, since by those standards it is no more valid than religion
It's just stating the statistical likelihood, it says nothing about the validity.
>>487431
morals change over time tripfriend.
even christian morals.
Wanting to go back to some semi-mythical era by adopting it's value systems wholesale and hoping everything will turn out OK is very insular.
>>487417
>You can't have morals without religion
Aren't people who say this kind of insulting themselves saying that without the constant threat of judgement or damnation from some omnipotent force (ie Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon blueprints) they would have no moral values?
>>487454
so why is he always held up as the golden standard for ALL human behaviour for ever?
What would a king who would be faced with hard choices in ruling gain by comparing his plight with jesus?
>>487465
Is it some fundamental law that newer morals are necessarily better than older morals?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
>>487470
No, what they're saying is their morals are derived not from the securement of animal comforts and a near-unbroken experience of corporeal pleasures but that no true morality that regards man as something more than biological machine can ever be derived from a non-transcendent principle. To believe there is an Absolute beyond just biological existence you must, obviously, believe in that Absolute in the first place
>>487477
Because Christian plebs don't understand its the quality of Jesus' soul is what must be emulated. Zen Buddhists say the same thing; forget the Buddha as a person and a figure, worry about only realizing Buddha-nature.
Jesus wouldn't care about being defended on the internet, he'd care what you were doing to realize the Holy Spirit in yourself
>>487503
If you think Zen is mystical you're out of your depth itt
>>487239
> Just admit you don't like Christianity because its Christianity.
They're all equally dumb.
> There's more than enough evidence for any honest man.
By enough do you mean zero?
>>486777
> But I didn't become a Christian until adulthood....
Then I go back to vulnerable moment. As there doesn't seem to be a logical reason to believe in this stuff.
>>487542
We live in a universe none of us have the first thing about, some of us believe there's an intelligence behind it. Bam. There. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me champ
God some of you faggots sound like omega autists who don't get why the music in clubs has to be so loud
>>487550
> We live in a universe none of us have the first thing about
We may not know everything but it doesn't mean we know nothing.
>some of us believe there's an intelligence behind it
And they have no evidance to back this claim up.
> Bam. There. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me champ
That's because you've never thought about it that much.
> God some of you faggots sound like omega autists who don't get why the music in clubs has to be so loud
Apparently you don't know what autism is either.
>>487567
>no evidence for intelligence
>posting this in an intelligible universe
>we didn't find Gods signature the surface of atomic nuclei, so metaphysics is bunk
Lol you think you can prove the existence or non-existence of a higher reality in a lab? Not even that, in a lab which in this self-enclosed system we call reality? Are you retarded? You look at this incredibly vast and sublime universe you' inexplicably became a part of one day and you can't even begin to fathom why someone would intuit a higher power behind it? Like you can't even understand that for some with the proper discernment, THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT IN THEIR FACE? Autism speaks
>>487588
>no evidence for intelligence
Correct
>posting this in an intelligible universe
The Universe being able to be understood has nothing to do with a deity.
>we didn't find Gods signature the surface of atomic nuclei, so metaphysics is bunk
No evidence for any metaphysical laws ever, is what debunks metaphysics
.> Lol you think you can prove the existence or non-existence of a higher reality in a lab?
No idea. It's not up for me to prove or disprove deities. You're the one making the claim with no evidence.
> You look at this incredibly vast and sublime universe you' inexplicably became a part of one day and you can't even begin to fathom why someone would intuit a higher power behind it?
It's hard to fathom because it goes against everything we see in nature. Very few things in this Universe are 'created.' Instead of valuing how precious life is you want to create shit up about it.
> Like you can't even understand that for some with the proper discernment, THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT IN THEIR FACE?
This isn't evidence it's just you asserting your premise over and over. Luckily, there is no proof for such a deity.
> Autism speaks
I'm apparently listening to autism speak.
>>487614
>no evidence for metaphysical laws
>no evidence for laws that, by their very nature if they existed, would not be discernible in the physical universe because they're META PHYSICAL, ie OUTSIDE AND BEYOND THE PHYSICAL
you don't even know what's being argued you clown. Done debating with redditors.
Have a nice day
>>487626
>no evidence for metaphysical laws
I feel there's hope for your not being completely retarded.
>no evidence for laws that, by their very nature if they existed, would not be discernible in the physical universe because they're META PHYSICAL, ie OUTSIDE AND BEYOND THE PHYSICAL
Now you're making up things outside our physical realm. Which puts you into the same category of science fiction and fantasy. Kindly stop blowing things outside of your ass.
> you don't even know what's being argued you clown. Done debating with redditors.
I understand what's being argued as these reject and debunked claims are hundreds of years old. I'm sorry that you're too new here to understand that. Come back maybe when you're mature enough.
>>487185
your arugment is so shit, I just choose to believe you don't exist
>>487661
I would never wear a fedora as I don't commit fashion crimes. Nice try at an insult though.
>>487661
Christians commit much worse hat crimes.q
Any good books on Buddhism?
>>487728
Depends on what you're looking for but
Three Pillars of Zen
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
What The Buddha Taught
Zen Mind, Beginners Mind
Heart of the Buddha's Teachings
In the Buddha's Words
Are all god-tier
>>487772
Thanks. I left the question open ended, because I wanted a good variety. I think there are multiple secs like zen and theravadan. The religion is somewhat obscure in the west so I wasn't sure where to start, but I appreciate it.
>>487814
If you want the old-school Theravada stuff start with Buddha's words. Pretty dense but it's the real deal
If you want no nonsense teachings with a minimum of intellectualization and that dank minimalist Japanese sensibility, go Zen.
>>487854
Thanks. I like to analyze these sorts of works form various perspectives, so I'll probably do both so I can play with the divisions, and different meanings/interpretations. For example, the literary elements of the bible. this is a great read for that:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/015136902X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-2&qid=1412113248
>>483587
If I ever became an astronaut, I'd bring a tea kettle with me, put a folded sheet of paper that says "Up yours, Russel. - God" inside of it and let it out. I would never tell anyone that I did it.
>>483587
I was thinking about reading The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell but now that I know he is an atheist cuckold I would prefer to read something else. Any recommendations for a similar book NOT written by a fedora fag?
>>486260
>>487918
So the overlords finally revealed themselves?
>>483587
>>487890
the biggest problem is the praxis of the human rights, since the liberals and libertarians have no clue on how to convert people to them, besides getting people to dwell in leisure thanks to the money they earned from their labour.
>>483587
>Conflating christianity with the concept of religion
>Implying that ensuring progeny isn't found even in animals.
>Muh progress
>>487515
>no, it is that as society changes over time, morals need to change to better reflect that society and what it aspires to
From a Christian perspective, society should aspire to be about loving God and your neighbor. Do you think that aspiration is obsolete?
>>487542
Becoming a Christian for me was a long process, not just a single moment in time.
>>487866
https://4ch.be/his/thread/431925/#432508
I am going to rewrite all this but watch videos of retreats by monks, not white buddhists, and practice, before opening big books.
>>487893
Durant's history of philosophy is better, because he actually understand the philosophers he reads. I don't think Russell does all the time.
>>487923
yep
>>486463
>Religion is necessary for discipline
No.
>>487956
>Do you think that aspiration is obsolete?
Not that guy, but yeah, fairly. Loving God is pointless, because this love is not returned in any fashion that couldn't be attributed to internal psychological validation which can come from other sources, and whether you love your neighbour is a matter of their worth to you as an individual (no I don't mean strict material worth).
I wouldn't say it was blown the fuck out, at least not in a general sense, since there are plenty of religions that eschew the idea of trying to sustain their beliefs logically at all, believing it even counterproductive to faith. What bothers me with that notion is simply that this doesn't stop them from appearing to argue in good faith, and then retreating behind that as a protection against criticism.
>>487256
Dawkins is making a lot of implications there
for all he knows, i would have been one of those rebellious Jews spreading the gospel of Christ, instead of following the Roman, Greek or Talmud gods
Nietzsche was an Atheist?
>>487491
>Literally the only two states of man that exist are as a clockwork slave to desire or as a moral supplicant licking the feet of an ever-loving God
>>487918
Neither of those things ever happen.
>>487956
Present the best evidence you have for believing in a Christain deity than.
>>488104
>>488132
So a study looking only at only autists found that the smartest autists were atheists?
>>488154
No, it found that autistic people have difficulty understanding poetic language and therefore are more likely to be atheists.
>>488028
So you think love should be distributed based on reciprocation for utility?
>>488128
You want metaphysical data to quantified into physical terms? You can't do that, anymore than you can fit a three-dimensional object into two-dimensions, the only thing you can do is make a representation of it.
>>488132
I don't have autism. I'm extroverted and trying to insult people instead of actually add anything is petty. Maybe a hat joke next time?
>>488183
;^)
>>488177
> You want metaphysical data to quantified into physical terms?
You keep trying to use physical as if there is other options. So far no one has ever proven anything beyond what's been in this Universe.
> You can't do that, anymore than you can fit a three-dimensional object into two-dimensions, the only thing you can do is make a representation of it.
I asked you for evidence and all you do is tap dance. The great thing about math is it's non-empirical. You can create Universes and plays with infinities. You can even represent all sorts of dimensions.
You still have not provided anything for a deity. I'll ask again and what is your best evidence for a Christian deity?
>>488184
> Da joos.
> An entire info graph.
Straight up /pol/ thanks.
>>488208
You're welcome.
>>488206
>You keep trying to use physical as if there is other options. So far no one has ever proven anything beyond what's been in this Universe.
How the heck are you going to prove something beyond the physical, using methodology which is occupied solely with the physical and physical methods of investigation?
>The great thing about math is it's non-empirical. You can create Universes and plays with infinities. You can even represent all sorts of dimensions.
Oh, well if you want to get into those sorts of proofs, I'd direct you toward works like "Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything", and "Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy"
>>486580
>slave driver
As if.
Tell me, why should I wake up in the morning? Why should I get out of bed at all? Why should I eat a good breakfast, when I can just have cookies? Why should I eat at all?
Face it: your STEMfag bullshit offers no reasoning to human life other than "muh brain chemicals". And before you bring that up as if it were a valid statement, you're hypocritical for trusting those chemicals to be just chemicals.
Religion is a philosophy. That's why you atheists can't understand it. Your autism prevents you from being able to comprehend abstract thoughts and theological principles. As such, you take religious texts (and the world) all at face value.
>>487256
>Dawkins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuhlGrf7pYg
>>487542
>logical reason to believe in this stuff.
Religion is philosophy.
Jesus' main points were that through charity, humility, and the resisting of temptation, one could become spiritually heightened. Buddha said the same thing. Take away Jesus' Resurrection and Buddha's reincarnation, then your left with two great philosophers whose ideas have inspired billions.
If you think that religion is just fairytales, then you lack the mental capacity to interpret the poetic language of religious text.
>>488262
Dawkins is such a badass.
>>488257
>And before you bring that up as if it were a valid statement, you're hypocritical for trusting those chemicals to be just chemicals
What evidence is there that they are anything more than chemicals?
>>488331
>>And before you bring that up as if it were a valid statement, you're hypocritical for trusting those chemicals to be just chemicals
>>488341
I don't get this image.Why its hypocritical to trust chemicals?
>>488227
> How the heck are you going to prove something beyond the physical, using methodology which is occupied solely with the physical and physical methods of investigation?
I don't know and it's not my problem. We may never know if a deity exists or what comes before the big bang. Sucks to be human doesn't it?
> Oh, well if you want to get into those sorts of proofs, I'd direct you toward works like "Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything", and "Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy"
I'm asking for evidence of a deity which I doubt are found in either of those books. They are the equivalent to me of books by Daniel Dennet.
>>488345
He didn't think that deeply about it. He just saw an image on /b/ and saved it.
You know how appealing crappy arguments are to religious people.
>>488257
> Tell me, why should I wake up in the morning? Why should I get out of bed at all? Why should I eat a good breakfast, when I can just have cookies? Why should I eat at all?
I can't give you objevtive answers to these because there are none. You should wake up and enjoy life because you're part of .00000001% of the Universe that actually can.
> Face it: your STEMfag bullshit offers no reasoning to human life other than "muh brain chemicals". And before you bring that up as if it were a valid statement, you're hypocritical for trusting those chemicals to be just chemicals.
We are one of the most amazing chemical reactions in the Universe. Why isn't this good enough for you? Sorry that life doesn't give you the answers you want. Doesn't mean you get to make up bullshit to feel comfortable.
> Religion is a philosophy. That's why you atheists can't understand it. Your autism prevents you from being able to comprehend abstract thoughts and theological principles. As such, you take religious texts (and the world) all at face value.
I find it interesting how badly religious people want atheists to have autism. I feel like it's becoming a Christian fetish and they want to be cucked. I can think abstractly and find much enjoyment in metaphors and myth. I don't make public policy or base my life around it.
>>488353
>I'm asking for evidence of a deity which I doubt are found in either of those books. They are the equivalent to me of books by Daniel Dennet.
Structural-systematic philosophy is equivalent to Daniel Dennet? What?
>>488177
>So you think love should be distributed based on reciprocation for utility?
Yes. My love is something precious to me, my property. Why should I give it with no expectation of return?
>>488414
Because you're magnanimous, and not the Eternal Anglo?
>>488257
>Tell me, why should I wake up in the morning? Why should I get out of bed at all? Why should I eat a good breakfast, when I can just have cookies? Why should I eat at all?
I'm not him, but plenty of philosophers offer answers to this without God. You're just being a shit here. Nietzsche, Sartre, Stirner, Camus, Beauvoir, just to name a few. None of them are STEMfags as far as I know.
That said, we all take a fundamentally illogical leap in assuming that there's an external world at all, I figure for a religious person, it's an equally intuitive assumption that there is a god, even if it's not something I feel all that intuitive.
>>488417
>Anglo
Oh fuck off. I had taken you for doing something other than a meme-spouting tripfag.
No, I am not magnanimous. I see no reason to be magnanimous. I am me, and I am concerned solely with that. That does not mean I have no room for love or charity in my heart, but I don't give either of those away freely. I give them away because it suits me, and only when it suits me.
>>488435
Not even to a cute little puppy?
>>488469
Well, obviously it suits me then.
atheists btfo
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god
>>483598
>It has always been the refuge of second rate thinkers and their terrible ideas.
Yea, the thinkers behind the Big Bang Theory, Genetics, revolutions in Paleontology, etc. sure are 'second rate thinkers'.
>>488475
>Christian complaining they can't find meaning to life with believing in a flying carpenter
>atheists BTFO
>>486308
>You're worshipping a dead person as a deity.
At least you should understand Christian theology if you are going to be against it. I'm not saying to believe in it, but it's like an anti-gun person saying 'clips' and 'assault weapon'.
>>488435
What are you?
>>488486
You can find geniuses in just about any group of people. Their great minds certainly weren't caused by them being religious
>>488515
Me; an individual is too complicated and vast to be meaningfully expressed in language; any attempt would be an absurd reductionism. This applies to any person, not just myself (so don't take this as me tooting my own horn).
>>488531
A new goalpost appears
>>488531
Okay, but that has nothing to do with what I was responding to. I said that these people where not 'second rate thinkers' by any means.
And before it is assumed they were incidentally Christian: they are all Clerics.
>>488544
Then "you" is something you take completely on faith?
>>483587
Prove God exists, right now.
Prove God doesn't exist, right now.
You literally can't.
>>488556
No, the fact there is a me is something I don't have to take on faith. Descarte's philosophy may have had a lot of faults, but he was quite correct in the fact that you exist is something you can't doubt. As for the rest of it, I don't take it on faith so much as discover it as I go along.
Now, there are a lot of things I take on faith. Like the fact that anything exists at all; I have no logical basis to believe that my senses aren't in a constant state of deception. But I'll note that I haven't attacked your faith for being a matter of faith.
>>488558
>>488567
You verify "you" exist then, based on totally subjective experience, which cannot really be shared directly with others then, right?
Such is the Orthodox experience of God.
>>488568
>Using a diagram that would be impossible to create without the science of a Catholic Priest to disprove Christianity/God.
Come on now. The bottom of your chart literally says "Big Bang Expansion".
>>488555
Well, I can drop the names of Dirac, Laplace and Higgs as well, yet I'm constantly told that atheists are all second rate thinkers.
Seems like you like to apply your logic rather conveniently
>>488581
>tfw I intended it to be pro-God
>>488582
When did I even remotely say 'atheism is the belief of second rate thinkers'.
Atheism isn't even a belief really 'not believing in God' is to broad of a title to just assign to someone; though plenty of extremely smart and important thinkers do not/did not believe in God.
The only person in this thread who said anyone was 'second rate thinkers' was the person accusing Christians of this.
>>488585
Welp I'm a dumbo then, sorry matey.
>>488585
The Big Bang doesn't describe the beginning of the universe. That wouldn't be easy any way, since time itself breaks down the further back we go
