Checkmate atheists
Yea, the scales have fallen from mine eyes.
Yeah that's why I'm agnostic.
>>8206864
The atheist doesn't claim to be able to prove God doesn't exist, the atheist chooses not to believe in a hypothesis for which there is no evidence.
A theist on the other hand claims to know there is a God - a much stronger claim than the atheistic position.
>>8206864
i'm fine with god's existence being merely extremely extremely unlikely to the point where I can dismiss the question out of hand. proof is overkill.
>>8206877
>misunderstanding what a null hypothesis is
I loved how that isn't the first christian propaganda film I had seen about the evils of philosophy classes. End of the Harvest was hilarious too. Honestly David A. R. White is in the crazyist shit.
>>8206864
You know, sometimes, I have doubts on the non-existence of God...
>>8206877
This is why no one takes atheist seriously anymore.
Where is Hume's casuality?
Who cares? They would rather intoxicate themselves with subpar scientists that try to wander in other realms of knowledge without proper preparation...
No one can prove the voices in my head are not real, ergo me listening to them is perfectly rational
>>8206898
I doubt this guy's doubts
I think we can all agree that if there is a God, it's probably Allah.
There are much better arguments
>>8206877
I really hate this reddit atheism that's so common on the internet nowadays. When philosophers say they are atheists, they don't mean they are merely skeptical towards theism, they are claiming that believing the proposition "Theism is false" is justified. To this end, they provide a variety of deductive and inductive arguments.
Trying to make atheism into a position that makes no claims on its own debases it into a mere personal preference of no academic interest.
No one here can disprove existence of Russel's teapot or op's sex life either, but that doesn't mean we should believe that they exist.
>>8206929
>When philosophers say they are atheists
More like
>When atheist philosophers attempt to put forward arguments as to why the atheist position is correct
You're way overcooking it. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in any god. In fact, atheist is the default and passive position for all people who have not yet been convinced of any god hypothesis.
Atheists are not all foaming at the mouth anti-theists, or non-confrontational "I prefer to call myself an agnostic" atheists either. The only thing you can tell about a person if they are an atheist is that they do not believe in a God.and that they wear a fedora
>>8206954
>An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in any god.
In the academia, an atheist is someone who hold the philosophical view "Theism is false" to be true. You seem to completely ignore that in the field of metaphysics there are plenty of serious philosophers that have put forward arguments for atheism. According to you philosophers like J.L. Mackie, Jordan Howard Sobel, Graham Oppy and Michael Martin don't exist.
>In fact, atheist is the default and passive position
Empirically false.
All of this coming from an atheist, by the way.
>>8206975
>in the academia
>the academia
>the
Uh huh. And that's great. There have been lots of different approaches to "proving" the atheist position over the years. Serious philosophers are so totally dope and interesting and shit.
But the fact remains that there are a lot of people, many of whom have no formal grounding in philosophy, who are atheists by virtue of having no explicit personal belief in any God and no affiliation with any religion.
Unless you doubt this, the conversation is over.Unless you're angry at the word atheist, and want all casuals to start using your favourite word "agnostic" because it triggers you when they use correct language in which case the conversation is also over
So the problem is that you can totally prove god exists -- it's just that nobody has.
So really he should say
"True, there is absolutely no evidence god exists and no logical argument to suggest he does, but besides the complete absence of evidence for his existence and the proven falsity of all religious texts in history, there is no other evidence that he doesn't exist and there is a theoretical possibility that a divine being of some kind exists. So therefore you should believe in God."
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
>>8206877
What if you follow these rules though:
Rule 1. There is a god.
Then claiming there isn't a god is the weaker claim.
>>8206864
I think you mean stalemate
>>8206864
Well, yeah, no one can prove he does not exist, because he does not exist.
(reCAPTCHA: eat shit, that third one was not a fucking pizza)
Have any of you seen God's not Dead?
>>8206884
The null hypothesis is the default, which was his entire point. I think you're the one that doesn't understand null hypotheses.
>>8207216
it's shit
especially when they try to discuss physics
All the literature being discussed here amazes me.
>>8207247
shit, he does look like dawkins
This is dumb, its illogical in nature to prove a negative.
>you cant prove the spaghetti monster doesnt exist using same logic.
>>8207264
>its illogical in nature to prove a negative.
why? we do it in maths
>>8207281
Read green text.
>>8207284
so?
it's only an appeal to ridicule
>>8207264
infinite universe theory. someplace, a spaghetti monster does exist.
>>8207290
If according to op's logic then everything we can think of exists because we cant prove they dont exist in our reality. U see now? The argument is to find out if god exists, you use truth and reason to find that. You cant prove gos exists by saying "you cant prove god doesnt exist" it doesnt make sense. We r trying to find out if god exists, we are not sure but op is already implying that god exists.
>>8207293
Prove it feg
>>8207312
that still doesn't explain why we should not prove a negative
>>8207058
If you accuse me of robbing the local bakery at 12:30 and there are no fingerprints or any physical evidence of me being there, witnesses at the scene didn't see me, and the working security camera shows I wasn't there. Surely the absence of any evidence that I was there at 12:30 is evidence that I wasn't there.
That is to say if I had been there I would, for example, be on that security camera. Isn't that evidence I wasn't there even though it's really an absence of evidence?
Theoretically I could be invisible and of incorporeal form. But there is evidence I wasn't there -- it just might not tell the whole story. Like any piece of evidence.
>>8207320
I just explained it dumbass. We r trying to prove the existence of a god(unsure) If we say "cant prove god doesnt exist" we are confirming ourselves of the existance of god (sure) but without reason and logic for god's existence.
>>8207247
Did he actually say that? What was the context?
>>8207327
it does prove the atheists wrong tho
>>8207336
No one can prove or disapprove of the existence of God. Therefore its logical to assume the absence of a god and live accordingly since its impossible to prove god.
>>8206864
>disproving a negative
>>8206875
Stop
>>8207331
>8207331
From what I'm reading he said something about not aborting a fetus that has the possibility of getting down sydrome is immoral on twitter.
>>8207216
Watched it for teh lulz, but in the end wish I hadn't.
>>8207326
No problem with that argument. The "absence of evidence" was just something I read once from a Christian poster.
To be honest, I don't know how to describe myself: i believe there are gods and powers that are beyond our comprehension, but I think that they don't give a shit about us, the same way we don't care about ants.
On the other hand I find myself attracted to buddhism, but I'm not practicing, and don't know how much that puts me in contradiction with my previous statement.
What am I?
>>8207429
>What am I?
Cowardly.
>>8206864
Proof is a mathematical term. The only things one can "prove" are based entirely in empty concepts. Spooks begone.
>>8207331
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet
>The geneticist's latest Twitter row broke out after he responded to another user who said she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant with a baby with Down's syndrome.
>Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
>2016
>Still cannot prove God
>>8207457
What is the "Way" then?
>>8207505
Not the same God the one OP's agrument is about.
>>8207350
Why
>>8207317
>null hypothesis
This is the default in EVERY CASE not just theism.
>>8207519
Which God he's arguing about ? The Christian one ?
>>8206914
Inshallah. The crescent blade must be red with the blood of kuffars.
>>8207525
>there is no universe not created by God
There you have another one.
>>8207523
That stupid inaccurate definition
>>8206864
I can't believe this thread even has replies. If I were sick right now this would make me want to vomit, it's a good thing I'm not sick.
wow, the christposters are out with conviction today
>>8207537
Just writing "The universe was created by god" in an intentionally confusing or misleading way doesn't make your beliefs any less of a lie
>>8207530
The film God's Not Dead is talking about the Christian one. Its a film by an evangelical studio.
um yar , right back at you fuck boi.
>>8207476
dawkins is right tho
>>8206877
QUENTIN: One cannot use the tools of natural science to study the supernatural, since scientific investigation is a study of the natural world alone. It follows that evidence obtained from scientific inquiry is within the natural world and never without. It is then foolish to seek evidence of the supernatural
PLEB: B-but you have to prove to me the sky fairy exists!
QUENTIN: The comedy proceeds, you also assert that all things that are proven are supported by evidence. Not a mathematician I take it.
PLEB: I studied mechanical engineering
QUENTIN: Quite. Now you must see that it is *you* making the assertions. You claim to know that the natural world is all that is, or can be. And in your arrogance you cite the reason that there can be no supernatural world since the tools of natural science are a priori unable to discover it! I say to you, my unenlightened friend: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
PLEB: y-you're just a fucking bigoted christian, look at this video of Christopher Hitchens, ahahah btfo
>2016
>using russels tea pot as an argument
slap.gif
Here's what it comes down to. There's a couple different positions which someone can have on the universe. One is scientific, all you see is observable and far fetched ideas that have no grounding in reality aren't very scientific, thus a person with scientific convictions sees the idea of god as retarded. I am one of those people. The other person is someone who simply believes in god because they think that you can't disprove it, the universe is a complex thing and there could be a good simply because there's a lot of stuff we don't understand, and since we can't understand how all this stuff got here (and the religiously convicted rejects scientific notions), they presume it was god. So you see, there's really not that big of a complexity in the argument, I've been going at it with christians for years, but I will be the first to admit that this argument is baby's first philosophical argument. I don't even try anymore, although sometimes on facebook I will comment to someone that god doesn't exist when I see people mentioning god. I think that eventually when our civilization embraces science and the new generation who grows up with computers and can actually google search facts to see if they're right, instead of just hearing them from their parents and preacher, thus getting exposed to outside opinions and becoming an intelligent and enlightened person like me who is euphoric from their own intelligence or whatever, then we'll finally see religion bite the dust. Until then, we'll have to suffer through the irony of this depressing farce. You have a good day though, religiously convicted.
>>8207603
Russel's tea pot isn't an argument, its an example used to show how the burden of proof works.
>>8207621
>all light is visible light because I can only perceive it with my eyes
>there is only the natural world because we can only perceive the natural world
The burden of proof is on the man that says: "there is only the natural world".
>>8207577
>your belief
What beliefs?
>>8207645
What a ridiculous word-game you're playing.
Do you think the descriptive terminology of our day to day lives is an invocation of a fundamental law of reality?
>>8207515
I'm sorry to break into your conversation with the other anon, but this question struck my heart.
Listen to your own question, anon. Have you listened to it?
>What is the "Way" then?
A "Way". Capitalized and all, in quote marks of your own words, as if it was ready to receive anything at all that takes it place. Do you really think there is something to fit that place you've created?
I think I recognize this question from long ago, I've made it many times. I understand there is not something that I can give to you right now that you can just take it and go, because it takes time, it costs a lot for us to give up on such personal questions. But if I could give you anything now, I'd share something to haunt you quite silently, something that would aid you in not feeling the need to make such a question some day perhaps, the idea that there is nothing to fill what you require of an answer to this question.
I'm not strictly speaking of religion, but of career, emotional development, life itself, anything. I could put it brutally: there is no such "Way", no certain path, no answer. But what strikes me as the most important point to that question is that it is even made, that it is adressed to someone and that you are willing to give the other this privilege of taking a chance at answering it for you. The world is not filled with grown ups who know better than you do about life. You'd argue any answer to your question would be later considered by yourself with care, could be questioned, refused, you'd not settle for something less than perfect, you'd not accept something just because someone says it, I'm certain of it. Nevertheless, you put that question out of yourself. Are you listening to yourself? What is it that you expect?
Perhaps that's the cowardice that anon read on you, not that he is right about that. You'll meet a lot of answers and a lot of people arguing, logically or not, with heart or not, about how they found this "Way" and they may go their whole lives thinking they have it and so be it, they have it, just that it isn't the "Way", it's their way and their way alone. However, if you're lost about it, you have a great advantage over them that you currently think is a disavantage. Because you're already living the uncertainty that making that question entails, you just hate to be in that place. Thus, perhaps, and I hope so, you're more ready than they are to hear this: you don't have to make that question. I'm not answering it. I'm saying something you are able to do: not ask that. To live with your own way knowing full well it is not the "Way". That this other that you're addressing knows nothing of it.
I hope this gets to you, even if it may seem confuse or preachy. I think you put yourself in a very delicate position when you ask that question, even if you don't give it importance.
is that even josh wheaton. i remember him being a lot uglier.
>>8207646
Assumed you were trying to prove theism, not playing devils advocate. "there is no universe not created by God" means the same as "All universes were created by god." If it had been proven that the universe was created by god, then the burden of proof would transfer to anyone who says that it was not.
>>8207645
The burden of proof is one the man who says "there is something outside of the natural world" BECAUSE we can only perceive the natural world. The man who proposed the existence of light outside of the visible spectrum held the burden of proof BECAUSE we could not perceive it with just our eyes.
>>8206864
>You can replace GOD with UNICORN, LEPRECHAUN, SANTA CLAUS, and BIG FOOT.
>>8207536
>Inshallah
Head-Cha-La
There is no bigot like the atheist.
The atheist is not interested in anything except attacks on atheism.
Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.
There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life.
An interesting essay might be written on the possession of an atheistic literary style. There is such a thing. The mark of it is that wherever anything is named or described, such words are chosen as suggest that the thing has not got a soul in it. Thus they will not talk of love or passion, which imply a purpose and a desire. They talk of the “relations” of the sexes, as if they were simply related to each other in a certain way, like a chair and a table. Thus they will not talk of the waging of war (which implies a will), but of the outbreak of war – as if it were a sort of boil. Thus they will not talk of masters paying more or less wages, which faintly suggests some moral responsibility in the masters: they will talk of the rise and fall of wages, as if the thing were automatic, like the tides of the sea. Thus they will not call progress an attempt to improve, but a tendency to improve. And thus, above all, they will not call the sympathy between oppressed nations sympathy; they will call it solidarity. For that suggests brick and coke, and clay and mud, and all the things they are fond of.
>>8206875
agnosticism is the sniveling coward's way out of forming an opinion
>>8207700
>a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident
Define "right"?
>>8207645
The burden of proof is on the man that says: "there is more than just the natural world" as well.
>>8207677
>BECAUSE we can only perceive the natural world.
This is where the anon is screwing with you. If I got that correctly, he doesn't give priority to perceived thing over the ones not perceived.
>>8207723
Let me as you this.
In what way is a universe that has inexplicably come to be without a God any less miraculous than one that is created by God?
No one's gonna reply to that brilliant paragraph I wrote up there?
>>8207326
no, that's not an absence of evidence, you not being on the cameras is a form of evidence, clearly.
>>8207740
Would it be even more miraculous to have occurred without any creating God, does this unintuitive answer make it more wondrous?
Why can't I just not believe in a creator god because it seems silly to believe in an anthropomorphized, perfect deity that is capable of divine providence but chooses to allow universal suffering? I don't think I need philosophical rigor here, fellows, as I'm not trying to prove shit because I'm not autistic
>>8207320
literally retarded
>>8207758
Miraculous but all the more troubling.
If religious people live a lie by believing in a God, then those who disbelieve also live a lie if they think life can have any meaning without him.
It also seems to me that a universe that exists in and of itself is paradoxical in nature and it isnt long before you start to ascribe the powers of a God to its creation.
>>8207784
>perfect deity that is capable of divine providence but chooses to allow universal suffering
Life is suffering without God.
There is no induviduality without suffering.
>>8207786
>think life can have any meaning without him
German moustache man.jpg
>It also seems to me that a universe that exists in and of itself is paradoxical in nature and it isnt long before you start to ascribe the powers of a God to its creation.
But from an atheistic point of view, the powers attributed to God were inferred, assumed and created by man in the first place, regardless of any biological predispositions towards these kinds of contemplation.
>>8207789
>Life is suffering
Suffering is only one part of life.
>>8207786
(Not that anon)
>those who disbelieve also live a lie if they think life can have any meaning without him.
Could you please keep on topic? We are talking about existence of God, not purpose of man.
>It also seems to me that a universe that exists in and of itself is paradoxical in nature and it isnt long before you start to ascribe the powers of a God to its creation.
Existence of a God in and of itself is equally paradoxical, I'd say.
>>8207784
>anthropomorphized, perfect deity
This is a contradiction. A perfect deity wouldn't be like man, so believe in a perfect deity. Besides the question of evil isn't the point. Sure it is a problem with any religion but the bigger problem is dealing with how something came put of nothing.
Atheist responses to this based on modern day science say it is either irrelevant, impossible to answer or something that could make sense when laws of physics were different before the big bang. All of those I think are more unsatisfying than dealing with the question of evil. The religious response is that there is something that can begin things without needing to be began ie God. His choosing to do that means he has will and then they rationalize and argue for other characteristics.
This in itself isn't hard to accept and it isn't the same as Zeus or unicorns or whatever. It is an argument for a specific way that it is possible for things to exist. Unicorns cannot be an answer and Zeus can only if you interpret him as what I just wrote. A pantheon of gods might explain rain and mountains but not as well as science which as of yet cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Believing in an Unmoved Mover or watchmaker God is very reasonable. Where you leave the domain of reason is when you get into specific religions. I don't mean to say it is unreasonable just that it is somewhat faith based and reliant on emotions without being as factually or logically provable since it depends on that deity caring for us, the history of the particular revelation, and this is where many have troubles miracles. I myself am Muslim. I think the belief in God is reasonable, logical and provable (or at least arguable). I get people have a problem with believing in angels coming down and miracles, or inerrant words of God, etc. but atheism has always seemed silly. At least agnostics have some modesty to make less of a claim.
>>8207786
tacking on god does not solve the paradoxical problem you're talking about. i would agree with you generally regarding purpose in life, and meaning, that lacking the belief in what is considered an absolute truth in god, as a fundament to any moral system, it is unmatched. whether or not it's objectively true is another question. if inaction is the price to pay for avoiding the folly of conclusions made without a confirmation of objective truths, then it is a worthy price indeed for many. to try to reduce the nature of the problem to the creation of the universe completely avoids the initial problematic paradox of needing absolute truth as a foundation to identify the validity of an absolute truth.
>>8207597
One, posts this pretentious have no right to exist, nor do their posters. Please die.
Two, you're right, it is foolish to seek evidence for the supernatural, as by definition it cannot be found empirically. However, this means that you have not the slightest shred of authority to assert anything about the supernatural, it's existence being a given or no. You have every right to believe in whatever god you may choose but you haven't any substantiation, nor predictive power, nor epistemic authority. Congratulations, you are essentially masturbating yourself about something you will never be able to prove. Again, please die, everyone will be happier.
>>8207813
>Existence of a God in and of itself is equally paradoxical, I'd say.
Thats my point.
But God is not presented as conforming to the laws of this Universe and yet we talk of a Universe that can only exist by the breaking of those laws.
> Could you please keep on topic? We are talking about existence of God, not purpose of man.
Its a discussion, not a debate.
>>8207605
reply to me
>>8207804
> assumed and created by man in the first place
I wouldnt be so quick to disregard what men have inuited since the dawn of man.
The creation of this Universe is not seperate from its agent. As man made fire, so too did God create light.
>>8207789
>Life is suffering without God
Idk bud, I have some pretty good times and I'm a smelly non-believer. That just sounds like theistic confirmation bias to me.
>There is no individuality without suffering
Conflict and struggle are ingrained in the essence of all life by definition, but that doesn't mean the sum-total of experiences will be always inherently undesirable due to the presence of suffering/struggle. It would be ridiculous to say that suffering is not an integral part of existence, but to fixate on it is the sadboy's mental set error
>>8207822
unfortunately you make two unfounded assertions, one, that the universe came from nothingin an atheistic perspective, obviously it's a ridiculous claim, that's why no one makes it. the simple fact is that no one has conclusive gnosis of the state of existence prior to the universe.
the other assertion you make is that something can exist that does not have a beginning, while simultaneously denying the possibility that an explanation for a beginningless existence is not divine. you assume the state of eternity is divine, with no real evidence to support this.
>>8207830
The breaking of this universe's laws doesn't have to be called God. In fact it is entirely possible that before the Big Bang most known physical laws didn't exist, scientists accept that idea, afaik.
>>8207822
>This is a contradiction
Yes, which is why I said I find it silly to believe in such a being. Many pious people consider their god to be both omniscient and omnipotent, but also believe it possesses human traits of empathy, anger, vengeance, benevolence, etc. The fact that it is a contradiction is what makes it ludicrous. I don't deny the possibility that, however unlikely, there is a prime mover. But the existence of the god of popular Christian conception is foolish to me
the expression of eternity is essentially the equivalent of god to this deist. the assumption of divinity is the problem here as it is a biased disposition. i would agree in the end that a moral position of nihilism is unrealistic, and that absolute moral truth as a foundation to any social system is necessary, but I do not think the assumption that any absolute truth that can be gained is innately divine is a safe or accurate assumption to be made from the state we are all currently in.
like i said earlier, the real paradox here is that we require access to absolute truths to have the ability to identify absolute truths. you need one to have one, which is why a deity is so compelling, it's an effective every day solution to the need of a foundation, however, it's flawed in that there are many potential deities, and therefore is not a totally acceptable compromise for the need of an initial absolute truth.
>>8207605
>euphoric
i knew it was coming
>>8207910
Jesus go get a friend to talk to
logical fallacy
you cant prove a negative
and go back to /tv/
>>8207937
yeah man fascinating reply.
Perhaps i seem foolish because i see life without God as a foolish endevour.
I'd be a liar to say i was sure of what i believed.
Then i realise that every step is not defined by me but what is laid out for me.
A fool such as i.
>>8207941
oh jeez guys pack it in this guy sure showed us all with his incisive wit and brevity!
Fucking reddit I swear
>>8207947
any revelations by a self admitted fool are up to obvious scrutiny, you realize
>>8207945
nobody wants to debate your shitty 'HERES WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO GUYZ I GOT U" fagpost. It should have been obvious by now by the lack of replies. You are unintelligent and obnoxious, now leave
>>8207597
posts like this are the reason so few actual atheists post in these shitty threads. it's hard to argue with such cringeworthy nonsense.
>>8207956
dude there's not that many replies because people are on suicide watch looking for an answer to that fucking reply I made. It's fucking rock solid,
>>8207957
I think it's a joke my brother
>>8207950
sure, but why should i trust a man who has been sure of himself at all times.
>>8207959
This is the last (You) you're going to get from me, but here's a tip: If you crave attention this badly, go on omegle or call a sex-line
>>8207581
if that's a genuine ben garrison, that's the stupidest cartoon he's ever come up with. the guy is just a little bit obsessed. i wonder what he's like in his personal life. i bet having a conversation with his is fucking tedious
>bob: oh my phone battery is flat
>ben: you know who's to blame for that?
>>8207968
lmao dude nice cop out.
>>8207964
being sure of yourself at all times is not the antithesis of a self admitted fool.
>>8207984
You seem to be so sure of yourself, that you missed my point.
>>8207992
coming from the self admitted fool, any point you were trying to make was carefully neglected. i promise.
>>8207713
i can't help but read this with the intonation of some bitchy female headmaster of an 19th century english boarding school
>>8207996
Then why reply at all? Seems foolish to me.
>>8207668
Wow, didn't expect such an answer.
As you said, I would not have accepted any answer: people only like to hear what they want to hear.
But the question always remains: what do I want to hear? This I don't know. Sure, I have a vague idea, a set of values I would like to replicate, but can I see the big picture? I can't. I'm torn in many directions, between fleeting pleasures, taking out of life what you want, or submit oneself to a way of discipline and hard work, living the "industrious life". What is the flavor, and what is the truth?
So I go around, asking what is the "Way", hoping to find some epiphany, some catharsis, hearing a guy out and be able to say: this guy has got it all figured out.
I'm a bit at a cross-road, since I started putting back my life in "order", and the possibilities are not only near endless, but also feel dizzying. I have somehow wasted enough years of my life, and I simply want to be actor of my life, not just enduring it. I want to do what feels right.
I want to believe in certain ideals, like entelechy, perfection of mind and body, kaizen... But do these pursuit even have value? Are they achievable, or are they just mere concepts? Is my desire for a faith genuine, or do I see it as just a momentary crutch, a placebo helping me to move mountains in my moment of doubts?
The other anon might be right, I'm a bit of a coward, since I feel what I really want to "achieve", but somehow I feel weak, and inadequate, and too old, and worthless... I'm nourishing the idea that I perhaps have the ability to succeed, and prefer to stay in that illusion, rather to try and see that I'm just an idiot with a dream.
You are probably right: I'm feeling lost because I am asking and searching for a thing that does not exist. The idea itself of a "Way" is stupid, and people should just act the way that feels best to them.
>>8208005
cuz i'm frustrated no one has any objective moral truths, so i lash out against anonymous people on the internet.
these threads are great practice for spotting the logical fallacies i've been learning about recently
>>8207327
>>8207785
i'm honestly kinda confused too. In theory, yes, proving a negative is futile. But in a more-or-lose finite environment, is it not reasonable?
For example, say I have a large glass box filled with white beans. Someone comes up to me and says,
"I believe, with all certainty, that in that box exists a black bean."
is the act of me emptying out the box and examining each bean to disprove the existence of this black bean retarded?
riveting discussion lads
>>8208038
I'm not very good at this yet.
The claims you seem to be making here is that absolute truth, in the form of religion and divinity, is paradoxical, beneficial to society, and logically unsafe to assume because of the "number of deities".
The closest thing to a fallacy that I can find in these reasonings might be the assertion that, because of the number of potential deities, the action of adopting the belief of a deity isn't logically acceptable for someone who needs initial absolute truth to work out other absolute truths, such as morality.
this is correct, but needs to be worded more clearly and simply. you gave me the impression you were talking about fledgling societies in the need of a moral arbiter with the following,
"you need one to have one, which is why a deity is so compelling, it's an effective every day solution to the need of a foundation, however, it's flawed in that there are many potential deities, and therefore is not a totally acceptable compromise for the need of an initial absolute truth."
I think all you said was logically sound.
I think logical fallacies, more often than not, appear in the refutations of other's arguments, not so much in the construction of one's own.
(G)a(y)theists, FAGnostics, and religious people should all be executed.
>>8207713
not really. just best comporting to the evidence or lack thereof
>>8208204
then no one would die, because there wouldn't be any innocent people left to perform the act of executing the guilty
>>8208190
cool, this makes me feel at least somewhat confident in my ability to convey what i'm thinking and that it doesn't sound like total ass.
>>“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
>>8207597
what about 145 IQ?
>>8208261
i was wondering about that too, i fall in between there somewhere, so i wonder if my ideology is somewhere between there as well.
So basically Kant.
At that point, all you're saying is that we can believe there to be a God to exercise our reason and understanding but that we can't have a knowledge of God the same way we have knowledge of what's in front of us or even invisible relations of nature.
>>8207971
It's clearly not. Ben doesn't use Wyatt Mann caricatures.
>>8208008
There are a lot of things said that don't fit this place and this moment to be dealt with. I think you ought to be careful not to confuse impossibility with impotence, because if you are to agree with me on this impossibility of this "Way", then it is, necessarily, not your fault, not due to that supposed incompetence of yours, not a matter of ability, as if anyone would have that ability to figure that out any better than you would (see how the logic repeats?). That journey that you suspect may be without end and that summons a lot of different terms in what you say, like discipline, catharsis, waste, worthlessness, achievement, ability... Words that I don't think that fit the situation, but that you have to figure out yourself in your time. It's not cowardice, or inability, you're not sick, or dreaming high, you're just neurotic. I've been going for the past 5 years to a lacanian analyst, started out complaining about a sense of displacement and of doubt on things that otherwise were source of great certainty for me. I see that in you, in a different way that is totally yours, but definitely there and I imagine it would do you good to go that road and speak to someone about it, to help unravel some of those ideas, not alone, neither along anonymous strangers, but with a good analyst. That's what is about. Anyway, I won't come back to thread, so take care.
>>8208263
>not having a 160+ IQ
Good luck creating anything of substance, brainlet :^)
>>8206864
>be god
>omnipotent
>omniscient
>want humanity to worship me
>punish them if they don't
>don't do anything that couldn't be explained by natural means
>don't give them any clues about which religion is correct
>figure as long as I'm not disproven humans should know to worship me
>>8207219
Logically, the null opinion would be the opinion which the opinion's holder originally held. In the case of a theist, it would almost always be the religion into which they were birthed.
>>8207476
>morality exists beyond humanity
>>8208368
:^> at least i've published, pleb
>>8208384
>Makes the humans breathe out of their food holes
>Makes June Bugs
>Makes evolution to throw the humans off
>Make it impossible for plebian humans to ever empirically validate morality
>Makes Alzheimer's and a plethora of other mental disorders
>Makes it impossible to empirically validate the soul
>Make hemroids
>Lol childhood deformity
>Makes a universe that allows fedoras to exist
>Lol smallpox
>Makes logic function in a way that doesn't lean in favor of proving your existence
*Tip*
>>8208476
dude you're gonna be so BTFO after you die
>>8208479
I'm already BTFO, yet I'm still alive.
Thanks God for the arthritis.
>>8206864
Why are religious guys always the cutest?
>>8208476
>implying that patrician humans empirically validate morality
>>8207784
>perfect deity that is capable of divine providence but chooses to allow universal suffering?
You're completely ignoring the idea that suffering could be a product of divine providence.
>>8208627
Well, that sure does us a lot of good! I will be sure and think of divine providence next time I see someone with Alzheimer's disease or terminal cancer. Thanks God!
>>8207343
why would you assume that
>>8208476
>I wrote this long appeal to ridicule under the delusion that it proves something
since when did "muh scientism" atheists care about intuitive thought?
>>8207058
i learnt a new word the other day so:
nice chiasmus!
>>8206864
That's why I'm agnostic. I'm open to it. But don't be throwing this shit out there like there is a god. Just because we can't prove he exists doesn't mean he does. Just believe what you see and see what you believe.
>>8208860
Can you say that you currently believe in God?
>>8208860
>That's why I'm agnostic
Because you don't understand what atheist means, apparently
