is atheism intellectually shallow?
Define atheism.
Idunno.
>>8224267
Fuck you.
>>8224267
Yes, in that the whole concept of atheism depends on a lack of open-mindedness.
>>8224269
thinking that the only reality that is correct is yours and everything that is beyond your senses are delusions
>>8224281
That isn't athiesm, you faggot.
Why are /mu/ posters the worst posters?
Fuck off to your pleb board
>>8224281
I have my perspective, you have yours, I can't prove which is correct.
>>8224281
What if I'm religous but agree with that?
>>8224283
Atheism is the complete disbelief in a deity. AKA no willingness to accept the possibility that one exists. AKA thinking that your belief is the only one that's correct.
>>8224294
Wrong. Try again.
>>8224267
Grimes looks like the kind of girl who likes Ketamine. I want to smother her in kisses while she writhes naked on the soiled sheets and whispers the lyrics to "Crystal Ball" in my ear. Girls who like Ketamine always have lax morals, and those kind of girls are the girls for me.
OP, you can't write thousands of pages of theology for atheism. Even if it's all based on magic and fairy tales it's still dense and layered as all hell. I think that's the appeal of Christianity for some /lit/ people. Atheism is just so stale and insipid. . .where's the ritual, where's the mystical language, where's the emotion? Literally no soul. I wish I could convert back but I just don't have faith and it wouldn't be sincere and I'd go straight to hell anyway.
tl;dr yes
>>8224339
Woah epic burn dude
>>8224340
Post a picture of yourself
I bet you look as pathetic as you sound
>>8224294
its the rejection of theistic claims due to a lack of evidence supporting said claims.
rejecting claims due to a lack of evidence =/= asserting those claims are absolutely false.
it is like how a murderer is acquitted because the court had no evidence to connect him to his crime. the court isn't asserting that he didn't kill anyone, only that they can't pin it on him.
>>8224267
depends of premise, postulat, paradigm
depends on way of having a conversation
so speaking generally not not neccessariy
still you are an intellectually shallow faggot. you were looking for an easy escape there huh? better do your homework and take some point to hold up against >muh evil atheisms
>>8224267
If it's a reactionary attitude to being raised in a religious environment? Yes, that is fedora.
If it's the default position for someone who is so aesthetically stunted that they believe art, ritual and ceremony are things which have no place in a secular society? Also fedora.
If it is the result of a seriously considered and philosophically rigorous enquiry into the death of God? No, that is a respectable form of atheism and is at least defensible.
>>8224279
How are people, that believe in God/Gods, especially open-minded compared to atheists again?
Especially abrahamic religions with their one God solution are not very open to other concepts.
Coming from a religious background you actually have to be open minded enough to consider that God does not exist.
Also Buddhists, who are often considered open minded, could be considered as atheist.
BTW I have the feeling that most atheist people are more agnostic by nature.
The existence of God/Gods is very unlikely. Occam's razor is your friend ;).
>>8224340
>OP, you can't write thousands of pages of theology for atheism. Even if it's all based on magic and fairy tales it's still dense and layered as all hell. I think that's the appeal of Christianity for some /lit/ people. Atheism is just so stale and insipid. . .where's the ritual, where's the mystical language, where's the emotion? Literally no soul. I wish I could convert back but I just don't have faith and it wouldn't be sincere and I'd go straight to hell anyway.
This is true only if you view atheism as a rejection of established systems of belief.
I understand it to instead be a system of accepting what is, what have you cause to accept, the absolute reality of it is staggeringly weighty. Every moment is singular with value, a fleeting twinkle of life against the black oblivion of infinity.
>>8224366
>The existence of God/Gods is very unlikely. Occam's razor is your friend
False, the non-existence of God is no more likely than the existence of God if you do away with all human projections and doctrinal superstitions of God.
>>8224387
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
idiot
>>8224267
Not inherantly, but it does attract intellectually shallow individuals that want to stand out.
>>8224345
You first faggot
>>8224394
Either He exists or He doesn't, it's a 50/50 chance. :)
>>8224267
Quite the opposite. A Catholic is born into Catholicism and believes it. He may have his doubts from time to time, but doubt is dealt with very effectively in the church, so he continues to believe. You can replace the words Catholic and Catholicism with any other religion and it still holds true. That's how intellectually shallow religion is. Atheists have thought critically about religion and God, have realized that no idea is too sacred to be seriously questioned, have looked at religion from historical, sociological, and anthropological points of view, and despite all of the terrible implications of an atheistic universe, despite knowing that with religious faith comes a sense of security, the atheist has nevertheless put truth before his emotions. And let's not get confused about what atheism is. A lack of belief in God isn't the same thing as the positive assertion that God certainly doesn't exist. It's merely a suspension of judgment. There's not enough evidence to prove God's existence, so the atheist doesn't believe in Him. But, again, he's not saying "I know with certainty there is no God." That sort of atheism (do such atheists exist?) is intellectually shallow.
Also, nice bait.
>>8224426
source on copypasta?
>>8224394
One of those superstitions I was referring to is that God is an object, existing within the universe, that can be subject to the same scientific scrutiny as any other object. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things: His existence is not something that can be scientifically determined or disproved, because science is the study of the modifications of God's substance, and not God as he truly is in all his infinite variety.
No knowledge: atheism, people came up with the idea of gods "for no reason"
Metaphorical knowledge: theism, fantasy gods exist
Literal knowledge: anti-theism, fantasy gods that people worship are evil
Formal knowledge: real gods exist and humanity is one of them.
>>8224429
I just wrote it.
>>8224349
You did good
>>8224366
>Also Buddhists, who are often considered open minded, could be considered as atheist.
Meme.
>>8224281
Atheism and theism are both words. We perceive the void by filling it
>>8224547
XD LOOK AT ME GUYS I'M SO DEEP I SAY THAT WORDS ARE ONLY WORDS AND WE FILL THE MEANING OF IT XDDDDDDD IT'S JUST WORDS GUYS XDDDDD HAHAHAHHAHA I'M SO FUCKING SMART GUYS
Go kill yourself underage fagot.
ITT: spooks
>>8224281
That simply isn't what atheism is m8
>>8224848
Now THIS is ironic shitposting. Genuinely can't tell if you're honestly retarded or think mimicry is anything but a shallow excuse of an argument
>>8224294
This is untrue. Atheism is just lack of belief in a god. It isn't even a belief. Atheists don't necessarily hold the belief that god's existence is impossible. Agnostic atheists such as myself just lack explicit belief in god due to lack of criteria required for belief.
>>8224913
atheism is a rejection of the belief that there is/are gods, which makes it a belief. people usually claim to be "agnostic atheists" for the same reason they claim to be "centrists", most want to project an image of being impartial or neutral, but what it actually means is that they're too limp to stand the stress of the intellectual rigour required for contemplating philosophical notions of religion.
Atheism is a belief, you can't be an "agnostic atheist" and atheism isn't "intellectually shallow", it's aesthetically destitute.
>>8224340
Read Principia Discordia and look into the theosophical society. You can absolutely have the satisfaction of religious study and ritual without the belief in God aspect if you really want to.
>>8224387
An ineffable god inevitably exists because there inevitably exists at least one ineffable thing and the only characteristic of an ineffable god is by definition it's ineffable nature. But that is just linguistics and doesn't in any sense help to explain the universe or truly defend any form of theism that anyone cares about.
Most people are intellectually shallow
>>8224968
There you go
>>8224924
I'd try to rigorously refute theism when theists rigorously defined god.
>>8224957
>doesn't in any sense help to explain the universe or truly defend any form of theism that anyone cares about.
Firstly, a god devoid of all human projections is not 'ineffable', it merely lacks a comprehensive theological context from which a substantial and coherent religion can be established. You can still approach an abstracted notion of God through theoretical/philosophical discussion, and in my view is the only way of stimulating some form of constructive debate between theists and atheists.
But to say that no one cares about an ineffable God is simply wrong - western spiritualism (even if it is a hock of shit) has been hugely popular since the hippie revolution, with people picking and choosing their own tenets and values from a massive variety of religious sources, while simultaneously refusing to deny another's claim to their own personal comprehension of God.
On top of that, you have more cultural believers than ever before: people who don't directly subscribe to a belief, but find themselves invested in the communitarian spirit and spiritual experience of ritual and religion. There is plenty of scholarship dedicated to this 'post-modern' theological turn. Whether you agree with it or not, it is something that many people do in fact care about, and is no longer required to 'explain' the universe because it is, as you say, ineffable.
>>8224387
HE EITHER EXISTS OR HE DOESN'T SO THERE'S A 50/50 CHANCE OF EITHER
>>8225006
It's not a question of probability. Stop oversimplifying in capital letters
>>8224267
No. Atheism is not a person and does not have an intellect which could be shallow.
>>8224987
You can't talk about anything while leaving it devoid of human projection. Ineffable was the closest word I know to describe this. New age people absolutely ascribe characteristics to god even if they don't insist that others agree with them.
>>8225040
>It's not a question of probability
Yes it is.
>>8224848
Why so sensibilized? Were you raped by words as a kid?
>>8224984
It's my friend Graham.
>>8225080
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood, only a fool would take anything posted here as fact"
Checkmate theists.
>>8225103
That's not very rigorous.
>>8225069
>You can't talk about anything while leaving it devoid of human projection
of course you can. that's exactly what deconstruction and post-modern theology attempts to do. 'de-centre' the subject and flatten ontological inconsistencies into a plane of immanence.
>New age people absolutely ascribe characteristics to god even if they don't insist that others agree with them.
they ascribe those characteristics to their god because those characteristics happen to resonate with their particular culture and history. But their god is still 'ineffable', insofar as those characteristics are predicates corresponding to their experiences of the divine and their experiences alone. Its in the ineffability of God, when he is undressed of all trinkets adorned by our personal biases, that he becomes universal.
>>8224287
You can via the dictionary, if you just throw words around without knowing the meaning you diminish said words very meaning. DONT.
>>8225124
>prescriptivist
>>8225108
I guess I have to ask you to define human projection.
>Its in the ineffability of God, when he is undressed of all trinkets adorned by our personal biases, that he becomes universal.
When you do this to anything it becomes universal but it also strips it of any function.
>>8225073
You can't involve probability in questions concerning the existence of something beyond the natural sphere of causality. The horizon of our understanding entails that all we can speak of metaphysics/what preceded the big bang is subsumed in multiplicity. Schrodinger's box cannot be opened, so the cat is both dead and alive at the same time - we have no probabilistic knowledge of what the result will be.
>>8225108
Hey I'm at work and not able to argue this as well as I'd like. Can you recommend a book or author that is similar to your argument?
>>8224267
Yes, and it has nothing to do with "well religious people are etc etc".
In order to refute something, that something must be defined, disassembled, examined, and refuted in its every component and mechanism.
So in this case, God must be defined to the fullest extent. And if the eternal and omnipotent God-mechanism is to be defined, it must be done so within confines of our minds and our sciences and our philosophies.
Which is just a silly notion.
So yes, by claiming atheism you are, in effect, claiming that our human capacities are expensive enough to encompass such a concept as God, when in actuality our capacities are anything but. "shallow" is a good way of putting that sentiment.
>implying anyone is gnostic atheist
>implying they're not agnostic atheists
>implying spinoza's god isn't the most obvious choice
>>8224267
yes
>>8224267
No, but this question is.
>>8225225
>implying Spinoza wasn't an atheist who was afraid of persecution
>>8224267
>he thinks theism and atheism are a dichotomy and not flawed perspectives of a monist reality
>>8225246
>implying the credibility of the idea is dependant on the devotion of the thinker
>>8225257
Touché. The work should always be protected from the author.
>>8224267
New Atheism most definitely is. But atheism as a whole? No.
the average theist is way more retarded
>>8225201
best response so far
>>8225236
This
>>8225201
You clumsily misrepresent atheism. If anything, it's theists who claim to have iron-clad knowledge of God, not atheists.
Ignostic master race reporting in.
atheism > theism > agnosticism
>>8225201
muh anselm's ontological argument
>>8224281
That's the Reddit version of logical positivism, you're confusing Camus with Popper
>>8225403
Adding 'muh' in front of something doesn't stop it from being valid.
![Laughing-Men-In-Suits[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rNbyepF.jpg "Laughing-Men-In-Suits[1].jpg")
>>8225423
>he thinks the ontological argument is sound
>>8225442
Refute it fucker.
>>8225442
kek, nice argument against Anselm there lad, you really showed him with your meme picture!!
>>8225423
It makes it seem less valid though, and that's all I need to win an argument.
>>8225463
Share one of those refutations then.
>>8225507
>he thinks the two are mutually exclusive
Most atheists are also agnostic.
>>8224461
It's reddit copypasta tier.
>>8225516
Nah pham. If they were they wouldn't be so fucking euphoric about it.
asking if atheism is intellectually shallow is intellectually shallow
>>8225538
>no, ur intellectually shallow! xD
>>8224340
this desu
I love so much about theism, Catholicism in particular. the language, music, the aesthetics
I was raised really religious too, at some point I guess I got disillusioned though, because I realized at some point that I found it impossible to believe, that all these people took what I had always considered to be parables and instructions for living to be accurate factual accounts of the past.
I wish I could convert back, but I just can't believe in any supernatural power, it all seems silly
I find many atheists to be very narrow minded desu
>>8224440
If you have zero observable reason to think something is, why would you? It's equivalent to the boogeyman, or Zeus, or the tooth fairy. There is nothing to suggest the existence of these beings, the belief in them is completely nonsensical, not unlike Russel's teapot. Your post is retarded.
>>8225562
well i find many religious people to be closed minded. ha take that.
>>8225498
Not him, but it's possible for someone to think the whole thing is really silly and not want to get into it with you, because there are actually refutations and you can google them.
Personally, i take offense to the assumption that greatness is not only objective and in some way quantifiable, but also that there's an ending to it, a greatest possible being, and that existing somehow increases this objective greatness. Which strikes me as a lot like telling a kid "think of the biggest number that you can, ok now add 1 to it because you always can!" which doesn't seem like it proves the existence of anything other than the idea of numbers as infinite
>>8225146
Looking back at my posts I can concede I've used the term in quite a loose sense, so I haven't been too helpful in that regard. By projection I mean the forms of knowledge we derive from the cultural mythologies which have all embodied God as man, or in other words, those which have brought God down to a human level of comprehension.
It essentially sacrifices (In christ's case, quite literally) the transcendence of the divine as a result of attempting to reconstruct it through the art of storytelling. That isn't to say we can't learn much from these stories: my example of christ is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, insofar as we kill God, but paradoxically can only reconnect with him (and be saved) through an awareness of this great loss. But, inevitably, we drag him through the dirt of base existence, and then mournfully discard him when we find he has lost his shine.
>When you do this to anything it becomes universal but it also strips it of any function
This is true, but only if you subscribe to an empiricist/materialist kind of metaphysics. God may have died alongside his son, but the holy spirit still has hugely significant repercussions to those with faith. I can't direct you to any reading in particular which directly befits my own understanding of the topic, but I'd highly recommend looking into deleuze, kant and spinoza; I'd also recommend reading anything by Slavoj Zizek on the death of God, or watching one of his talks on the same topic on youtube.
>>8225686
>you can google
I wanted to know a refutation that he thought was valid.
>>8225686
>actual infinity
>proven
>>8225677
>observable reason
because I don't subscribe to an empiricist philosophy which is outdated by a good few centuries.
Can the STEM'ies please leave
>>8225535
They're not euphoric about atheism. They're euphoric about scientism, which is what led to their atheism.
>>8225982
>They're not euphoric about atheism.
oh but they are
>>8225837
Yes you do, in all things but this. It's called cognitive dissonance, a mental illness.
>>8225818
That's why I only said that it proves infinity exists as an IDEA, the notion of infinity can be conceived of but this does not prove that it actually exists, much in the same way the ontological proof only really proves that you can always conceive of a "greater" being not that anywhere down this chain of "greater" beings does a greatest being necessarily exist
I hate that my mom and dad STOLE an hour from me every Sunday for YEARS.
>>8224267
Incredibly shallow, it's just unfashionable counter culture really...quite sad since everyone knows mysticism is much cooler counter-counter-culture. All of the christfags on this board can surely testify.
>>8225516
that doesn't make sense
>>8224848
you are the reason 4chan is bad
>>8225837
in that case, what the hell do you subscribe to? you get a warm feeling when you pray, and call it god? your flu disappeared miraculously and you cal it god? I don't understand what you attribute to god when everything works without god's assumption. suppose we assumed fairies hold quarks together?
Holy shit it is [current year] and people still argue over the definition of atheism on the internet.
It's very simple. There are two types of atheism, which simply means the lack of belief in a setup. There is gnostic atheism, which also entails a belief no deity exists. There is agnostic atheism, which does not.
>>8224984
so you're an ignostic
>>8226365
>How very presumptuous of you.
In what sense? Do substantiate, the ravings of the deranged are seldom a bore.
>>8224447
I like formal knowledge the best.
>>8227285
>Holy shit it is [current year] and people still argue over the definition of atheism on the internet.
Younger posters arrive and start posting as older posters leave and stop posting. So there will always be topics like these because the younger posters are just starting to explore what the older ones have already explored and moved on from.
This is really basic stuff to work out, m8.
