What kind of mental gymnastics do theists use to rationalize this?
>>80633444
Emotional manipulation and indoctrination from a young age, usually. Nice trips
>what is faith
>I literally don't understand religion
>>80633444
>At least we're not Ricky Gervais.
I don't know, haven't been a christian since I was a kid and haven't really bothered arguing with them since.
>>80633444
Not all theism is monotheism. The desert trilogy doesn't speak for everyone.
>>80633758
Could be used to justify belief in literally anything, including an immortal Palestinian rape baby from Roman times watching you beat off.
Being atheist is the ultimate blue pill, thus see the nu-males.
>>80634159
>le I don't have to defend my believes because atheists wear hats meme.
>>80633444
"Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the Lord Almighty has spoken.
5All the nations may walk
in the name of their gods,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord
our God for ever and ever."
We believe in our God because we are who we are.
Different peoples have their own Gods because they are who they are.
Different expressions of the same belief in the need for spiritual salvation.
>>80634426
So you're either saying that there are many gods, or there are no real ones
>mental gymnastics
well for starters, you can't be a psychopath
>>80633444
Same could be made of literally any truth claim. If you're saying something is true, no matter how trivial, you're likely calling someone else wrong for believing otherwise.
The inevitable outcome of the way knowledge exists in this universe means that the majority of mankind is wrong about just about everything.
>>80633444
that is a very empowering philosophy, applying it to your life will undoubtedly make you greater. self-improvement is the essence of all religion. meditation is purely introspective
>>80634159
Not an argument
>>80634667
Unless you have outstanding evidence to stand on, claiming any one of them is real or more real than the other is insane.
>>80633444
Something is or isn't as a matter of necessary logical fact.
All meaningful propositions are true or false as a matter of necessary logical fact.
You gaytheists dipshits will never cease to amaze with your abject stupidity.
I'm baka desu senpai
>>80635131
True, which is why I'm an atheist. I'm just pointing out that the argument of the OP is retarded. Saying "There are thousands of other theories, so yours is clearly incorrect by sheer probability" is a statement that could apply to literally anything.
I'm not questioning Smug British Asshole's conclusion, only his argument.
>>80634353
>le I talk about how much of a free thinker I am by quoting the God Delusion
Atheism is a meme religion in the same way Communism is. What makes it hilarious is the way the followers think they're too enlightened to fall into such a trap.
>>80634667
I think the important point though is that there is nothing substantial to distinguish one for from the others. as an analogy when comparing two theories of electricity if both equally well explain observed phenomenon then yeah it would be ridiculous to say one is more correct than the other, however if one better describes the observations that one can be accepted as being more true. so that's where your comparison between this quote and general knowledge fails.
>>80635410
Modern day "atheism" is really just thinly veiled antitheism. The rest of us tend to classify ourselves as nontheists and are also often cultural Christians.
>>80633444
The Lord almighty is not governed by laws perceived by mankind
>2 posts by this ID
>>80634531
Nope. I'm saying religous belief is part of human nature. Part of an expression of our own psychology. Different expressions of human spirituality. It always astounds me how much different religons and ancient religons have in common.
Whether God exists or not is a different matter to the question of why people believe in Him. It's basic human instinct; deeper than logic or reason. You can believe in God, accept the logic behind the arguments that he cannot or must not exist, and still have unshakeable faith. It's just the way our brains are wired.
>>80635824
This is one of my favourite cop-outs
>>80633444
>Ricky Gervais
>>80635888
I think its partly due to the fact we have always seeked the reason for our existence and the idea of a higher power was just instinctive as a reason.
Modern and ancient religions don't stack up against what we now know, which is the reason its so absurd that people still choose to follow a religion
>>80635620
Except that isn't even remotely true. The monotheistic faiths differ categorically from the polytheistic ones. The latter refers to discrete entities that are essentially just empowered superhumans, the former to what is essentially an abstraction.
Its one thing to say that religion is wrong, which is what I believe. Its quite another to say its self-evidently wrong, and that all the intelligent men of the past who thought they had arguments and reasons for their religious belief were purely rationalizing or lying.
Which is really the essential vice of the New Atheists. They speak on subjects like philosophy and theology, of which they have no knowledge whatsoever, and when their ignorance is brought to their attention they say they have no reason to study such subjects, being that they are nonsensical.
Its like when someone says "There are no arguments for the existence of God". That is bullshit. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of God, some of them are even somewhat convincing, its just none of them manage to convince me. Saying an argument isn't good isn't the same thing as saying there is no argument.
>>80635969
It's not a cop out, you just don't understand faith, and the realization that we cannot comprehend god in a way governed by science.
>>80633444
It's mostly childhood indoctrination in addition to their own selfish desire.
They've been told that if they properly follow a particular religion, they will forever live in a paradise of eternal happiness.
They subconsciously don't care about their God (even though they will deny this). They just want the supposed reward that comes as a result of following their God.
If their book denied the existence of an afterlife, they wouldn't even follow the teachings of it.
>>80636257
Again, absolutely no basis in reality for that kind of outlook. So a copout.
Its easy to say, "Oh well, we couldn't possibly understand the reason for gods being" when presented with the dilemma of having to actually find a reason to believe in a god
>>80635410
I just don't think you can get away from supporting your claims with facts by passing the meme buck down.
>>80636465
The delusion. If my God commanded me to do something, and that I would suffer for all eternity for obeying Him, I would do so without hesitation. Gaytheists know nothing about principle and moral conviction, because they have none.
>>80633444
>believe in the moral code of your church
>enjoy the traditions
>don't believe in bible literalism
>still believe in an abstract higher power
Why aren't liberals capable of understanding any nuance. You can follow a faith, believe in God but not the God of that faith.
>>80636257
This non-logic could be used to argue absolutely any claim.
Meaning it can't be used to argue any claim, really.
>>80636257
>we cannot comprehend god in a way governed by science.
comprehend would imply there was a guarantee of something there
the fact that there's literally no evidence is enough for your natural conclusion to be 'well maybe there isn't one'
>>80636760
Seems illogical to shape your moral code around a faith if you don't believe in that faiths god.
And if you are following that particular faith, whilst believing in a generic higher power, but youre kinda picking and choosing your moral system not based on the scripture, then why even bother following that religion?
>>80636820
You don't think it follows from "If God" -> "then God precedes and determines that which God does establish"?
God would necessarily precede the logic He binds the world by if God. That's fairly basic.
I was always interested in Christianity and studied Christian culture and the Bible. There is one problem which has prevented me from worshipping a deity. The problem of evil
An almighty, benevolent God that allows evil to exist seems contradictionary. It would only seem fair that God could prevent HIV, rare types of cancer, extreme natural disasters or other catastrophies.
For something to exist at all, imperfection must be allowed, sure. But i am not comfortable with worshipping an abstract concept (which God remains thus for me) that allows such extremities to exist.
To quote a Dachau concentration camp wall: if God exists he will have to beg for my forgiveness.
Anyone care to respond? Please try to go beyond 'God works in mysterious ways'. I look at Christianity as a decent moral compass and am not looking to troll.
>inb4 flag, here for business
>>80633444
What kind of mental gymanstics do people use to think their county is the best? To think their language is the best? To think their football team is the best? It's simply called become accostumed to something or to be indoctrinated with something.
>>80636144
It is absurd. But the human condition is pretty absurd in general. I don't want to know how psychiatrists rationalise the sexual fetishes of their patients, for example.
And our knowledge of psychology is pathetic compared to the physical sciences. I still love Karl Jung's views on religon as a kind of window into the human soul, but it's closer to philosophy and mysticism than science. Fascinating, though.
>>80636257
You're fucking retarded.
>>80636869
So are you. The God of monotheism is abstract, and defined as being nonmaterial. Trying to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God is like trying to use science to prove or disprove a mathematical theory. Its impossible. You can't empirically study a nonempirical entity.
You can however LOGICALLY study a nonempirical entity, which is why all the arguments in favor of God's existence throughout history have been abstract arguments, saying "Because the universe is such and such way, a God must be the logical consequence."
>>80637133
>To quote a Dachau concentration camp wall: if God exists he will have to beg for my forgiveness.
Oy vey!
>>80637107
Since the argument assumes the existence of god as a necessary premise and can't muster evidence to support it, no. I don't think the logic follows.
>>80633444
About two thirds of the world's population believe in the same God. There are literally no "my god is bigger than your god" wars and there probably haven't been in a millennium.
>>80633444
>What kind of mental gymnastics do theists use to rationalize this?
Something between not giving a fuck about your shitty thread and saging it.
>>80636563
Its not so much about believing or not believing in God, its about people thinking they know God. They are convinced that they know how he thinks, how he acts, what he wants, what he does, sometimes even how he looks. They think they can determine who gets rewarded and who gets punished. They redefine morality to suit their beliefs.
And when a society's morals change over time, mysteriously theists 'learn' that in fact, God too altered his morals to accommodate their needs.
So even if God exists, religion itself is bullshit mass insanity.
>>80636120
>flag
faggot
>>80633444
I'm more spiritual than anything really. I'm Areligious I guess...
>>80636238
I don't think you get what I am saying. The quote talks about the absurdity of holding one equally unfounded belief over another, not the mass rejection of all of these ideas just because they're equally possible. The post I was replying to seemed to try to show that the concept of one being right and others being wrong is applicable in the general pursuit of knowledge, but this as I pointed out is typically a matter of one explanation being more accurate to the real world, which is different from comparing two equally sound/unsound claims.
>>80633444
most religions don't say other gods are made up.
Merely that they are evil/false gods or satan.
The three major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) all believe in the same God.
Those three major religions make up almost the entirety of the world's religious population.
>>80633444
They all don't realise they're puppets for Jews.
>>80637283
>science to prove or disprove a mathematical theory. Its impossible.
Math theories can be proven by math, math is a science.
I think you mean "proving a math theory in the real world", because IRL stuff like Imaginary numbers or infinity sets are not possible.
>>80637283
You don't want to reduce God to the status of an abstract axiom because abstract axioms are intrinsically non-agents that can't act on anything, making god, as you said, as consequential as numbers.
>>80637431
You can't "bring evidence" to support any claim that isn't itself harboring unverifiable assumptions.
If something isn't a priori true, it's subject the exactly the same epistemological issues as any other proposition.
People function on axioms, and you're axioms are logically no better than anyone else's that aren't self-contradictory in nature.
>>80637133
The problem of evil is basically saying that there is no compatibility between any moral code [for remember that ethics is not so simple as some obvious universal morality] and any conception of divinity. This is obviously ridiculous, and so the problem of evil is refuted immediately. It basically amounts to saying that "When compared to the conditions of the World, no possible morality lines up with any possible God to justify it". Any application of the "problem of evil" therefore has to be made more selective. "This and that morality is not compatible with this and that conception of God, when compared to the World"
In the case of Christianity, its a simple matter. All mankind will eventually be physically raised from the dead, and the world physically restored, so why give a shit about any suffering while alive?
Back when I was a Christian I used to mock people who worried or mourned for the dead, telling them that God had made life easy and death meaningless, since Christians were immortal anyway.
Why care about suffering, pain, persecution and death when it is a bygone conclusion that you'll physically resurrect as a demigod in the near future?
>>80637781
your* obviously.
>>80633444
Because pic related, obviously.
>>80637613
you must be a christianfag to believe that, jews and muslims are against everyone else, its only christians who think you are all best buds
>>80633444
I really dislike this retard.
>>80637781
There's a principal called occam's razor that does away with the presuppositional god you espouse.
You're right. I'm as beholden to properly basic beliefs as you but you don't have to assume a god when a perfectly complete natural explanation already exists that is self-contained. Postulating a god is gratuitous
>>80633444
they use the mental gymnastic of '"my "god" is everyone's "god" because "god" isn't the word for a person, it's the word to describe the spiritual force'
Atheists really BTFO themselves because they always strawman god, when god isn't a person.
>>80637586
And I'm saying not all religions are equally unsound, though all are equally untrue. The idea that the theology of Aquinas is intellectually equal to a hunter-gatherer burning his rival in sacrifice to a stone statue is ridiculous and insulting.
>>80637641
No, math is not properly a science. Science refers to a particular methodology for finding truth by way of empiricism and experimentation, it doesn't just refer to any smart-sounding true thing. Neither is logic for that matter.
>>80637647
Actually for most of the history of western civilization, all agents were taken to exist in the abstract. A "physical soul", was a contradiction in terms.
>>80638181
You're not making a distinction between abstract and meta-physical there.
>>80638142
>Atheists really BTFO themselves because they always strawman god, when god isn't a person.
Except not everyone uses this version of mental gymnastics to justify it.
>>80637937
Technically christians and jews believe in the same god, I don't know about mudslimes, because isn't his god Allah "kids and goats we should get" the prophet?
>>80638119
Occam's razor is an arbitrary informal "principle". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of premises.
You assume your sensory experience corresponds to real objects when as a matter of fact it might not. I assume God when as a matter of fact God might not (be). Our assumptions are no better or worse at a base logical level, which is our only shared ground as rational humans.
>>80633444
The term 'god' isn't a classification of being but an umbrella term for a lot of different kinds of beings.
Denying other gods would be very much like denying other worldviews, because that's precisely what it is. The strength of the quote relies on the "gods" spoken about are the same type of thing so you can speak of them collectively. They aren't even in concept. People who think otherwise are entirely ignorant of what they're talking about.
>>80637914
This isn't the place anon, not with all the retarded faggots on /pol/
>>80638119
>occam's razor
>As an argumentative device rather than a speculatory/dirty decision-making one
Kek. Occam's razor would point to God, since a single, willful creation of all things would be much simpler than the alternative theories of creation.
>>80633444
Maybe x is the true one, maybe there are multiple, maybe they're all the same, maybe theres none at all. Why does it have to be a black and white answer? Is it because you're pushing a very specific agenda with your question?
>>80638540
Their God is the same as our God.
But they don't believe Jesus was the Son of God; they believe Jesus was a prophet , and Muhammad was the final prophet who came after Jesus.
Interestingly, they also believe in Jesus returning at the end of days.
>>80633444
The Abrahamic God the Father is by definition greater than any other god. He is so great that all the other gods could be real and it still wouldn't disprove that there is an almighty Father who created them all.
>>80638575
>a jew in the desert performing magic
That's not a worldview. That's a fact claim. A claim with no evidence BTW (unless you consider holy books as evidence, in which case I guess everything in the Koran is true also)
>>80638555
I'd seem that to make any claims about the universe you'd have to assume the validity of your sensory experience. You can't logically move from A to B without it.
Assuming a god, however, is compeltely unnecessary. It's not needed to make the next step. It's gratuitous luggage. It's only there because you insist on it being there. There's nothing that's helped by it.
>>80638694
This just isn't true. Modern cosmology models are actually very simple and have the invaluable benefit of matching that actual data we observe. God is only 'simple' because as a concept it's so ill-defined, and can only be reasoned ad-hoc when a natural explanation already exists.
Science only assumes the natural. Theists assume the natural and an extra supernatural dimension, making it intrinsically more complex than a naturalistic view.
>>80639022
But that's enough about Simon Magus and his merry band of followers.
>>80633444
God is essentially unknowable for a human and I can't claim definitively anybody is right or wrong when they talk about it.
>>80639246
You don't need to make any claims about the universe at all - assuming your sensory experience corresponds to real objects is also "unnecessary". You just want to assume so. It remains as a matter of logical fact that nothing outside arbitrary preference can distinguish values between axiomatic assumptions, which are at base absolutely logically equivalent - your baseless assumption that your sensory experience corresponds to real objects, and my baseless assumption that God exists.
>>80639022
>That's not a worldview.
Believing God to be a Jewish man is precisely a worldview and is a form of an Abrahamic position called 'Theistic Personalism' and plays into a worldview.
The apostolic faith wouldn't hold this view, as they have a more complex understanding of Jesus in relation to God, but in either case how they understand their god will be integral in their understanding of reality so it would be fair to consider it a worldview and consider it in full.
My God meets my needs. I don't always have money, but I've never wanted for food, clothing and shelter. I am Christian.
>>80637914
What a retarded way to view life.
>Why would I want to work for someone that doesn't like me for who I am?
It's almost as if there are rewards for putting in extra effort in life. Who would have thought.
>>80639640
>God being a desert jew is integral to your view of reality
Tripfags are so sad, and their Pope is so cucked
>>80637815
>Why care about suffering, pain, persecution and death when it is a bygone conclusion that you'll physically resurrect as a demigod in the near future?
What about the unborn and babies who die without a chance to accept God? What part of a loving god's plan does anencephaly fulfill?
>>80639897
Forgive me, I thought you were trying to have an honest discourse. Carry on.
>>80638181
Can't say I know anything about aquinas, but we are not talking about intellectual merit. We are talking about whether one ideology is better reflective of the physical world than the other as that would seem to be a prime way of holding one over another. Of course some religions will do so better than others so I guess I see where you are coming from, some religions are more ridiculous than others. In any case, I'd be willing to wager that even on the highest tiers, with regards to factual consistency, of organized religions there's some degree of variety amongst which one religion can not be held above the others on any objective grounds.
>>80637133
Where in the bible does it say that God is benevolent?
>>80640044
This is honest discourse. You just made a claim with no evidence then pretended like calling it a "worldview" makes it seem reasonable to believe in.
I could say extradimensional fairies hold reality in existence, that doesn't mean it's true.
>>80633914
Imagine making this argument on a giant rock floating in space. How ridiculous! ugh, I can't even.
that is a strawman though...
>>80639623
I guess you have a point there, but then again us having this argument in the first place assumes the existence of one of us and if you're going to make that logical leap what exactly is god needed for?
>>80640738
No it actually doesn't. I'm perfectly fine with the possibility I'm conversing with myself or an illusion, which is, in fact, a possibility.
>>80640874
I said one of us.
You believe you exist don't you?
>>80637133
The problem of evil is unique to monotheism. If you have a god that is not all powerful, not all seeing, not all knowing, then he cannot reasonably be expected to prevent it. And this is assuming he's benevolent or cares about the suffering of humans whatsoever. And of course, suffering takes on another dimension in dharma.
Your pizza is the best pizza. In fact, he's the only pizza. All other pizzas are ridiculous, made up rubbish. Not yours though. Yours is real.
See how ridiculous this sounds? Of course we know that pizza exists, but people have different types of pizzas, different toppings on pizzas, different crusts, etc. but in the end there is still a pizza. That Ricky Gervais quote (if of course it is by him) doesn't prove anything. Sure there may be different spins on god, or different religious sects, but in the end they are all trying to represent the same thing. God our creator.
>>80637133
One reason that evil exists in this world is because we are given free will by God, and have a tendency to do evil. As for evil beyond our control (disease, natural disasters, etc.) these can be seen as ways in which we grow to appreciate the good in life and develop our souls
>>80640738
But again - it's not that God is necessary. You don't argue that believing your sensory experience corresponds to reality is "needed" full stop. You only believe it's "needed" insofar as believing so fulfills your preference for a world in which such would be true. The same for God - God as an assumption allows for the satisfaction of preferences in my belief structure.
>>80641046
I can't not believe thoughts exist. It's absolutely impossible to believe the opposite if, in fact, one is thinking in the first place. I tend to attribute those thoughts to "me", but that's not necessary.
>>80641134
So, polytheism?
What a heretic.
Every single European pagan Gods are the same people. Thor is Jupiter is Perun etc. And this are similar to the Arabic ones which are similar to the African ones. They are the same.
Judaism comes a Egyptian God who wanted to be worship solely and from his cult spread the Abraham religions.
All religions have the same root so this "My God is the only one that exists" is bullshit no theist actually believes.
>>80641134
Watch this https://youtu.be/MlnnWbkMlbg
You can see for yourself exactly what god yours is a spinoff of
>>80641431
No I never said that. What I said is that everyone has different interpretations of the same thing. They are all trying to fathom our creator which is unfathomable, yet they all recognize the same truth; that there is a creator
>>80641628
But that's not the truth. It's pretty clear there isn't one.
>>80641341
That's true. I do prefer to believe in a universe that exists. I go one step further and believe that I can actually sense that universe correctly. These are two properly basic assumptions I make and I own up to that.
As long as you choose not to do the same though, can I have your computer? Shouldn't be any value to you since it doesn't exist.
>>80641608
huh guess I'm a #mardukmissle now
>>80633444
Arguments used by christian nutjobs:
>BUT MUH HOLY BUK
>BUT MUH IMPOSSIBLE BIG BANG
>BUT MUH IMPOSSIBLE EVOLUTION
The idiots actually think these things make Christianity legit even if there are probably tens of other gods from other religions who can do the same as theirs.
>>80641771
The uniformity and reality of nature is an assumption of mine - but it comes after God. God allows me to overcome the issue in this image following out of the quality of God not being a deceiver. It's what Descartes argues in the Meditations.
Naturalists/empiricists are caught by the vicious logical circularity in their justification of inductive reasoning, but God as an assumption lets you cease being illogical in doing so.
>>80641771
Knowing that you're imprisoned in an illusion doesn't mean that you're exempt from its arbitrary laws. My computer may not be real, but the shitposting is. My sensory knowledge may be false, it may be junk, but the conceptual knowledge I glean from it is real.
>>80642185
Great conclusion you've reached... from experience
>>80634159
>be atheist
>be right wing fanatic who unironically believes Hitler did nothing wrong
>be you
>be Christian cuck
>believe Hitler will burn in hell forever for doing a lot of wrong things
This is contrarianism at it's finest. The right wing which promotes violence against subhumans and Christianity which is a peaceful religion of cucks DO NOT mix well together.
/pol/ get your fucking shit straight and stop being deluded.
>>80642327
You completely failed to follow the conversation. Congrats.
>but it comes after God. God allows me to overcome the issue in this image following out of the quality of God not being a deceiver. It's what Descartes argues in the Meditations
>>80642185
>but GOD
>GOD
>BUT MUH GOD
>BUT MUH BUK
Which god, faggot ? There are literally hundreds of them and no evidence to prove that yours is the real one.
>>80642638
Read the thread gypsy~
>>80633444
>checked
I believe that most organized religions are desperately trying to describe something that we don't understand, and possibly cannot understand.
Trying to describe God using current human language is like trying to read a newspaper with a microscope. I'm sure it's possible, but you are only seeing a very VERY small part of the bigger picture. There's literally no point in asking these metaphysical questions. That we have no way of truly answering. Do I believe an infinite, and eternal being can exist? I'd be foolish to say no.
Just live a happy life, love other people, and quit the mental masturbation.
>Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow
>>80633758
They use shit like this OP
>>80642730
>Jamal using pseudo-science to explain ,,God"
I think I'll pass, burger. Enjoy your mental gymnastics.
>>80642460
>You're either Atheist, or a Christian.
>I'm sooooo much smarter than you
:^)
>>80633444
>What kind of mental gymnastics do theists use to rationalize this?
>Be me
>People hated me violently and viscerally for no fucking explainable reason since kid
>keep growing up
>finally one day see evidence there's a god
>People get even more hateful
>they don't even hide the fact that most of them aren't human, but demons of satan, just like the bible describes it will be
>true enough just like the bible describes it will be, the law of god is nowhere to be found in the bible, nor his name.
>after observing people, blue, red, green, purble and other assortment of color-handed they still have the gall to deny it
Surely I will listen to you, fag.
>>80633444
Atheism is the ultimate blue pill, look at whats happening to atheist Europe lmaoooo, soon you wont be atheist anymore, Allahu Akbar!!
>>80643025
Farewell. Enjoy your goats~
I don't care one way or another with this argument, but it always irks me whenever the antitheist side uses "science proves me right" as their solution to why they have the higher ground, when metaphysically speaking people who believe in a higher power are no better or worse.
I want you to really think about this, saying "I believe in god" is a statement that has been argued for centuries because it cannot be objectively disproven or proven.
Same thing goes for the "science" argument, in that it's grounded in the material world.
Prove that the world isn't an illusion.
"I will use science"
You're going to use data from the material world to prove the material world is real?
Boil this argument down to it's fundamentals, both sides are literally saying "my faith is better than your faith". Do I really believe the world is an illusion? No, but I can't say it ISN'T with 100% objectivity. Maybe these are questions that can be objectively proven in the future but right now both sides are at a stalemate as far as the entire picture is concerned.
I'm not antagonizing either side btw, I just find the theories that argue we have a slim chance of being in the "base" reality/advanced simulation stuff to be interesting. By the way OP, you're image is 9gag bait tier, so it was practically asking for both sides to shout "fuck you" at one another, rather than debate seriously.
So fuck you for that.
>>80633444
*tips fedora*
>>80643143
Congrats on not being a scientism worshiper.
>>80642185
You don't need god to assume that uniformity though. The nature of reality can be gleaned from reality itself.
If you just assume that reality is real, then everything else follows. I see your point that this is cyclical since empirics rely on induction and that relies on the validity of our experience ect, but all that can be worked out if you just assume reality is real. Assuming a god with it is gratuitous and unneeded.
The alternative is to assume nothing is real, and what does that get you? Once you've gotten past I think therefor I am, god is no longer needed.
>>80643044
>I'm sooooo much smarter than you
Never said that, that's just your inferiority coplex making you feel retarded.
>making retarded statements about atheism
>not being a Christian cuck
Try harder
Also:
>Christian cucks on /pol/ promoting violence against niggers and contradicting with their religion's beliefs
Amazing logic
>>80635888
nothing wrong with religion until it becomes a mandate on our very well being.
That's why I do not like any religion that comes from the middle-east.
Christians, can your 'evidence' for the existence of God be used to prove the existence of pixies, genies, and fairies?
If you think about it objectively, God is in the same category as these mythical creatures.
>>80643378
>The nature of reality can be gleaned from reality itself
That would constitute viciously circular reasoning, which is exactly the problem trying to be avoided.
You can simply brutely assume reality - you still engage in inductive reasoning in regard to that "reality", which hits the problem of justifying your use in doing so via this circular reasoning.
The alternative isn't to assume nothing is real. You can harbor doubt toward a proposition and still act however you like about it - you need not assume either nothing is real or something is real. Belief comes in degrees.
>God is no longer needed
>>80641341
>>80643786
once more, since the "this circular reasoning" statement is in regard to it.
>>80633444
>implying they have the logical capacity to actually "rationalize" something
>implying they don't exist in plato's cave, reveling in their own shit and ignorance
>implying they're not displaying the same infantile desire to believe and blind adherence to the notion of santa clause because mommy and daddy told them to
>>80642532
Good thing you learned about god then :)
>>80643430
No your post read like you're an arrogant twat who is spouting out talking points like an autistic gypsy in a translucent attempt to feel intellectually superior.
Atheism is lazy philosophy for children that don't like to scratch beyond the surface of things.
Assuming some one is a Christian because they disagree with you shows how intellectually inept you actually are.
Have not bee on /pol/ in 2 years and I come back to see tards defending a desert Jew religion.
What the fuck happened /pol/?
>>80644261
Since He created the reality in which I could experience anything in ;)
>>80640242
Then why worship him?
Is it to prevent going to hell? In that case what makes god dfferent from Satan.?
>>80633444
God's existence doesn't depend on the views of snarky atheists.
>>80633444
Witnessed
Kek confirmed real God
>>80643786
I don't think I understood what you meant.
Let me see if I can comprehend this.
You're assuming god's existence as a necessary condition for the validity of deductive logic.
But if you're willing to assume the existence of a god, why not just assume that the universe is orderly and logically consistent.
God isn't needed for this consistency to exist, so why invoke him as an explination?
Unless your argument is that god is a necessary assumption to establish logic itself is valid.
But this would surely by cyclical, since logic is the tool being used to derive that conclusion.
So either way, an assumption has to be made. One asks for an extra God, the other doesn't.
>>80644548
If all gods are memes
And Kek is the god of memes
Then ours is the one true God
>>80644831
>You're assuming god's existence as a necessary condition for the validity of deductive logic
No. Not deductive reasoning. And not brute validity.
Justification of inductive reasoning is what God as an assumption provides a solution to, by guaranteeing the uniformity of nature by His Truthfulness.
The problem with inductive reasoning without a guarantee of the uniformity of nature is that your justification for use of it is pic related.
>>80633444
There is only one God. Doesn't matter what you call him or where you heard about him, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc, if you address yourself to the one true god, the creator of the universe, then you are talking to the same god as the rest of us. All other gods are ridiculous made up rubbish.
>>80645104
But I already addressed this.
If you're going to assume a god to guarantee uniformity, why not just assume the universe itself is uniform intrinsically. It can be that way without god, so why is he needed?
>>80644498
Because he's awesome and when you meet him you will love him too.
>>80640568
*tips fedora*
>>80633444
> all gods are the same
Protip: there is a mountain of differences between knowledge, witnesses, history, culture and how they explain the world between each mythology. The God you created in your bedroom doesn't have the same evidence than any of the major religions.
>>80644390
>1 post by this ID
Hi newfag.
>>80645284
Because doing that is anti-empiricist. Empiricists want to avoid what they label "spooky" and baseless assertions. Why would you do that, though, when you could have God? By your reasoning, that's also "not needed", given there's alternatives. You have a very very strange idea of what constitutes a "need" and how that relates to your epistemology.
>>80633444
Its interesting that all of the other gods these people believe in are imposters compared to the god I work with... but its more interesting to note that...
* I work with my god, I dont worship it
* I can win in spiritual (non physical) combat with these imposter beings
* My god doesnt have rules and doesnt require worship or any of that nonsense. It just Is.
* There is very little that it is against, and those things are actually destructive to the fabric of existence. And very few people do them (and most of those people, are extremely wealthy, but that alone isnt why)
>>80643563
Irish mythology time.
The fairies and pixies were once a godlike race who were tricked into retreating underground as part of a peace treaty to end their war with the human invaders of Ireland (ancestors of the modern Irish).
Celtic Christianity built heavily on Celtic mythology, but the myths are still wonderful. Then we changed our belief system and only added to our national character. Might as well believe in fairies as angels and saints, but it's how your faith influences the life you live that is important.
/pol/ is a Christian board. You must repent your sins and accept Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour.
>>80633444
pic related
>>80645666
Further to explain...
This god doesnt have a book either.
No bible or collection of stories and such.
Operates on solid principals, yields physical results, requires no sacrifice or exchange.
>>80645594
"Spooky" assertions are unavoidable. They're what are called properly basic beliefs because that's exactly what they are: proper. The goal is to assume only what is absolutely necessary, and it's necessary for nature to be uniform if inductive reasoning is to be considered valid.
Nature happens to contain everything that's needed for this assumption to be possible, so there's no need to postulate a gratuitous god.
How I establish what's needed is a simple matter of asking "do my conclusions still stand if I disregard 'x' assumption?"
We can see that if we don't assume the existence of god, my conclusions still stand, where if I don't assume the uniformity of nature, they do not.
One is needed. One is not needed.
>>80645518
Pol is getting more cucked with cucktheism by the day. We need to cleanse our great board. /pol/ Crusade when?
>>80644491
Good thing you learned about that too
>>80646381
>"Spooky" assertions are unavoidable.
Yes. Yes they are.
>The goal is to assume only what is absolutely necessary
Necessary... for what?
>it's necessary for nature to be uniform if inductive reasoning is to be considered valid
*MUST* inductive reasoning be valid?
>Nature happens to contain everything that's needed for this assumption to be possible
You don't need anything at all to make an assumption.
>How I establish what's needed is a simple matter of asking "do my conclusions still stand if I disregard 'x' assumption?"
That is terribly dishonest and backwards justification coming from an empiricist. Empiricists try to build their conclusions out of other things, not ad hoc construct a metaphysical apparatus to conform to and affirm their conclusions. Like, that's really bad senpai.
>>80646828
Only because He already made a world in which I could ;)
>>80646931
Too bad he didn't make a world in which you could learn the truth
>>80634159
only the most strawy man will do
>>80647022
Odd you'd say that, given there are plenty of tautologies which are a prior true ;)
>>80644983
This guy gets it
>>80646895
No
But I have a feeling
that you're going to want inductive reasoning to be valid
if you want this argument to continue.
Inductive reasoning being valid are the terms that are necessary to have an argument.
We've already done this dance though. It's true that I might be all that exists in the universe, but once I've gone further than that I can rationally explain everything without the use of a god.
It's no use boxing my in labels. Empiricists do this empiricists do that. When it comes to what's properly basic, empirical reasoning is useless. I'm only an empiricists after we've passed that point.
>>80647659
>Inductive reasoning being valid are the terms that are necessary to have an argument
That's not true at all. One can make purely deductive arguments.
a = b
b = c
therefore a = c
That's an argument, with no inductive element.
>>80647192
Too bad they're just logical constructs and not existing entities
>>80648112
Tell that to mathematical realists ;)
>>80648034
No even that's still inductive. It's an argument that relies on the truth of its premises to arrive at its conclusion.
A equaling C relies on B equaling C
These are believed premises that construct the argument logically. Therefore, it's inductive.
>>80633444
The number of false religions has no impact on the truth. If told me that London was located at 51.5074° N, 0.1278° W, would it make any sense for me to say: there are millions of possible coordinates on the planet, therefore it is incredibly unlikely, statistically, that London is located at that precise place?
>>80633618
This desu
The odds your religion is real is as likely as any other.
Not a wager I want to waste time on.
>>80648404
>No even that's still inductive
Ummm... no. It's not.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
*IF* A *IS* equal to B, and B *IS* equal to to C, A *IS* equal to C. The argument is not asking you to go out and look at A, B, and C to validate that - it's saying *IF* *THEN*. No inductive reasoning whatsoever.
>>80649088
If observation was required, it'd be a deductive argument. All that's required to make an inductive argument is to claim the conclusion probably follows form its premises.
http://www.butte.edu/resources/interim/wmwu/iLogic/1.3/iLogic_1_3.html
>>80649672
>If observation was required, it'd be a deductive argument
You're completely mixing the two up senpai.
Atheist shilling...
>we reddit now
>>80633444
Im my bible God calls other Gods Gods and defeats them.
Inb4 no replies
/thread
>>80649851
Oh. Am I?
Honest mistake ^~^;; isn't that kawaii?
>>80650308
I can't tell if sarcasm. You really are mixing them up.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
^^^ just first paragraph.
You are not losing anything not believing tho
>>80650535
Not sarcasm.
I'm really just a lovable ditz this time
>>80633914
>Could be used to justify belief in literally anything
yes like naturalism
>>80637462
The flat Earth one?
Because it's easy to see.
There are a few categories of religions:
The Abrahamic ones (Christians, Jews, and Muslims)
The poo in loo ones (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism)
The asians ones (Taoism, Shinto, Confucianism)
And folk/pagan ones
Folk/pagan are easily provable that they bullshit. Just try to violate their principles and incur the wrath of god... nothing will happen. Build your church in the evil forest and BTFO Okonkwo.
Asian religions are more guides to life than anything else, and their belief about the afterlife is varied or doesn't exist. It's okay but there is not god or set of gods to worship
Poo in loo religions are hilariously silly, contradictory, and flat out childish make believe. Just take a small look and you'd be confused why anyone would think this is real.
Abrahamic ones seem to be backed up by secular history. The religion can be framed in a silly way (you can strawman anything), but for the most part makes sense. No extra arms or faces or wild stories about how various gods make each other mad. I'll admit I'm bias because after looking at all of them I chose this.
Anyways, there is a few miscellaneous others (Zoroastrianism comes to mind). A review of those should be made.
You should be able to find what sets off your bullshit detector fairly quickly (go in assuming it's true, then ask questions when you get contradictory or unverifiable info). Try to find ones that have historical backing (for example, Jesus Christ is an actual historical figure, that virtually all scholars agree existed was born, baptised, and crucified) Narrow down the denominations and get facts in order (prioritize the source of the religion, rather than updates. Updates to resolve religious conflicts often mean that the original religion is lost and probably wasn't true in the first place)
If you try to go in without bias, I'd bet you'd end up with a handful of potentials, and polytheistic ones will hardly make the cut
>>80646450
Soon.
>>80633444
>implying that disproves the existence of God
>>80634426
Hmmmmmmm but I didn't feel any need whatsoever for salvation before I heard the gospel and got saved. So how does an inherent need for salvation exist if it isn't universally felt?
>>80639757
if you had a superpower it would be missing the point
>>80644355
#triggered
