bump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
>>80739446
curiosity bump :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
IP change bump
>>80739446
>>80739819
>>80739008
This is all philosophy and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with atheism
>>80740092
Most atheists believe it though for some reason
>>80740189
*citation needed
Your thread is shit OP.
>>80739008
>>80739008
>atheists believe almost the same things
Like?
>>80739008
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
Here's your answer
>tl;dw many atheists became such because of a rejection of faith, not because of logic. Therefore, they cling to new ideas, "gods", like a hivenind. Not all atheist tho, of course.
>>80740280
Let's test my hypothesis out, science man
Which one do you and don't you agree with?
>>80740348
like these >>80739446 >>80739819
>>80739008
>why do atheists believe almost the same things?
Most people believe the same thing. Literally (in the figurative sense) anyone outside of /pol/ is a left libertarian, at least on the political compass thing.
As for this >>80739446
Most people who argue for moral absolutism (if thats what the opposite of moral relativism is called) believe so due to their belief in a higher deity (a moral authority) eg god, so not believing in god could be quite related to belief in moral relativism
>>80740363
Based man
>>80740742
That's a very rational answer. Thank you
>>80740189
>>80740399
This is like asking why most people who are pro-gun are also for small government. Is there a pro-gun, small government religion? No, but they frequently go together.
To answer your question, atheists have a high need for cognition factor and score higher on tests of logic and reason. The philosophies you linked are a result of that.
>>80740849
Thanks.
Also, a lot of the opposite of what you posted eg scientism is closely tied to belief in a religion/god. Being an atheist probably results in the opposite of these beliefs, which is why atheists share a lot of opinions.
>>80740944
Then atheism is not even close to "just a lack of belief"
>>80741077
Wow. And here I thought I was gonna get only buthurt and insults
Cheers again dutch mate for keeping to your (good) arguments
>>80741357
Yeah, it's a shame that we can very rarely have decent threads on atheism or theology without a flame war happening.
>>80741113
What are you trying to prove to yourself here?
>>80741113
It means a lack of religious belief, that much agrees with what I said. You're free to speculate on anything else that you think goes along with it, although it sounds like you completely misinterpreted what I wrote.
>atheism is so redpilled fuck dogma
>please think for me amazing atheist/ thunderf00t/sargon
every atheist babby ever
>>80741493
>>80741504
>What are you trying to prove to yourself here?
That atheism is not just a lack of belief (in God). As a matter of fact it has a lot of inherent beliefs that come with it, and that essentially makes it work like an ideology
>>80741767
There are many common ideologies among atheists, but they don't define atheism. It's possible to be atheist and not hold these beliefs, so I don't see what you're getting at here.
>>80741486
Flame wars can be fun too, but I'm always impressed by the odd rational anon
>Quickly use religion to distract everybody.
Too little too late goy.
>>80741899
It is possible, but highly unlikely in practice. That's what I'm getting at
>>80741767
Atheism doesn't come with any beliefs. It is the lack of belief. The ideas presented in this thread are just reasons and or supplemental beliefs that an atheist could have.
>>80742000
>religion is the opium of the masses
""""""National""""""" (((Socialist)))
>>80742020
>The ideas presented in this thread are just reasons and or supplemental beliefs that an atheist could have.
They most often do. See >>80742005
>>80739008
They don't.
I agree with the mainstream /pol/ opinions in most cases, except Deities and glorifying Hitler. Although I suspect that at least half of the board is irreligious anyway and "cultural" Christians at best.
Hitler though, I'm mean seriously, wtf. A failed artists obsessed with pseudo-science started a war that has caused the greatest loss of Europeans lives in history while setting back European nationalism back decades.
Fucking Germaboos.
>>80742005
It's also highly unlikely that a pro-second amendment right person is pro-big government in practice; it doesn't mean anything and this fact doesn't change the definition of either.
>>80741767
I believe in an omni-spirit and was rasied methodist. I don't find your logic sound. You sound like they should correlate, but if anything, there is no logical sense in any correlation besides correlation itself, so why interpret it as correlation in the first place. Assume atheists don't believe in a God and that is Atheism. Don't assume anything else or you're bias. Atheism cannot be anything else, inherently. You have to understand that it branches at that point and the focus is no longer Atheism, unless you genuinely consider atheism (seen you put it not as a pronoun) to be an ideology and if that's true, I would have to disagree because it's a belief. You can't follow it, like an ideology (you can follow the fact that is a belief that inherently has nothing to follow). That is rational to me.
>>80742337
>It's also highly unlikely that a pro-second amendment right person is pro-big government in practice
Because atheism (in practice) and conservatism are both ideologies
They inherently have to share common beliefs
>>80742609
Atheism is a religion. It's a religion that doesn't exist, so it has no doctrine.
It ends there and only there.
>>80742379
Atheism is just a lack of belief in God
Like this >>80741077 dutch bro says, rejecting a system of beliefs (mostly traditional Western Christianity) Western atheists come, in practice, to define themselves in opposite terms to their former beliefs
>>80742808
This is the doctrine (in practice) of Western Atheism >>80739446 >>80739819
>>80742957
Atheism is the religion of the lack of god. It's not a belief. Atheism is in the same category as Christianity, Islam, Judaism. This has been my belief for as long as I can remember.
ITT another staggering loss for the christcuck brigade to prove atheism is a religion
There's been lots of anti-atheism threads recently. Can't we be friends? I 100% support christian morals, and would fight in a crusade for you guys.
>>80743102
That's not doctrine. That's philosophy. Another anon already said that. This is a logic loop.
Doctrine is more than being in practice. It literally has to be revered and held up to a standard. Atheism has no set beliefs besides not believing in God. That's it's only doctrine.
>>80743103
Western Atheism is the religion of the rejection of traditional Western Christianity
In practice it is, on the whole, its antithesis
>>80743363
Plus, atheism is basically supposed to be consider by every thinking man. I have come to the conclusion of higher power(s) based on my experience. If that person has no experience that dictates otherwise and logically, sees no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God or whoever and their doctrine, then that's their choice 100% and it's a sound choice.
>>80743484
That's charged and not actually what Atheism is. Rationally it is not that. Just because it's followers are for lack of a better term man children does mean anything inherently.
>>80743418
You think almost all Western atheists don't revere those philosophies as absolute truth?
Give me a break
Most atheists are like most religious people.
A bunch of braindead plebs who can't think for themselves so they have to pick somebody else's word and go on it.
But not all atheists.
>>80743705
Western Atheism is inherently (by virtue of its definition) the anti-thesis to traditional Western Christianity
That should be obvious to anyone
>>80743713
You wanted to argue. You've dropped that argument. Hey man, I'm just being on your game. The fuck you want me to do?
>>80739008
>atheists still want to get married
>be buried
>punish evil doers with hell concept
fags
>>80743610
>If that person has no experience that dictates otherwise and logically, sees no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God or whoever and their doctrine, then that's their choice 100% and it's a sound choice.
What's the "sound choice"? To believe that God doesn't exist, or to refuse to assert anything on the matter?
>>80742609
No, they do not "inherently have to share common beliefs". This is the point I'm getting at. When someone says "I'm atheist" they are not tacitly accepting
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
And they would scoff at someone suggesting otherwise. No one says "Well, you may not believe in any religion, but since you're not a scientific realist then you're not a true atheist." Either way, you're flimsy argument is relying pretty much exclusively on semantics at this point so maybe you should just stop trying to push your obviously biased agenda.
>>80743918
I haven't dropped any argument. I've clarified the terms
>>80744154
To think that anyone would but dictate from experience. That person cannot fathom God might exist. CANNOT FATHOM. CANNOT FUCKING FATHOM. LITERALLY.
It's not a simple fucking 1 to 0 thing you fucker.
>>80744309
Pussy, I'm arguing you so you can get to the answer on your own. I'm not going to spell it out. You've hit a logic wall somewhere, I'm pretty sure. I got high so I cannot pay attention to this anymore goodbye
>>80744228
Western atheists don't inherently have to share beliefs in order to consider each other atheists, but they inherently have to share some of them in order to be one
>>80744348
>>80744524
Fuck off mate. Get back to me when you're sober :)
>>80744598
>>80744810
So what are you trying to argue, then? That atheism is a religion?
>but they inherently have to share some of them in order to be one
Like?
>>80744810
> Religion is the same as atheism
Sumbody cant think in their brain hard enough
>>80744598
>atheists don't know what they're claiming their beliefs are
>christian in charge of telling atheists what their actual beliefs are
you can't be serious
>>80745154
Well looking at it from a historical perspective, Post-Christian Western Atheism has been revolving roughly around the ones ITT
Plus a belief in hedonism I would add
>>80745565
Refer back to >>80740399
>>80745925
>Post-Christian Western Atheism has been revolving roughly around the ones ITT
Source?
>Plus a belief in hedonism I would add
I am a athiest and i don't belive in hedonism. So am i a bad atheist?
>>80739446
>linking a bunch of kikepedia links
Not an argument
>>80746034
That's completely irrelevant and all you've shown is that you have no interest in rational discourse as you continue to resort to recursive arguments. You have yet to acknowledge the simple implication that topples your entire argument which is the existence of even one atheist that isn't "hedonist". There's two outcomes to this
Either that is the definition of atheism, which atheists will contest and then you're shoving words into their mouths, or
It isn't the definition of atheism, allowing exceptions to your little hedonist qualification, in which case your entire premise was false to begin with.
>>80746180
You want me to dig some up some correlational studies linking those philosophies with atheism I will but that's the only type of scientific evidence that could be found regarding the matter
>I am a athiest and i don't belive in hedonism. So am i a bad atheist?
You're not a completely typical Western Atheist then. :^) Do you believe in any of the others?
>>80746682
I divide them into typical Western Atheists. And atypical ones
There being some exceptions wouldn't invalidate the existence of a majority of Atheists sharing them (which by this virtue are defined as the typical ones)
>>80747015
>I
Yes that's exactly the problem isn't it. You have your own preconceived ideas of what atheists are and aren't when atheists are simply using the denotation to convey what their beliefs are. Atheists don't use your own arbitrary classifications. And you fail to acknowledge that the majority of atheists sharing an opinion has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. I'm sure most atheists like bacon too, is that also now implicit to the definition of atheism?
>>80739008
'Atheisism' literally means 'No God'. Just like Monotheistic religions have one god and Polytheistic religions have multiple.
There are many different types of Atheists. However; by far the most vocal are the Antireligonists; who are not just apathetic towards religion and either don't care or are happy to let those who believe be, but actively seek to discredit and destroy religion.
By all rights; Antireligionists are Atheism's IS.
>>80739008
>If Atheism is "just a lack of belief in God" why do atheists believe almost the same things?
Because Atheists are typically normal rational people, Which is more than I can say for most Christians.
Christians THINK anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is a enlightened Christian.
Atheists on the other hand are rational enough to KNOW anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is Either an idiot or under 5 years old.
>>80747341
>when atheists are simply using the denotation to convey what their beliefs are.
>Atheists don't use your own arbitrary classifications.
Individual Western atheists can't or won't speak for each other as a group, so someone else has to study what common beliefs they share in practice and why
>And you fail to acknowledge that the majority of atheists sharing an opinion has nothing to do with the definition of atheism.
Not with your definition. It has something to do with how Atheism manifests and what beliefs it typically collectively entails *in practice*, in the West
>I'm sure most atheists like bacon too, is that also now implicit to the definition of atheism?
Liking bacon is not a philosophy
>>80747918
>Christians THINK anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is a enlightened Christian.
Not an "enlightened" Christian. Those (biasedly phrased) beliefs are what simply make you a Christian
>Atheists on the other hand are rational enough to KNOW anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is Either an idiot or under 5 years old.
How do you know this?
>>80748161
>Liking bacon is not a philosophy
You need to open your eyes to the Message of the lord son. I can see you are lost www.unitedchurchofbacon.org/
>>80740189
>most atheists believe it
It's another "anecdotes are evidence" episode. Great one.
>>80739008
politics is the new religion
>>80746694
>You want me to dig some up some correlational studies linking those philosophies with atheism I will but that's the only type of scientific evidence that could be found regarding the matter
yes
>>80748161
You are not taking your own statements to their logical conclusion.
>Liking bacon is not a philosophy
Okay, since you're being a contrarian how about this: people shouldn't be killed. Is that an ideology? Yes it is. And I'm sure most atheists share it. Now what?
>Not with your definition.
No, it's not my definition, it's THE definition.
>So someone else has to study atheists
see
>>80745565
Please stop arguing in circles and think for yourself the logical conclusions of the statements you are making before replying.
>>80739008
Whites overwhelmingly believe in christianity, therefore whiteness is a religion.
>>80748922
Anecdotes are "most people I know"
Statistics are "objectively most people"
>inb4 give me your stats then
I'm still currently gathering data to support my hypothesis :^)
>>80748627
>How do you know this?
Would your loving god allow men of the cloth to sodomize children?.
>>80739008
Because it's scientifically the most probable to be true.
>>80749100
>Okay, since you're being a contrarian how about this: people shouldn't be killed. Is that an ideology? Yes it is. And I'm sure most atheists share it. Now what?
We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people
>No, it's not my definition, it's THE definition.
It's THE definition of Weak Atheism, not the definition of post-Christian Western Atheism (atheism in the West, post-secularisation) - a particular sub-set of Atheism
>>So someone else has to study atheists
Yes. I've already said why. It doesn't matter if you're offended
>>80749131
>Anecdotes are "most people I know"
>Statistics are "objectively most people"
So it's another "I don't really have evidence, so let's play with semantics" episode. Quite popular.
>I'm still currently gathering data to support my hypothesis :^)
Aka, the "I don't have evidence, and I will never have it, so I'll wait until everyone forgets about me and then return with the same thread with the same posts" episode. Tragic.
>>80749171
He wouldn't mind control them out of their responsibilities
>>80749919
>and I will never have it
Quite the pessimist. I've been gathering it ever since I've even heard of atheism
Nothing scientific thus far, but why would you believe Science has that much of an authority in the first place?
>>80749824
If I'm offended by anything it's the fact that I wasted my time with someone who has such poor reasoning skills and is clearly an assblasted christian virtue signalling to his other christfag friends about >muh atheism is religion meme and won't let go of it no matter what. Go take an IQ test and realize how average you are.
>We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people
That's not even a complete sentence. Jesus christ
go back to b
>>80750257
>I've been gathering it ever since I've even heard of atheism
Translation: "I never gathered any info at all".
>but why would you believe Science
You mean "Science"? Like "Oreo"? Or do you mean like "Led Zeppelin"?
>has that much of an authority in the first place
I never brought that up. You're not smooth at changing the topic.
>>80750535
>>We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people
>That's not even a complete sentence
Ok anon I'm the stupid one
>>80750968
I was trying to find out if I'm right to be honest and if you as an atheist match those philosophies (ie. gathering data)
So how much authority does Science have?
Until religion can offer some form of practical use or real world predictability in the same way science can I see absolutely no need for it. Religion never offers answers to anything that can't be found through the methodology and rigor that is found in scientific research. Any sort of "answers" religion or morality in general can offer is equivalent to the muh feelings phenomenon among the equally hated on /pol/ SJW movement. In other words fuck off with your feelings, they aren't objective and don't have any real substance to them.
>>80751301
>if you as an atheist match those philosophies (ie. gathering data)
Literally wat.
>So how much authority does Science have?
Not the topic.
>>80751484
>Not the topic.
>If Atheism is "just a lack of belief in God" why do atheists believe almost the same things?
I was trying to test this out (that is, to gather some data)
>>80751307
>they aren't objective and don't have any real substance to them.
Is the mind objectively real?
>>80744154
>What's the "sound choice"? To believe that God doesn't exist, or to refuse to assert anything on the matter?
>>80751779
>why do atheists (aka, people not believing in gods) believe in various other things unassociated with gods like other people do... without believing in gods
Pottery.
>I was trying to test this out
It's obvious that the only thing you want to test is your ego.
>>80752165
>using memes as refutations
Oh boy
>>80752347
The question was why do they share so many beliefs? Specifically in the West
>It's obvious that the only thing you want to test is your ego.
I hope it wasn't too obvious
>>80752039
Define what you mean by mind, I know you religious types love being vague but I can't answer this without you moving goalposts immediately after.
>>80740348
>atheists believe almost the same things
Atheists DONT believe almost the same things believers fell for.
>>80749824
Was this not meant to be a response to me?
Here's another: Christians are overwhelmingly white, therefore christianity is a race.
>>80752621
The non-physical property that apparently emerges from the brain. The sum total of the thoughts, emotions, memories and the volition inherent to it
>>80752879
Muslims are overwhelmingly sand niggers, therefore islam is a race.
>>80752879
>>80749100
Your false equivalences make no sense
This reply >>80749824 was meant for >>80749046
>>80752432
Hook line and sinker.
>>80749824
People who live in NYC are overwhelmingly democrats, therefore NYC is a political party
>>80753311
>Your false equivalences make no sense
Atheism is not a religion, just as white skin is not a religion.
Atheism correlates to believe just as white skin correlates to belief.
It's a fine analogy
BECAUSE THE FUCKING SKYDADDY DOESNT EXIST ITS JUST A BUNCH OF EQUATIONS THAT CREATES EVERYTHING JUST ASK PROFESSOR GOLDSTEIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS TELL US ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS WHICH HAD FORCED US TO REWRITE PHYSICS.
GOD DOESNT EXIST ITS JUST PHYSICS WAS PROVEN WRONG IN ORDER TO CREATE EVERYTHING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ENERGY LIKE THE BIG BANG IS THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND THERE IS NO OTHER EXAMPLES LIKE IT TO GO OFF OF BUT IT DEFINITELY PROVES GODS NOT REAL BECAUSE I DONT WANT TO FEEL GUILTY FOR JACKING OFF TO MLP AND FUCKING A HORSE THAT ONE TIME
>>80753513
>Atheism correlates to believe just as white skin correlates to belief.
Not necessarily. Western Atheism has developed from Christianity and in many senses it is Post-Christian
Whiteness is not a belief (or lack thereof) that would have developed from something
Are you the same Britbong from last night?
Regardless, I agree with you.
>>80753753
>Western Atheism
New atheism may refer to a set of beliefs.
Atheism doesn't.
>>80751307
Science cannot ever answer "why".
>>80739008
The loss of religion strips them of many of their memetic defenses.
They therefore typically fall for the first propaganda they encounter, which is usually Marxist propaganda, but sometimes libertarian.
>>80753984
You can slip atheistic attitudes into geographical (Western) and temporal lines (post-secularisation)
There is absolutely nothing invalid about that
>>80754251
>You can *split
>>80754045
RICHARD DAWKINS SKYDADDY FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
>>80753825
Yes, glad to have you on board
>>80754251
>There is absolutely nothing invalid about that
When you say western atheism, you're referring to new atheism, though.
You're just blurring your meaning to make an artificial point.
Either way, the OP doesn't say "Western atheism".... It just says atheism, and that's what people are defending.
>>80739008
I've watched God's Not Dead and that's a real redpill. I found the way to god.
>>80753018
http://www.mayoclinic.org/brain/sls-20077047?s=1
Yup it's objectively real and the processes are fairly well documented using neuroscience. Not sure what you were getting at with a question like that? Googling stuff or even reading textbooks should help you learn about the world around you.
>>80754045
In that case neither does religion nor philosophy. They take a bunch of guesses using literally no evidence and claim it's the truth. I'd rather come up with the conclusion of "not enough evidence or data" and leave it at that. Why supplement a lack of information with false data?
>>80754571
I should have been more specific then. I'm only talking about Western Atheism, post-Enlightenment
I consider New Atheism to be the most extreme manifestation of it
>>80754947
So you agree with me that the mind is non-physical and that it objectively exists
>>80744228
Give me a break man. The idea of an atheist that rejects naturalism is positively laughable.
>Belief in God? No thanks!
>Supernatural causes for natural events? Sign me up bro!
>>80739008
Atheism is an incomplete school of thought, compared to Christianity which is fully fleshed out and provides the most logical understanding of all the universe's mysteries.
Hey atheists, what was going on before the Big Bang?
>idk lol
Hey Christians, what was going on before the Big Bang?
>There was no Big Bang. If all the matter in the universe was confined to a single point, it's gravity would prevent any expansion. Instead, God created Earth directly and fleshed the rest of the universe out afterwards.
>>80754951
I think the philisophical foundations of western atheism in general are different than the foundations of new atheism.
Western atheism previously was founded on individualist enlightenment principles, new atheism is collectivist. Secular humanism is collectivist.
Maybe those things are the ones that are the most likely to be true based on what we know. Just a guess. If they all share some unlikely ideas, that would be surprising.
>>80755175
Did you even read the page I sent you or do any research for yourself? The mind is controlled by physical properties therefore it is a physical property itself.
>>80755374
Hey atheists, how did you come up with that conclusion?
>not enough information to make an educated guess
Hey Christian, how did you come up with that conclusion?
>idk just a guess lol
>>80755374
>Atheism is an incomplete school of thought, compared to Christianity which is fully fleshed out and provides the most logical understanding of all the universe's mysteries.
tell me what the soul is then
>>80755826
>Maybe those things are the ones that are the most likely to be true based on what we know. Just a guess. If they all share some unlikely ideas, that would be surprising.
How do you calculate the probability of a philosophical understanding to be true?
>>80754947
>In that case neither does religion nor philosophy.
Religion and philosophy explicitly answer why. You seem to be misunderstanding what science actually does in the world.
>>80755865
>thousands of years of history with affirmed phenomena seen by multiple people, some all at once such as the resurrection of Jesus
Vs
>not enough information, just faith really
Once again, for what could be the billionth time
>A FUCKING LEAF
>>80740280
You're quite literally living in a dream land if you can't recognize the correlation between atheism and empiricism/naturalism/materialism/physicalism.
>>80754947
>Why supplement a lack of information with false data?
Cause that's what the nice people we would visit with on Sunday said was truth and afterwards if I didnt ask any tough questions we went for I-hop with gran and pops.
Buying into their "truth" at a young age = pancakes.
The Catholics are particularly guilty of preying on the young and innocent minds and bodys
>>80755865
The mind is not physical just because it supposedly* matches the physical properties of the brain
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
>>80755874
A soul is one's essential irreducible self. Soul = identity.
>>80755799
How is secular humanism collectivist?
>>80756340
>A soul is one's essential irreducible self.
who is that? where does it exist? what is its name?
>Soul = identity.
what identity?
>>80756384
>atheism is a lack of belief in a god
>why do all atheists have a lack of belief in god?
Great thread OP.
>>80756384
It's a morality founded upon the notion that all humans are the same and should help eachother.
It supposes that racism and prejudice for other humans is bad.
It doesn't permit a person to draw distinctions across nations or races, and instead demands that all other humans be seen as a high good; because we're all part of a collective humanity.
>>80756581
Anything with thoughts has a soul. It exists somewhere. Whatever you want to call it, though if metaphysical realism is true it might have an objective name - we're calling it a 'soul' right now.
Essence of that with thoughts = identity. So the identity of that in possession of thoughts.
>>80739446
none of them.
Atheism is terrible because imposes limitations on things we have absolutely no understanding of. To be fair when theists talk about faith it's not a lot different. This is why agnosticism makes the most sense. It's not about picking a side it's about being rational. I've seen no god, heard from no god, there is no proof that god(s) exist but I understand that god may very well be so far beyond our comprehension that it's impossible to understand. Atheists mocking faith healing and prayer are probably correct. Religion may have it all wrong but at the end of the day at this point in time we have not advanced enough as a species to even make claims that god(s) exist or not. The burden of proof is really on the religious but since this is something that cannot really be proven there is no point in even asking.
>>80756809
>why do atheists believe almost the same things
>things
Things - plural, not singular
>>80757102
Of course none of them - you're a muslim.
>>80756943
>Anything with thoughts has a soul
how do you know that? what proof do you have?
>Essence of that with thoughts = identity. So the identity of that in possession of thoughts.
you're talking about something else here: you are saying that the bodily person who has thoughts of which are possessed by a soul is the identity of that soul
how is that evidenced by Christianity?
>>80756934
I see
The ideas of New Atheism overlap with some Enlightenment values though. Such as the belief in the authority of reason, secularity and anti-dogma and superstition
I'd also like to know in the simplest possible terms what a soul is, please keep it metaphor-free and literal for us autists
>>80752612
>The question was why do they share so many beliefs? Specifically in the West
>"MOOOOOM, WHY DO PEOPLE SHARE UNIVERSAL VALUES THAT AREN'T EXCLUSIVE TO RELIGIONS, IDEOLOGIES, POLIITCS, ETC???"
kek
>>80739446
All neatly summed as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Atheism is literal poison.
>>80757658
My religion teachers always defined it with using the word "force" somewhere, but this is nonsense because force is a measurable physical interaction
>>80757387
I don't know that, just like you don't know anything outside "there are thoughts", "1+1=2", or other contingent tautologies. Nothing that isn't a priori true has ever been proven beyond a doubt as far as I'm aware - unless you'd like to enlighten us with your intelligence ;)
>you are saying that the bodily person who has thoughts of which are possessed by a soul is the identity of that soul
That's not what I'm saying at all~
Things with thoughts are essentially a soul. The soul is their identity. "People" or "bodies" are irrelevant - so is "possession", since "things with thoughts" *ARE* their soul - they're not simply in possession of a soul.
Keep going~
>>80757829
The universal values of Western Atheists are different than the universal values of any other group
They more often than not believe in the power and the authority of reason for instance (a core Enlightenment value)
>>80757887
There are many things that can measure force. Try watching nat geo prove a martial artist can use his spirit can do the impossible. Try watching hidden secrets of consciousness on jewtube
>>80742609
>Because atheism (in practice) and conservatism are both ideologies
Atheism is not ideology. Simply not believeing in any gods does not require belief in some other substitute. That's a Type II error
>They inherently have to share common beliefs
You got it backwards. The Conservatives are the authoritarian religious zealot extremists. The Liberals are the non-beliebers.
>>80757554
For sure, there's overlap. Any western belief system is going to have traces of enlightenment values.
All our greatest thinkers believed in the authority of reason.
furthermore it's easy to see why a disposition against dogma would be common among people who reject christian dogma and superstition.
>>80757850
Try asking an atheist to distinguish science from not-science sometime. Ask them for the qualities that distinguish the two if all they do is list two things and call one science and the other not-science, since if one actually understands what one is talking about they should be able to describe what about x vs y makes one science and the other not.
>>80758278
Right, I'm fully aware it's possible to measure force. I own some devices that can do that. I think people assume souls to be immeasurable (correct me if it's false). Therefore using the word "force" in the definition of a soul is nonsense.
>>80758056
>just like you don't know anything outside "there are thoughts"
how would you know that I don't know? you are only able to understand that which you have capacity to understand, and you are only able to question that which you are able to perceive
>Things with thoughts are essentially a soul
where is your evidence for that?
>they're not simply in possession of a soul.
i never said that. i said -
>you are saying that the bodily person who has thoughts of which are possessed by a soul is the identity of that soul
how is that evidenced by Christianity?
>>80757387
which states that the soul is in possession of the thoughts which are in possession of the body
but there is no evidence for that in Christianity, or for anything that you are asserting
all you are doing is rambling
>>80758352
>Atheism is not ideology. Simply not believeing in any gods does not require belief in some other substitute. That's a Type II error
Atheism is not simply not believing in God. I'm specifically referring to Western Atheism, post-secularisation
It's a system of philosophies heavily influenced by the Enlightenment
>>80758149
>western atheists =/= other groups
lolnope
Looks like you have never gone outside of Bongistan.
Also ypu're illiterate
>muh all ideas and values must be the same
>otherwise they do not share anything with any other group
top lel
>the power and authority of reason
Literally nothing wrong with that.
>>80758458
>furthermore it's easy to see why a disposition against dogma would be common among people who reject christian dogma and superstition.
Exactly. There has to be a historical link between the modern Atheist conception and the source from which it had originated
>>80758784
>Also ypu're illiterate
Do you really want to go there?
>>80758711
>how would you know that I don't know
So you're claiming you're either A) not subject to the same epistemological constraints of mind as I am or B) you've found out a way to overcome basic skeptical claims that I, or I believe anyone else, has ever managed to discover. If neither of these two, you don't know anything outside "there are thoughts" and contingent tautologies, since you'd be in the same position as me and *I* don't know more than that. So, which is it? A? B? Neither? C'mon~
>>80739008
It feels like we are a people in our death throes. When God died we went with it.
>>80759057
A
and the only way you'd know is through direct perception. any belief you hold is only within your mind which has no bearing upon me
>>80758479
Science is the pursuit and recording of knowledge, and it aims to produce testable, falsifiable, and repeatable predictions and explanations about reality.
One quality of the scientific method is that anyone performing an identical experiment must necessarily arrive at the same result.
>>80759142
I feel exactly the same way, but have hope brother. That we may save a few before it's over
>>80758964
Sure.
>>80758844
No comma at the end.
"Atheist" with a capital letter.
>>80758724
No comma at the end.
"Western Atheism" with capital letters.
>>80758149
No commas at the end of both paragraphs.
And that's only the 3 last posts.
Do you really want to throw rocks in a glass house over a typo? Be my guest, m8.
>>80747758
>but actively seek to discredit and destroy religion.
Religion discredits itself by making outrageous claims for which there is no other evidence than Bronze Age texts.
Religion is immoral because it indoctrinates children to hate long before they are able to reason.
>>80759233
So you've chosen A! Meaning you are a magic space alien! Or a talking submarine! Or some other kind of completely different mind that isn't subject to the constraints of reasoning I or presumably *ANYONE ELSE* is! Or you're a liar~
;)
>>80759233
>and the only way you'd know is through direct perception. any belief you hold is only within your mind which has no bearing upon me
By that measure, wouldn't what you just said here only be a belief within your mind as well?
>>80759433
Oh dear, you think you put commas at the end of sentences?
>>80759580
but you haven't disproved me, nor have you demonstrated anything other than your personal disbelief, personal ignorance, and personal arrogance.
i'll ask again: what is a soul, and how is that evidenced by Christianity?
you are unable to answer that and provide nothing but nonsensical rambling assertions
>>80759274
Talking about the intent of people who might perform science is irrelevant to a descriptive account of what actually constitutes science vs not-science, so for the moment we'll cut out your addition of
>and it aims to produce testable, falsifiable, and repeatable predictions and explanations about reality
and focus on
>Science is [the pursuit and] recording of knowledge
If this is the case, wouldn't Freudian psychoanalysis and its following and refinement be classified as "science"? It certainly satisfies your criteria there.
>anyone performing an identical experiment must necessarily arrive at the same result
Really? Necessarily? What if nature isn't uniform?
>>80759933
I'm not aiming to "disprove" anything that isn't a tautological bare falsity my hat-wearing friend. I couldn't care less~
>nor have you demonstrated anything other than your personal disbelief, personal ignorance, and personal arrogance
L a m o ~
Pic related~
I haven't mentioned Christianity once in this thread, so why would I feel the need to answer your question in regard to it?
I've already told you what a soul is multiple times~
>>80758056
>>80756943
>>80759864
>he's still trying
Oooookay.
>>80757554
No dot at the end of both paragraphs.
No comma before "though".
No comma before the first or second "and".
>>80757215
No dot at the end of the sentence.
>>80756297
No dot at the end of the sentence.
:^)
>>80760682
A fucking Electrode.
>>80760682
The dot is called a period my friend
>>80760002
Are drunk or just retarded?
You ignore half of his argument.
Intent doesn't matter, but he didn't say that.
>Really? Necessarily? What if nature isn't uniform?
In that case the scientific method wouldn't work anymore.
However there is no reason to believe that that's the case.
>>80760348
>I'm not aiming to "disprove" anything that isn't a tautological bare falsity
yes you are: you are "aiming to disprove" that i am not subject to the same mental constraints that you are:
>>80759057
which you did here:
>>80759580
>my hat-wearing friend
who said i am atheist? that's another one of your baseless assumptions
>I haven't mentioned Christianity once in this thread
ok, well let's forget christianity, then
>I've already told you what a soul is multiple times
and as i've said, multiple times, you have no evidence for your assertions beyond your own mind, which as i've also said repeatedly, is different to my mind, and is subjected to various constraints to which i am not
>>80760784
>his boyfriend jumped in
Wew.
>>80760831
>he still has no arguments against my original point
It's a dot nonetheless.
>>80739008
Atheist considering conversion.
Atheism is the denial of religion and spiritual metaphysics. Just that anon. Belief of a godless existence.
>>80760851
>However there is no reason to believe nature isn't uniform
Argument from Ignorance
>>80760981
You point being?
>>80758479
>Try asking an atheist to distinguish science from not-science sometime. Ask them for the qualities that distinguish the two
Asking the Pope about religion can change from day to day or Pope to Pope. Islam is a shifting sand any given day. There is no consistency
Asking anyone what science is doesn't change what science actually is. Science is rational and consistent.
>>80758705
Your soul creates force. What stars wars was referring to as the force is base off what Buddhist monks may be capable of, but they use it in different ways. Certain monks can levitate
>>80761177
Your*
>>80761041
This makes sense the best. Thanks anon
>>80761177
>You point
Wew, just look at this illiteracy.
Maybe look back at my original post.
>>80760851
I don't ignore it at all my young muslim friend. I address why I put it to the side explicitly. If you'd like me to make it *EVEN MORE* explicit why those kinds of determinants should be left out, consider two people doing the exact same thing - they both put the same amount of chemicals in a test tube, heat it up to the same temperature, record their results, and retest to see if under the same circumstances the same thing happens. But in one case, one of the person's aim isn't to " produce testable, falsifiable, and repeatable predictions and explanations about reality", but is something else. Is what he did, even though it was *EXACTLY* the same as the other guy, suddenly not science? No. That's why those terms are placed aside - to be charitable to the Finn and not assume he's proposing an obviously faulty definition.
>>80761186
Can only science be rational?
>>80761360
I'm sorry. I'm not a native speaker
Do you have a point not relating my grammar?
>>80760866
>you are "aiming to disprove" that i am not subject to the same mental constraints that you are
Not at all - I laid out possible alternative conditions, under which you *WOULDN'T* be under the same constraints, and, behold - you chose one! ;)
Grats on that my space alien friend ;)
>>80761561
*to my grammar
>>80761041
>Atheism is the denial of religion
Do you believe in Zeus? Then you are a Greek religion denier. Do you believe in Jupiter? Then you are a Roman religion denier.
Atheism is the absence of belief in any god. It is consistent.
>Belief of a godless existence.
Of the thousands of god stories, there's no credible evidence that any god mythology is correct or should be believed.
>>80761186
If you're trying to say men are fallible I'm not going to argue senpai. I'm not a Cucklic.
>Asking anyone what science is doesn't change what science actually is
And what *IS* science, exactly? I don't know about you, but last I heard there was still this thing called the "demarcation problem" ;)
>>80761561
>"I'm not a native speaker"
>that flag
>wants to turn the grammar argument around against a non-English flag poster anyway
>fucks up
top lul
>Do you have a point not relating my grammar?
Of course, look at my original post.
>>80761732
Atheism is the denial of all religion
But since most Western Atheists were historically Christian, atheism is mostly a denial of Christian conceptions of the world, and since it most recently came from the Enlightenment it shares many of its values
>>80761566
>Grats on that my space alien friend ;)
who said i am alien?
the mind has no existence, and as long as you perceive to have one, you are limited
where does the mind exist?
it has no existence other than your own ego
>>80739008
P: God exists
not P: God doesn't exist
Assuming law of the excluded middle, the proposition "P or not P" is true. However, there is no philosophical arguments for or against the truth value of P. Say you need "belief" in choosing if P is true or not. A Christian has belief that God exists. An atheist has belief that God doesn't exist.
Of course the language center of your brain will associate "belief" with religiosity and so you're trying to devise a situation where an atheist's belief is on the same level as christian people have, then cause confusion in anti-religious people.
I'd say fuck the classical logic and go read Wittgenstein, then marry classical logic and ask how the cave problem relates to Wittgenstein and to language.
>>80761975
I don't mind what grammar you'd have my friend as long as it is intelligible
Please restate your original point and ask me what I haven't already answered to
>>80739008
But that's not true my friend
>>80761108
There is literally no evidence to believe physics on our planet is different than on any other planet.
And even if that would be the case then our physics would simply be incomplete.
>>80761376
If you gain knowledge via the scientific method you do science, what the fuck is your point?
He did not say it requires intent, where did you read that?
>>80762154
Which one of these do you disagree with >>80739446 >>80739819
>>80761462
>Can only science be rational?
It tends to be. Science is our best attempt to rationally understand and accept our world.
Let's say you want to know more about the universe. Do you study astrology or astronomy? Astronomy of course.
Religion is the subset of all irrational belief. Superstition, occultism, mythology, make-believe, etc all share the same desperation to appear "rational" but they never are.
Astronomy is correlated to atheism what astrology is to religion.
>>80762163
>There is literally no evidence to believe physics on our planet is different than on any other planet.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
>>80741767
they are not inherent they just have strong correlation.
>>80762289
>Science is our best attempt to rationally understand the world.
How do you prove this?
>>80761981
>Atheism is the denial of all religion
Atheism doesn't deny anything. It simply fails to believe any of the crazy crap you fell for,
>>80762249
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
All of them, I finally realized everything is just a big meme mate
>>80762456
If you feel it's crazy, then you are actively rejecting it
>>80742191
so?
>>80762493
cited that link mistakenly, I meant every one of those philosophical standpoints
>>80762493
I guess you are in no sense typical to most atheists
>>80762148
>I don't mind
>first point - right off the bat - is about grammar
kek
>restate
No, look back at my original post. It's not hard... unless you're from reddit.
>what I haven't already answered to
You haven't addressed anything. Well, besides "ypur".
You fucked up.
>>80762352
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
>>80762538
That means you are a coherent group. Not just random people who just lack one belief
>>80762451
>How do you prove this?
Observations of nature (hypotheses) that have strong corroborating evidence (theories).
Gravity is just a theory, but no belieber is willing to put up his phony faith with walking off the top of a tall building
>>80762704
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
>>80762451
By listening to a book written 2000 years ago, duh
>>80739446
You fucking retard. Subjectivism is incompatible with scientific realism. Stop copying Wikipedia links you don't understand.
Shit bait post
>>80762007
Every post you've made is a testament to your great intelligence my friend ;)
Anyone who reads of you cannot help but be enlightened ;)
>>80762852
How do
>observations of nature (hypotheses) that have strong corroborating evidence (theories).
prove that:
>Science is our best attempt to rationally understand the world.
?
>>80762875
And no one gives a shit about this unless you are a philosophy fag.
What? Will you question rationality next? >muh brain in a cuba?
>>80762163
>He did not say it requires intent
Baka ja nai no?
>and it aims to produce testable, falsifiable, and repeatable predictions and explanations about reality
>and it aims to
>aims to
>aims
>>80763030
I didn't say there are no contradictions in the Western Atheist worldview
They are more often than not very contradictory people
>>80762770
this a religion does not make.
>>80763031
>>80763187
Please read it so that you can understand why mathematical induction (what you posted) does not work with the Natural Sciences
>>80763302
People can read the thread and determine who the shitposter is good sir bong ;)
>>80763302
Holy fuck, haven't you heard to never reply to fucking tripfaggots? Especially to one who posts anime
Fucking newfags...
>>80763282
No, an ideological group
>>80762531
>If you feel it's crazy, then you are actively rejecting it
A "god" who created the universe? I think that's crazy. The dead rising from their graves and walking the streets? Crazy. A man living in the stomach of a great fish for 3 days? That's crazy too.
I reject all the craziness. You are required to believe it as a matter of faith because Bronze Age shepherds wrote it down.
>>80763235
>it aims
>it
>not the scientist
Jesus christ america
>>80762875
If you show me evidence I will believe you, until then you can link first semester philosophy shit all you like.
>>80763187
>no one gives a shit about consistent logic
Gaytheism everyone~
>>80763525
>something without a will can aim for or intend something
Ahkmed you're a riot you know that?
>>80763525
>If you show me evidence I will believe you,
Then you will keep making an Argument from Ignorance
>>80763397
And litterally no one gives a fuck. Every scientist knows the problem of induction. But if we are going to scrap induction, no science can be made.
Get a real deggre, one that allows you to do more then post on 4chin, or else you end up like the anime tripfag
>>80763262
See? This is why I say you're baiting. There's no logical connection between atheism and subjectivism. Not only that, but I have never seen an atheist, either in the academia or in the general population, that defends subjectivism.
You're talking out of your ass.
>>80763780
>And litterally no one gives a fuck
>>80763580
>>80763496
>A "god" who created the universe? I think that's crazy. The dead rising from their graves and walking the streets? Crazy. A man living in the stomach of a great fish for 3 days? That's crazy too.
It doesn't matter how crazy it sounds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>>80763525
>>80763456
>Never argue with a idiot, because you will have to lower yourself to the idiot level, and
he will win by experience
>>80763829
>See? This is why I say you're baiting. There's no logical connection between atheism and subjectivism.
Who said atheists are logical?
>>80739008
Because atheism is actually a communist cult, where their god is the government.
Haha, those silly Christians, believing some stupid old book and a magical sky wizard - But they don't realize they just worship the government in the same exact way. In fact, they're more zealous about their religion than theists are. Dare I say they're almost more adamant about it than Muslims.
>>80763580
You are slovakian?
>>80763928
It's too bad when the "idiot" is far more intelligent and articulate than you though, since that leaves you in a questionable spot~
>>80763780
>But if we are going to scrap induction, no science can be made.
Is there any reason that induction works in natural science? I just linked you evidence that it doesn't
>>80764026
Who said they believe in subjectivism? Answer the point you goddamn retard.
>>80764173
>Is there any reason that induction works in natural science?
Is there any reason to me giving a fuck?
>>80763722
>physics aims to explain our universe
>your mom aims to suck as many dicks as possible
>>80763740
Nigger you can assume everything with that line of thought.
>>80764138
but not me though, because the facts remain standing that there is no evidence for the soul, nor is there any evidence for the mind
>>80764138
Cheers m8
One last meme for this dying thread.
>>80763262
>>80764078
Who are these magical people you are even talking about?
>>80764283
>"physics" has a will by which "it" can aim for something
>goat-fucker talking about dicks
