Based Atheist intellectual and Neuroscientist BTFO's Trump:
Skip to 3:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MacIoRRTgHQ
how much are you being paid? no ones falling for this shit
also sam harris has been wrong before publicly innumerable times
>>75071395
>atheist
>>75071943
>publicly innumerable times
gonna need source on that christfag
>>75071395
Nervousness intensifies
>>75072107
For a quick kek, Google "Harris Chomsky emails."
>>75072107
He sided with the fbi on the iphone encryption back door, although changed his mind on it
>>75071395
The jews true nature will always show itself
>>75071395
>Atheist intellectual
>>75071395
>intellectual
>>75072543
>>75072504
>>75071943
Daily reminder that Sam Harris finished philosophy
>>75071395
>Samuel Harris
Once a jew, always a jew
Eh. You don't have to like everything that comes out of someone's mouth to like most of what they have to say. Nothing is black and white, though he's wrong on this.
>In the midst of this ordinariness, however, I was suddenly struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend. This shouldn’t have surprised me—he was, after all, one of my best friends. However, at that age I was not in the habit of dwelling on how much I loved the men in my life. Now I could feel that I loved him, and this feeling had ethical implications that suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian on the page: I wanted him to be happy.
>What did I care if my friend was better looking or a better athlete than I was? If I could have bestowed those gifts on him, I would have. Truly wanting him to be happy made his happiness my own.
>A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections, perhaps, but the general feeling remained one of absolute sobriety—and of moral and emotional clarity unlike any I had ever known.
>And then came the insight that irrevocably transformed my sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this love. Love was at bottom impersonal—and deeper than any personal history could justify. Indeed, a transactional form of love—'I love you because'.
He literally wrote this in one of his books
>>75071395
Lol. This is before Trump even won the nomination. Everybody said that Trump didn't have a chance.
>>75071395
>December 1, 2015
>All he says is trump won't be president.
Good post op.
>>75072859
What the fuck
>>75072859
fucking white people and their pathological altruism and xenophilia
That was said by him back in like August, and that was pretty much the general opinion back then. I think he secretly likes what Trump is saying about Islam but he can't say it publicly because his reputation would be ruined among all the lefty faggots he rolls with.
>>75071395
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcmbRPSEbw4
The very next recommended video. Seems like he is another increasingly nervous man.
That being said even in that hillbillies movie he was saying that donald was not a big boogie man basically.
>>75071395
>August 27th, 2015
Outdated and irrelevant, this also coming from the man who couldn't even properly out-debate Reza.
>>75072859
Wasn't this while he was tripping on acid?
>>75072859
>A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections
>>75072859
But he is correct though. That is what real unconditional love is, like the love of Christ or Buddha.
Also, he is talking about his first psychedelic experience on MDMA as I believe a teebager.
>>75071395
Ben Carson, an actual neurologist MD, tried to stump, didn't get him far, and now he basically works for Trump.
This godless shill, with less education than Carson thinks he can do better?
>>75071959
>>75072717
>>75072447
His father was a quaker you retards
>>75071395
>atheist intellectuals
>Samuel Harris
It never ends
>>75073860
What about his whore of a single mother?
lol so hilarious how Harris sounds so eloquent but on some issues. Then he talks about Trump and goes full retard.
Btw he's such an obvious closet zionist jewish supremacist.
He has as much of a chance as Hillary, a shrill establishment corporatist with more shady dealings and scandals in her past than you can shake a stick who is despised by a significant number of Americans from across the spectrum.
>>75071395
INCREASINGLY NERVOUS MAN
>>75071395
Sam Harris is a fucking faggot. The only based public figure who discusses atheism at this point is down to Dawkins.
>>75071395
>Atheist intellectual
>>75074209
>>75074211
He never had a bar mitzvah and he never partook in any Jewish customs. And his mother was only Jewish by birth, not by religion.
Btw, why else would he destroy this rabbi?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN9nlAnkCUY
>>75074477
You do need to realise jews are not all religious
Some are the very definition of secularism
>>75074603
>Dawkins.
Him and Hitchens. God I miss Hitchens, he didn't give a fuck about political correctness.
>>75071395
>Atheist intellectual
>Trump is just a joke there's no way anyone would vote for him
>Wow people are taking him seriously? Well there's no way he'll win the gop nominee
>Okay so he's going to win the nominee but there's no way he'll win the general election
What are you guys going to say when he actually wins?
>>75074727
>>75074810
There ya go
>>75074810
And how is that a bad thing?
>>75072859
>atheists are edgy fedoras
>hah, look at this faggot talking about his feelings
>>75075010
Without religion you have moral and/ or epistemological relativism/ subjectivism/ logical positivism/ nihilism (social leftism) taking its place
A society can't survive without cultural cohesion
>>75071395
>Atheist intellectual
That's about on the same level as 'Mexican intellectuals'
>>75074837
In certain African villages, people run away from cameras because they believe if a picture is taken of them, their soul will be stolen.
If you believe in God, you have taken that exact level of critical thought and applied it to your entire life.
>Dec 1, 2015
Before he won all the states.
>>75071395
>august 2015
>August 2015
That was majority opinion back then, I'm fairly sure Sam as a true Bayesian will have updated his priors by now.
>>75071395
How come Sam Harris is always in some headline for something completely unrelated to neuroscience?
I would like to see a headline along the lines of "Sam Harris makes a breakthrough in neuroscience"
>>75074856
>There's no way he'll be a 2-term president
never underestimate human stupidity
there's no stronger force in the universe
>>75072859
>a transactional form of love
this is the most emotional a Jew can possibly get about something other than his shekels
>>75075285
You mean I should delete my selfies?
>>75075394
Because the likes of him and Dawkins are professional cult leaders, more often than they are scientists
>>75075452
It's already too late.
>>75071395
Sam Harris deepthroats more jewish cock than most pornstars. He is a tier 1 kike.
>>75071395
(((Sam Harris)))
>>75075401
>there's no way he'll be Emperor for Life
>there's no way he'll ascend to a higher plane of existence and become a demigod
>>75075226
Philosophy can perfectly replace the role of religion in moral dilemmas. You don't need Christianity to know that utilitarianism, for example, leads to the most virtue. Cultural cohesion can be created through various ways.
Even more, religion is the most bluepilled ideology out there. It boggles my mind how /pol/ can support it.
>>75075285
Oh trust me, I've applied my fair share of critical thought into my views.
You are acting as if it is absurd to believe in God. I'd like some reasoning for that statement please.
>>75071395
>august 2015
Did /pol/ think Trump can win back in August last year?
>>75072504
What are you trying to say there? Most philosophers and leading scientists are atheists.
>>75075506
I just spoke to the ceiling about it.
Things are going to be peachy, apparently.
>>75073860
Kikes go by the mother's side.
looks like you are the retard
>>75075702
You think most people can or would use philosophy to make their ethical decisions?
You must be more sheltered than the politicians in Brussels
>utilitarianism, for example, leads to the most virtue
It least to the most virtue quantitatively, not necessarily qualitatively
But good luck debating that with the plebs ya naive fuck
>>75075704
How about this: based on the world you see around you right now, is it more realistic that an omnipotent God carefully designed the entire universe and gave you an invisible soul that you cannot possibly prove the existence of
Or...
Some guys a couple thousand years ago lied and the universe is the result of the physical forces that can actually be observed and quantified?
>>75073860
quakers are kike tier, so same thing.
>>75075931
Go away, burger.
Who is a Jew? is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. He doesn't identify himself as a Jew, thus he's not Jewish.
>>75076015
D-did I fucking stutter?
Philosophy also deals with everyday challenges as simply as the choice between eating lasagna or spaghetti for dinner.
>>75076122
Sound logic right there. It only proves the point that atheism is the best way to go in life.
>>75074727
Are you kidding? What does a discussion about theism have to do with Jewish ingroup preference?
He's Jewish. Period. It's not even contestable.
And he's an obvious zionist
>>75076540
>Philosophy also deals with everyday challenges as simply as the choice between eating lasagna or spaghetti for dinner.
Fucking hell, what kind of philosophy have you done?
>>75076030
I hate to break it to you but that's not an argument.
First of all, i don't believe we have a soul. I personally am an idealist.
Have you ever heard of philosophy? Cause i can easily go through a few philosophical arguments that make it reasonable to assume a maximally great being exists.
Also, there's a thing called history. What we believe about the past is mainly derived by the reports of people that lived in the past. If you think the 12 disciples lied, why don't you apply that logic to any ancient historian?
Think about this: You believe for example that the burning of Rome happened because you have a few sources stating that. Yet you don't question that they are lying, because it doesn't matter to you.
Now, let's visit the new testament. At least twelve people, record the life and resurrection of Jesus. Yet you believe they are lying, because you don't want to accept the implications of them telling the truth.
>>75072859
Hey dad.
>>75076571
Scheer je weg, Hendrik.
> He's literally a Zionist
He defends atheism against a rabbi. How are you so inbred?
>>75076741
Not the public education you've had obviously. Read some Kant, he has some valuable insights into the nature and behaviour of humans.
>>75076741
Study the works of Garfield.
>>75076806
Hegelshill detected
>>75076806
It's a good idea to doubt any account of history. The difference is that the historians who detail the burning of Rome don't have to much gain from lying. Look at every religion founded in the past 100 years. All established to gain money, property, or power, either by profiteers or megalomaniacs. Why would this not be reflected historically, especially when the general populace was more superstitious?
And I'd love to hear your philosophical arguments which are apparently more convincing than the actual math detailing exactly how the universe was created.
>>75077031
Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land)
Nowhere in the definition do i see that someone has to believe in the Hebrew God to be a zionist.
>>75071395
So much kikery.
>>75077031
You can read whatever you like. Good luck getting the masses to do the same, m8
>>75071395
I kinda scared guys. I mean Trump only has a 97% chance of winning. What are we going to do?
>>75071395
> polling ahead
> 'no chance'
doesn't sound like a scientist
>>75071395
>Based
>Atheist
>Intellectual
>>75077237
Oh yea. Especially the 12 disciples gained a lot after being tortured to death.
Philosophical arguments:
1)Ontological argument
2)Teleological argument
3) Cosmological argument
4) Argument from Morality
I'd like it if you mentioned some of the math.
>>75071395
Anyone who identifies themselves as an atheist needs to be shot.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04sSvofgWTg
I don't agree with Harris on every single thing that he says, mainly the Trump issue, but listen to this. He's pretty based about issues that /pol/ holds neat and fear to its heart.
Sam Harris is a Globalist. So he can fuck himself.
>>75077279
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2HC2rwB2IE
> The main point starts at 2;37.
I don't understand how /pol/ isn't fully behind Sam Harris. He basically follows the same set of ideas, yet you're all too busy with the 'kike conspiracy' to think rationally.
>>75077317
Well there's a reason why the masses are poor and smart people are not.
>>75073860
Any famous person who openly declares Trump a loser is a paid by Hillary shill. The end.
>>75073860
The Quakers are behind many of the social engineering programs in the USA like the Housing Opportunities Program. Quakers were trying to ethnically cleanse Catholic neighborhoods.
>>75077605
Pretending to know things that you don't know is the lifeblood of atheism and liberalism
Daily reminder /pol/ is a christian board.
>>75077710
Like it or not, you're gonna need those poor people to have a functioning society
We can't all be doctors and lawyers
>>75071395
>based
>atheist
>>75077031
>>He's literally a Zionist
>He defends atheism against a rabbi. How are you so inbred?
Do you even know what zionism is? Top Shekekel
>>75071395
>Sam Harris
>>75077710
Libtards don't think Israel should exist either.
>>75077710
Hold right there. I am not going to argue about him being a zionist or not. I actually agree with him on this. I was just clearing up on the definition of Zionism.
>>75076540
>He doesn't identify himself as a Jew, thus he's not Jewish.
Oh no. You slimey bastards aren't getting out of it that easy.
Day of the rope soon son.
>>75077892
>We can't all be doctors and lawyers
We can't all be medicinal jews and litigation jews. FTFY
>>75077969
Shoo jew. Your race will be utterly exterminated, along with Israel and everything you hold dear. This time none will be left alive.
>>75077031
>>75077279
>>75077317
>>75077932
Guys, why do you think Belgium is being so cuked by Achmed? The young Belgian generation is a bunch of unthinking morons.
>>75076540
Jews constantly pretend to be white only to turn around and say they aren't a part of the white race. Nice try JIDF
>>75078122
>>75075697
This.
Meme magic is the Warp and our god-emperor was most certainly not born in Turkey.
>>75078190
Belgian is kike tier. Let them get fucked. There's a reason the fuhrer tried to kill them.
>>75078190
It's the same in all Western countries
>>75071395
>Atheist intellectual
>>75078416
Praise jesus, M'lady
>>75077861
You're a fucking idiot if you're actually a Christian.
Like beyond retarded. When I browse here I imagine most people here are atheists since the average person here seems pretty intelligent.
>>75077531
Wow, so many philosophical "arguments" you can't even pick one! All based in fallacy and assumptions like "if it can exist in my mind then it has to exist!" This kind of reasoning is childlike and irrelevant in the face of actual observation.
The mathematical models of the universe are extremely extensive and collaborative. It would be ridiculous to list them off, since they all represent sections of knowledge and understandings of space, like Hubble's Law and Friedmann's equations. The point is, rather than using some mental gymnastics whose aim it is to justify the possible existence of a higher power, these things are based in physical reality.
>>75078536
A lot of us are former new atheists. Myself included, Mr. Christians are dumb because I saw it on Youtube
>>75077788
> cucked by Trump
>>75077852
That's not a testimony to the superiority of the quakers, but to the frivolousness of others. The same can be said about the British Empire. It came to be so powerful because of the decline of the Dutch and French empire, and not because it was expectionally good.
>>75077892
Again, that's also a subject heavily discussed in philosophy as early as by Seneca.
>>75077932
Jews have contributed more to the academic and technological advancement of humankind than any other race, relatively speaking. In other words, white Europeans hold the same social status to Jews as black people do to white Europeans.
>>75078536
There you go again, assuming only idiots believe in god. Why is this? is maybe that you are pretend to know for a fact there is no higher being when in reality you have no idea what you're talking about?
I don't even believe in god but you are retarded. Just because someone does believe in god doesn't make them retarded.
>>75078776
You sound oddly familiar?
>>75078776
Good then jews should get the fuck out of white countries and go back to Israel then. Stop letting white people hold them down. Do that or prepare to get gassed again.
>>75078935
>Good then jews should get the fuck out of white countries and go back to Israel then. Stop letting white people hold them down. Do that or prepare to get gassed again.
Implying that they were gassed in the past.
>>75078536
Give one (1) good reason why christians are retarded?
Hard mode; no arbitrary reasons.
No memes.
>>75078776
And whom are you gonna discus it with? With your bourgeois m8s?
What morality are you gonna have the plebs believe? That they are "slaves of the educated", amirite m9?
You feudal shit
>>75072859
>Atheist
>Acid dropper
>Uses euphoria unironically
>Massive fucking published faggot
The Champion of the Lost, gentlemen.
>>75079042
They make knowledge claims about something that is confidently in black swan territory.
>>75079042
Christians are litterally jews who believe the messiah has come. They are JEWS. THEY ARE FUCKING NU-KIKES.
>>75079042
>Give one (1) good reason why christians are retarded?
>Hard mode; no arbitrary reasons.
>No memes.
Because they do not know, or will not admit that the existence of god is merely an axiomatic assumption that they hold.
>>75078536
>this entire post
you are bluepilled beyond saving.
>>75079042
Hi, I was sent by God to save humanity.
Believe me? If so, you're retarded.
>>75071395
Let me guess his ethnicity.
>>75079190
>faith
>knowledge claims
>>75078585
I wanted to make it easier for you so i just listed them. Let me just go through my favorite one, which is the ontological argument.
Let's first categorize beings in 3 ways:
i)Things that logically can not exist, for example 2+1 = 4 or a square circle.
ii)Things that do not fail to exist but hold no necessity for their existence, for example a unicorn.
iii)Things that necessarily exist, for example the number 69.
Now let's define a Maximally Great Being. It is an entity that possesses every characteristic to it's maximal potential. By it's definition, that being would be necessary.
So, let's get started.
Premise 1: It is possible that an MGB exists. (Possible as in logically coherent.)
Premise 2: If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it would exist, in some possible world.
Now, the possible world is a way for us to test hypothetical situations, not a parallel universe or such.
Premise 3: If an MGB exists in one possible world, it exists in every possible world
Premise 4: If an MGB exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
Conclusion: A MGB exists.
>>75079280
Of course they do. They just replace the words "axiomatic belief" with faith
>>75079392
If it isn't a knowledge claim, then stop using the word 'truth' in relation with your faith
>>75079520
>Of course they do. They just replace the words "axiomatic belief" with faith
But most christians will not happily substitute in the other direction.
By and large, if you tell them it's an axiom, they will deny it.
>>75079523
There are such things as known and unknown truths
Truths outside our knowledge
Why does it trigger you that we hold some truths to be self-evident?
>>75075694
What do the parentheses mean. 3 for Jews?
>>75071395
>Based Atheist intellectual and Neuroscientist BTFO's Trump:
Why atheists go out of their way to say they're atheists? What the fuck does that have to do with the subject at hand?
that shit is 6+ months old. i'm sure by now hes realized things have changed 'a little bit'. it's easy to forget that half a year ago trump was still seen as a clown who didn't stand a chance.
>>75079055
Im discussing it with the plebs right about now.
>>75079297
> being religious
> being redpilled
Pick one.
>>75078935
Ousting Jews from America and Europe would have the same effect as the anti-appartheid movement had in South-Africa. It will only lower the cultural and academic advancement of the West.
>>75078299
The 27th SS Volunteer Division Langemarck (part of the Flemish Legion) was treated like shit by the SS-commanders. The Germans had it coming.
>>75079523
To us christians it is the truth, you yourself have your own subjective view of the truth.
If you are unable to appreciate the fact that humans are restricted to subjectivity you are hardly intelligent.
>>75079619
Well most people in general haven't heard of the term "axiom" so there's no surprise there
Depends on how you've explained it to them
>>75079779
Because the word 'truth' is completely meaningless when discussing unknown unknowns. What you call 'God' is one of those unknown unknowns, and any claims about it fall in the 'not even wrong' category. They're at best a complete waste of time and at worst outright malevolent to the very idea of knowledge
>>75079892
>Im discussing it with the plebs right about now.
Go easy on us m8
>>75079846
its important to explain if you are a jewish mindslave before having an intellectual discussion
>>75079498
You are glossing over the underlying complexities of the ontological argument. Your MGB is not conceivable in any real sense. Or have you not read Wittgenstein?
>>75072859
Sam Harris is 2deep4me
>>75080060
What do you mean by unknown unknowns?
>They're at best a complete waste of time and at worst outright malevolent to the very idea of knowledge
Would you say mathematical hypotheses are a waste of time?
In Pure Maths that is, not Applied Maths
>>75079779
A truth is a linguistically constructed image of the world that coheres with the world's internal consistency.
An unknown truth is not the same as something that cannot become a truth.
A transcendent, maximally great God is implicitly indescribable according to Wittgenstein. This is due to the limitations of language.
>>75078747
Listen, you can have whatever political opinions you want, I'm fine with any of them. But if you believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and if you don't believe in him, you suffer conscious torment in fire for all eternity, you're insane.
In order to actually grasp what the fuck is going on in the world, you need to practice skepticism. This board is filled with people practicing skepticism across the board, whether it's with the Jews, the narrative the media pushes, whatever. If you take that same line of skeptical reasoning and apply it to Christianity, you realize that a story about a guy being born of a virgin, performing miracles, dying for our sins and then rising from the dead is totally insane. We require evidence for those sorts of claims, and the bible is not evidence of anything other than the ability to men to write 2000 years ago.
>>75078788
With deistic beliefs or whatever, I'm more lenient. Christianity is batshit insane.
>>75071395
>(((((SAM HARRIS))))))
>(((((ATHEIST)))))
>>75072859
what a whole shitload of writing just to say
>muh feels
fucking faggot
>>75072504
this child probably unironically believes guys like ken hamm and andrew schlafey are intellectuals
stay in your bible belt containment zones please
>>75080303
>So say you while using the same flawed structure known as language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Wittgenstein.27s_Tractatus
>>75079498
>Premise 1: It is possible that an MGB exists (Possible as in logically coherent.)
Fallacy. Just because something can be conceived of doesn't mean it is physically possible.
>Premise 2: If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it would exist, in some possible world.
If it existed it would be observable. It is not observable, so without actual evidence it is not logical to assume its existence. You're essentially arguing a more philosophically-driven version of "you can't prove it's not there, so it could be, therefore it's okay to assume it is." This logic isn't sound and it isn't worth discussing since it's a worthless crapshoot one way or the other.
>>75080118
Don't you have any counter-argument or even a refutation to my argument?
I can easily tell you to go read a book, and this isn't a conversation about that. So, i think stefan molyneux is needed for this.
>>75080313
>Listen, you can have whatever political opinions you want, I'm fine with any of them. But if you believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and if you don't believe in him, you suffer conscious torment in fire for all eternity, you're insane.
Insane, but not wrong
>In order to actually grasp what the fuck is going on in the world, you need to practice skepticism. This board is filled with people practicing skepticism across the board, whether it's with the Jews, the narrative the media pushes, whatever
Scepticism you say
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Philosophical_skepticism
>If you take that same line of skeptical reasoning and apply it to Christianity, you realize that a story about a guy being born of a virgin, performing miracles, dying for our sins and then rising from the dead is totally insane. We require evidence for those sorts of claims, and the bible is not evidence of anything other than the ability to men to write 2000 years ago.
Depends on what you mean by evidence. And upon whether you have actually studied the Bible
>>75079892
>be good goy who thinks Christians are a real problem on society
>be bluepilled
pick both, waffle nigger
>>75080555
The idea isn't self-refuting in the sense you think. Because it self-refutes, it doesn't prove non-existence. It disproves proven existence as well as non-proven existence. The point being, any logically structured argument in the medium of language is ultimately just chasing your tail.
Of course, your own church likely has a doctrine of faith.
I'm not trying to discredit your faith, only your argument.
Philosophy left the ontological argument behind centuries ago.
I fucked love Sam Harris and how much he triggers Christian Conservashits
Based fucking Sam . Keep on keeping on
>>75080806
>And upon whether you have actually studied the Bible
>hurr durr muh bible that was written and revised to suit political needs over a thousand years is irrefutable
>>75079498
Have you actually read Plantinga, the man whose argument are you using? He fully admits it's perfectly reasonable to reject the first premise. There's a reason why this kind of argument are not part of natural theology.
>It must be conceded, however, that Argument A is not a successful piece of natural theology. For the latter typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man. So, for example, each of St. Thomas's Five Ways begins by appealing to a premiss few would be willing to contest: such propositions as that some things are in motion; or that things change; or that there are contingent beings. And (36), the central premiss of Argument A, is not of this sort; a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it, remaining agnostic or even accepting instead the possibility of no-maximality.
>>75072859
This was his description of an LSD trip. Someone should dose the planet with some acid.
>>75080565
Pay attention to the argument.
>Fallacy. Just because something can be conceived of doesn't mean it is physically possible.
I didn't make an empirical statement. The only way to combat the first premise is to show that God logically fails to exists. LOGICALLY.
And also,by definition God is a non-physical entity.
>If it existed it would be observable. It is not observable, so without actual evidence it is not logical to assume its existence. You're essentially arguing a more philosophically-driven version of "you can't prove it's not there, so it could be, therefore it's okay to assume it is." This logic isn't sound and it isn't worth discussing since it's a worthless crapshoot one way or the other.
Again, you have confused something. The possible world is not a physical observable world. It is a way of using your logic, to test a HYPOTHETICAL situation.
>>75080922
It's self-refuting, end of story. And I would advise you stop speaking to me until you stop simultaneously shooting your beliefs in the foot - by the act of even speaking our language
Just shut up
>Philosophy left the ontological argument behind centuries ago.
It's 2016
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/38/Appeal_to_Novelty
>>75080806
You didn't even say anything.
Go on believing that one guy performed miracles and rose from the dead 2000 years ago without any real reason to, see if I care.
You are a retard.
Here's your "(you)"
>>75080889
I'm not even a good goy. Every religion is an impediment for the advancement of intellectual thinking.
>>75081188
>The possible world is not a physical observable world.
So what is it? Metaphysics? Magic? Why would we take abstract metaphysical hypothesis and try to apply it to our physical world and imagine that could be done successfully?
>>75081208
Hold up, I'm not whatever atheist you're responding to, and I am not arguing that there is not necessarily a higher being.
What I am saying, is that so long as your arguments cohere in the material plane, they'll never produce a logically coherent statement about something that doesn't.
So, you want to rest your boots on "God exists". I'm content to leave it as a "?"
>>75081025
First of all, Plantinga isn't the only one that uses the ontological argument.
Also, I agree. You can reject the first premise, as long as you show God is not logically coherent.
>>75080987
>something could have not been divinely inspired
>something has in fact not been divinely inspired
K.
>>75081332
>see if I care >:P
>You're a retard
K. Carry on "not caring"
>>75081208
My you're a militant one, though. Are you a logician? You know Goedel formalized and proved several more extreme corollaries than that of Wittgenstein, right? In fact, Wittgenstein was a Christfag like yourself, and threw a tantrum at Goedel in the Viennese circles when he realized he would soon be surpassed.
"Shooting my beliefs in the foot - by the act of even speaking our langauge" hmmm no, you haven't read Wittgenstein, and your Wiki summary apparently didn't stick either
>>75080228
>What do you mean by unknown unknowns?
In relation to black swans, I mean rare, unprecedented events that are by definition outside our frame of reference and that are, because of this, impossible to compute. These types of events tend to have a huge impact onto the world precisely because they're outside of our frame of reference, which means that there's no way to prepare for them. For instance, the rise of ISIS would be a black swan for Obama when he decided to leave Iraq in 2010. He didn't prepare for it, because something like ISIS and the way it came to power was completely outside of his frame of reference.
This lack of reference is exactly the problem when discussing the concept of God. By removing God from reality, you place him in the black swan category, and make him completely meaningless as a concept, as I have no way to reference a single characteristic about him or his intentions. Discussing anything about God or any morals he demands is a complete waste of time, as he is defined outside of the frame of reverence I can possibly experience.
>>75081454
Holy shit how dense are you? The possible worlds is a fucking HYPOTHESIS. We are thinking of a possible scenario and using our logic to see if something would work out.
Let's suppose i say: Closing our borders would help our economy.
I would have to make a thought experiment and test out why that would happen. That is the same with the possible world scenario. It's basically a thought experiment.
>>75081462
>Plantinga isn't the only one that uses the ontological argument.
I know, but the contemporary version of the modal ontological argument, which is the one you used, comes from him.
>You can reject the first premise, as long as you show God is not logically coherent.
You are missing the point of the quote. You don't need to "show" it, you can perfectly be agnostic about whether the concept of "maximal greatness" is possible or not, or you can believe it is outright impossible.
>>75081457
>What I am saying, is that so long as your arguments cohere in the material plane, they'll never produce a logically coherent statement about something that doesn't.
And that's why I hold it as an axiom :^|
>So, you want to rest your boots on "God exists". I'm content to leave it as a "?"
Of course I agree God is a "?". It's just that I'm a theist on top of that
>>75081153
Everyone should have a psychedelic trip at least once in their lives.
There's a reason psychedelics, despite being impossible to have an overdose death on, don't cause any psychological conditions, and have been proven to help in therapy and counseling, yet remain schedule I.
Specifically they allow you to look at things in a different way. They can help "break the conditioning" as some say. You can look at facts and events not through the subversive propagandized lenses installed on you growing up in school and the media.
Not a giant dose, so like 150-200ug LSD or 2-3grams of shrooms.
Take into account set and setting and it can really be mind opening.
>>75081711
>My you're a militant one, though. Are you a logician?
I'm just a philosophy Christfag
>You know Goedel formalized and proved several more extreme corollaries than that of Wittgenstein, right?
Let me guess, purely logical proofs right?
>In fact, Wittgenstein was a Christfag like yourself, and threw a tantrum at Goedel in the Viennese circles when he realized he would soon be surpassed.
Huh. Always thought Wittgenstein was a jew
>"Shooting my beliefs in the foot - by the act of even speaking our langauge" hmmm no, you haven't read Wittgenstein, and your Wiki summary apparently didn't stick either
Briefly surmise it. I just know that if you criticise language language while speaking it, you're an absolute dimwitted tool
>>75082342
>criticise language* while
>>75081813
Here's a tip: if you have to think in labyrinthine abstractions you're headed away from reality. The concept of a God is not "logically coherent" because it is based in faith, not logic. There is no actual reason to assume there is a high power without drawing conclusions using assumptions and hypothesis.
>>75081747
>In relation to black swans, I mean rare, unprecedented events that are by definition outside our frame of reference and that are, because of this, impossible to compute. These types of events tend to have a huge impact onto the world precisely because they're outside of our frame of reference, which means that there's no way to prepare for them. For instance, the rise of ISIS would be a black swan for Obama when he decided to leave Iraq in 2010. He didn't prepare for it, because something like ISIS and the way it came to power was completely outside of his frame of reference.
Do your black swans have anything to do with "the problem of induction"?
>This lack of reference is exactly the problem when discussing the concept of God. By removing God from reality, you place him in the black swan category, and make him completely meaningless as a concept, as I have no way to reference a single characteristic about him or his intentions. Discussing anything about God or any morals he demands is a complete waste of time, as he is defined outside of the frame of reverence I can possibly experience.
Depends on what you mean by reality. If you mean purely empirical reality, then you're right
I don't use that definition
>>75071395
>atheist
>intellectual
oxymoron
>>75082899
Nice shitpost
>>75082984
Nice argument xD
>>75082984
did I hurt your feelings, apostate?
Hell hurts a lot more than that. Repent or else.
>>75082523
Yeah, if the only way your beliefs make sense is through insane mental gymnastics you're doing something wrong.
It's not really worth it to argue with these people. They are so desperate to believe in bullshit that they will stretch their minds as far as they can go to make it happen. I think the real danger of religion is that it enables otherwise rational and intelligent people to believe in insane bullshit because it makes them feel good.
It's like when they squirm when you ask them "if your God exists and loves everyone, why does he allow terrible things to happen?". Then they go on constructing a theodicy which in itself is absolutely pathetic. The question goes on unanswered, and if you choose to engage them in debate, you're automatically trapped within their retarded framework.
The best thing to do is steer clear entirely and let them believe whatever they want.
>>75079817
((((Jews))))
lerk moar
Actually I think it originated on The Right Stuff or MPC.
>>75083409
>hurr durr I am smart and everyone else is stupid.
>if your God exists and loves everyone, why does he allow terrible things to happen?"
If you bothered to study what Christianity teaches (Catholicism) and not what you think it teaches you would find out.
>The question goes on unanswered, and if you choose to engage them in debate, you're automatically trapped within their retarded framework.
You reject our framework in favour of yours. You want a theological answer, it will be answered with theology.
Hell is forever, anon. Repent or else.
>>75071395
>(((Sam Harris)))
>>75083409
>Yeah, if the only way your beliefs make sense is through insane mental gymnastics you're doing something wrong.
>It's not really worth it to argue with these people. They are so desperate to believe in bullshit that they will stretch their minds as far as they can go to make it happen. I think the real danger of religion is that it enables otherwise rational and intelligent people to believe in insane bullshit because it makes them feel good.
>It's like when they squirm when you ask them "if your God exists and loves everyone, why does he allow terrible things to happen?". Then they go on constructing a theodicy which in itself is absolutely pathetic. The question goes on unanswered, and if you choose to engage them in debate, you're automatically trapped within their retarded framework.
>The best thing to do is steer clear entirely and let them believe whatever they want.
>>75083620
(You)
>>75081362
This is the kind of statement that heralds the response of fedoras.
Has religion impeded intellectualism in the past?
Absolutely.
Does it today?
Not so much.
If anything, religion nowadays is just a nice reason to teach your children moral lessons as a child.
Since children for the most part lack the will to think of others before themselves, religion is a nice excuse.
They would reject our intellectual reasoning of "because it's for the good of society" but may be more receptive to a "you're gonna burn in hell if you don't".
>>75083927
not an argument
>>75082255
I can't wait until trump is elected and deports all you worthless, lazy hippies
>>75084060
>not understanding that I'm not going to argue with retards
>>75082342
>purely logical proofs
Seems like we are angling the same way on this point.
>Wittgenstein was a jew
Depends who you ask I suppose, I'm not the most familiar with his biography but that was my impression from book 7 of the Tractatus.
>dimwitted tool
I suppose the gist of the argument is that language is the dimwitted tool, and only a fool would think a tool could prove transcendent God.
I'm pretty theistic myself.
Have you read PI yet? I haven't but I hear it gets even more Christian-y, or at least optimistic
>>75084489
>hurr durr u retarded
>I smart
>ooga booga
Never change ameriniggers
>trump has no chance of winning a single state
>trump has no chance to win the nominee
>t-trump has no chance to win president goy
>>75084589
>Depends who you ask I suppose, I'm not the most familiar with his biography but that was my impression from book 7 of the Tractatus.
I just read his wikipedia page tbch
>I suppose the gist of the argument is that language is the dimwitted tool, and only a fool would think a tool could prove transcendent God.
Well perhaps it is incapable of proving God (although you would have to establish that through language (logic) for the incapability to be demonstrably true)
>I'm pretty theistic myself.
God bless
>Have you read PI yet? I haven't but I hear it gets even more Christian-y, or at least optimistic
I need to get around to reading some Wittgenstein so I'll keep that in mind to do as soon as I can
>>75084044
You're wrong, here's why.
Imagine if you were the smartest man alive and yet religious. If I would personally experience more virtue if you'd achieve an academic or technological breakthrough and if we assume that your religion prohibits your potential from coming to fruition, then that would be detrimental for my wellbeing. It is not unlikely that, for example, your distrust in evolution would pose a burden on your critical thinking of the dawn of humanity. In another example would I experience less satisfaction if Steve Jobs hadn't invented the iPad, providing that he was too busy with bible studies.
BTFO TRUMP THREADS
into the trash they go
>intellectual
>atheist
Top cuck nigger!
>>75084044
This, KEK has blessed this post.
Nikola Tesla believed in Creator. Why?
>>75071395
Sam Harris, yet another Jew who has every reason in the world to support Trump but instead attacks him.
Because it's not about anything more than farm animals learning which building is the slaughterhouse.
Trump does not bend the knee and they cannot forgive him.
>>75085242
I'm digging your ID m8
>>75085128
>>75085242
>>75085607
kek
Begone kike.
>>75071395
OP, you seem like you have multiple cocks and cheetos in your mouth.
Go outside, you disgusting filth.
