Stefan Molyneux talks about
''Why I Was Wrong About Atheism''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
>atheists this atheists that
It's just the lack of a belief in a deity. It's not a religion, it's not a political movement. It's just the lack of something.
>>71050938
>Video about atheism
>Talks about socialism
Huh?
>>71050938
he got a point. Im a atheist myself and i learned that when you renounce god you tend to replace it by alot of bullshit along the way. Some of them even worse than got itself. Like comunism or other bullshit. Knoledge is the best way to getting away from this addiction. and mistakes will happen, the problem that comes with atheism is a responsability even bigger than any religious person have. You are responsable by your ethical stand. you wil be allways using prototype ethics your whole life. its like people normally uses windows and mac OS to roam the world, and the atheist have to reprogram his personal OS every time a new problem shows up. The wrong approach i think Molyneux get is that atheists have the same behaviour because they are a cohesive group. I see those leftists atheists just atheists that didnt think enough about the subject, and the importance of god on the moral system of a society.
>>71052278
both socialist(liberals) and atheist have the same ideology
>>71052580
Except atheism doesn't prescribe any ideology at all.
>>71052278
>>71052829
So is your problem with atheism, or socialists?
>>71051599
Your lack of belief in a deity informs your beliefs about other things, seemingly unrelated to theism. Your philosophical outlook on morality is different just because you don't believe in god.
>>71052751
most atheist act like atheism is a ideology.
most non believer dont want to be call atheist
>>71052278
i think to explain why he was talking about socialism or "leftists" or the state, is trying to understand what is the whole of the concept of god to our psyche. God in any religion has a huge impact on stress releaf and a feeling of belonging associeted with it. It is a good therapeutic against neurosis. That happens in any religion. It has also a link to the concept of law, morals and it is knows that the contemporary design of state comes from a proto state created by the church. So there are some connections, between religion, order and state. im not saying they are the only ones but they exist. I cant explain here why i see communism as a religion but i see some visual coincidences. on the way they use statues, glorify some leaders on the more authoritaries socialist/communist states. so thate it is the relation between religion and socialism. The argument he uses is that when you renounce god you will try to find a replacement for that huge dispositive of both plasure (i belive there is a plasure dispositive on the pactice of religion when praying and being one with god) and of a moral organization that tells you there is a better way to behave. I think thats what he was talking about. and the link atheism and socialism is closed that way.
>>71052977
*tips fedora* Well for one Im not retarded
I think most Christtards on /pol/ don't realize the majority of 4chan is/was conservative/libertarian atheists
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the more religious a person, the happier they tend to be.
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/04/12/happiness-christians-nones-pew-research/
>>71053236
NOT AN ARGUMENT !
>>71053371
im dying to see what they belive happiness is.
>>71053452
>failing to see the argument
people commonly held as moral heroes are usually absolutely terrible people but have good press and said nice things
I don't know why I have to concede that being an atheist has something to do with being a leftist. I'm an atheist and I'm not a leftist and according to the statistics I should be a leftist since I'm from Barbosa land
>>71053371
And more the IQ goes down. A coincidence?
>>71053371
I wasn't happy getting the shit kicked out of me by the nuns at my catholic grade school.
>>71053120
>most atheist act like atheism is a ideology.
None of the ones I've ever met do. There's communism, which is a specific (atheist) ideology. But I'm lucky enough to have avoided those.
>>71051599
Atheism is the most destructive religion in the world, snow nigger
>>71050938
>>71051599
>>71052302
Atheism is an umbrella term for an immensely broad set of ideas. The reason /pol/ is so triggered by it is because of the meme that vocal atheists are stereotypically also liberal dumbasses. Hence the thought-terminating-clichè:
>fedora
"Atheists BTFO" is as stupid as criticising Islam and then saying "monotheists BTFO".
>>71053371
>>I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the more religious a person, the happier they tend to be.
lets see :
1-
the concept of happiness is never discussed in the article.
2- it was published on :
http://www.religionnews.com
Religion news ... ok ... not a bit strange...
3
they say people self declaire very happy and are smiling. well they could be on crack cocain.
4 - asking people what they think about themselves is ok, but you need more info to cross data. in brazil we have 40% of the population saying they are pardo, and almost 50% saying they are white. And you go out on the street and you only see pardos ans blacks. something might be wrong dont you think? oh yeah christians never lie on surveys.
>>71050938
>Stefan Molyneux
Literally who? Sage
>>71053165
That's a far better argument than anything in that shitty video.
I agree that Communism is at least "more or less" a religion. And that most people will find some sort of metaphysical world view to make sense of their lives.
Concluding from that all atheists are communists is ridiculous.
>>71054055
I guess Atheism and autism do go hand in hand. Do you really not know what happiness means? Also the poll was done by the Pew research center, religionnews.com is just reporting on it.
>atheism as a byproduct of rationality is Ok
>atheism as a secular substitute for religious irrationality is worse than religion
did you even watch it or just read the title and run here to shitpost.
>>71050938
>Generation 3
fucking disgusting kys
>>71051599
>It's just the lack of a belief in a deity.
No. Atheism is the active position that deities do not/can not exist -- which is unproven and equally religious as Christianity for example.
>>71053032
I'm an atheist and I didn't replace God with anything I just live day to day minus religion
>>71050938
He mostly shat on fedora-tippers. The kind of hysterical brony anti-theists who browse leddit.
>>71054498
No it isn't. That would be anti-theism, and it's not a position I've ever seen anyone take outside of memes.
>>71054507
You didn't understand what I said.
>>71054323
>I guess Atheism and autism do go hand in hand.
i guess you can find the classical autists being ahteists those that cant even talk are so self centered that they make us belive they think they control the world just like new born babies. so i can agree partially with it. since they dont know the concept of god. nice ad hominem.
>> Do you really not know what happiness means?
in a general sense it means a temporary feeling that happens when you fullfill a major desire. Some people mistake hapiness with the concept of heaven, and that was created by the mass media to sell stuff like cars and other bullshit.
> Also the poll was done by the Pew research center, religionnews.com is just reporting on it.
the way the research was conducted was a total mess. and i cannot belive in the data. sorry. Next time just post your oppinion, i would respect more than trying to make me belive in this shitty data.
>>71053165
It's easier to connect the dots if you invoke objectivism. Both religious people and pro big government people claim to be proponents of altruism and in favor of self-sacrifice for the better good of the community or for the after-death rewards. This however has nothing to do with being an atheist, it just happens that there are a bunch of loud fedora atheists who are libtards
He is just noticing a trend, that atheists usually tend to be a bunch of degenerate liberals, he isn't attacking atheism on a philosophical point of view.
I'm an atheist myself btw.
>>71054498
No that's just your personal strawman definition of atheism which some people accept and some people don't. Most atheists just think that God/Gods are so unlikely that it's not useful to assume that they exist.
>>71050938
I'm loving Molyneux more and more.
Christian faith and culture is needed because of the good envinronment it creates.
Atheism is infertile,sterile,dead,grey,pesimistic,brings nothing of value to the individual or society.
That is why christianity is objectivelly superior.
>>71055015
He actually states in the video itself that he has made the rational argument for atheism in the video, too.
Personally, I would like to see the evidence that Christians really are significantly more in favor of small government. To me it seems that German Christians are mostly socialists like everyone else and the ones in America are only opposed to the big government that's against their interests and ideology.
The Christians on /pol/ also seem to be fascists/natsocs/crusaders.
>>71055003
Bingo! i will slap any brazilian that calls portuguese dumb from now on. thanks, manuel. brilliant observation.
>>71055189
The "muh feelings" argument
>>71055189
yes, 1000 year of dark age of witch hunting was great.
fucking idiots.
>>71055349
In brazil the catholic churches were pro socialism, they used to give shelter to communists during the military (right) dictatorship. lots of priests where arrested at this historic moment as communist associates. I think this does not happen in USA because the sect of the church that went to north america was of a different tipe that came to south america. the values were more pro private iniciative than in here. i still can see some traces of that on the idea that "if you succeed god helped you." here in brazil if you succeed people will be jelly and you will feel miserable.
>>71055679
>1000 year of dark age
>Le dark age meme
Why not post the 'dark age gap' graph?
Leftist pop atheism is a wing of Marxism, which is just another competing Abrahamism, like Christianity. Christians who call that sort of atheism "a religion" are on the right track-- Marxism is indeed another Jewish creation for the goyim, like Christianity.
Freethinking atheism is real atheism, and unlike the kosher dog turd that Sam Harris and David Silvernan and Lawrence Krauss and Bill Nye and Bill Maher (all Jews, of course) peddle, Freethinking atheism leads right to the doorstep of Jewry when looking for who is responsible for whats wrong with "religion" in the West.
Is Molyneux coming to the idea that Whites may need Christianity to fight the Jews and Islam in the short term-- that we can't get enough White common cause without it?
I've personally resisted that shitty realization, but that has been Kevin MacDonald's position for a long time, and he may be as right as we are likely to get.
>>71050938
>>71055726
I guess there is a bit of this in the Christian culture in America, I mean, conservatism as in Goldwater, Whittle etc. is pretty close to libertarianism in rhetoric, at least, and most libertarian, anarcho-capitalist and Austrian economics forethinkers were catholics or Jews.
Basically the most prominent German libertarians are all Christians, too, when I think of it: Hoppe, Janich and even that singer Xavier Naidoo. But they aren't even close to representing Christianity in general here.
>>71053032
And in Rome if you didn't believe in Jupiter they would have said the same dumb shit to you.
Do you believe Jupiter is real?
>>71055054
That's agnosticism.
>>71050938
hey retards
there isn't a talking snake in a magical garden
stop LARPing, conformist faggots
>>71056657
Yes it is. Agnostic atheism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Your personal definition of atheism holds that all atheists are anti-theists. That is narrower than the commonly understood definition which is general dismissal or disregard for theism.
>>71052829
I was an atheist by the time I was 12, and completely shirked the idea that there was a positive role for religion in the world. All religion was mere illusion, and why -- how -- could someone believe in something so irrational?
I sort of kept that view for a long time. Even when I was 14 and had stopped being a bleeding-heart socialist, indeed even after I had embraced capitalism as the best system conceived by man, I hadn't shaken my soundly rational belief that religion was causing abject harm to the world. Which, to some extent, can be true, especially if one looks at Islam, which is a vile disease.
I was just sort of libertarian for awhile. Why should culture matter? Why should it matter what choices people make? All things are relative, after all.
Then I read Nietzsche, and I understood the value of the illusion for the individual. Then I read Durkheim -- someone who the intelligentsia will never speak of over Marx -- and I understood the value of the restriction and community for the collective. Then I read Haidt, and I understood the value of having strong community bonds and a binding morality. People need to live in clusters in which they compete for a greater good with other clusters, and in which the community is bonded by a morality and a closeness. This is how people are truly happy. People are not happy in the leftist idealist conception of a globalist, borderless, unigovernment society in which everything is rationed and there is no binding morality. In fact, they suffer in these places.
Now I am a closed-border libertarian who believes it is imperative for the society to embrace monogamy and a hegemonic Judeo-Christian culture to sustain its success.
It's funny how atheists pride themselves in being unheardable, intellectual "cats" who're impervious to groupthink, when in fact they're a largely homogeneous, dogmatic, liberal group whose behavior could not resemble more a religion.
Derail.
>>71056657
Agnosticism is "You can't prove it doesn't exist :^)".
>>71054498
> Atheism is the active position that deities do not/can not exist
In The God Delusion Dawkins states God might exist, it's just very very very unlikely. He is explicit in stating he is not 100% certain.
Cult leaders generally hate competition to their movements.
>>71050938
Hi everybody Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio I hope you're doing well!
Spanking your kids is the direct cause of all the world's evils, specifically wars and the government, which is an immoral system centralised around the monopoly of violence to commit taxation, which is nothing else but theft at gunpoint, a gross violation of the Non-Aggression principle. Any arguments against these are actually not an argument because of my own moral framework that I invented that you cannot refute because speaking to me is proof that my framework is correct and evidence of Universally Preferable Behaviour. Therefore I literally cannot be wrong because everything is literally not an argument. The only way we can slay the great beast that is the government is for you to donate more than one fucking dollar. If you call in we will have a discussion about how your daddy's rich and your momma's good lookin', but she was an evil vile woman who is a child abuser because she fought with her husband in front of you once. If my mother weren't my mother she would be FUCKING DEAD! I would have FUCKING KILLED HER! You must go to therapy and defoo because spending time around people that WANT YOU SHOT is suicidal. Throughout the call I will constantly interrupt you, and scold you if you do the same to me, but that's okay because I have the largest philosophy show in the history of humanity. However, I will not hesitate to hang up on you if you admit that free will does not exist, because I don't debate with robots.
P.S. I don't want to fuck you.
>>71058094
>Cult leaders generally hate competition to their movements.
What did he mean by this?
>>71057137
I agree, it is agnostic atheism. I don't have anything against agnostic atheism per sé. It's sensible position.
What I'm saying is that ATHEISM is in fact the idea that a god can not and do not exist. Don't conflate this with agnostic atheism or simply agnosticism.
>>71058124
>However, I will not hesitate to hang up on you if you admit that free will does not exist, because I don't debate with robots.
You have to admit that was pretty funny.
>>71058262
he means cult leaders dont like loosing followers.
>>71058280
Except it isn't. It's merely the idea that God does not exist. It says nothing about how confident you are in that belief, nor anything about whether God could exist.
>>71058521
>Little Syria is the best in the world
No.
I know you're a monkey and you like your kind, but they're clearly not good in any way.
>>71058124
not an argument related to topic. it can be dumbed down to adhominem. posting milo since my molyneux pic is already used. Pic unrelated, sort of since everyone that hates molyneux also hates milo.
>>71058300
Not an argument
He has good points, but if you're an atheist and doesn't fit in both these categories:
>doesn't have children and doesn't intend to have them
>defends social justice and bigger government
then you're safe. It just happens that nearly 80% of atheists fit in them.
>>71058734
You're right, saying something is funny isn't an argument. Good job Ahmed, you're learning basic english.
>>71058493
>It's merely the idea that God does not exist.
That's literally what I just said. Atheism is the notion that a god does not exist.
Agnosticism is the notion that we can not know whether or a god exists which is factually correct at this point in time.
Agnostic atheism is the position that a god probably does not exist based on the current state of evidence/scientific knowledge but that a god might be able to exist if our knowledge increases to that effect.
The mention of Stefan Molyneux makes me chuckle. He's a meme.
>>71054498
Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
>>71058734
That's Google+ being retarded
>>71058762
this data just proves that 80% of atheists are not really atheists they just changed god by communism. it shows some people think they are so pro active and revolutionary but they are just lazy thinkers, and even, if we are talking about communists, people with bad intentions of stealing public money using the "its for the good of the opressed".
>>71058734
He was quoting someone else. Just ctrl+f earlier comments and you'll find it.
>>71058909
No, you said
>ATHEISM is in fact the idea that a god can not and do not exist
That God does not exist doen't mean it cannot exist.
And agnosticism is stonger than that: it's the belief that knowledge of God's (non-) existence is impossible, not merely currently unavailable. Of course that doesn't mean you have to be certain either.
>>71054074
Not an argument
>>71055189
Yes that is true. Romania is a very Christian country for example, and it has surely reaped the rewards of Christianity. Why, Bucharest is the nicest city in the world, full of wonderful people!
>>71058909
That is all a bunch of politically correct nonsense bullshit
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative so the rational starting point in this discussion is atheism. There is no such thing as agnosticism, it's just a PC word for atheism. Do you see anyone being "agnostic" about whatever else? Like Santa or something else? The starting point is that it does not exist.
I have nothing against religious people but the stupidity of people who tryhard to call themselves agnostic irks me.
>>71058909
>Agnosticism is the notion that we can not know whether or a god exists which is factually correct at this point in time.
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, they say god exists so it's up to them for them to prove god exists, it is not up to you to prove god doesn't exist.
>>71059144
>>71059255
>damage control
>>71059305
The scope of atheism covers the idea that there is no god -- that's a POSITIVE statement, it is a statement of fact without evidence. Therefore it is equally religious as a Christian saying that "God does exist".
>>71059537
I have the belief invisible unicorns don't live on earth, is this a religious belief?
>>71059476
>>71059481
Atheists aren't asked to prove a negative -- they are making a positive statement of fact that "God does not exist". That statement has no evidence, and is therefore of a religious quality.
An agnostic would have said "We can not know if god exists or not" -- which is more accurate and not religious, since it recognizes both possibilities and the fact that neither has any evidence for its case.
>>71059647
As I said, the preferable position is probably that of agnostic atheism. It recognizes the difficulty in affirming whether or not a god exists -- but believes that a god probably does not exist based on the current state of knowledge.
>>71059501
>facts are damage control
What? I don't even like the guy, but he actually was quoting some black bitch there.
>>71051599
This.
>>71053120
>most atheist act like atheism is a ideology.
No. In America maybe...
>>71059823
>It recognizes the difficulty in affirming whether or not a god exists
>Affirming
Why would you need to affirm something as not existing when there is no reason to assume it exists?
FEDORA TIPPERS UTTERLY /BTFO/
NO COMEBACK
i can only get to the conclusion that /pol/ should be atheist right oriented.
reasons :
the good :
- more flexibilty to recreate a moral code since new problems will show up.
- not forginving mistakes, since not christians.
- possibilities to logicly states what is good or bad without previous prejudices. based on logical thinking and debate with the other /pol/ dudes.
-freedon to commit mistakes and dont feel guilty about it. recognize the mistake, apologize and learn with the mistake.
the bad :
homophobes will be against it since they are fags in the closet, and will never tolerate logical thinking on the matter.
racists are dumb and will act the same as in the last statement.
anti semites same as the last one.
Last considerations :
good thing /pol/ is a person with a fractured psyche with a multiple personality disorder.
>>71059823
>but believes that a god probably does not exist based on the current state of knowledge.
So you're saying invisible unicorns might exist? You can't prove they don't, so you're clearly saying that.
>>71059967
>when there is no reason to assume it exists
There might be reason to assume a god exists, because we do not know why the universe exists or where it came from. When these fundamental questions are unanswered, the idea in a god is warranted. That's the reason that the idea of a god or a higher power of some sort has existed all throughout recorded history dating as far back as the Stone Age.
>>71060168
>there might be a reason to assume x is possible because we can never know everything
How do you even get up in the morning? You don't know for a fact you're awake.
Jump off a cliff faggot, you don't know you'll be hurt or die.
>>71059823
No, you are wrong. The statement "we don't know for sure if X exists" (X can be pretty much anything) is true for everything and there is no need to single it out when it comes to religion. It is fundamentally a pointless statement that you might as well get out of the way before having any discussion. Let's say you work at a bar and whenever someone buys a beer your answer is "Well, I'm not sure that you really exist or that this beer is really a beer or that your money is really money but that will be 1eur, please"
It's irrelevant to any sort of meaningful discussion to point out that you are unsure that X exists. Of course atheists are unsure if deities exist on a fundamental level, the same way they are unsure if invisible vikings are living in the caves of Mars. The starting position is that certain things exist and others don't. Until you give me anything that makes me consider the possibility of X existing, it's idiocy to keep saying that I am "agnostic"
Atheism = Agnosticism. Same thing.
>>71060168
no there is no reason to assume it exists or not. people just assume it out of necessity. It just becomes a problem when people start fighting on moral matters like abortion or death penalty based on religious morals, witch need the figure of god to sustain it.
>>71058734
I derped, wrong screenshot.
>>71060073
Yeah, my position on invisible unicorns is agnostic atheist.
Invisible unicorns probably do not exist based on our current knowledge, but I don't fully rule out the possibility of them existing because we don't have all the facts about the universe.
I mean, until recently, black holes were never visually observed -- they were only theories based on mathematical and physical assumptions. But we still believe they exist -- they might not exist but based on our knowledge they probably do exist.
Based on our knowledge, invisible unicorns probably don't exist.
>Jump off a cliff faggot, you don't know you'll be hurt or die.
You're an imbecile. Jumping off a cliff will most likely kill me. I'm assessing the knowledge -- you are not. You're simply making a statement that "God does not exist" without evidence for that position.
>>71060168
But God is not an answer to anything. It's just a placeholder to make people stop asking you for explanations of what came before/caused something. God is an irrational construct and that's also why strong atheism, i.e. making the argument for the non-existence of a deity, is valid.
>>71060439
It's not irrelevant. But it's true that the same logic might be applied to other things. But people act rationally and in accordance with their self-interest and knowledge and assessment of the world.
If I worked at a bar and someone asked to buy a beer, I will sell him that beer. Is it possible that I'm hallucinating? Sure. But that doesn't mean I won't act in accordance with my own knowledge -- my knowledge is that I work at a bar and serve people buying beer. You assess the evidence but recognize the possibility of something contrary being the case. That doesn't mean you BELIEVE the contrary to be the case.
>>71060535
hi im an atheist myself. this argument is not good at all, its childish and really should be avoided. it would just make the theists be triggered about it. and we dont want tirggered religious people. I just think there is no point debating the existance of the christian god(some gods worth studying like the concept of god in spinoza). But not the old man living in the sky. This is not a problem at all. The problem comes as a consequence of beliving in it. Beliving in a christian god is a central belif and its like saying crack is bad for people. they will not stop using it. so just dont. Try fighting the consequences like using logics to debate other more pressing matters.
>>71060834
you're a nigger
>>71057205
You just can't make this shit up
>>71061008
ad hominem. not an argument. and thats exacly how people behave here in brazil in the favelas. i thought the british were more polite and educated.
>>71060535
>Invisible unicorns probably do not exist based on our current knowledge, but I don't fully rule out the possibility of them existing because we don't have all the facts about the universe.
If you read back I stated "on earth".
So you're saying it's entirely possible for invisible unicorns to exist on earth because we cannot know for a fact that they just haven't bumped into humans?
>Jumping off a cliff will most likely kill me
But you don't know it will, because you can never know right?
>You're simply making a statement that "God does not exist" without evidence for that position.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The statement "god exists, I have no evidence" can be dismissed, so I do not believe god exists, evidence isn't necessary to not believe in something, evidence is only necessary to believe.
>>71060634
The argument for the non-existence of a deity is a valid position, but so is the idea of a God. It is not irrational at all. It is fully rational to try to answer fundamental questions. Since we do not know where the universe comes from or how the world exists, there is a possibility of a God having created it all. Atheists make the case that a god do not exist -- without knowing the answers to these questions either.
The idea of a God answers a lot of questions and solves the basic problems of the universe. Why do we exist? Where do we come from? Where does the universe come from? What is the meaning of life? The idea of a God having created the world for their pleasure or whatever, answers these fundamental questions -- questions we still do not have objective answers to.
>>71061172
You can't prove he isn't :^)
I don't understand why I can't just be areligious without being grouped in with a bunch of fedora tipping liberals.
>>71061315
as i cant prove you fuck kangaroos. but i really think you would be happier there thank here debating this stuff.
>>71060469
Lol I was scratching my head hard trying to figure out how that was proof
Fair enough. Still he should've explained the post first then put the reply in quotes instead of confusing everyone
>>71061205
Think of it this way. If you said it was a FACT, a matter of TRUTH that they don't exist and then tomorrow you suddenly ran into one, what would you do?
>>71061476
You're right, but I can say you have no evidence I fuck kangaroos and unless you post evidence your statement is dismissed.
>>71057137
>>71054747
>>71057137
>>71057678
>>71059056
>"antitheism"!
>agnostic atheism!
Atheism = There's no God (or gods or deities of any kind whatsoever). That's literally what "a-" and "theos" mean. The little internal nuances are just fedora memes trying to make sense of a very broad concept such as "atheism" that doesn't really mean anything. To ponderate God's "likeliness", however, is as rational as denying / affirming His existance from an empirical, non philosophical or theological standpoint. It's just talking out of your ass, which is pretty much all Dawkings does.
Atheism is ultimately a simple oposition to any kind of organized religion, not a philosophical / rational position, since it doesn't oppose deism, only theism, and it's oposed to define existence outside a purely materialistic newtonian perspective, so it's a closed system that can't be really discused or argued.
Atheism is basically a enormous fallacy based on the idea that God is an empirical proposition that falls under onus probandi, and it's in practice a form of religion itself.
>>71061404
You can. It's just that most self proclaimed atheists drift towards the fedora tipping liberals
>>71058733
I like Molyneux but hate Milo.
>>71053032
Bingo. Atheism does not proscribe ideology, but it does lead to conclusions about the world which lead to certain ideologies
>>71061484
I would see evidence of it. I am not going to believe something without evidence, that's just retarded.
>>71061205
>So you're saying it's entirely possible for invisible unicorns to exist on earth
I didn't say it's "entirely possible", I said it might be possible on the basis that we don't know everything about the universe or how it came about, but according to our current knowledge of the world, invisible unicorns probably do not exist. God might be an invisible unicorn.
The question "Can you prove that invisible unicorns do not exist?" is a valid question. You're making a positive statement of fact, of objective truth. If someone makes a statement such as "Invisible unicorns exist", a valid question would be to say "Can you prove that?".
>But you don't know it will, because you can never know right?
That's true, I might survive if I jump off a cliff. But why should I do it? Evidence suggests I'll probably die. See what I said about self-interest and acting in accordance to knowledge etc.
>That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly, which is why the statement that "Invisible unicorns definitely do not exist" can be dismissed, because you have no evidence proving that invisible unicorns definitely do not exist -- how would you prove that?
there is this more challenging concept of god. its a good read. im not saying you should belive in it. its just a mental exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
>>71053452
>communism is bad
>marx was bad with money
>therefore communism is bad because marx sucked with money
Im sure that's what he said. no wonder why mexico has strong southern borders
>>71061553
Boy it must make your head hurt meeting right wing atheists
>>71054498
There is nothing more pathetic than theists claiming atheists are religious, and thus attempting to bring atheists to their level to frame the discussion into something they have an easier time dealing with. It shows how afraid you're about confronting the total lack of empirical evidence pointing towards the existence of one or more supernatural intelligent creators. Let me remind you that the concept of intelligent creator was created by man, just like any other ludicrous and unproven claims regarding the true nature of the universe were created by man. I don't believe that magical elves created earth, nor that in ten days giant space monsters will come to eat us all. Does my disbelief in those claims make me a subscriber of some sort of belief system?
What I'm trying to convey here is that we can safely dismiss claims with zero backing behind them, unless evidence proving otherwise presents itself. You just have a hard time admitting that the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists are pretty synonymous with agnostics, and that their only "belief" is reliance on empirical evidence rather than blind conjecture, and the reason you're doing this is so you can feel superior about your own belief system by shelving all atheists under the fat fedora tipping meme caricature.
Also this goes a bit beyond what we're currently arguing, but even if we supposed that your "we may never know if anything ever actually exists ;^)" argument had some value, it would still never point towards your own OC donut steel intelligent creator / afterlife / supernatural existing, it would just mean that any and all gods, supernatural things and crazy theories could or could not exists.
>>71062117
yeah i got the meme, you are right thats totally a falacy.
no wonder why mexico has strong southern borders.
good thing Canada has not and im going to visit you soon. you should bring your sister.
>>71057205
>e
not aggreeing with communists and socialist doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make libertarianism or strict social rules ok. I hate community bullshit, I hate fake bonds, i hate fake community morals.
You talk with ABSOLUTES, saying that "you can't be happy without rules and a cluster"
Fuck that. You don't get to tell EVERYONE how they need ot live.
>>71061973
>I didn't say it's "entirely possible", I said it might be possible
That sounds like entirely possible to me.
>The question "Can you prove that invisible unicorns do not exist?" is a valid question.
The only part about it that makes it a valid question is the question mark. Present evidence or fuck off. The burden of proof lies on the accuser.
>But why should I do it? Evidence suggests I'll probably die.
You don't know the evidence is true. We can never know right?
>Exactly, which is why the statement that "Invisible unicorns definitely do not exist" can be dismissed
That wasn't the statement. The statement was "invisible unicorns exist", in which case it's dismissed for not having any evidence supporting it. Stop trying to say people need to prove negatives, there's an infinite number of negatives you need to believe in if that's the case.
Also, notice how you're going in circles?
>unicorns exist
Can't prove it, they don't exist.
>unicorns don't exist
Can't prove it, they might exist.
>unicorns might exist
Can't prove it, they possibly exist.
>unicorns possibly exist
Can't prove it, we don't know if they exist or not.
>we don't know if unicorns exist or not
Not only can we not prove we don't know, it's a completely pointless statement.
>>71050938
>Looks more crazy
>has done a 360
>rants are rantier
>He namecalls a lot even though he's right.
When did we get him, /pol/?
>>71062616
and of course you follow up with a muh dick comment. Classic nigger.
>>71051599
If you wanted athiest to be that you needed to have kicked the lot if argumentative autistic assholes off of the label a couple decades ago. it's too late now.
>>71055349
>He actually states in the video itself that he has made the rational argument for atheism in the video, too.
He also thinks he's solved ethics. In reality he subscribes to watered down utilitarianism.
The moral of this thread is to not take Molyneux seriously.
>>71062602
>What I'm trying to convey here is that we can safely dismiss claims with zero backing behind them, unless evidence proving otherwise presents itself.
Religious ideas themselves does have a very rational basis -- the lack of knowledge of the fundamental answers to the universe. That's the reason religious ideas exist and have existed all throughout history. They have a perfectly rational basis. As long as those questions remain unanswered, the statement that "God definitely exists" is just as rational or irrational as the statement that "God definitely does not exist".
>the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists are pretty synonymous with agnostics, and that their only "belief" is reliance on empirical evidence rather than blind conjecture
You're right. Most "atheists" are in fact agnostics or agnostic atheists -- not pure atheists who make a definite claim of objective truth that "god does not exist".
>Also this goes a bit beyond what we're currently arguing, but even if we supposed that your "we may never know if anything ever actually exists ;^)" argument had some value, it would still never point towards your own OC donut steel intelligent creator / afterlife / supernatural existing, it would just mean that any and all gods, supernatural things and crazy theories could or could not exists.
That's right. And that's true because of the fact that we still have no objective answers to the questions of the existence of the universe etc, existence and so on. Those are the fundamental reasons for the belief in "OC donut steel intelligent creator /afterlife / supernatural things" and so on.
>>71062679
>Also, notice how you're going in circles?
>>unicorns exist
>Can't prove it, they don't exist.
>>unicorns don't exist
>Can't prove it, they might exist.
>>unicorns might exist
>Can't prove it, they possibly exist.
>>unicorns possibly exist
>Can't prove it, we don't know if they exist or not.
>>we don't know if unicorns exist or not
>Not only can we not prove we don't know, it's a completely pointless statement.
thats why debating the existance of the christian god is a fucking waste of time. all atheists should avoid it. this is not a problem. to be clear, if an idea has enough force to make people chose based on that, you should know this idea is powerfull and real. Do not mistake a real idea with a matter. im not saying god exists like a fucking old dude in the sky. What im saying is that it exists in a cultural aspect, its concept is there. and it makes people do stuff based on its reality. Getting back to the unicorn bullshit. if a given culture belived in unicorns and if this magical idea was really important to the tribe people could behave based on its religious morals. atheists cant see this i dont know why its pretty simple.and trying to make them stop beliving it is not effective. so just dont.
>>71062815
hahahahaha we will be family soon leafs. no offense taken. nigger nephews calling you ancle.
>>71062685
The birth of his daughter began the transformation from Molyneux to /pol/yneux.
>>71063257
>religious morals
But you don't need to be religious not to be an asshole, you just need self control.
Some religions bribe you saying if you're moral you get to live eternity in paradise.
Some religions threaten you saying if you're not moral you get to live eternity being tortured.
Some religions do both.
If you need either to act like a decent person doesn't that make you a shitty person?
The golden rules may be from religions (not sure if that's actually the case) but that doesn't mean you need to be religious to believe in them.
>>71062679
>The burden of proof lies on the accuser.
Yes, and don't you see how the statement "Invisible unicorns definitely do not exist" is not an accusing kind of statement? You're making a POSITIVE statement of fact, of objective knowledge -- without being able to prove it.
>You don't know the evidence is true. We can never know right?
Still have no reason to do it. Anyone can present a scenario that someone can act upon -- I'm just gonna act in my self-interest for what I believe to be the best course of action, which is not jumping off a cliff.
>That wasn't the statement. The statement was "invisible unicorns exist", in which case it's dismissed for not having any evidence supporting it.
Correct. It might be dismissed as unlikely because it has no evidence supporting it. It's not impossible though. Is it?
>Also, notice how you're going in circles?
I'm not going in circles. The answer to all those questions is the same.
>Can't prove it, unicorns might exist.
If someone told me that "Unicorns exist" I'd probably tell them "They might, but I don't think they do based on the evidence". What would your answer be? That unicorns "definitely do not exist"? Because that's what you're saying if you answer a blanket "no" to that statement.
>>71064169
FUCKING!
KEK!
Well done, leaf. Well done.
>>71053120
that's just selection bias, you don't think about the other atheists because they don't annoy you with their ideology.
>>71058762
What's wrong with atheists that fit in the first category? I understand why the second one is bad (namely big government leads to waste and abuse of power), but I can't have children and am alright with social justice because I'm trans. Are people supposed to act against their own self-interest?
>>71050938
Srsly is this guy a bond villain?
Has he just captured bond and is now in the explanation phase, is that what's happening in this video?
That or a rapist, lel How do you even talk like that without punching your own face in for being a creep
>>71059823
As an atheist, I refuse to believe that something exists unless presented with evidence that it does. Skepticism is the default position for scientific / rational thinking. The burden of proof is on theists. That being said, claiming to know with 100% certainty that something doesn't exist is just as stupid as claiming to know that it does without evidence.
>>71064357
The golden rules may be from religions (not sure if that's actually the case).
i glad you dont. some of them are good like the christians you shall not kill some of them is a waste of time. like the last one that makes usure a crime. "thy shall not covet", i get it on other peoples wives, but this was extended by getting profit from loans. this was a major setback to the christians in general.
anyways i agree with you. but there are some cases religious people simple follow the bible and dont think twice about it. you show the data, and tell them hey abortions should be legal, and you present the data. and people flip. they dont even try to ague.
>>71065282
I 100% agree with your comment, especially the last part. My opinion though is that you're not actually an "atheist" in the pure sense of the word, but an agnostic atheist -- someone who does not deny the possibility of something existing, but recognizes that without evidence, there is reason not to believe that a god exists.
>>71065282
again. thats fine. i see no problem with that. what you cant do is try to make another people stop beliving in whatever they choose to. its just a waste of time, not pratical and you cant make them change their minds anyways.
>>71064457
>You're making a POSITIVE statement of fact, of objective knowledge -- without being able to prove it.
No. I'm denying the positive statement of "Unicorns exist".
>It's not impossible though. Is it?
Why haven't you prove it's possible then?
Your entire argument hinges on "w-we don't know!!" Then fucking prove that not only is it possible but that it exists, it's not my job to do your arguing for you. If you assert something with no evidence then why the fuck should I say "It's a load of bullshit but I believe it's 100% possible"?
>What would your answer be? That unicorns "definitely do not exist"? Because that's what you're saying if you answer a blanket "no" to that statement.
My answer would be based on the evidence you've provided (a big load of fucking nothing), they don't exist. It's up to them to change that. I'm not going to believe everything is possible like you do and just because negatives are fucking hard to prove. If you present a positive then that's your responsibility to prove it's correct. Also, your answer's a blanket "lol dunno, maybe maybe not" which is fucking worthless.
>>71051599
>It's just the lack of a belief in a deity. It's not a religion, it's not a political movement. It's just the lack of something.
>"LMAO religion AKA Christians are so fucking stupid, they're so ignorant "
>"Religion aka Christianity has held humanity back it needs to be destroyed "
>"Christianity cannot criticize Muslims because Christianity is worst"
>"Religion is so stupid, Christians don't have a heart because they HATE homosexuality and want to ban evolution n school"
*Christianity takes atheist criticisms to heart*
>atheist are shocked westerners aren't becoming rocket scientist in the boatloads
>nerdy atheist are bullied more when good Christians boys throw morals down the toilet and become jocks and hipsters
>nobody gives a fuck about the progress or the sciences but instead self indulged in instinctual pleasures
>Muslims invade as the backbone of the west aka Christianity is destroyed
>whites are being out bred by non-whites
>again atheist are shocked that minorities give zero fucks about exploring space and Muslims aren't nearly as open minded as Christians are
>"maybe Christianity wasn't as bad as i thought it was"
>the handful of scientific minded individual huddle in a corner trying hard to get the new ruling brown / black generations interested in science
>almost all of them integrated liberal ideologies for survival as they need publicity
>>71065767
Yeah, there's no reason to try and convince people to stop believing something unless that belief leads them to harm others. And religion actually helps some people. So long as it isn't destructive and people keep it out of the public sphere (i.e. legislation) I don't have a problem with it.
>>71066100
You're describing reddit-tier antitheism, not atheism m8.
>>71065631
Since we're arguing about definitions
>Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
>In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
>Atheism (derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods, especially officially sanctioned gods") is the absence or rejection of the belief that deities exist.
From 3 sources (really 2, atheists.org (tips fedora), wikipedia atheism, wikipedia history of atheism).
I take it you're arguing atheism is "a belief that there is no God."?
For me it's "a lack of belief in gods".
>>71065795
>No. I'm denying the positive statement of "Unicorns exist".
No, denying it would be to say "Unless you can present evidence for that, I don't believe you". If you go as far as to say "Unicorns definitely 100% do not exist", then you're making a statement without evidence.
>Why haven't you prove it's possible then?
It's POSSIBLE because we don't know the full answer to whether or not something can be invisible and whether an invisible unicorn can exist, for the reason that we don't know the origin of the universe.
>Then fucking prove that not only is it possible but that it exists, it's not my job to do your arguing for you.
I'm not saying it is 100% possible that it can exist, I'm saying that without full knowledge of the workings of the universe, it might be possible for a unicorn to exist, but right now we don't have any direct evidence for it, so I choose not believe in invisible unicorns.
>My answer would be based on the evidence you've provided (a big load of fucking nothing), they don't exist. It's up to them to change that.
So you're open to evidence to the contrary? Thanks for proving me right. If that's your answer, then I fully agree. Would you agree that the issue on your part arises if your answer is "Unicorns definitely 100% do not exist"?
>>71066599
>I take it you're arguing atheism is "a belief that there is no God."?
Yes, that's my position.
>>71063117
>Religious ideas themselves does have a very rational basis -- the lack of knowledge of the fundamental answers to the universe. That's the reason religious ideas exist and have existed all throughout history. They have a perfectly rational basis.
I think you're confusing something here. The core reason why man came up with religions is indeed very "rational", as they were means of trying to cope with the lack of human knowledge or lack of ways to research and explain the cosmic truths of the universe or the reason why anything exists in the first place. Later on they also served another rational and practical purpose in helping form the first large scale hierarchical societies among other things.
However, none of these practical purposes in any way point towards the existence of actual supernatural nor help in divining objective truths. Like I previously said, the idea of God and gods was created by man and has no supporting empirical data whatsoever. Atheism is simply the lack of reliance on those types old *non-rational* superstitions. The reason they're non-rational is because they offer nothing from the perspective of explaining truths of the universe, and on the contrary base themselves on the lack of knowledge. They're just wild guessing. Trying to maintain that old unbacked superstitions are just as valuable ways of perceiving truths about the nature of all creation as scientific method is absurd.
>>71054498
No its not, Jamal you silly nigger.
Being atheist just means that you follow the scientific model, which means that you need to have some proof of a god. Which nobody fucking has.
>>71066797
>Would you agree that the issue on your part arises if your answer is "Unicorns definitely 100% do not exist"?
If you can't change your mind based on evidence you hold an irrational belief.
I don't believe invisible unicorns are real because there is no evidence to think so, I don't believe it's possible for them to exist because there is no evidence to think so. If someone showed me conclusive proof invisible unicorns are real then I would have to change my mind.
Would you agree that it's impossible to prove anything 100% true or false so thinking "we don't know it for a fact so it should never be denied" is ridiculous?
>>71055189
Why do you love an obvious panderer? He just trawls websites like this and then makes a video about the opinions he sees here. He KNOWS his audience. He knew his videos about libetarianism weren't going to be as popular after he's done them to death, so he's riding the tide of the neoreactionary/alt right to stay relevant.
>>71067280
Yeah, I agree with your first paragraph there.
>Like I previously said, the idea of God and gods was created by man and has no supporting empirical data whatsoever.
Partly true. The existence of the universe is one piece of empirical data opening up the possibility of a deity existing -- but it's circumstantial, not direct.
>Atheism is simply the lack of reliance on those types old *non-rational* superstitions.
No, atheism is the position that deities do not exist.
>They're just wild guessing.
That's true. Which is why I don't believe in any particular religious deity, I'm just open to the possibility of higher deities existing, for the simple reason that we do not have answers to the fundamental questions of the universe, of existence and so on. Right now, the strongest circumstantial evidence is the existence of the universe itself, which has not been explained.
>Being atheist just means that you follow the scientific model
Wrong, that's being an agnostic or agnostic atheist.
He is an absolute faggot
>>71057205
top kek on that pic
>>71067843
>I don't believe invisible unicorns are real because there is no evidence to think so, I don't believe it's possible for them to exist because there is no evidence to think so. If someone showed me conclusive proof invisible unicorns are real then I would have to change my mind.
That's exactly my position.
>Would you agree that it's impossible to prove anything 100% true or false so thinking "we don't know it for a fact so it should never be denied" is ridiculous?
To an extent, yes. The "100%" part can never be truly fulfilled, but you have to apply Ockham's Razor to this to be reasonable.
In the case of atheism/theism though, since neither side has convincing evidence to their point ("a god does not exist/a god does exist"), both positions are equally irrational/religious -- the rational position in the case of gods and deities is to say that "they might exist but i'm leaning towards that they don't".
>>71061621
Or that people who are loud about their political ideology (liberals) will also be loud about their philosophical ideology. That's basically what the fedora meme is built on. I only tell people I'm a nonbeliever if they specifically ask... I have a few more liberal views related to science but politically am pretty right-wing.
>>71067993
Looks like we both share many of the same opinions, but are just arguing semantics. Still, my point is that atheism takes no particular stance on the nature of existence itself or the possibility intelligent creator (due to total lack of empirical evidence pointing either way), while your point seems to be that atheism is specifically about denying that any gods can ever exist (to the point of being dogmatic even if contrary evidence presented itself?).
Just googling the word "atheist" comes with plenty of different explanations, some siding with your stance (that atheism is disbelief and denial of gods) and some with mine (lack of belief in gods).
>>71051599
>>71052580
>>71052829
>>71053120
>>71053236
>>71053452
>>71053602
>>71053604
>>71054388
>>71055679
>>71055828
>>71056559
>>71057368
>>71058734
>>71058890
>>71059144
>>71059357
>>71059999
>>71061101
>>71061008
>>71061790
Not an argument.
>>71063367
Do you have 47 chromosomes or something?
Fucking butthurt niggers
