/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17398377]

What is the best book to "understand" atheism? I'm not interested in converting, being talked down to, or blamed for the crimes people committed 500+ years ago.

[Anonymous No.17398392]

"We'll ask what created God and will laugh at the idea of an uncreated 'sky daddy' but we also believe that our universe was spawned from another universe with totally different laws of physics - no this is NOT blatant hypocrisy!"

There, I saved you a good few hours.

[Anonymous No.17398396]

>>17398377
Also Sprach Zarathustra

[Anonymous No.17398407]

>>17398392
Nigga who cares. Believe in your god and let them believe in quantum mechanics or what the fuck ever

[Anonymous No.17398417]

>>17398407
>Nigga who cares
Why even bother posting this? Fuck off and play video games or whatever it is you do.

[Anonymous No.17398431]

>>17398417
Everyone is just trying to make sense of their lives and find a bearable explanation for existence

[Anonymous No.17398569]

>>17398377
What do you want to learn about atheism, the arguments behind it?
Some good atheist literature:
Mackie's The Miracle of Theism
Hume's dialogues on religion
Oppy's arguing about Gods

[Anonymous No.17399220]

>>17398377
The problem is that “atheism” isn’t an ideology, a worldview, a philosophy, or even an idea, it’s just a catch-all for everything that doesn’t include belief in a god or gods.

[Anonymous No.17399262]

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser

[Anonymous No.17399300]

>>17399220
Yet every atheist repeats this same line, I think you guys are more similar than you understand. (Like christians) :)

[Anonymous No.17399713]

>>17398407
God cares anon. God cares

[Anonymous No.17399749]

>christcuck trying to ‘understand’ atheism
>where ‘understanding’ means trying to find dirt
And this lifestyle of pure spite is why nobody like Abrahamists

[Anonymous No.17399773]

>>17398377
I wish I could help you but I can't stand atheists. I was atheist too but then I realized: what the duck do I know? Nothing. How these pop science authors can apply physical principles to a metaphysical matter?
Atheists always blame the Church or "what religion did wrong" without realizing that religion is a set of values. How can you say that the Gospels are "bad" or "evil" or "inaccurate"? These people forget about "exoteric" and "esoteric" meaning too when they say "how can you say that Jesus did *this that is physically impossible"
It's funny that these people label others as "conspiracy theorists" when they say to "wake up", while atheists are the first to tell people to "wake up" based on their personal beliefs (applying physics to metaphysics)
One last thing: this people tell you that religion (not just christianity but islam too) is bad while they are, morally speaking, scums (see P*inker who went to the E*stein island) and they just want morality that comes from religion to be eradicated or because they want you to see people from middle east like terrorist so that they can help the big nosed tribe to conquer their land and power in the middle east.

[Anonymous No.17399822]

>>17399773
*tips mitre*

[Anonymous No.17399916]

>>17398377
Foundations of Complex Systems: Emergence, Information and Prediction

[Anonymous No.17399955]

>>17398431
And a part of finding a bearable explanation for existence is collaboration and discussion of these explanations with other individuals. As it turns out, disposing defunct ideas is a consequence of discourse.

Nigger.

[Anonymous No.17400050]

>>17398377
watch the amazing atheist

[Anonymous No.17400160]

>>17398377
You want to understand atheism? How about that everything happening in the universe is explained by science? Well, not absolutely everything yet, but will soon. The progress is exponential. Just 200 years ago, people could not even imagine about evolution, knew little shit about elementary particles and so on. Explaining natural phenomena in human scale by metaphysical explanation was the easy way and could seem logical too then. If you go further back in time this effect is multiplied. When the bible was written people knew shit about anything. The one thing I literally can not gasp is how in 21st century there religion still exists in developed countries. Really mind blowing

[Anonymous No.17400189]

>>17400160
>How about that everything happening in the universe is explained by science? Well, not absolutely everything yet, but will soon

[Anonymous No.17400198]

>>17398377
You have religion brain, you're never understand disbelief.

[Anonymous No.17400207]

God is not great, how religion poisons everything by Christopher hitchens.

[Anonymous No.17400211]

>>17399773
>One last thing: this people tell you that religion (not just christianity but islam too) is bad while they are, morally speaking, scums (see P*inker who went to the E*stein island) and they just want morality that comes from religion to be eradicated or because they want you to see people from middle east like terrorist so that they can help the big nosed tribe to conquer their land and power in the middle east.
I've heard more coherent arguments from the mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.17400226]

>>17400211
You got to hand it to him though, it’s a pretty nice combo of ‘atheists just wanna sin’ and ‘Jesus was actual an Aryan-EVROPEAN Nazi-crusader’.

Very cool

[Anonymous No.17400229]

>>17400160
just re-read your post and it's honestly incredible how fucking stupid you are, yet you have this confidence in what youre saying is smart. the amount of self awareness you lack is insane. also this board is +18

[Anonymous No.17400573]

>>17400211
how is it retarded? Again religion is a set of moral values, if you criticize the doctrine you should give me another set of values (that is wrong, this is better). These pop scientists always tell us what's right and what's wrong because muh science but what are their moral values? Hans Jonas wrote a book about ethic and science, you guys should check it out.
Same thing with islam: they criticize it without understanding it or with their "western/liberal POV". For example they will tell you how muslim women are exploited and submitted while in the west pornography is permitted.
>>17400226
if you want to have a serious discussion go ahead, don't try to mock me if you haven't anything to say though.

[Anonymous No.17400589]

>>17399773
You’re clearly unfamiliar with Evangelical takes on Israel, those guys are more pro-Israel than atheists

[Anonymous No.17400602]

>>17398377
>"understand" atheism
what's to understand?
atheists don't believe in gods
everything else is down to the individual atheist

[Anonymous No.17400607]

>>17400573
>rants about Jews
>recommends a Hans Jonas book
Top tier bait

[Anonymous No.17400621]

>>17400573
>For example they will tell you how muslim women are exploited and submitted while in the west pornography is permitted.
Imagine being anti-porn and posting on 4chan of all places.

[Anonymous No.17400740]

>>17400189
>>17400229
seriously why did you get offended so much? Please explain me in a few words why I am dumb and you are smarter. Explain me why a materialiastic view of the universe is the dumb way and explaining terms metaphysically with no evidence at all is the smart way. I am 28 by the way.

[Anonymous No.17400747]

>>17399749
t.

[Anonymous No.17401006]

>>17400050
So strange, thought of him just yesterday.. What is he doing now?

Can't unseen the boiling water and banana..

[Anonymous No.17401015]

>>17399220
>The problem is that “atheism” isn’t an ideology, a worldview, a philosophy, or even an idea, it’s just a catch-all for everything that doesn’t include belief in a god or gods.
This is a classic atheist cop-out, especially when the vast majority of atheists are materialists with vaguely simular beliefs

[Anonymous No.17401020]

>>17398377
Dear Muslima

[Anonymous No.17401066]

>>17400740
If you knew what metaphysics was you would know science will never answer its questions. Science is knowing a rock falls to earth at 9.8m/s/s. Metaphysics is asking: why does the rock continue to exist as a rock through time and not transform into some other thing, from a banana to a human heart to empty air. Why is gravity consistent through time. How did this temporal reality come to be at all? 1 + 1 = 2. I know this. Yet there is no possible proof of this. How do I know that which cannot be proven?

Science can’t answer these questions, science is to assume the truth of these questions. We haven’t even gotten into ethics and god and consciousness and the potential immortality of the soul. Come on now

[Anonymous No.17401148]

>>17399300
That’s just what atheism is though.

[Anonymous No.17401161]

>>17401015
Materialism isn’t atheism though. An atheist could be an idealist or a platonist or whatever. Just because that’s the most common metaphysical position that atheists subscribe to doesn’t make it synonymous with atheism (though obviously materialism implies atheism).

[Anonymous No.17401163]

I sincerely wish to know how someone can be an atheist when both metaphysically and anthropologically they are utterly btfo'd. I have no idea how this is possible if not by hating knowledge, hating truth, and this is already enough to put these people below human beings, or by a conscious will to be evil. In any case their extermination is more than justified. Kill an atheist. Start it today.

[Anonymous No.17401185]

>>17401015
>especially when the vast majority of atheists are materialists with vaguely simular beliefs
And your data on this is...?

[Anonymous No.17401194]

>>17401163
Can you give me some books that btfo atheism on both of those things? I don’t want to be an atheist anymore.

[Anonymous No.17401210]

Atheism is just common sense. It's like asking why Americans aren't buddhist, and claiming that this entails some specific positioning regarding Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17401311]

>>17401194
>Plato - Complete Works
>Aristotle - Organon // Physics // Metaphysics // Nicomachean Ethics // The Politics
>Marcus Tullius Cicero - On the Republic, On Laws // On Duties // On Ends // On Old Age and Friendship
>Plotinus - The Enneads
>Iamblichus - Arithmetic Theology
>Proclus - Elements of Theology and his other works
>Damascius (any of his works)
>Ancius Boethius - Consolation of Philosophy
>Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History
>St. Augustine - City of God
>Pseudo-Dionysius of Areopagite - Complete Works (Classics of Western Spirituality Print is good)
>John Damascene - The Fount of Knowledge
>Maxiumus the Confessor - Selected Writings
>Hildegard of Bingen - Scivias
>John of Climacus - Ladder of Divine Ascent
>Cloud of Unknowing
>Holmes - Apostolic Fathers
>St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Contra Gentiles // Summa Theologiae
>Dante Aligheri - De Monarchia
>Chretien Troyes - Arthurian Romances
>Meister Eckhart
>Thomas a Kempis - Imitations of Christ
>St. John of the Cross - Dark Night of the Soul
>Catherine of Siena - The Dialogue
>Nicholas of Cusa - Selected Spiritual Writings (Classics of Western Spirituality print)
>Marsilio Ficino - Platonic Theology
>Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet - Discourse on Universal History
>Marquis de Sade’s works
>Giambattista Vico - New Science
>Joseph De Maistre - The Pope // Essay on the Generative Pricniple of Constitutions // St. Petersburg Dialogues (read all of his work)
>Alasdair MacIntyre - After Virtue // Whose Justice? Which Rationality? // Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry
>Charles Taylor - A Secular Age
>Edward Feser - Scholastic Metaphysics
>René Girard - Violence and the Sacred
>E. Michael Jones - Libido Dominandi
>E. Michael Jones - Logos Rising
>William T. Cavanaugh - Myth of Religious Violence
>Wayne J. Hankey Aquinas's Neoplatonism
>Eric Perl - Thinking Being

There are more but I think these will suffice.

[Anonymous No.17401409]

>>17398377
No atheist has yet written a book that explains how they can know anything, how logic and mathematics can be universally true yet not physically existent or justify their morality without god, unfortunately the book doesnt exist because atheism is not something that can be understood beyond emotional hysteria.

[Anonymous No.17401648]

>>17401163
>claims intellectual superiority over atheists
>promotes killing
Probably a troll but still very telling

[Anonymous No.17401662]

>>17401409
Why are theists such incredible copers? I thought you had God on your side, what happened, don’t you trust him in turning everything around?

[Anonymous No.17401673]

>>17398407
>let them believe in quantum mechanics
true brother, if they want to have monkeys as ancestors let them have it. I am human and so has my great great great grand father.

[Anonymous No.17401688]

The first two questions can be answered by science. And I wouldn't rule out the third one being unanswerable.

[Anonymous No.17401711]

>>17401673
>being this bitter about not being a special snowflake created by a wizard
In all honesty, I don’t even like Dawkins or his worldview, but man, does he make christcucks absolutely seethe. I respect him solely based on the fact that he has secured an absolutely rent free space in christcuck’s heads until the end of time

[Anonymous No.17401765]

>>17401648
The atheist has no moral or qualitative ground to uphold any judgement and justification of his own existence. So by his mere existence his existence is denied. Moral dilemmas can only be applied to theists. Marquis de Sade has shown every thing I’m saying in a brilliant esoteric device.

[Anonymous No.17401782]

>>17400747
not an argument

[Anonymous No.17401796]

>>17401765
Ahhh yes, let the butthurt flow through you. Surely you can do better than that, right? Dawkins destroyed your deathcope, after all!

[Anonymous No.17401820]

>>17401782
it seems pretty valid to me

[Anonymous No.17401827]

>>17401765
I exist in a world with other people. I must make decisions on how to interact with that other person. That choice is a value judgement that will have an emotional and qualitative effect on the other party. These series of choices and reactions cause the foundation of my moral system and subsequent fact scenarios create interesting cases on how to apply this developed moral code. I don’t need a god to justify my behavior.

[Anonymous No.17401835]

>>17401711
t. monke

[Anonymous No.17401839]

>>17401820
only to you, you literally proved his point.

[Anonymous No.17401859]

>>17401835
Honestly, I’m willing to bet that Dawkins’ and Marx‘ popularity is mostly based on the seething vitriol they cause within conservatives. It’s truly a sight to behold, I might just by The God Delusion and The Capital solely because of this

[Anonymous No.17401909]

>>17400050
No

[Anonymous No.17402014]

>>17398377
Which atheism? The average person's atheism is
>I can choose between living religiously and not living religiously, and living religiously seems like it would interfere with my hedonism.
and the average person's religiousness is
>Man, it would suck if there was nothing after death.
No books needed to understand either of those.

[Anonymous No.17402028]

>>17401827
>I exist in a world with other people.
This is a metaphysically laden statement. You either accept metaphysics or you are a nihilist (which can be interchangeable with atheist, but nihilists are not hypocrites, they at least avow what they are).

>That choice is a value judgement that will have an emotional and qualitative effect on the other party.
You simply can't have any value, any quality without metaphysics because there is nothing separated from intelligibility itself. Thus, there is no way to escape from metaphysics, even in a purely materialistic, quantitative worldview, because intelligibility will still be implicated.

>I don’t need a god to justify my behavior.
You don't need anything because your existence is completely null with your own avowal (not that this avowal is direct and sincere, you are coping hard with a speech loaded with metaphysical determinations veiled in sentimentalism).

[Anonymous No.17402040]

>>17401796
See how the nihilist can't utter anything of substance. This is the nature of your existence: a complete nullity.

[Anonymous No.17402055]

>>17402028
>You either accept metaphysics or you are a nihilist
False dichotomy
>You simply can't have any value, any quality without metaphysics because there is nothing separated from intelligibility itself.
Absolute non-sequitur
>You don't need anything because your existence is completely null with your own avowal
Another non-sequitur
>(not that this avowal is direct and sincere, you are coping hard with a speech loaded with metaphysical determinations veiled in sentimentalism).
Armchair pathologizing

From all of this I can safely conclude that you’re an immense retard

[Anonymous No.17402068]

>>17402040
I’m in no way a nihilist, though I’m sure that to you ‘nihilist’ is ‘anyone who disagrees with me’.

[Anonymous No.17402080]

introduction to logic?

[Anonymous No.17402103]

>>17402014
>>17402028
>>17402055
Stop writing like a retard

[Anonymous No.17402124]

>>17402103
recent arrival?

[Anonymous No.17402155]

>>17401839
nah you're being foolish now

[Anonymous No.17402158]

>>17402103
Do you know that those are not even from the same person?

[Anonymous No.17402182]

>>17402055
>>17402068
>False dichotomy/to you ‘nihilist’ is ‘anyone who disagrees with me’
Metaphysics implies the necessity and primacy of intelligibility (ontology) while nihilism is negation of reality itself, therefore it is the antithesis of the former. Simple.

>>17402055
>Absolute non-sequitur
Then say something against what I said instead of going with your logical horoscope. The fact that you don't understand how value and quality implicates intelligibility makes it clear you have no idea what metaphysics is and that you employ fallacy deductions at random.

>Another non-sequitur
Another case where I doubt if you are either a literal subhuman retard or just dishonest. Denying what gives anything reality and understanding/intelligibility is to deny everything including needs and one's existence.

>Armchair pathologizing
Just proving my point.

From all of this I can safely reiterate what I posted provocatively about killing atheists. You offer the justification of your own murder.

[Anonymous No.17402188]

>>17402155
here's your (you)

[Anonymous No.17402190]

Reminder there are muslims on this board, and they are responsible for threads like these.

[Anonymous No.17402244]

>>17402182
>Metaphysics implies the necessity and primacy of intelligibility (ontology) while nihilism is negation of reality itself, therefore it is the antithesis of the former. Simple.
Yep, and wrong, demonstrated by the word ‘implies’, which itself implies a level of uncertainty, almost like stuff isn’t black or white, or something

>Then say something against what I said instead of going with your logical horoscope.
I don’t have a ‘logical horoscope’, and the buzzwords you use amongst your tradcath e-friends don’t work on me. Intelligibility is, once again, not free from uncertainty, making your pseudointellectual syllogism complete bullshit. Then we have some ad-hominems, some impotent incel rage, and some pseudo macho grandstanding.

I’m afraid I’m going to stick with my conclusion that you’re a giant retard, and at the addendum that you should have sex and the advice that angry religious fundamentalism isn’t considered a source of attraction for the ladies

[Anonymous No.17402256]

>>17398377
https://oodegr.com/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

NIHILISM : The Root of the Revolution
of the Modern Age
by Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose

[Anonymous No.17402261]

>>17402158
>Do you know that those are not even from the same person?
False dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.17402268]

>>17402188
you're an imbecile

[Anonymous No.17402269]

>>17402261
That doesn’t make any sense. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is?

[Anonymous No.17402276]

>>17402268
here's you (you)

[Anonymous No.17402280]

>>17402028
You have all these presuppositions to the relation of ideas that make the most sound of arguments seem obtuse. You are a dilettante and an silly person.

[Anonymous No.17402288]

>>17401662
>Why are theists such incredible copers? I thought you had God on your side, what happened, don’t you trust him in turning everything around?

Why are theists such incredible copers? I thought you had God on your side, what happened, don't you trust him to lift the fork to your mouth and shit the shit out for you? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.17402305]

>>17402244
>buzzwords
>have sex
>tradcath
>incel
You are only proving to me how much of a subhuman you are.

>the word ''implies'' implies a level of uncertainty
Of course someone so dumb as you would also be illiterate. The word conveys subjacency, something hidden (but there). But your own beliefs express better than anything how you can't see and understand things properly.

Your seeing me as an evil religious fundamentalist is just like an ill demented youngster seeing his physician as a sadist torturer. In the sensible world as in the higher world the Law is the same: the remedy for disorder is pain.

[Anonymous No.17402328]

>>17402158
It doesn't matter because all the posts have the same style.

[Anonymous No.17402341]

>>17402328
lack of Reddit spacing?

[Anonymous No.17402353]

>>17402341
Yeah that must be it

[Anonymous No.17402364]

>>17402280
I'm on a chinese anime image board without any intetion to write walls of text to people who don't care about knowledge. Why would I linger on subtleties when direct posts would already make the job here? Anyhow, every idea already presupposes in itself its own meaning and its semantic opposites. I can explain what you did not understand, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.17402424]

>>17402305
>>buzzwords
Yes, buzzwords in the context of a very specific subculture, namely angry young men who became tradcaths because atheism means feminism means my PUA shit doesn’t work on women and they laugh at the idea of fucking a creepy nerd with revenge fantasies and an urge to ‘dominate’ lol.

The rest of it is just more meaningless buzzwords, again very specific to amateur theologians such as yourself who unironically think that reading the Summa once means you're an expert on everything, and that the more philosophy, the more erudition, which is the tradcath version of the fedora creed of the more science, the more intelligence.

Once again, have sex

[Anonymous No.17402428]

>>17401796
You're the one who's butthurt at christianity since you hyperfixate on it the moment the word "god" is brought up

[Anonymous No.17402432]

>>17402424
You really have no clue how the right works.

[Anonymous No.17402450]

>>17402424
>have sex

[Anonymous No.17402451]

>>17402428
I know, very strange in a thread about The God Delusion lol

>>17402432
The fact that you immediately go with ‘the right’, despite that I never mentioned ideology, tells me I do. It’s all just seething: moral decay means I can’t get laid waaaaaah, we need to return to tradition waaaaah, where’s my tradwife waaaaah.

Again, have sex

[Anonymous No.17402454]

>>17402424
>feminism means my PUA shit doesn’t work
lol, feminism is what *makes* PUA shit work

[Anonymous No.17402464]

>>17399300
>Yet every atheist repeats this same line,
Stalin was an atheist, Bakunin was an atheist, Ayn Rand was an atheist, Lovecraft was an atheist, Camus was an atheist, Lucretius was an atheist, George Clooney is an atheist. These people don’t really have anything of substance in common. You might as well talk of “theists” as a homogenous group.

[Anonymous No.17402478]

>>17402454
Yeah, but just for da blacks, right

Holy shit, there should a way to filter /pol/acks from /lit/. You people really don’t anything to this board, or 4chan in general

[Anonymous No.17402487]

>>17402478
>Yeah, but just for da blacks, right
No, pretty much anyone.

[Anonymous No.17402496]

>>17402487
Except angry tradcaths on 4chan

Oh well, I guess it’s God’s will

[Anonymous No.17402500]

>>17402478
>look at all this crazy shit you believe, loser
>I don’t believe any of that
>haha have sex loser

Pottery

[Anonymous No.17402507]

>>17402496
Tradcaths shouldn't be engaging in that sort of lecherous behavior anyway, so good for them.

[Anonymous No.17402518]

>>17402500
I have very good reasons to believe that my assessment is accurate. The black-white thinking and the impotent rage are dead giveaways

[Anonymous No.17402529]

>>17402507
And speaking in the 3rd person isn’t going to tear up your v-card

[Anonymous No.17402581]

>>17402518
>but he believe diffrent than me!! He no deserve good faith argument!!

[Anonymous No.17402780]

>>17402424
>>17402244
>>17402451
>>17402478
You were absolutely btfo and had to resort to literal ''have sex incel'' argument

[Anonymous No.17402819]

>>17402424
>>17402244
>>17402451
>>17402478
> Incel duur hab segs

[Anonymous No.17402900]

Lurking in /lit/ for the past weeks. I could not even imagine before coming here how much are religiousfags seething. It`s like you are on defense 24/7. Like always raging hate against atheists. It may probably be the instinctive feeling that evolution will eventually wipe them out and they have to cope harder, who knows

[Anonymous No.17402907]

>>17399220
The overwhelming majority of human societies and cultures throughout history have been significantly religious in some form. Man is the religious animal. Though you aren’t wrong in the strictest sense, the vast majority of atheists today are only able to maintain a worldview so fundamentally alien to human psychology by virtue of belonging (consciously or unconsciously) to a common, historically-specific philosophical movement.

[Anonymous No.17402909]

>>17402900
When you see the truth lies disgust you

[Anonymous No.17402916]

>>17402909
How is “I don’t believe in a god” a lie?

[Anonymous No.17402928]

>>17402900
It is the very opposite, ignoramus. Without religion and the sacred there would be no human development, no order and all would be immersed in a ceaseless indifferentiated reciprocal violence, if human species managed to survive somehow. To speak solely on lower grounds and not touching on metaphysics. You are on a literature board, start reading, we have posted good recommendations in this thread.

[Anonymous No.17402934]

>>17401311
How many of these did you actually read? I’m guessing as few as zero and as high as 1.5.

[Anonymous No.17402935]

>>17402909
Please enlighten me my Christianic Taliban friend

[Anonymous No.17402941]

>>17402464
All of the people you mentioned were steeped in enlightment brainpoison, with the exception of Lucretius and also possibly Lovecraft. And no opinion of George Clooney’s means anything whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.17402946]

>>17402916
Because everyone knows he's real, you're just lying to yourself and other people.

[Anonymous No.17402954]

>>17402941
So? They don’t share the same outlook; suggesting that Lucretius and George Clooney are part of one coherent group just because neither one believes/believed in a god is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.17402955]

>>17402935
not him but see >>17401311

[Anonymous No.17402958]

>>17402900
>I could not even imagine before coming here how much are religiousfags seething. It`s like you are on defense 24/7. Like always raging hate against atheists.

1. Not religious;
2. Nu-atheists are the ones picking fights most of the time with "sky daddy", "science denier" strawman shit;

> It may probably be the instinctive feeling that evolution will eventually wipe them out
What evolution?
Evolution has long stopped being a factor in the survival of humanity, even if belief in god were somehow detrimental to your ability to adapt.
If you mean intellectual evolution, that's the same logic as "science will render philosophy obsolete" retards, you have to dance around or ignore metaphysics, the existence of something rather than nothing, consciousness, etc.

>>17402916
>How is “I don’t believe in a god” a lie?
Not believing in god isn't a lie, it's the other shit, nihilism, hedonism, materialism, anti-philosophy. All this shitty baggage carried by a fuckton of atheist mentality that we have to offer every bit of intellectual resistance we can to judging by how much of a number it's done on society already, depression, suicide, hedonistic and materialist greedy and degenerate living, ridiculous amounts of power and trust given to globohomo capitalist elite technocrats like Elon Musk, etc; All of it becoming fucking rampant because of the popularization of most philosophies stemming from atheism, materialism and nihilism.

[Anonymous No.17402959]

>>17402946
I don’t know that he’s real. Anyway, how could you know what I know?

[Anonymous No.17402964]

>>17402907
>I... I've read the psychiatric literature and looked at the symbolic record and let me tell you bucko it's quite clear you're playing a dangerous game

[Anonymous No.17402965]

>>17402958
>Not believing in god isn't a lie, it's the other shit, nihilism, hedonism, materialism, anti-philosophy
Oh, okay. I agree with that. I am an atheist, though.

[Anonymous No.17402970]

>>17402934
Out of those 39: 18, but have read other things that touch on authors and books there which I haven't read yet.

[Anonymous No.17402988]

>>17402965
>Oh, okay. I agree with that. I am an atheist, though.
I hope you atleast realize you are a tiny minority as far as atheists are concerned.
There aren't statistics i can give on this because it's such a niche topic unfortunately, but just go to ANY atheist community, and tell them you disagree with all of those 4, just do it, and tell me that the vast majority of these people aren't a combination of those 4.

[Anonymous No.17402990]

This board was better before it turned into open mic night for apologists
>what’s the deal with atheists am I right?

[Anonymous No.17402999]

>>17398377
Are there books to understand theism?

[Anonymous No.17403000]

>>17402988
>I hope you atleast realize you are a tiny minority as far as atheists are concerned.
I haven’t observed that at all. It’s easy to seek out the least attractive members of the out-group and convince yourself that they represent all members of the out-group. To my observation, most atheists who aren’t being pressured by religious people don’t define themselves strongly as atheists or embrace the same philosophies as other people who happen not to believe in gods.

[Anonymous No.17403004]

>>17402990
>>17400747

[Anonymous No.17403029]

>>17403000
Are you saying it is possible to be an atheist and to understand and have knowledge about metaphysics? I beg you to show us how. Because the latter does not lead to the former.

[Anonymous No.17403045]

>>17402954
I wouldn’t argue Lucretius has altogether too much in common with modern western atheists, but then again neither is there much of a philosophical overlap between St. Augustine and Ray Comfort. What I would argue is that the prominence of atheism/irreligiousity in the west can be traced singularly back to the Enlightenment just as much as the prominence of Christianity can be singularly traced back to the ministry of Christ. For this reason, modern atheists by and large share a common cultural and philosophical background whether they’re conscious of it or not, and so it’s perfectly reasonable to speak of a reified western atheism possessing an identity that goes beyond “atheists = { x | x does not believe in God }.”

[Anonymous No.17403046]

>>17398377
>What is the best book to "understand" atheism?
Pic related should give you a pretty good understanding of what atheists as a demographic group think of theism. It gives you little to no insight into actual theism, merely into the creationist prottie spinoffs of Christianity, but if atheism is your topic of choice, Dawkins is on point.
The key elements are materialism/naturalism and detached intellectualism as opposed to phenomenological integrity. Meaning an average atheist will go "the world is matter and math and my mind has acces to the math" as opposed to the theistic take "the world isn't just matter because I don't experience things just as matter, all phenomena need be accounted for, not just those reducible to math"

[Anonymous No.17403049]

>>17402990
>and what’s the deal with airline food? Must have been invented by an atheist to challenge my faith.

>>17403004
>>17400747
Eh, you can find plenty of pictures along the lines of sweatybiblethumperinapolyesthersuit.jpg to go along with fedorayoutubeatheist.jpg too

[Anonymous No.17403056]

>>17402999
I always recommend David Bentley Hart - The Experience of God. He's dancing on the limit between Orthodoxy and heresy, but he's one of the few people to really articulate what the word "God" means at all.

[Anonymous No.17403060]

>>17402970
t. liar

[Anonymous No.17403069]

>>17403000
>To my observation, most atheists who aren’t being pressured by religious people don’t define themselves strongly as atheists
You have to keep in mind that despite the popularity of the claim, stating that those who do not think about or do not have a strong leaning on God are atheists is actually a logical fallacy, mostly used as a cop-out, known as shoe atheism, named this way because by assigning agnostics as "atheists", you also define that shoes, crocodiles, babies, piles of dirt, rats, buildings, etc. are atheists, which is clearly not the case as they can't even process philosophy to hold an opinion, they do not have a "default" stance.

> or embrace the same philosophies as other people who happen not to believe in gods.
All i'm saying is metaphysics and embracing philosophy that isn't nihilistic/hedonistic is a small portion of atheism, the philosophy is inherently leaning towards materialism due to its' formation and popularization by pseuds like Denett, Krauss and Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.17403101]

>>17402935
My god is not the christian God, it’s closer to Spinoza’s, Plato’s, Plotinus’s etc. Pit simply it is the eternal order that cannot not be. The fact that your concept of God is purely Abrahamic shows just how ignorant you are of the fundamental thing God is in every religion. The aforementioned eternal order in the moral and mathematical planes of existence, vis. Mind and matter.

Literally read Plato or Spinoza or Aristotle or the Bhagavad Gita or the Zhuangzi and you’ll be able to think past “hurr Adam and Eve not real.”

[Anonymous No.17403117]

>>17402959
You don’t know other minds are real, you don’t know that your memories are real or correspond to reality, you cannot know your senses in this moment are accurate representing what is real, you don’t know and can’t know any of these things, nobody can, and yet we all take them for granted every day of our lives. God is why we can take for granted these things we cannot prove, he is the eternal order and the reason why all things follow it.

[Anonymous No.17403142]

>>17402970
If you have such a deep understanding of the subject, why’d you just copy and paste a huge list?

[Anonymous No.17403169]

>>17403101
>My god is not the christian God
> it is the eternal order that cannot not be.
So the Christian God then.

[Anonymous No.17403212]

>>17403142
Why would my copying a good and solid list of recommendations invalidate my deep understanding? I made some alterations though.

[Anonymous No.17403219]

>>17403117
you seem so sure about the things you are talking about. How can you know that progress in neuroscience, cognitive science and other sciences about the human conscience and brain will not debunk you in the future? How can you be so sure that there will never be found answers to the questions you stated?

[Anonymous No.17403227]

>>17403101
The christian God is much closer to Plato's and Plotinus's than Spinoza's is to them. Both acknowledge what is fundamental for metaphysics: ontological transcendence and hierarchy. There is nothing like this fundamental metaphysical/ontological element in Spinoza's ''''''metaphysics''''''.

[Anonymous No.17403246]

>>17403169
The vast majority of Christians believe in the wrathful yet benevolent sky man, you "I worship the logos" people are a vanishingly small minority

[Anonymous No.17403260]

>>17403219
If you think science will solve these questions you don’t understand them.

>>17403227
I somewhat disagree because the substance still exists in itself and not only as our perceptions, so it’s a sort of immanent transcendence. Either way I think these distinctions about ontology are splitting hairs, I don’t see how having a creator separate from creation is important to ethics, which is what is of primary concern to humanity. God is a means to that end, and a necessary means so in that sense the end itself.

[Anonymous No.17403265]

>>17403246
See how ignorance about and hatred against Christianity make a supposed ''theist'' to think exactly like an atheist and employ dishonesty out of resentment! You people operate under a common mentality.

[Anonymous No.17403267]

>>17403212
>How can you know that progress in neuroscience, cognitive science and other sciences about the human conscience and brain will not debunk you in the future?
Materialistic and empyricist analysis, consciousness is evidently not a material thing, no matter how much you try to stretch or explain it away like Denett, there is no conceivable non-metaphysics denying way that a rich inner life can stem from merely particles and electricity, other than simply stating "it just does" essentially.

> How can you be so sure that there will never be found answers to the questions you stated?
Science is inherently an analysis of material phenomena, limited by empirical evidence, rendering it incapable of investigating matters such as the origin or lack thereof of reality.

[Anonymous No.17403268]

>>17403169
I don’t believe mythology literally. Nor do I believe in hell or the triune God or the divinity of Christ.

[Anonymous No.17403280]

>>17403268
again doing what stated here >>17403265
>I don't believe in mythology literally
you people are all the same scum

[Anonymous No.17403286]

>>17403265
I fail to see where I was dishonest, hateful, ignorant, or resentful

[Anonymous No.17403288]

>>17403280
Sorry you’re a retard, but a theist retard is better than an atheist retard.

[Anonymous No.17403298]

>>17403280
If anything, you're the one acting like a hateful little shit here

[Anonymous No.17403312]

>>17403280
>you people are all the same scum
Amazing retort there, paragon of justice and reason.

[Anonymous No.17403338]

>>17402909
>Every religious sect in the world
If you think you have found the ultimate answer to existence, you have very certainly been deceived

[Anonymous No.17403341]

>>17403286
>I am not a christian because I don't believe in mythology literally
>I am not a christian because I don't believe in wrathful sky daddy
Dishonesty and ignorance.

>I don't believe in hell.
Ignorance. Duration of hell is debated, but other cultures believed in hell too (platonists did as well, for example). But your lack of understanding the symbolique behind anything in the Bible already shows you understand nothing of religion and the sacred. You apply metaphysical allegory to pagan works but not to the Abrahamic texts.
From your ignorance it is obvious you must hate it out of resentment, otherwise there is no justification for your willing ignorance.

[Anonymous No.17403346]

>>17403046
Do you honestly believe an atheist simply doesn't account for subjective experience? Or perhaps are you making a lazy strawman?

[Anonymous No.17403369]

>>17403346
>Do you honestly believe an atheist simply doesn't account for subjective experience?
Most of them simply toss it asides as some sort of illusion, or an irrelevant detail that somehow doesn't shake up materialism.
Just see Denett and Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17403371]

Listen to this man
https://youtu.be/Xx_ov2NiNo4?t=205

[Anonymous No.17403376]

>>17403341
Explain it to me like I'm retarded, what is hell? If God isn't the personal deity that so many believe in, why would he deal out punishment? Don't just go off on some rant about how I don't understand the "symbolique," actually explain what you believe in.

[Anonymous No.17403381]

>>17403341
Cool. Now do it through argument rather than appeals to authority and ad hominem

[Anonymous No.17403404]

>>17403369
>simply toss it asides as some sort of illusion, or an irrelevant detail that somehow doesn't shake up materialism
One can believe strictly in materialism and still hold values regarding the end product of consciousness that is an emerging property of purely material conditions. If you damage the brain of a person, it changes their personality, memories, disposition ect. Who they are is demonstrably tied to the physical composition of their brain. Your post set up a false dichotomy that atheists only account for things in a mathematical way where as theists account for "all phenomenon" as if there is some phenomenon which is not accounted for in a materialistic worldview. Also, I know others have mentioned this, but a person can be atheist without adhering to materialism.

[Anonymous No.17403406]

>>17403346
I honestly believe what I wrote - that an average atheist will be much more detached from his subjectivity than an average theist. Theistic traditions are literally designed to mediate phenomenology as a whole, it's not like I'm saying atheists are just dumb lol, they just usually don't go the extra steps because they don't have to.

[Anonymous No.17403413]

>>17403406
Man, you can't be "detached from your subjectivity." It's all you have.

[Anonymous No.17403415]

>>17403404
You conflate consciousness with its contents. Materialism doesn't account for consciousness one bit and it only hypothetically accounts for how its content is stored and retrieved.

[Anonymous No.17403419]

>>17403404
consciousness is not the contents of your mind, it is where your mind occurs. The physical and mental are reflections of each other, viz. brain damage does change the mental contents, but you are not those contents, you are the location of those contents. Consciousness is the medium

[Anonymous No.17403420]

>>17398407
I don't care
THEY care and raid my threads all the time.
The relationship isn't fucking reciprocal.

[Anonymous No.17403425]

>>17401006
he's doing a podcast with his brother and friend that's about a new topic every episode
it's the only podcast I watch regularly, I think they're pretty funny

[Anonymous No.17403426]

>>17403413
You can very much be detached from your subjectivity, that's what dissociation disorders and various emotional conditions are all about. You not accounting for ... well ... yourself.

[Anonymous No.17403440]

>>17403419
>Consciousness is the medium
How is this any different than calling it an "emergent property?"

[Anonymous No.17403445]

>>17403415
>>17403419
The brain is not some kind of radio receiver for a soul. What you are asserting is pure fantasy and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Also, if you were to ever take particular drugs, you would know for certain that changes in the physiology of your brain can radically change the perceptions you have of your own "consciousness", which gives evidence that consciousness is entirely a product of the composition of one's brain.

[Anonymous No.17403449]

>>17403404
>One can believe strictly in materialism and still hold values regarding the end product of consciousness that is an emerging property of purely material conditions.
Consciousness is ot the contents as others have said, you're indirectly showing, materialism has to toss asides/ignore the ocurrence of your mind. Calling it an "emerging property" is essentially just giving up and admitting to know nothing about consciousness except that it is related to the brain, even it emerging from the brain is questionable as there is no way to define a line where consciousness ends and starts in terms of brain complexity, leading to a slippery slope towards panpsychism which is downright baseless as far as science and materialism are concerned, rejection of metaphysics simply leaves no room to figure out the why and how of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17403456]

>>17403381
Lol what authority did i appeal to? I pointed to a fact in history of religions. Dont know if you meant strawman, but I just quoted his own strawman fallacy.

[Anonymous No.17403458]

Dawkins is shit. Try Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17403466]

The fun thing about atheism and science bashing is that the alternatives have been stalled in the ditch for millennias and are only sinking deeper.

[Anonymous No.17403467]

>>17403445
Materialist investigation does not provide evidence for non-materialist paradigms??? No way...
Anyway, you're correct in seeing that the 'receiver' theory is beyond the limit of the materialist paradigm, but my claim wasn't about receivers. My claim was that you conflate consciousness with its contents. Such as conflating consciousness itself with the perceptions that make it into your consciousness on drugs. They are two separate topics.

[Anonymous No.17403468]

>>17403440
It is not necessarily emergent. Think of a light shining against a wall. you poke a hole in the wall and the light shines through. The light is not emergent from the hole, the hole is a physical form that allows the light to shine. Consciousness is a light fundamental to reality, it is not less than matter but more than it

[Anonymous No.17403473]

>>17403449
>admitting to know nothing about consciousness
We don't know everything about the brain and consciousness, I will affirm that. However, you demonstrate the fault of theists, namely, in the absence of knowledge, when there is a mystery, instead of saying "here is what we know and here is what we don't", you claim to know exactly what is happening and declare it with a certainty which you must know yourself you do not have. This is a trait of theists going back to the origin of the concept itself, simply overlaying a mystery with whatever concept either makes sense to you or is comforting. Quite frankly, it's childish to have the inability to just accept limitations of current knowledge instead of pretending to have the ultimate answer.

[Anonymous No.17403477]

>>17403445
See >>17403468
matter is not a receiver but a medium through which consciousness flows depending on its form

[Anonymous No.17403482]

>>17403467
Define what you mean by consciousness, because as it stands, what you are saying is utterly devoid of contents.

[Anonymous No.17403484]

Consciousness is to the brain what music is to an instrument.

[Anonymous No.17403485]

>>17403466
>the ultimate unchanging truths haven't changed
whoa...

[Anonymous No.17403488]

>>17403468
>Consciousness is a light fundamental to reality
What has led you to believe this? Consciousness requires a huge amount of biology to even exist, if by "fundamental to reality" you mean it exists in reality, then it is a tautology, if you mean it exists somehow apart from biological life, then you are claiming things you can't even begin to provide evidence for

[Anonymous No.17403492]

>>17403484
An instrument require a player to make music. The brain is the player to begin with.

[Anonymous No.17403495]

>>17403445
>Also, if you were to ever take particular drugs, you would know for certain that changes in the physiology of your brain can radically change the perceptions you have of your own "consciousness", which gives evidence that consciousness is entirely a product of the composition of one's brain.
Well, no shit everything you experience and are is constantly affecting your consciousness, or we would not be able to experience anything, still tossing asides any kind of explanation of the metaphysical absurdity of particles and electricity "emerging" a rich inner life themselves alone, and the arbitrarity of trying to find a line where consciousness starts and ends in terms of brain complexity, AND why brains specifically originate consciousness, why not all other complex systems? It's simply a slippery slope to panpsychism which suffers from having no scientific basis AND loads of philosophical problems such as the Problem of Division.
>>17403473
>We don't know everything about the brain and consciousness, I will affirm that. However, you demonstrate the fault of theists, namely, in the absence of knowledge, when there is a mystery, instead of saying "here is what we know and here is what we don't", you claim to know exactly what is happening and declare it with a certainty which you must know yourself you do not have. This is a trait of theists going back to the origin of the concept itself, simply overlaying a mystery with whatever concept either makes sense to you or is comforting. Quite frankly, it's childish to have the inability to just accept limitations of current knowledge instead of pretending to have the ultimate answer.
I didn't do any of that, never did i claim that souls are necessarily the explanation, merely that metaphysics should not be tossed asides.

[Anonymous No.17403503]

>>17403482
I'm not sure where I'm losing you. Consciousness is the experiential field within which experiences occur, it's the platform for experiences to appear and disappear. Consciousness itself is not the sum of experiences it contained, just like a vase is not the sum of water it contains or a CD is not just the sum of porn that's on it.

[Anonymous No.17403507]

>>17403488
>>Consciousness is a light fundamental to reality
>What has led you to believe this?
Not him, but everything I know is mediated by consciousness. Even the fact that matter exists at all is derived from consciousness. Count in the fact that my body itself proves that consciousness controls the body and voila - you are completely justified in seeing consciousness as fundamental to reality. The only thing there really is to object is a dogmatic insistence on materialism.

[Anonymous No.17403508]

>>17403488
>Consciousness requires a huge amount of biology to even exist
Fallaciously assuming that science can conclude consciousness is simply a product of advanced biology when there is no empirical and materialist way to demonstrate an exclusive tie between consciousness and brain wiring, one that does not collapse into panpsychism as >>17403495 it would be far more logical that consciousness be emergent in all complex systems, thus leading to a need for an explanation for this emergence, which leads to all matter being conscious which is a completely unscientific and extremely philosophically problematic can of worms. Whereas God is merely unempirical.

[Anonymous No.17403509]

>>17403488
Consciousness requiring biology is an unprovable assertion. Rocks could be conscious; its not intuitive but it could be. Consciousness is fundamentally different than biology because they are different substances. Not even though, I take the point of view that mind and matter are both parallel expressions of a single substance, and that consciousness is that substance.
that makes far more sense than matter existing, because fundamentally all you know exists is your own consciousness. You already make huge leaps of logic saying that consciousness requires biology when you cannot know that at all.

[Anonymous No.17403510]

>>17403495
Metaphysics should be tossed aside, as we already have a conception of "complex systems", as you say, which fulfills that role. If you find matter and energy to be insufficient for consciousness, you are falling victim to the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. It makes no sense what so ever to invent a whole category of metaphysics when it does not appear necessary for the operation of matter and energy that we observe.

[Anonymous No.17403513]

>>17403507
based guy who gets it.

[Anonymous No.17403514]

>>17403503
The framework of the brain also provides the platform. Why do you seem to think it doesn't?

[Anonymous No.17403527]

>>17403508
I should have said "all consciousness we have ever observed has been the product of biology, and by the very definition we have for the concept, requires some degree of complex organization" would that have sufficed?

[Anonymous No.17403529]

>>17403514
Matter(brain) is the hardware, mind(experiences) is the software, consciousness is the electricity.

[Anonymous No.17403535]

>>17403514
You claim so because you conflate consciousness with its contents. You did prove time and time again, that you can affect the CONTENTS of consciousness (memories, thoughts, emotions) by affecting the brain. How brain is related to consciousness really, you can only guess. And since your materialist paradigm only allows for one option, you are very confident in your guess, but it is a guess nevertheless. You cannot demonstrate that brain produces consciousness. You can only demonstrate that it affects its contents.

[Anonymous No.17403539]

>>17402999
Fear and Trembling

[Anonymous No.17403556]

>>17403507
Your consciousness exists in a preformed way to interact with an "outside" world. The fact that you typed out a reply proves you also accept this premise, so to philosophize about a kind of solipsistic reality where the only thing that exists is consciousness is refuted by your own action.

[Anonymous No.17403559]

>>17403510
>Metaphysics should be tossed aside, as we already have a conception of "complex systems", as you say, which fulfills that role.
Way to completely miss the point, you're failing to realize the point i made about any "complex system" explanation collapsing into a very scientifically and philosophically problematic panpsychism.

>If you find matter and energy to be insufficient for consciousness, you are falling victim to the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.
Fallacious, baseless ad hominem, presuming that we have no arguments as to why matter and energy are insufficient. Again, read.

> It makes no sense what so ever to invent a whole category of metaphysics when it does not appear necessary for the operation of matter and energy that we observe.
We are not "Inventing" metaphysics, you're displaying great ignorance to think this branch of philosophy is something simply made up in a reactionary manner by theists, when if anything it is only with recent nu-atheism antiphilosophical materialism that metaphysics has began to be rejected by any prominent figures. You're also conflating consciousness with its' contents if you think we're using metaphysics to understand "the operation of matter and energy".

[Anonymous No.17403566]

>>17403556
>solipsistic reality
It's not solipsistic at all, you are real, this computer is real, the proposition is that consciousness is fundamental to reality, not that everything is just my mind and that's it.

[Anonymous No.17403571]

>>17403529
Experience is the interaction of the brain with stimuli which forms memories that we know are stored in the brain. Electricity is also a facet of the materialistic makeup of the brain.
>>17403535
I have said before consciousness is still mysterious to us, as many other things have been and many others continue to be. I only hold that there is no reason whatsoever to invent an entire field of metaphysics which cannot be demonstrated, and doesn't appear to be needed to based on what we can observe

[Anonymous No.17403574]

>>17403535
How is consciousness different from its contents? Is a being with memories and so on that is not conscious possible?

[Anonymous No.17403576]

>>17403527
>"all consciousness we have ever observed has been the product of biology
Fallacious, all consciousness you have ever observed was your own, observing is worthless for understanding consciousness because it is inherently empirically undeterminable except for your own.

> and by the very definition we have for the concept, requires some degree of complex organization"
Also baseless as the only thing we have ever observed, by definition, to have consciousness, is humans.
There is absolutely 0 way for us to determine the line of system complexity where consciousness starts or ends if we reject metaphysics, you cannot know how it's like to be a bat as a human, even if you transform into one, because you cannot be both a bat and a human at the same time, infact, it's impossible for us to determine if there even IS such a line.

[Anonymous No.17403586]

>>17401673
>>17401711
Pretty retarded argument, even early Christians (and Jews before them) thought of Genesis as allegorical. You're not supposed to read it as if it's a science textbook.
>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[Anonymous No.17403591]

>>17403559
>you're displaying great ignorance
And you accused me of ad hom in this post, the sweet irony. Also, you can't just redefine everything observable as "contents" and then hold that the structure of consciousness is something else. You're just in fantasy land at that point.

[Anonymous No.17403592]

>>17403574
>How is consciousness different from its contents? Is a being with memories and so on that is not conscious possible?
We simply do not know this, because again, consciousness is not empirically, and thus not scientifically, observable.

>>17403571
Read the stuff above.

It's not a matter of our science not being advanced. Science, being empirical in its' observations, is just INTRINSICALLY at a loss when it comes to consciousness, a phenomenon only detectable and understandable by the very being that experiences it, from inside. No amount of advancements in neuroscience and genome editing will allow you to be both a bat and a human at the same time. Or a dog and a human at the same time. Or a rock and a human at the same time. Look up "you cannot know how it is to be a bat"

[Anonymous No.17403599]

>>17403574
>How is consciousness different from its contents?
Did you ever consciously think about a mathematical problem? That was a thought. You don't have that thought in your consciousness now. Yet you are conscious. It doesn't get any more self-explanatory than that: thoughts come and go, memories come and go, emotions come and go, yet you still have consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17403601]

>>17403566
>consciousness is fundamental to reality
Do you mean to say without consciousness, nothing else exists? What do you mean by "fundamental to reality"?

[Anonymous No.17403607]

>>17403571
It was an analogy mate. The point is that mental phenomena like emotions, thoughts, things from the 5 senses, none of these are consciousness they are the place where those phenomena occur. You don't seem to get it. Consciousness is not a positive thing so much a void that holds things.

[Anonymous No.17403609]

>>17403591
>And you accused me of ad hom in this post, the sweet irony.
Strawman, reply to the rest of the post.

> Also, you can't just redefine everything observable as "contents" and then hold that the structure of consciousness is something else. You're just in fantasy land at that point.
Yes i can, you can observe the electricity and chemicals in my brain, but you cannot observe my CONSCIOUSNESS, without being me, being the exact being i am. And even then it is only observable internally.

[Anonymous No.17403615]

>>17403420
Yeah how shitty would it be for someone to show up in your spaces and start trying to change your ideas or religion. That would be a real dick move to proselytize unsolicited.

[Anonymous No.17403616]

>>17403586
How do we know what parts of bible are allegorical and which aren't

[Anonymous No.17403626]

>>17403616
by using your brain

[Anonymous No.17403629]

>>17403601
Yes, that is what I mean. Like movement and matter are fundamental to reality, so is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17403630]

>>17403576
>all consciousness you have ever observed was your own
By this reasoning, you reject the very concept of learning through observation and resign yourself to never accumulating knowledge. You state it is "empirically undeterminable", but how could you know that? At best, by your own reasoning, you would only know that is true for YOUR consciousness. Also, in regard to a "line" between consciousness and not, that is a fallacy. Is a single molecule of water, "wet" or does "wetness" arise with a certain accumulation of water molecules? This can emerge as properties without needing a specific line to delineate the precise moment, as there just needs to be demonstrated a connection between the traits of the thing and the property emerging.

[Anonymous No.17403643]

>>17403592
>consciousness is not empirically
How did you determine that? And if so you believe this, why would a person not have license to make up whatever they wanted about it since it is cut off from investigation?

[Anonymous No.17403654]

>>17403607
>Consciousness is not a positive thing so much a void that holds things.
I definitely don't get what you're trying to say. Why do you find the material structure of the senses in combination with the structure of the brain insufficient for the phenomenon of consciousness to emerge from?

[Anonymous No.17403658]

>>17403626
I can pick and choose :^)

[Anonymous No.17403663]

>>17403630
>At best, by your own reasoning, you would only know that is true for YOUR consciousness.

Correct. Both his assertion that you only know your consciousness, and your assertion that that means we cannot know things. This is why God must exist. We know things because God has created our bodies and minds such that they process reality as it actually is, which allows us to come to know things.

[Anonymous No.17403669]

>>17403643
Not him, but it sounds like you're asking "what's the use in knowing my mind if nobody else can measure it". As if life wasn't worth living, had it not been for scientific inquiry.

[Anonymous No.17403674]

JL Mackie is probably the best bet. The Miracle of Theism would be the place to start. The New Atheists are a bunch of retards and should be avoided

[Anonymous No.17403676]

>>17403609
I can't observe your subjective experiences, but I can observe them arising from a material structure. Why do you think there is something more than that which creates the subjective experience which you experience?

[Anonymous No.17403677]

>>17403654
As the other anon stated above, mental phenomena flow. You are in water, you feel it and see it, you get out and dry yourself off and you are now dry and looking at something else. Those are mental phenomena flowing through consciousness. Consciousness is the wall that the movie is projected on, the projector is our material bodies and the movie is our mental phenomena as processed by our material bodies.

[Anonymous No.17403678]

>>17403658
This sounds like you think you'd fuck someone over besides yourself. Which you wouldn't. It's all on you lol

[Anonymous No.17403688]

>>17403629
I am firmly in the camp that if a tree falls in the forest, it does make a sound, even if no one is there to hear it.

[Anonymous No.17403690]

>>17399220
Depends. Thats why the term New Atheism exists. It encompasses a worldview of scientism and logical positivsm

[Anonymous No.17403706]

>>17403663
So you just assert your own preferred explanation instead of exploring any further? God did not create our bodies, the process of evolution did.

[Anonymous No.17403711]

>>17399749
>he says in a spiteful post

[Anonymous No.17403713]

>>17403630

>By this reasoning, you reject the very concept of learning through observation and resign yourself to never accumulating knowledge. You state it is "empirically undeterminable", but how could you know that?
You cannot know what it's like to be a bat.

> At best, by your own reasoning, you would only know that is true for YOUR consciousness.
I was not arguing for solipsism, i am simply pointing out that pure empiricism is HIGHLY insufficient, it's only be reason you can argue against solipsism.

>Also, in regard to a "line" between consciousness and not, that is a fallacy. Is a single molecule of water, "wet" or does "wetness" arise with a certain accumulation of water molecules?
Shit tier comparison, a water particle and a large amount of water particles are homogenous in all properties except quantity, so the particle is wet as well. A particle, or an animal brain, are not homogenous in the slightest to a human brain.

>>17403643
>How did you determine that? And if so you believe this, why would a person not have license to make up whatever they wanted about it since it is cut off from investigation?
> what is philosophy

> This can emerge as properties without needing a specific line to delineate the precise moment
This ontop of being unscientific has no philosophical basis provided, therefore no basis that you can have any certainty there "is no line"

> as there just needs to be demonstrated a connection between the traits of the thing and the property emerging.
as there just needs to be demonstrated a connection between the traits of the thing and the property emerging.

> but I can observe them arising from a material structure.
You can't even observe that i'm conscious, you merely deduce it by reason, not by empirical evidence, no matter how much you try to deny. Atleast admit it, contrary to what you believe, reason is not inferior to empirical evidence, just accept both, it's not that hard.

[Anonymous No.17403723]

>>17403669
What's the point in bemoaning the fact that no one can know another's subjective experience, instead of realizing you can get to know someone else's experience at least in some way by listening to them and observing them? It is precisely because life is so worth living that we should try to learn all the truth we can about it, and try to avoid believing false things about it.

[Anonymous No.17403728]

>>17403713
>it's only be reason
*it's only by reason

> as there just needs to be demonstrated a connection between the traits of the thing and the property emerging.

Oops, i dint mean to put that there twice, i meant to put it just above
>> but I can observe them arising from a material structure.

[Anonymous No.17403735]

>>17403688
Sound is a secondary quality. Waves in particles are only waves in particles until perceived as sound. Sound is purely a subjective experience

[Anonymous No.17403736]

>>17403688
I am too. Seeing consciousness as metaphysically fundamental is not equal to solipsism. Matter and energy obviously exist and (though they may exchange forms) they are irreducible to anything else. I simply add consciousness to this short list of irreducible facts.

[Anonymous No.17403740]

>>17403616
You're supposed to read the Bible with the intent of the author in mind and what it tells you about God's plan. The main takeaway from Genesis is that God created heaven and earth and made men into his image. Men and Women are meant to become a single unit through marriage. We are called to commune with Him but we sin and become separated from Him. You shouldn't feel envy from those that are apparently more favored from God, etc.

[Anonymous No.17403741]

>>17403706
you don't seem to understand that if you were being completely intellectually honest in your denial of God, you would have to deny also reason, your capacity to know 1 + 1 = 2, your capacity to know that the universe is consistent over time (i.e. that the laws of physics don't and won't change). here again, God is an eternal order, not yahweh or anything like that. But the eternal order is not empirical. You see where I'm going? You refuse to believe in God and then take for granted everything that only exists if God exists. If you understand what God really is you realize His existence is self evident in the ordered nature of our perceptions

[Anonymous No.17403742]

>>17403677
>the projector is our material bodies and the movie is our mental phenomena as processed by our material bodies.
Again, why do you think the material body and brain is insufficient to be the basis of both of these?

[Anonymous No.17403752]

>>17403723
He wasn't bemoaning anything, the argument was that consciousness is not a reducible phenomenon (which is correct) and so when the average atheist tries to just grasp everything intellectually, he's not integrating his subjectivity well.

[Anonymous No.17403754]

>>17403735
waves in particles still exist regardless if someone is there to perceive them, we only identify the sound when it reaches out ears. your kind of logic is like a child when they haven't even developed object permanence yet.

[Anonymous No.17403761]

>>17403713
You have missed all of my points and decide to make a bizarre one at the end as if I do not accept reason? "Wetness" is a property we assign based on what we observe about collections of water molecules. It is a perception we overlay on water. The structure of water exists separate from that perception, and the properties of water are such that what we perceive as "wetness" arises at a certain point. I don't know how much more clearly I can spell this out to you

[Anonymous No.17403762]

>>17403742
It is not up to the skeptic to disprove your claim, but for you to prove that brain and consciousness are causally related. So far we only got that brain and the content of consciousness are related, but that's where we've been stuck for the past 70 years.

[Anonymous No.17403772]

>>17403736
Can you give a definition of consciousness? I apologize if you have already, I am replying to multiple people at once currently

[Anonymous No.17403773]

>>17403754
>we only identify the sound when it reaches out ears
Thus if a tree falls with no one to hear, there is no sound.

[Anonymous No.17403778]

>>17403761
>"Wetness" is a property we assign based on what we observe about collections of water molecules. It is a perception we overlay on water. The structure of water exists separate from that perception, and the properties of water are such that what we perceive as "wetness" arises at a certain point.
That's just semantics on what wetness is, has nothing to do with the discussion at that point.

I was utilizing the definition of wetness as "covered in water" in which case yes, an individual particle could be wet.

[Anonymous No.17403790]

>>17403741
Define "God". If you simply mean the observable universe, then don't use the word "God". Also, I, and many atheists don't "deny" God, we reject the assertion made about him by human beings. Reason, order, and consistency over time do not require a "God", unless you simply mean "the universe" in which case you are simply stating a tautology.

[Anonymous No.17403791]

>>17403773
If you stop looking a tree does it stop existing? If you say yes then it means things still exist outside our perception, if you say no you're saying the universe only exist because we do.

[Anonymous No.17403800]

>>17403772
No problem, my definition is here: >>17403503
>>>Consciousness is the experiential field within which experiences occur

[Anonymous No.17403809]

>>17403752
>consciousness is not a reducible phenomenon
It's an emergent quality produced by composite parts. For some reason people in this thread want to assign it to some metaphysical or nonphysical origin. There is no basis for asserting that, and at best you could hypothesize about it, but again, there's no reason to think the material components aren't enough on their own

[Anonymous No.17403821]

>>17403762
You can't define consciousness as anything other than a platform, which we know the structure of the brain and body provide.

[Anonymous No.17403823]

>>17403790
>Also, I, and many atheists don't "deny" God, we reject the assertion made about him by human beings.
Not him, but holy shit how much can atheists redefine their term to cop-out and try to include as many people as possible, just trying to avoid as much burden of proof as possible.

First of all, agnosticism is not atheism, no shoe atheism.
Second, pantheism is also not atheism.

[Anonymous No.17403825]

>>17403790
Reason, order, and consistency all require the same thing you reject God for- they are not empirical. God has been defined multiple times. You don't get it anon. Read this thread again a few times over the next few days and read Plato. Let it simmer. grasping what we're saying takes time, it hit me like a lightening bolt when I realized God, a self evident eternal order, must exist.

[Anonymous No.17403839]

>>17403800
Does not the platform of experience require a framework? Wouldn't the fundamental part of the universe be what makes up the framework that produces the platform of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.17403846]

>>17403791
Depends who you ask. Theres a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. The argument goes is if a change in perception does not match any real change in the object of perception then that quality is not intrinsic to it but rather a product of perception. For example, if I see a tree very far away, even though it looks small it is still big. Locke would assume that material existence is a necessary quality and thus if I look away, the tree still exists. Things like color and sound are perception based alone and thus are not an intrinsic quality to the tree.
Berkeley of course takes it a step further and says all qualities are secondary qualities and thus exist by act of perception alone. He would argue that the tree exists only so long as God continues to observe it, thus giving it permanence. Whether you side with Locke or Berkeley, the tree does not make a sound when falling if no one is there to hear it, since sound exists only through perception. Otherwise you'd have to argue that there's some little particle or material substance called sound inside of the things heard which then pass on to us.

[Anonymous No.17403851]

>>17403809
>It's an emergent quality produced by composite parts
You can hypothesize that and you can feel very confident in this hypothesis, given that it's the only one that materialism allows. But this was in no way verified and furthermore, since it doesn't match how things seem to be in practice, I do not share this belief.
>There is no basis for asserting that
There is more basis for asserting metaphysical nature of consciousness than there is for what your hypothesis. Namely its apparent irreducibility and the fact it mediates all other metaphysically fundamental elements to us - we know matter through consciousness from the day we're born till the day we die. We don't know consciousness through matter for a second, despite trying for decades.

[Anonymous No.17403859]

>>17403823
It's similar to how theists redefine themselves in arguments when the absurdity of dogma is demonstrated. The average church going theist believes all kinds of dogmatic nonsense, yet apologists hand wave it all away. The burden of proof is on a person making a claim about God, not on the person saying "I reject these claims about God"

[Anonymous No.17403871]

>>17403821
We absolutely do not know this. We hypothesize this because we see how brain correlates with contents on the platform, but the relationship between the brain and the platform remains entirely hypothetical.
>>17403839
>Wouldn't the fundamental part of the universe be what makes up the framework that produces the platform of consciousness?
The argument is that consciousness is itself a fundamental part. Just like there is no 'platform' behind energy and matter (they are themselves a platform), so there is none below consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17403872]

>>17403825
>a self evident eternal order
Why is the universe itself insufficient? Also, I have read Plato, and a lot besides. I understand the tendency to become condescending to those who hold different views from you, anon, but it is something one should try to rise above.

[Anonymous No.17403874]

>>17403859
I love how atheists can only debate against dogmatic believers. Once someone comes in with an abstract philosophical definition of God they are like a fish on dry land. God is at the bottom of the cup mate, read more philosophy

[Anonymous No.17403882]

>>17403851
Our consciousness only exists thanks to a very specific organization of matter, and when that organization is gone, our consciousness is gone. There is no basis for consciousness other than in very specific material conditions that allow it to emerge.

[Anonymous No.17403888]

>>17403872
I'm telling you the honest truth as I see it anon. You don't seem to understand the things we have both been reiterating this entire threat. You don't understand that without God you are left with "I think therefore I am" and nothing else. You don't understand the problems posed by the problem of induction. If you've read Plato and a lot beside I think you just don't get it

[Anonymous No.17403889]

>>17403872
>I have read Plato
>Why is the universe itself insufficient?
Proceed to Aristotle. Not him, not trynna be condescending, but really Aristotle's first mover (at least in the way it was taken by Avicenna) spells out that timespace (aka the universe) couldn't be itself the mover.

[Anonymous No.17403892]

>>17403846
your first problem is putting things into separate categories, sound in itself is a primary quality as it's energy through whatever medium it flows through. since everything is made out of energy that means everything is secondary

[Anonymous No.17403897]

>>17403871
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. A property we only observe with massively complex systems and disappears as soon as those complex systems are damaged is somehow a fundamental aspect of the universe? That's a stretch

[Anonymous No.17403900]

>>17403882
>Our consciousness only exists thanks to a very specific organization of matter
Again, you can hypothesize that ... But this was in no way verified. Just repeating your hypothesis over and over won't prove it.
>when that organization is gone, our consciousness is gone
Neither of us would know.
>There is no basis for consciousness other than in very specific material condition
Again, you just repeated the thing I addressed in the last comment. There is more basis for asserting metaphysical nature of consciousness than there is for what your hypothesis. Namely its apparent irreducibility and the fact it mediates all other metaphysically fundamental elements to us - we know matter through consciousness from the day we're born till the day we die. We don't know consciousness through matter for a second, despite trying for decades.

[Anonymous No.17403907]

>>17403897
You don't know that consciousness disappears. You know when someone dies their body ceases working as it did before. You only experience other people as objects.

[Anonymous No.17403909]

>>17403616
The church can tell us.

[Anonymous No.17403912]

>>17403897
>A property we only observe with massively complex systems
We don't observe it at all, we have no empirical means of inspecting consciousness. Just (drumroll...) its contents.
>Disappears
Neither of us would know.

If it's wishful thinking to not concede to your paradigm and staying true to what daily reality presents itself as, then that's me.

[Anonymous No.17403925]

>>17403874
I used that as an example of what you were alleging about me. As I mentioned before, I understand the tendency to condescend to those who have different views from you, but one should try to rise above that. I have been engaging with abstract philosophical definitions of God in this whole thread, and I appreciate the dialogue. I suspect "God", or the belief in him is largely dependent on a person's mental predisposition, in which case, I don't think "God" as a concept is for me. This is why I engage on the merits of the proposition itself

[Anonymous No.17403926]

>>17403897
> THIS much denying that consciousness cannot be observed empirically
Goddamn

[Anonymous No.17403937]

>>17403888
God doesn't add anything. It's a placeholder, a mystery or void. What's more, it seems the real purpose of it is comfort (against the fear of accepting that it is truly unknown) or as wish fulfillment (that God makes everything alright).

[Anonymous No.17403942]

>>17403859
>It's similar to how theists redefine themselves in arguments when the absurdity of dogma is demonstrated. The average church going theist believes all kinds of dogmatic nonsense, yet apologists hand wave it all away. The burden of proof is on a person making a claim about God, not on the person saying "I reject these claims about God"

> validly point out that atheists constantly redefine their own term alot to weasel out of having to argue anything.

> retorts with equating all theists with religious normies with no philosophical reading.

See
>>17403874

[Anonymous No.17403943]

>>17403892
If a perceived change in quality does not correspond to a real change in the thing observed, then that quality is not intrinsic to the object. A primary quality is one that is intrinsic to the object, such as mass. Thus, just because my perspective is from far away, the size of the tree remains constant. A secondary quality is one that depends on perception alone such as sound. Sound is not a primary quality because there is nothing intrinsic to a thing observed called sound.
>sound in itself is a primary quality as it's energy through whatever medium it flows
Sound is the perception of movement. There is no sound in space thus proving that sound is not an intrinsic property to anything, making it a secondary quality

[Anonymous No.17403945]

>>17403889
I don't think you can apply cause and effect relationship to the beginning of time, since cause and effect already require time. I don't find the first mover to be useful.

[Anonymous No.17403946]

>>17403937
>God
>Comfort against the unknown
As in that God is ... know? Also, how can it not add anything to the picture if it comforts the beholder of the picture?

[Anonymous No.17403950]

>>17403937
>God doesn't add anything. It's a placeholder, a mystery or void.
How

> What's more, it seems the real purpose of it is comfort (against the fear of accepting that it is truly unknown)
It's only unknowable if you reject that philosophy holds weight to begin with

> or as wish fulfillment (that God makes everything alright).
Nobody in this entire thread holds that viewpoint, please get your head out of churches

[Anonymous No.17403955]

>>17403912
So you assert something exists that you cannot prove and then go on to assert properties of it? This is a massive area for error, in fact, you should expect to make errors in such a space.

[Anonymous No.17403962]

>>17403945
Prime Mover is about ontological causality, the conditions and possibilities of anything existing at all.

[Anonymous No.17403969]

>>17403955
>So you assert something exists that you cannot prove
* cannot empirically prove

[Anonymous No.17403970]

>>17403942
What term have I redefined in a weaselly way? Or are you making generalizations about atheists so you feel better about yourself?

[Anonymous No.17403976]

>>17403945
The prime mover argument is irrelevant to time. The fact that aristotle didnt believe there was a beginning of time should be a hint at that

[Anonymous No.17403977]

>>17403955
If you want to challenge my assertion that my consciousness exists, go right ahead. I won't resist. You can woosh away the entire problem of consciousness simply by rejecting consciousness.
>massive area for error
Very much so, that's why I don't buy "our paradigm only leaves us with this one option so that must be it".

[Anonymous No.17403978]

>>17403946
It doesn't add anything to the argument, only comfort to the individual through an illusion

[Anonymous No.17403979]

>>17403945
>I don't think you can apply cause and effect relationship to the beginning of time, since cause and effect already require time. I don't find the first mover to be useful.
What? That is literally the point
That instead of time and space ametaphysically originating themselves it was something else?

>>17403970
>What term have I redefined in a weaselly way? Or are you making generalizations about atheists so you feel better about yourself?
>>>
> Anonymous 01/28/21(Thu)19:08:30 No.17403976▶
>>>17403945
>The prime mover argument is irrelevant to time. The fact that aristotle didnt believe there was a beginning of time should be a hint at that
>>>
> Anonymous 01/28/21(Thu)19:08:36 No.17403977▶
>>>17403955
>If you want to challenge my assertion that my consciousness exists, go right ahead. I won't resist. You can woosh away the entire problem of consciousness simply by rejecting consciousness.
>>massive area for error
>Very much so, that's why I don't buy "our paradigm only leaves us with this one option so that must be it".
The assertion was never about you specifically to begin with, it was about shoe atheism

[Anonymous No.17403983]

>>17403943
sound is literally vibration, which is movement. If you're saying there's no movement in space I got some bad news for you.

[Anonymous No.17403988]

>>17403925
if you engaged with the merits of the proposition you wouldn't have a hangup with the word I used. I could have said "for this conversation, shit will be defined as an eternal unchanging order. Do you believe in shit?" You probably would have preferred that because you seem to have some deep seated hatred for the word. I have this debate often with people in real life as well and they get super hung up on the word God, I don't get why but it is incredibly powerful. Probably because it is a keystone symbol that holds up a more traditional moral outlook that would rock the foundations of their world view. Hard to say. As it is, I use the word God precisely because it has this power.

[Anonymous No.17403992]

>>17403983
Sound is the perception of movement. The act of perception in a necessary condition for the quality of sound

[Anonymous No.17403998]

>>17403978
>It doesn't add anything to the argument
Yes it does, explaining things that empirical evidence alone cannot

> only comfort to the individual through an illusion
Calling something a "cope" or "illusion" without properly retorting the arguments for it is a complete nonargument only used by midwits and edgelords

[Anonymous No.17404003]

>>17403979
>That instead of time and space ametaphysically originating themselves it was something else?
It was something else that did what? Caused them?

[Anonymous No.17404008]

>>17403988
The word has a lot of baggage, yes, obviously so. But I objected because people often use it to smuggle in other premises instead of what the subject at hand is. It's interesting that you assumed the origin was hatred, which is not at all the case

[Anonymous No.17404018]

>>17403998
>Yes it does, explaining things that empirical evidence alone cannot
What do you think it explains that actually advances knowledge in any way whatsoever?

[Anonymous No.17404021]

>>17404018
not him but idk man accounting for the existence of the universe is a prettyyyyy big answer in my book

[Anonymous No.17404026]

>>17403992
Sound isn't the perception of movement, we can perceive it yes but it doesn't make that the only thing that it is. you have to prove to me that things can only move if it's perceived to prove to me that sound can only exist if it's perceived.

[Anonymous No.17404032]

>>17404021
There are many, many religions that "account for the existence of the universe", that doesn't mean any of them advance knowledge

[Anonymous No.17404040]

>>17404026
I already did. If you're still interested in pursuing the argument just research Locke's epistemology. Maybe someone more professional than me can make the point clearer

[Anonymous No.17404046]

>>17404032
This isn't about particular institutions and historical traditions, but about theism. And again, the causality behind the existence of the universe is a prettyyyyy knowlegable answer to posess lol.

[Anonymous No.17404051]

>>17403846
well there is the problem with you theists. You seem to underestimate the progress of science and fail to correlate the writings of philosophers to their era and the common knowledge of that era. What animals perceive as sound is the stimulation of the eardrum by moving air particles in waves whose wave movement originated from a source. For example an explosion of a bomb forces the air particles to move away from ground zero. Animals have sensors that can decode the waves and hear the sound. This is the effect that is all there is. When a bomb explodes somewhere with no animals around to hear the sound it does not mean the effect that causes animals to percieve sound did not happen.

[Anonymous No.17404055]

>>17404040
you have to prove that God is the one observer of the whole universe rather than the universe being able to exist without an observer.

[Anonymous No.17404065]

>>17401311
>try hard undergrad who reads excerpts from difficult works (in translation of course) but can't fully grasp the content and see the assumptions underlying the positions of the authors.

Give arguments from each of these works demonstrating your thesis (page numbers and editions would be helpful). I'd be especially interested in Chretien de Troyes' arguments (perhaps I missed that part of Erec and Enide).

[Anonymous No.17404067]

>>17404046
First, the wide array of "theism" is largely incompatible, and second, asserting you have an answer without anything to support it is just gullibility

[Anonymous No.17404077]

The enlightenment killed millions, athiestic communism killed millions, egoism kills millions. Talking about whatever kills people is futile. What is actually the best for society?

[Anonymous No.17404093]

>>17404003
>It was something else that did what? Caused them?
Yes, an explanation for spacetime
Them originating themselves instead of God originating itself is a false equivallency because space and time are not metaphysical things, and so there is no logical backing that they would be able to do such a thing

[Anonymous No.17404101]

>>17404018
>What do you think it explains that actually advances knowledge in any way whatsoever?
Why is constantly advancing knowledge necessary to explain something? Is morality unexplainable because our knowledge of it does not constantly advance?

[Anonymous No.17404105]

>>17404093
You are locked in a mindset of causality as if it is required for the system of causality to exist. Thinking that the effect of cause and effect requires a cause is a pathway to infinite regression

[Anonymous No.17404109]

>>17404067
I'm pointing out an incoherence in your assessment of the theistic stance and you basically reply with "well Bahavi in south Sri Lanka believe the world stands on a turtle" lmao so what? The theistic answer to the question at hand is pretty clear regardless of particular historical societies adapting them.

[Anonymous No.17404118]

>>17404051
First of all, Locke's epistemology is neither theistic nor theological. An atheist can accept it.
Second, if animals heard it, it made a sound.
Third, the movement of particles is not sound, and to deny the falling tree made a sound is not to deny the particles are moving.
I dont see why Locke is filtering so many people. Its basic philosophy that I figured everyone on /lit/ would be familiar with.

[Anonymous No.17404119]

>>17404101
Our knowledge of morality absolutely does advance

[Anonymous No.17404127]

>>17404119
>knowledge of morality
Whut? Morality is made of verifiable facts now?

[Anonymous No.17404130]

>>17404109
I was pointing out that the processes that compel people to adopt theistic stances are not the pursuit of truth, in fact, they are entirely culturally based.

[Anonymous No.17404168]

>>17404127
Suffering and pleasure are verifiable facts, and the increase or decrease of them are as well.

[Anonymous No.17404181]

>>17404105
>You are locked in a mindset of causality as if it is required for the system of causality to exist.
It evidently does exist in every aspect we can directly observe of reality, i can tell you despise burden of proof, but sorry, this time the burden of proof is on you to prove anything within space of time is external to causality.

> Thinking that the effect of cause and effect requires a cause is a pathway to infinite regression
Or to cut out the paradox, a prime mover, what's so hard to accept about this? We observe all physical things being bound by cause and effect, but if you don't reject metaphysics you don't reject an explanation that lies in something else, avoiding infinite regress.

>>17404119
>Our knowledge of morality absolutely does advance
Since when is morality a science?

[Anonymous No.17404195]

>>17404168
>Suffering and pleasure are verifiable facts, and the increase or decrease of them are as well.

> thinks hedonism is a scientific fact
Absolutely retarded take, but hedonism is not the focus of this conversation so i'll just tell you to read the Pleasure Machine, Experience Machine and Utility Monster.
Even if hedonism was factual we would not be advancing our knowledge of it, since it would be already "factually set".

[Anonymous No.17404199]

>>17404181
>anything within space of time is external to causality.
That's not what I was asserting. Everything in space and time appears to be, I was asserting it's nonsensical to try to apply the concept of cause and effect to say that something caused cause and effect to exist

[Anonymous No.17404222]

>>17404199
>I was asserting it's nonsensical to try to apply the concept of cause and effect to say that something caused cause and effect to exist
Except it isn't, because the only alternative is infinite regress, and neither a prime mover or infinite regress can be empirically known, making this an example of primarily a philosophical matter and not a scientific one.

[Anonymous No.17404229]

>>17404222
Except it is.

Isn't philosophy fun?

[Anonymous No.17404246]

>>17404229
>Except it is.
>Isn't philosophy fun?
You're great at taking the first line out of context to try to strawman my responses, not so much philosophy

[Anonymous No.17404251]

>>17404222
You are holding the position that the system of cause and effect required a cause, but if it required a cause, then it already existed before it existed

[Anonymous No.17404267]

>>17402928

Cope. Some of the greatest thinkers have been atheist. Religious is falsehood.

[Anonymous No.17404286]

>>17404251
>You are holding the position that the system of cause and effect required a cause, but if it required a cause, then it already existed before it existed
"Prime Mover" is often used synonymously with "uncaused cause" for a reason
It's not like the alternative of infinite regress makes any more sense from our mundane perspectives, admittedly regardless of which you find more likely they are both possibilities

>>17404267
>Cope. Some of the greatest thinkers have been atheist. Religious is falsehood.
There have been massive amounts of great thinkers and absolute retards on both sides
There have been massive amounts of crimes from either side

Individuals are pointless to argumentation here

[Anonymous No.17404301]

>>17403117
Not having certain knowledge about noumenal reality does not prevent you from having certain knowledge about how reality appears to you (c.f. Scotus on this). Furthermore, god is not why we take these things for granted. We take them for granted because we perceive a continuity across our experiences (this is a belief not knowledge). You invoke God to ground your belief as though it were knowledge. Others don't want that metaphysical baggage.

>inb4 Scotus is a Christian
I know. But he offers arguments for certain knowledge that does not require divine illumination (contra Henry of Ghent).

[Anonymous No.17404320]

>>17402928
The process of evolution means that cooperation and synergy become successful strategies and collectives of individuals form. Of these collectives, the ones that have the traits resembling fairness become even more successful. Reciprocated violence loses to cooperative alliances, this is why we exist as we do. This is another example of the fact that things arise from purely material elements, yet the incredulous feel the need to attribute it to the metaphysical for no good reason

[Anonymous No.17404321]

>>17404229
>Except it is.
>Isn't philosophy fun?
He unironically asserts baselessly that philosophy is just making shit up as you like in response to a valid criticism of empiricism, when even science was originated by philosophy in the first place

Holy shit the dunning kruger is on full display

[Anonymous No.17404333]

>>17404286
>they are both possibilities
I agree, and it is largely closed off from investigation, so what's the point of discussing it? It just comes down to a matter of personal preference, that is, people project what they want to believe onto it. Exactly like the basis of theology

[Anonymous No.17404342]

>>17404320
>he doesn't know evolution is a metaphysic
ngmi

[Anonymous No.17404350]

I still don't understand what atheists always fall to
>everything can be explained with science logic and reason eventually
When we have already known for a fact that this isn't true? There are inherent limits to all of these things that we as humans cannot overcome.
That's always bothered me and it's why I never went full atheist even in my edgy teen years.

[Anonymous No.17404356]

>>17404333
>I agree, and it is largely closed off from investigation, so what's the point of discussing it?
It's closed off from empirical investigation, we can still logically argue
All it means is that we cannot have total, 100% certainty on any conclusion we reach about it

>It just comes down to a matter of personal preference, that is, people project what they want to believe onto it.

> Exactly like the basis of theology

> just brushes aside an entire field of philosophy by saying "it's your opinion"

[Anonymous No.17404366]

>>17404350
NuAtheists are dumb

[Anonymous No.17404367]

>>17404350
>I still don't understand what atheists always fall to
>>everything can be explained with science logic and reason eventually

No, they fall to:
> everything can be explained with science eventually

That is the real fallacy

Logic and reason *are* able to cover science's weaknesses

[Anonymous No.17404379]

Atheism comes naturally to those that value truth. There's a thousand religions out there, each with a thousand branches, and in unison they spout an absolute cacophony of unfalsifiable, usually patently absurd shit. Why listen? Utilize Occam's razor and Hitchen's razor and realize theres is nothing to gain from humoring their delusions. Just read their seething Nietzsche threads, in which every single one of their posts is blatantly *strategic*, blatantly using discussion/reading/writing not to learn, not to gain truth, but to provide apologia for their religion.

[Anonymous No.17404385]

>>17404350
If you explain things without a reasonable basis, it opens the door to explain it with whatever you personally want, thus it just becomes an exercise in wish fulfillment. If one religion claims one set of non-scientific non-logical non-reasonable assertions and another religion claims another set, the only way to adopt one or the other is through personal preference. Coincidentally, this is why religions tend to adhere to cultural lines. It's not a way to obtain the truth, it's a way to secure tribalism

[Anonymous No.17404393]

>>17404385
Get a load of this retard

[Anonymous No.17404396]

>>17404356
>just brushes aside an entire field of philosophy by saying "it's your opinion"

[Anonymous No.17404422]

>>17404379
Yeah, but muh metaphysics are comfy

[Anonymous No.17404427]

>>17404379
>Atheism comes naturally to those that value truth. There's a thousand religions
Ugh
Every time
Equating theism and religion

>>17404396
Oh wow, you win smartass
Brush asides everything you want that's not empirically verifiable by going "it's your opinion"
You do realize mathematics isn't either right?
Very smart

[Anonymous No.17404449]

>>17404385
>>17404367
But what about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

[Anonymous No.17404461]

>>17404427
Mathematics is a tool whose utility is constantly verified through empiricism. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.17404470]

>>17404379
I really cant tell if this post is satire or sincere

[Anonymous No.17404487]

>>17404470
Post the fedora meme, that'll show him!

[Anonymous No.17404505]

>>17404461
>Mathematics is a tool whose utility is constantly verified through empiricism. What are you talking about?
That does not make it empirical, it is almost entirely defined by a priori and logical appliance, math itself is not defined by sensory experimentation

And if "having your utility verified through empiricism" makes you empirically based, then things which are evidently not empirical, but have utility that can be verified empirically, such as morality (society collapses without it, and it was a key evolutionary trait to allow us to civilize), are also empirically based by this logic

[Anonymous No.17404507]

>>17404449
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Godel simply proves that some things can't be empirically verified, not that some things can't be proved by anything

[Anonymous No.17404531]

>>17404505
If something's sole purpose is to serve an end, and that end can be empirically verified, then yes. Math that cannot be independently verified is functionally useless. Proofs exist because they can be empirically verified

[Anonymous No.17404535]

>>17404507
It's not related to empirics dude. It's a purely abstract logic proof regarding logic systems.

[Anonymous No.17404571]

>>17404505
Do you understand the difference between is and ought? Math regards is, morality regards ought. Morality might make better societies, but 'better societies' is a human preference, an ought. Math proves its applicability by the fact that physical nature bends to its laws.

[Anonymous No.17404585]

>>17404571
I actually think there is an "ought imperative", meaning certain subjective experiences are intrinsically undesirable to the individual experiencing them. Not directly related to the conversation at hand but an idea I've been developing

[Anonymous No.17404592]

>>17404449
Just because we cannot have absolute true foundations, does not make all foundations equal. Rarely do you see the religious stoop to the level of nihilism to defend their delusions. Karl Popper formalized the empirical consequences of Gödels theorem, it is not a program kind to religion.

[Anonymous No.17404702]

>>17404531
>>17404571
All you did was prove that most math is useful, which i know us true, i literally stated so
More abstract math being unapplicable to our lives or science does not make it false

[Anonymous No.17404706]

>>17404507
You don't understand what completeness means. Just stop.

[Anonymous No.17404743]

>>17404702
If something is unverifiable, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it means you have no good reason to treat it as true

[Anonymous No.17404810]

>>17404743
>If something is unverifiable, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it means you have no good reason to treat it as true

So you have no good reason to treat other minds as true

[Anonymous No.17404984]

>>17404810
The existence of minds can be verified to the extent that someone else would be able to verify mine. If you are suggesting that it's possible I have a mind while others are "NPCs" with no such mind, it is possible, but as I've stated, if I were to set up a process to verify my mind, it would also verify that they have minds also

[Anonymous No.17405053]

>>17404984
> it is possible, but as I've stated, if I were to set up a process to verify my mind, it would also verify that they have minds also
The same applies to any mathematical concept which as far as we know cannot be empirically verified
However, it is clear at the moment that consciousness is not empirically verifiable, as it can only be observed from the inside, this is effectively just saying "if this thing which cannot be verified could be verified, it could be verified"

[Anonymous No.17405405]

>>17400740
having a clue about how as time goes and science advances there are more and more unknowns, more unanswered questions, more complex questions. to honestly believe that those unknowns will be answered anytime soon is retarded