/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2885352]

I've got a friend who's an atheist and somewhat anti-religion but she doesn't like Richard Dawkins. She said 'You just have to read Hume.'

I don't know Hume, so what did she mean by that?

[Anonymous No.2885354]

I think she meant you should read Hume. Do it and form your own opinions instead of recycling others'.

[Anonymous No.2885355]

She means Dawkins doesn't explain the actual philosophical arguments against belief in a deity. Hume does.
Also prepare for trolling and a storming of shit.

[Anonymous No.2885361]

>>2885354
Couldn't be bothered, sorry (I'm busy with the Hunger Games)

[Anonymous No.2885362]

she was telling you politely that she's not into 12 year olds who don't do their summer reading on time

[Anonymous No.2885376]

What is he looking at?

[Anonymous No.2885387]

>>2885376
God

[Anonymous No.2885400]

How could you like Richard Dawkins? He's a bully and an ass. His book is an angry rambling about how god is evil but also doesn't exist and about how religious people blow up buildings but atheists are kind hearted and good souls.
This motherfucker has obviously never heard of Sri Lanka when he makes claims like "there are no atheist suicide bombers." He infuriates me with his double standards and his "arguments" are just a lists of convenient facts.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an agnostic, but this guy's book is shit. Your friend wants you to read Hume because he's a real goddamn philosopher. Though he never really did get down the problem of induction.

[sage No.2885404]

Dawkins is a good science writer but a terrible theologian and philosopher who spouts well known and simplistic arguments, and uses them to alienate and divide people. Hume was a brilliant philosopher who created very strong original arguments for not adopting belief in deities, and uses them to argue for shifts in philosophical positions.

[Anonymous No.2885409]

The reason she said that was because Hume lead the way in skepticism via his empiricist nature. Basically, because all knowledge is derived from experience, and because we can't experience "God", there's no way to know him or to actually believe in his existence. While this begs whether or not knowledge is solely based in experience, the idea trumps any pop sci nonsense that Dawkins likes to talk about. Unless you've read other agnostic/atheistic authors or theologians, don't read Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.2885415]

All of Dawkins' vaguely good ideas (including any relating to memetics) are from Hume. Dawkins does seem to have tried to make a career out of skimming a bit of Hume.

[Anonymous No.2885423]

>>2885409
> and because we can't experience "God"

wrong

[Anonymous No.2885430]

>>2885423
Hume doesn't consider miracles "experience."

[Anonymous No.2885431]

>>2885423
now thats what i call edgy.jpeg

[Anonymous No.2885434]

>>2885430
what a scaredy cat

[Anonymous No.2885437]

>>2885430
No, you already have by that point earlier philosophers like Descartes and Locke saying tha we can know God through reasoning, not through experience. Hobbes and Hume are both sceptical about this, but it is not as simple as "I never saw no God" shit-tier arguments.

[Anonymous No.2885440]

>>2885434
>never read hume on miracles
>thinks if he says stuff people have to believe
>thinks all work on epistemology is useless since clearly all you have to do is say things for them to be considered knowledge

[Anonymous No.2885442]

>>2885423
Yeah, crack will let you experience god.

[Anonymous No.2885447]

>>2885409

woah there, but there isn't any experience that would confirm the nonexistence of God either.

[Anonymous No.2885451]

>>2885442
Tell me, now that summer is about to finish up, are you looking forward to your sophomore year of high school?

[Anonymous No.2885459]

>>2885451
So funny man.

[Anonymous No.2885464]

>>2885437
errr... no. Not quite "never saw no God" idea. Granted, this was when soceity didn't have a full understanding of the senses but Descartes proofs of God are based on circular logic (granted it's well hidden and I don't think he knew it.) and Locke also was an empiricist. The idea Hume was trying to suggest was that if all that is available for you to understand the world is your senses, then that must mean that all knowledge is based in the experience of said senses. So,on the matter of experiencing god is concerned, it's basically the same idea as to how a blind person who was born blind could never truly understand and know the color red, because they have never perceived or experienced it. While we could try and use words often associated with red like "powerful", "hot", or "angry." None of these take the place of experiencing red.
>>2885447
Right. Which is why Hume never explicitly said, I don't believe God exists. However, the idea being, its impossible to know God because we can never experience him. It's more agnostic in nature but for the time period it was pretty CHECKMATE THEISTS even though Hume was actually a respectable scholar who composed arguments based off of the ideas of his peers rather than compiling a book of previous authors' works and pointing to that whilst saying "Dis Why God Not Reel!"

[Anonymous No.2885476]

>>2885459
No, I'm genuinely concerned with your education during this formative time of your life.

[Anonymous No.2885478]

>>2885464
>but Descartes proofs of God are based on circular logic
No they're not. God as the infinite "unmovable mover" is perfectly valid and follows from the Cartesian apparatus. This wasn't criticised by Hobbes or Hume. It's when Descartes starts saying things like "God loves me so I can have confidence in my senses" is where it falls down, because a finite being cannot know or understand the attributes of the infinite being. This is what Hume's blind guy arguing relates to, to people trying to say more than "QED unmovable mover".

[Anonymous No.2885480]

>>2885464

thanks , just wanted to clarify the flip side of the skeptic approach towards God for those who are new to the idea!

[Anonymous No.2885496]

>>2885476
>thinks maturity comes with age

[Anonymous No.2885497]

>>2885476
lol did I really ruffle your feathers enough with, "Yeah, crack will let you experience god" to warrant responding? You shouldn't let people know how easy it is to get under your skin.

[Anonymous No.2885513]

>>2885497
hur rhurhuhr. never sell yourself too cheaply hurrrr

[Anonymous No.2885514]

>>2885497
Not rustled, just disappoint with your lack of insight.

[Anonymous No.2885553]

Is /lit/ the most religious board on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.2885555]

>>2885553
Yes.

[Anonymous No.2885562]

>>2885555
Are we hopeless romantics?

[Anonymous No.2885563]

>>2885513
Profound. Really.

[Anonymous No.2885566]

>>2885562
No, hipsters.

[Anonymous No.2885579]

>>2885566
Is it now hipsterish to believe in God? Who would have thunk it

[Anonymous No.2885582]

I believe in God, ironically

[Anonymous No.2885593]

I'm guessing it's just a simple 'people on the internet are more atheist', while being into literature and philosophy gives the tools to attain a faith that's well grounded in thought and thus resistant to the less than challenging attacks of Dawkins and every kid channeling him.

[Anonymous No.2885600]

>>2885579
anything can be hipsteresque as long as the predominant characteristic of the social circle is the opposite

i thought this was obvious.

[Keys !KeYODicKSY No.2885604]

>>2885579
People are just trying to remove themselves from reddit atheists, when in reality they should just be agnostic apatheists and move on from life.

[Keys !KeYODicKSY No.2885606]

>>2885604
---from life

time to sleep really i'm all over the place

[Anonymous No.2885615]

I believe in God unironically.

[Anonymous No.2885643]

>>2885604
>they should just be agnostic apatheists
>you should be like me!!!
fuck off m8.

[Anonymous No.2885887]

>>2885400
>implying being agnostic isn´t a kind of atheism

[Anonymous No.2885933]

>>2885409
>all knowledge is derived from experience
i never read hume, but how then he explains math (or the use of math that we have in 'real' life) which is abstract and 'just' a bunch of concepts?

[Anonymous No.2886044]

You CUNTS! You blew it all up, goddamn you all to hell! We had a good Hume thread going and you missed the point.

David Hume made two great epiphanies which are still quoted by the Humanists and the Atheists, from Dawkins to Harris and, most prominently and most correctly, with Hitchens.

Firstly, that a "Miracle," or the miraculous is not an extension of the natural ("Look at this wondrous work in the great, natural plan of God!") but a suspension of the natural, IE, the SUPERnatural. You stop the clock, you break the system by intervening. This was seized upon not only by Atheists, but first by people more akin to Hume, the "Deists" and those that believe in a non-miraculous, clockmaker God.

Secondly, Hume denied, quite fervently, the Divinity of the Christ. This is something groundbreaking for his time; Hitchens gives it almost enough justice when he quoted it in his last debate with Frank Turek (sp?), saying that if one saw a man walking the streets who had, the previous day, been publicly executed, either A) The witness is under, as Hitchens puts it, "A grave misapprehension," or B) the laws of nature have been suspended once, and only this once, and in the favor of that risen person.

Basically, Hume found the precepts of Christianity laughable, and made his points known through some intricate wordplay. I suggest you read "Enquiry into Human Understanding." It cured my Christianity.

[Anonymous No.2886077]

I read a Hume's book once, don't remember which one. I liked it.

I don't know much about Dawkins, but seeing him speak in youtube videos, he appears quite immature.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2886104]

>>2885400
Dawkins is a mediocre scientist and average popsci writer whose day had passed when he hit on the idea of writing something 'controversial' in hopes of getting some books sales, maybe a speaking gig or two.
It worked better than he expected, but now he is trapped into discussing things he doesn't understand.

[Anonymous No.2886135]

>>2886044
So basically he just confirms Christian teaching, that God does actually intervenes in the world? Of course, by Christian teaching he deemed this intervening since forever since God is eternal and unchangable, so while it's an intervening of the natural order and the laws He created, it isn't a "breaking of the plan."

Denying the divinity of Christ was revolutionary for hi stime? That began with Arius about ~300 AD, and there's always been "intellectuals" claiming the same thing. It was hardly a new thing in the 18th century. Your posts second part makes no sense, and I can simply say that, no, that witness is not at all under any misapprehension ie. they saw / understood something that was not correct.

I'd accept the argument that their witness or actual seeing of this even was dubious, as in "how could it be that a dead man walks again"? But (in order of strength) the witness of the willing death of 11 of the 12 apostles for what they'd seen as well as the thousands upon thousands of converted, and, yes, the recorded miracles, strengthen that witness to the point of being very hard to turn away from. As to the second part, you do nothing to relate how this goes in any way against Christian teaching or what is actually the problem with it, though we already touched upon this in the first part, and my belief is that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You seem like an average intelligent person who thinks that the further back you go for your stuff the better they must be, but you are incorrect, as we see here.

I also accuse you of being a liar, because you are this ignorant, and yet claim to have once been of Christian: "It cured me of my Christianity" and, more than anything, you don't even know that it was actually three days until Christ walked again.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2886153]

>>2886044
Hume is good, and should be written, but he isn't *quite* as original as you seem to think

[Anonymous No.2886214]

>>2886044
>A grave misapprehension
Holy shit, was that pun intentional?

[Anonymous No.2886503]

>>2885352
It could be that she is sick of your religious seeking bullshit op, and thinks you should just chill and read the History of Great Britain.

God save the king

[Anonymous No.2886571]

Dawkins isn't much of philosophers and the arguments his marshals are far from the strongest that could be made, but honestly the arguments for God's existence are so weak to begin with that he's still persuasive. Hume is more interesting and original though, very much worth reading and not only for this over-done and boring subject.

[Anonymous No.2886621]

>>2886135
You, sir, are clearly a butthurt Christian, and nothing anyone could say to you would do anything but further affirm your faith by means of putting you at odds. Not only do you disagree with me, you are compelled to call me a liar for my quoting of a pretty well-known philosopher in the wee hours of the morning (quite poorly, I'll admit). and for my having called myself a Christian in the past. I'll call your bluff and rush headlong into a religious debate on the internet, as they seem to be quite the place to get my point across and really change hearts and minds. [/sarcasm]

You're right, according to the Gospels, it was three days. But the point is we don't even have to doubt it happened; we aren't witnesses to it, we aren't having to question our own senses. All we have to question is the testimony of the authors of the Gospels. Either, A, a man was resurrected three days after his death miraculously, or B, a group of men /thought/ this is what happened, and wrote it down. And for you philosophy geeks, Occam's Razor; which is simpler? I'll grant you it MIGHT have happened, but there's no proof. Hume's point, however, isn't that there's no proof, but that the proof that would be required, even if met, wouldn't proof the intent of such a being, or even that he was the "Son of God."

But please, I eagerly await part two of the oh-so-eloquent J'accuse from the over-eager Christian Apologist in the room.

>>2886214
Yes, the pun was surely intentional, but it was not my pun. I should have added punctuation marks. See the Hitchens debate with Frank Turek. Once again I blame my sloppy early-morning posts.

[Anonymous No.2886632]

>>2886621

>this mad.jpg

[Anonymous No.2886635]

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

I'm sorry, I've posted this several times before, but every time Dawkins is discussed I'm compelled to mention these monstrosities.

Zizek has me tied up in his basement plz send help

[Anonymous No.2886636]

>>2886635
Slavoj, you bastard.

[Anonymous No.2886646]

I respect him for his work in biology, but his books on religion are positively cringeworthy and read like an angry blog post more than anything. He embarrasses himself in debates on the matter as well by getting overly antagonistic. I'm not particularly interested in the subject so I can't name any authors that handle it better than him, but I imagine you wouldn't have to look very hard.

>tl;dr: shit for edgy 14 year olds and redditfags

[Anonymous No.2886655]

All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway

[Anonymous No.2886674]

She meant for you to read Hume's 'Dialogues on Natural Religion' which contains some of the most reasonable, thoughtful and charitable arguments against the existence of God in the history of philosophy. It's also wonderfully written, whether you are an atheist or not.

[Anonymous No.2886721]

She's too much of a hipster to admit that her atheism has anything to do with Dawkins, so she goes for Hume.

She probably never read him.

[Anonymous No.2886759]

>>2886635
Dawkins' disobedience towards the post-structuralist hard left is what gets him so much ire from them. It's the same as when they cried that E.O. Wilson is a fascist.

[Anonymous No.2886763]

>>2886721
oh /lit/ you're so cynical and bitter. what happened to you, /lit/, to make you this way?

[Anonymous No.2886766]

All thinking men think for themselves.

[Anonymous No.2886782]

>>2886763
Because it's more likely that she has and she's not just pretending?

[Anonymous No.2886858]

>>2886766
Lol yes in order to be smart you have to live in an intellectual vacuum.

[Anonymous No.2886898]

Lets get some Hitch up in this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1D05D9C9D20260A2&feature=plcp

[Anonymous No.2886904]

>>2886898

Let's not.

[Anonymous No.2886916]

>>2886898
RIP Hitchens. You were the best drunk ever to have made slurs in public.

[Anonymous No.2886922]

>>2886916
Why did God have to take Hitchens away from us?

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2886930]

>>2886898
One of the absolute best polemicists of our time. Always entertaining, even if philosophical debates weren't necessarily his forte

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2886939]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iEKbIwTfbE
What a fucking legend

[The Roker Roar !SAFC.iRAAI No.2887455]

Error: Field too long.

I pasted it into a word document. I can upload it to a mirror if you'd like. It's only 3 pages.

[Anonymous No.2887472]

Just read the anthology Hume on Religion.

Nothing new has been added to the philosophy of religion since his days. Nothing. All the arguments deists raise today are basically the same as those Hume discussed 300 years ago.

[Anonymous No.2887490]

>>2886635
>is equivalent to the sqrt(-1) of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
That's not a bad use of maths to talk about jouissance tbh. It might have been better if he'd have used quaternions.

[Anonymous No.2887507]

hume couldn't understand faith

typical aspie

[Anonymous No.2887521]

>>2887472
>implying evolution isn't the main impetus behind atheism

[Anonymous No.2887528]

>>2887521
>implying evolution

[Anonymous No.2887530]

>>2887528
Nah, we're so different from chimpanzees, right?

[Anonymous No.2887535]

>>2887530
Chimpanzees have nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.2887536]

>>2887507
No one under stands faith. Not even Kierkegaard can talk about faith in a way that differentiates it from trust.
You could say they take faith in faith.

[Anonymous No.2887538]

>>2887535
>implying chimpanzees and humans' sense of morality and ethics isn't comparable

[Anonymous No.2887555]

I tried reading Hume's Dialogues. I got to the point where Cleanthes said the word "plebian"

Nope, fuck it. Hume is clearly /mu/cas. Fuck his stupid arguments.

[Anonymous No.2887576]

>>2887538
>Comparable
>Not confirming human bias and projection of conception onto other entities

Everything has DNA. Some species have better percentage compatibility with others. You're making the mistake of thinking that what is used for composition means equality. It's the composition itself that matters. The way evolution is know is that we evolved from a previous or concurrent being. I think it's more that fact that the beings were in place and they evolved. Breeding with the neanderthals could have taken place and caused changes. The changes appear to be a very small part of DNA but it's the very small part that could make the biggest difference.

[Anonymous No.2887579]

>>2887555

[Anonymous No.2887616]

>>2887576

I don't know what you're trying to say. Can you inject a dose of lay-man termonology or even a sense of intelligibility into whatever it is you're trying to say?

[Anonymous No.2887626]

>>2885352
Why don't you just ask her?

[Anonymous No.2887647]

Ignoring Dawkins, who is an OK scientist but sloppy as hell with history, Hume's...interesting.

The short version is, he really tries to tear down the idea that we can get beyond the veil of perception, that it is a worthwhile pursuit to discuss anything but our sense-impressions. And he sort of tears down the idea of a 'mind' being any more than a stage for the formation of sense-perception, and argues that causality is something we infer, but cannot prove. He applies the same skepticism to God, an inherently causal being--god as the unmoved mover or deist watchmaker. So he argues that it is not in fact evident from the existence of the world that there exists some creator. How could we assume that? He's interesting, but his underlying epistemology can be questioned a lot. Kant has some great things to say about why the idea of a 'veil of perception,' that separates categories of knowable/unknowable things is a bit dogdy.

[Anonymous No.2887650]

>>2887647
tl;dr buddhist ideas being rehased.

[Anonymous No.2887659]

>>2885387
Epic winning.

[Anonymous No.2887669]

>>2887659
It's like it's 200x all over again.

[Anonymous No.2887693]

>>2887650
Not really rehashed, but Hume does have hella overlap with Buddhism. Frankly, I think he's one of those guys that many, many freshman Phil majors will inevitably fall in love with, and then a good chunk of those will fall pretty hard out of love with him. I'm an ex-Hume fan.

It helps that Hume is one of those philosophers who can write truly epic putdowns, and every 18 year old loves them some academic smack-talk.

[Anonymous No.2887699]

Lol yes god doesn't exist because of science, but also science is bad because here's a bunch of metaphysical garbage.

[Anonymous No.2887743]

>>2887699
>science
>bunch of metaphysical garbage
>metaphysical
wut

[Anonymous No.2887750]

>>2887743
That was a profoundly uncharitable simplification of Hume. Not entirely wrong, mind you.

[Anonymous No.2887757]

>>2887699
Oh shit, he didn't accidentally invent postmodernism, did he?

[Anonymous No.2887762]

>>2887699
Yes, yes, fuck yes

[Anonymous No.2887776]

>>2887699
You must be dumb.

[Anonymous No.2890078]

>>2887776

i am

[Anonymous No.2890664]

Hume was good. Along with Kant and Locke. Some strongly atheist individuals might not like Locke at all, cos he believed in god, but he also believed strongly in empiricism.

I read books by religious and non religious philosophers, so that both sides are considered. Dawkins is as bad as any 16th century christian philosopher. He just assumes that his readership is the "YEAAAH WE 'GREE WI' YOU" type and then goes on a piss parade of rehashed ideas that have no real bearing. Shame really, cos he's a fine biologist.

At the moment, I'm reading Charles Bradlaugh, one of Britain's first atheist members of parliament. He is an amusing, and very intelligent fellow. And he didn't even go to university.

[Anonymous No.2890689]

>>2885887
It isn't.

[Anonymous No.2890705]

>>2890664
>Charles Bradlaugh
Mah nigga. You know he was a big influence on Gandhi?

[Anonymous No.2890704]

>>2890689
it's diplomatic atheism

[Anonymous No.2890711]

>>2890664
>cos he's a fine biologist.

cept that's not true. the main idea he is known for is imaginative but unsubstantiated.

[Anonymous No.2890718]

>>2890711
it relies so heavily on metaphorical language that it blurs any recognition of the science. Something which Dawkins forgets while he's on the tirade against myth and metaphor of the church.

[Anonymous No.2890782]

>>2886635
That's actually his best book. He's at his best relaying material to children and the scientifically inexperienced.

[Anonymous No.2890874]

>>2890664
> Some strongly atheist individuals might not like Locke at all, cos he believed in god
Do people really think this way about 'strong' atheists? That we won't like anybody who believes in a god?

[Anonymous No.2890887]

>>2890874
Tbh, anyone who uses bullshit terms like strong and weak atheism I just want to smother with a pillow.

[Anonymous No.2892384]

>>2890874

tbf, I don't believe in God, but I know people that are repulsed by even the mention. Perhaps I meant "anti-theists" and not atheists.

>>2890705

Yes, I did. Ghandi attended his funeral too. That statue is about a few miles or so from my house. The finger goes missing all the time!

[Anonymous No.2892386]

>>2892384

*Gandhi.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2892390]

"It is to dreams, that mankind owes their knowledge of god."

[Anonymous No.2892449]

>>2885553
I feel like it is, as a Catholic on 4chan this is one of the few places where I find I can actually have a civil discussion about various theological topics etc. Hell I remember about a year ago we had a five day long thread about the Trinity and I see St.Augustine's Confessions/City of God on these boards fairly regularly

[Anonymous No.2892499]

>>2890874
I was eating lunch with some of my coworkers (I work at a university, so probably more atheists than in most places) the other day and one of em mentioned that one of the new women was a Presbyterian and one woman made a face and said "eww." Then the first person said "Oh, don't worry, she's living with so-and-so, she's already started working hard on converting her" and even though I'm not religious I found the whole conversation sad and kind of uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.2892506]

>>2892499
When you stare into the abyss...

[Anonymous No.2892507]

>>2892506
it can't stare back because shit's too dark yo.

[Anonymous No.2892510]

>>2892499
>encounter religious person
>OMG EW!
>lol it's ok they're being converted because then they'll be like us!!

fucking hypocrites. (polite sage)

[Anonymous No.2892512]

>>2892499
Im honestly in a state of questing faith (I've always have been really but that's what happens when you learn about the world around you after growing up in a religious household.) But I have atheist friends who honestly can not go an entire conversation without bringing up how disgusting or silly religion is. I understand having reservations about ideas but some people honestly can not get over the fact that others disagree with them.

Needless to say, I'm usually the one who changes the subject just because I hate repetitive discussions.

[Anonymous No.2892516]

>>2892512
>Questing Faith
I'm sorry but I'm afraid you've missed the Crusader Era, maybe if Turkey gets accepted to the EU they'll have a few more positions opening up

[Anonymous No.2892519]

>>2892516
ahahahahahaha. Nice catch. Damn am I tired.
*questioning

[Anonymous No.2892539]

>>2892512
>But I have atheist friends who honestly can not go an entire conversation without bringing up how disgusting or silly religion is.
yeah I've had this experience too

I once overheard my friend zack tell our mutual friend nathan in hushed tones that I was an evangelical christian (I'm an atheist) because one time when he and his girlfriend were going on about all the ignorant sheeple I called him a fucking idiot. I mean, nigga dropped out of community college after failing all his classes and he's gonna presume to call the valedictorian from our high school a shithead because, like 90% of the students from our school, she goes to church? Now she's in med school and he's still washing linens at the hotel. Hell, I bet he still thinks she's dumber than he is.

[Anonymous No.2892546]

>>2885361
I legitimately laughed out loud.

[Anonymous No.2892547]

>>2892512

[Anonymous No.2892549]

>>2892547
>Boating
Those Christians and their fucking boats, man. I swear to god.

[Anonymous No.2892550]

>>2892547
>boating
>classical
>parks

Those bloody WASPS...

[Anonymous No.2892553]

>>2892549
>>2892550
I bet that data is culled from online dating profiles

not exactly a representative sample

[Anonymous No.2892556]

>>2892539
>Hell, I bet he still thinks she's dumber than he is.

And he could be right, all that story proves is that he's lazy. It has nothing to do with religion.

[Anonymous No.2892565]

>>2892556
laziness is dumb. i once saw a person on sci say he was smarter than einstein for being an atheist instead of a spinozan pantheist. these people are such intellectual gypsies that they actually mean it.

[Anonymous No.2892566]

>>2892547
>Anime
yeah fuck those atheists.

[Anonymous No.2892568]

>>2892565

>Hurrr, one guy on a board says something constitutes for what the whole board thinks.

Besides, we all technically know MORE than Einstein (although not necessarily smarter).

[Anonymous No.2892570]

>>2892556
I think the point of the story was that the dishwasher still feels a sense of smug satisfaction based upon his 'superiority' because he is an atheist thus any sort of intellectual accomplishments performed by a believer are somehow 'lesser' because they are you know... theists.

[Anonymous No.2892573]

>>2892556
being the kid who gets a Bs and Cs in his classes without putting forth any effort may make you quantifiably more intelligent than the dude who works hard to get As but its the kind of intelligence that doesn't really matter, because you don't have the practical intelligence or self-awareness to recognize that the small amount of effort you would have to expend to get the A would be worth the reward.

you're right, the christian med student may be measurably less intelligent than the atheist sheet-washer, but in the colloquial sense she's "smarter" because she uses her intelligence more effectively.

[Anonymous No.2892575]

>>2892570

You assume that atheists hate theists because you've meet a couple of assholes who happened to be atheists.

I don't hate the religious, I hate the religion. Isaac Newton was an alchemist, that doesn't mean I disregard his physics, I just disregard his alchemy.

[Anonymous No.2892577]

>>2892568
for such a smart guy, you sure don't know how to make a logical deduction.

[Anonymous No.2892579]

>>2892575
why would you hate a religion?

[Anonymous No.2892580]

>>2892575
I don't assume anything, I was trying to convey what I thought was the point of the story/anecdote. I don't care either way.

[Anonymous No.2892583]

>>2892575
>I just disregard his alchemy.

big mistake, bro

[Anonymous No.2892594]

>>2892573
>being the kid who gets a Bs and Cs in his classes without putting forth any effort may make you quantifiably more intelligent than the dude who works hard to get As but its the kind of intelligence that doesn't really matter

We were all that kid, weren't we? I know I was that kid until I was fortunate enough to meet a worse example and realized what a shithead I was. If I hadn't met Lucien I would've certainly never gotten a scholarship and would either be buried in debt right now or simply would have never gone to college. Thanks Lucien, you star-trek-loving, yellow-belt-having, scout-uniform-wearing prickopotamus!

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2892602]

>>2892575

newtonian physics have been 'disregarded' you fucking idiot. lrn2 gtr and qm. honestly, watching you retards debate hume is depressing. this board has degenerated to an obscene level, progressively getting dumber each month, youve sunhawked the fuck out of your lives at this point there is no hope, no life for the victim etc.

[Anonymous No.2892613]

>>2892594 here.

Just wanted to add to any kids who are still in high school or even early in their undergrad, that you should take your education seriously and never accept anything less than an A from yourself. This doesn't mean stress yourself out to the point of having a nervous breakdown, but honestly, if there's anything you're not doing, any shortcuts you're taking, stop it. Don't rely on sparknotes, don't skip class to play WoW or to sleep off a hangover (on that note, don't get absolutely shitfaced the night before a morning class!) Don't buy your papers online, or put them off until the last minute just because you can. Do the readings, write your notes, pay attention and participate in class. It's retarded to get "okay" grades when you know with a little bit of time management and a modicum of effort you could be getting straight As.

I mean (if you're in college) look at the nontraditional students. Why do you think they work so hard, because their brains are older and weaker than yours? Well, yes, but it's also because they've spent 20 years WORKING and they know how important it is to get as much as possible out of their education. Don't end up regretting your past self a decade down the line. And don't drink everclear, you retard.

[Anonymous No.2892636]

As a person with a thing for science, I was always skeptical about religions, and Dawkins' simplistic points were enough for me to turn from agnostic apatheist all the way to anti-theist secular humanist.
You're not gonna find any deep philosophical arguments about theology in his works.

[Anonymous No.2892647]

>>2892594
I got mostly As and a few Bs in high school without ever doing much work and then in college I buckled down and did the work

I honestly can't understand the attitude that could get Bs and Cs just out of laziness and then view that as not only acceptable but laudable

[Anonymous No.2892680]

>the kind of intelligence that doesn't really matter
intelligence and its worth are subjective. For someone who eats outside every day, cooking is an useless trait, but for someone who lives in a third world country it might be intelligent to know how to adequately cook food and prepare the most nutritious dishes

damn I miss my mom's cooking

[Anonymous No.2892692]

>>2892636
>You're not gonna find any deep philosophical arguments about theology in his works.

Indeed, mostly because he considers theology as a waste of time

[Anonymous No.2892710]

>>2892613
I really wish that I'd received (and listened to) this type of advice before starting uni. For some reason I just assumed that grades didn't matter that much in my field and that passing was enough.. now that I'm up to the applying for jobs part and I can't get into what I want due to mediocre marks it feels bad.

So if there's anyone reading this who happens to be in high school or just starting college, please DO NOT settle for mediocrity!

[Anonymous No.2892734]

>>2892613
As a kid you hear this advice constantly and you always ignore it. I can't explain it, some people are this way.

[Anonymous No.2892774]

>>2892602
>Newtonian Physics have been disregarded.
>Implying that you could use qm to work out the force in an every day reaction.

lrn2physics you ass.

also, I hate atheists who bleat on about being an atheist. That says to me that they're as insecure as the Christian who bleats on about being a Christian.

I don't believe in a God. I see no evidence. But I don't see what that has to do with any part of my life.

[Anonymous No.2892787]

I was just about to make a thread on Dawkins and Hitchens.

From what I've seen in philosophy/religion discussions most of /lit/ are either atheists or agnostics but I get the impression that these two are terribly unpopular here.

And what do you guys think of Hitchen's criticisms of Mother Teresa?

I think that he went way overboard. She's a nun, of course the religious community she founded isn't going to spend all of their funds on healthcare. And at any rate, the woman devoted her life to picking homeless people dying of starvation and disease out of ditches and gutters for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.2892791]

>>2892774
Where do you live?
Atheists have it so bad in America that they had to make a damn rally for reason, so I think they can complain all they want.

[Anonymous No.2892805]

>>2892791
What the hell are you talking about? You make it sound like there are atheist witch hunts in the US.

[Anonymous No.2892814]

>>2892805

And this is entirely true. Nowhere else in the world would people use "atheist" deragotory. I can't spell because im high.

[Anonymous No.2892816]

>>2892805
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnWwlZCsSw
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/
And here's the Reason Rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAd72Gkfd4k

[Anonymous No.2892836]

>>2892787
I think you should re-read The Misionary Position.

[Anonymous No.2892842]

Hipsters do not exist. You'd have to be a full-blown retard to think they do. Stop getting buttpained when someone calls out your pleb taste in 'x' and saying "b-b-b-ut you only hate it because ur a hipster!". If I see one more post on /lit/ calling someone a hipster I'm going to kill my little brother.

[Anonymous No.2892846]

>>2892842
check out this hipster

[Anonymous No.2892847]

>>2892842
Your little brother is a piece of shit and needs to fucking die, you retarded hipster piece of trash.

Also, wrong thread(?)

[Anonymous No.2892851]

>>2892787
there was a russian who said something like "a pair of boots are worth much more than a poem by Pushkin". I think that is a paradigm that Hitchens shared. He placed material comfort over spirituality. For him, spiritual growth through rejection of material wellbeing wasn't worth anything (iirc one of his criticisms was that she "kept" poor people poor)

[Anonymous No.2892853]

>>2892814
lol of course you're high

as long as you live in a reasonable part of the country, no one gives a shit about your atheism. you can't get elected to public office, but no one ITT is getting elected to public office anyway. you can live your life perfectly fine as an atheist.

[Anonymous No.2892854]

>>2892847
>ctrl-f "hipster"
>4 results not including our posts

he mad tho

[Anonymous No.2892861]

>>2892846
>>2892847
I was fucking serious you cunts. Keep an eye on the news, I'll tell them I did it because of this thread.

[Anonymous No.2892862]

>>2892861
Not me. But I am serious. He's going to die when he gets home.

[Anonymous No.2892868]

>>2892862
Who's going to die?

[Anonymous No.2892869]

pls don't kill your little brothers people

peace and love. just smoke some more weed and 'chill out'.

[Anonymous No.2892870]

>>2892868
>how to read??

[Anonymous No.2892873]

>>2892869
I'm going to force him into overdosing on weed

[Anonymous No.2892875]

>>2892862
>>2892861
Not anybody, but are you perchance an atheist?

[Anonymous No.2892881]

>>2892875
Epistemelogical nihilist

[Anonymous No.2892887]

>>2892636
>As a person with a thing for science

What do you think about Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria?

It makes sense to me. Science answers questions that can be answered scientifically, religion and philosophy seek to answer questions about morality and mortality that can't be definitively answered at all.

[Anonymous No.2892889]

>>2892881
Epidemiological Nihilists are just atheists who were looking for a term to separate themselves from everyone else... hipster scum.

[Anonymous No.2892914]

>>2892889
read moar

[Anonymous No.2892915]

>>2892889
>Epidemiological
hahahahahahahhahaahahhahahahahahha

[Anonymous No.2892919]

>>2892889
lol

lol

[Anonymous No.2892920]

>>2892914
Why does my spell check not have epistemic and epistemological?

Why would I bother reading when I can just sit here and pretend?

[Anonymous No.2892924]

>>2892887
>morality and mortality
I'd rather leave those questions to neuroscience and genetics.
For example, recent discoveries in these fields strongly imply the conclusion that humans, just like most animals, are genetically hardwired to generally be altruistic to their kin, to assure the survival of the species, and that's where our basic morality comes from.
We internally know that it's bad to kill, steal and to do other shit that would upset another human. The problem is that it often gets mixed up with our own intrinsic will to survive and live better - our selfishness.

[Anonymous No.2892927]

>>2892924
>I'd rather leave those questions to neuroscience and genetics.

Why?

[Anonymous No.2892931]

>>2892924
> For example, recent discoveries in these fields strongly imply the conclusion that humans, just like most animals, are genetically hardwired to generally be altruistic to their kin, to assure the survival of the species, and that's where our basic morality comes from.
> We internally know that it's bad to kill, steal and to do other shit that would upset another human. The problem is that it often gets mixed up with our own intrinsic will to survive and live better - our selfishness.

What bullshit!

Altruism != morality != ethics != religion.

Religion doesn't teach 'morality', religion teaches the limitations of morality.

[Anonymous No.2892934]

>>2892915

[Anonymous No.2892941]

>>2892924
lel off to /sci/ with you sociopath

[Anonymous No.2892943]

>>2892924
>We internally know that it's bad to kill
subjective lelel

[Anonymous No.2892944]

>>2892924
yo I'm not religious or nothin but evolutionary psychology borders precariously on being a pseudoscience and the popscience that you consume based on it is almost always full of presuppositions and unearned leaps in logic and deriving a moral system from it is just as fallacious as basing your entire worldview on a collection of ancient mystic texts

maybe less so since at least "the bible" is an actual artifact of a relatively recent culture, like it's been mediated to hell and back but at least you've got the rough makings of a social system still standing in the background whereas neurological morality is all about deriving "should"s from approximations of "what may have once been"

[Anonymous No.2892951]

>>2892924
>impyling science isn't exactly as fallible as me claiming right now that we have no brains and all that's in the head is the soul

enjoy your false truths, homie

[Anonymous No.2892952]

>>2892944
yes, I am literally saying that the bible is a more solid foundation for a society than evolutionary psychology

of course I wouldn't personally want to live in either, but based on past evidence the one based on the bible would at least be sustainable

[Anonymous No.2892972]

>>2892931
I fail to see how morality, the "what's right and wrong", doesn't in some way relate to selfishness and kindness.
Then again, I'm not too loaded on this stuff.
>>2892952
We don't have any "past evidence" of a human society based on evolutionary psychology, so you're making an unfair comparison.

[Anonymous No.2893027]

What's the point of arguing about this shit? Hell, even someone posted a picture supporting "Apatheism" yet continued to argue.
You're all twenty years old or younger. I'm eighteen. Stop pretending like you have a complete grasp on each scrap of information supporting your opinions as well as the ones of your opponents. You don't. I don't. You're not going to change anyone's mind on a board where nearly everyone is arrogant because they've read a book or two and some articles on wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.2893035]

>>2893027
>age having any correlation to knowledge

lel pleb. most adults are fucking absurdly stupid

[Anonymous No.2893056]

>>2893035

so edgy.png

[Anonymous No.2893057]

>>2893035
I don't think you understand the point of this at all. And, yes, if you have any common sense, knowledge somewhat correlates with age, though not for intelligence.
Good day, sir.

[Anonymous No.2893058]

>>2893035
fuck you. get out of /lit/

[Anonymous No.2893070]

>Hume
>Dawkins

Your pro-atheism authors are small time.

[Anonymous No.2893848]

ITT: edginess and persecution complex

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2893883]

>>2893848
Such a safe noncommittal post