|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Stop worshiping things you'll never ever see and start worshiping the sky. The sky isn't real, worship the endless void and the looming specter of inevitable heat death.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I can't even tell who is trolling ITT. Greek gods were probably more like embodiments of ideas than beings. Yes, people believed in them, but saying something like blessed by Aphrodite, or follower of Aries, about a person was a way to encapsulate a descriptive archetype, rather than a commentary on literal deities on a mountaintop. The same is true of Plato's writings and most ancient texts like the bible. There was no such thing as fiction and non-fiction, poetry, histories, fables, etc as separate ideas. It's not natural for us to read it that way, but people at the time would have had the context to understand. Myths can be "true" without being historically accurate, because that wasn't what they set it to be. Plato and a lot of other Greeks we know largely from what are essentially lecture notes. Telling a story in a classroom that is imperfect might be a teaching tool, not an error. In any case, we are reading them out of context, but it's safe to say that any honest reading is opposed to sophistry and claiming to have all the answers. But then, considering how many people still read the republic as a serious suggestion for a form of government...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Menstruation is proof against a loving god because if a good god was putting humans together he would have found a better way to do it than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Sabaka posted:Menstruation is proof against a loving god because if a good god was putting humans together he would have found a better way to do it than that. See also: nearly the entire rest of the human experience. (It's a test, there's a plan, it's ineffible, have faith)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Sabaka posted:Menstruation is proof against a loving god because if a good god was putting humans together he would have found a better way to do it than that. how else is g-d supposed to punish females of childbearing age for not being pregnant with another soldier for Christ
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up? If it was presented as a pluralist vs. exclusivist argument that's one thing; it's probably that most atheists have not done their due diligence. Seems a bit cocky to me. I've always preferred it another way - is there a horizon to rationality itself? If the answer is no, then as a naturalist, you must maintain some absurd theories yourself. That everything existed and always existed and trying to go beyond this is simply a waste of time. If we are to reduce activity that occurs into laws of motion, laws of gravity, then you have to also believe that humans can be reduced to rules as well. That's a trickier question that many would not agree to - laws of supply and demand are pretty vague, and not always true. If supply goes down, demand might go down too if consumers perceive an item to have manufacturing issues. But if human behavior cannot be reduced to laws, we're missing a fundamental piece of the puzzle. Then we fall into existentialism where we essentially make up rules and values as we go - seems like a pretty terrible way to govern a society. Naturalism is great for understanding externals, but by definition, it is inductive and repeatable. How repeatable is human morality? In a funny sort of way, naturalists also must have faith that somehow, we just "know" what good and bad are. I guess you could argue that our biology has made us this way, and that things we deem virtuous like altruism is actually a survival mechanism. I'm not convinced. Evolution is essentially a constraining trait - we are simply best equipped to survive, nothing more or nothing less. Even the way our brain functions is on a "need-to" basis. We constantly sketch the world in a rough manner, our brain taking quick calculations here and there in order to give us just enough information. And then you throw in the complexity that language adds to understanding how we grapple with ideas and logic well... it's almost comical to me think that a brain that developed under very specific circumstances on a very specific planet under very specific situations is a universal standard for rationality. The Hindus are much farther ahead than the Abrahamic traditions when it came to these kinds of subtleties. I'm a pluralist, so I do believe that religion is a family concept that has a bi-level epistemology. The noumenal one has been experienced by cultures across the globe, each one reacting to it in different manners. Dvaitins believe in monism, Advaitins reject that. That sort of conflict within a major religion, I think, has removed the Western obsessions with pedantic debates on semantics and historical accuracy amongst the scholars. There is no "evidence" for God - is there "evidence" for infinity? We cannot touch it, nor can we ever really see it's reality. However, it would be absurd to demand evidence of infinity under these circumstances. We can logically deduce it, just like we could potentially logically deduce a God.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
dk2m posted:There is no "evidence" for God - is there "evidence" for infinity? We cannot touch it, nor can we ever really see it's reality. However, it would be absurd to demand evidence of infinity under these circumstances. We can logically deduce it, just like we could potentially logically deduce a God. Logically deducing anything means gently caress all, unless we're talking math or a similar entirely artificial system. No one gives a poo poo about infinity actually existing and most mathematicians and physicists would probably agree that it doesn't anyway. No one seriously bases their actions and everyday decisions on infinity being real or not. dk2m posted:In a funny sort of way, naturalists also must have faith that somehow, we just "know" what good and bad are. I guess you could argue that our biology has made us this way, and that things we deem virtuous like altruism is actually a survival mechanism. Yeah, there's no way that groups which favor cooperation and coexistence would fare better at propagating their genes and managing limited resources than a bunch of disorganized sociopaths. Must have been magic. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:Logically deducing anything means gently caress all, unless we're talking math or a similar entirely artificial system. No one gives a poo poo about infinity actually existing and most mathematicians and physicists would probably agree that it doesn't anyway. No one seriously bases their actions and everyday decisions on infinity being real or not. to your first point: it actually matters quite a bit. if you get an answer of infinity in physics, that means you're essentially doing something wrong. in math, set theory is fundamental to other types of mathematics - if infinity doesn't hold, a crisis will erupt. if infinity isn't real, what do we do? our GPS units will continue to function, as will our math; but that's just to pragmatic laymen. will have to come up with other ways to understand our reality. does it affect on a day to day basis? no. nor does the knowledge that the Big Bang caused the universe. to the second point - agreed, I think we can describe reality to a certain point with biology and the laws that come with explaining behavior. altruism is absolutely an example of that. but qualitative things that matter to social sciences, like economics and sociology in general, are not consistent like other natural laws. I'm just simply pointing out that humans and qualitative things in general are not reducible to laws and repeated behavior. that is a huge flaw of naturalism that I haven't seen a convincing argument for. religion is popular philosophy. it's dangerous when uneducated people try to claim expertise in thousands of years of ontological debate. For me, God is a theory and a logical abstraction in which, by definition, no evidence exists. specific truth-claims are meaningless to me, because I reject exclusivism. that may offend religious people, but I don't think there's a dichotomy between science and a higher qualitative reality. one accepts reason as a given; the other believes there's a horizon to reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
dk2m posted:A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up? Now why would a forum comprised primarily of people living in places where Christianity is by far the dominant religion always talk about Christianity in these threads? Well golly loving gee what a head scratcher this one is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Now why would a forum comprised primarily of people living in places where Christianity is by far the dominant religion always talk about Christianity in these threads? Well golly loving gee what a head scratcher this one is. as if Christianity is some sort of standard? why not understand other concepts before using just one single solitary example to make sick, sweet sarcastic burns on silly theists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
dk2m posted:as if Christianity is some sort of standard? why not understand other concepts before using just one single solitary example to make sick, sweet sarcastic burns on silly theists? Says the guy who writes like he's throwing darts at a jargon dictionary. I'm shocked I didn't notice any quantum toxins in there. What do you think it means for infinity to exist? Infinity what? Edit: it's a fair point that the discussion is mostly about the supposed Christian God, but people are mostly discussing what they actually know something about, which is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
dk2m posted:A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up? Because your average hardcore internet atheist just wants to say WELL gently caress YOU DAD and comes from a Christian home. They rarely even change any of their prejudices and poo poo they learned in conservative backgrounds, they just think waking up early on Sunday is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because your average hardcore internet atheist just wants to say WELL gently caress YOU DAD and comes from a Christian home. Oh c'mon now.... No, its because its regional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
We debate the existence of the Christian God because he's like Schrodinger's cat; until we see with our own eyes, we can only believe he either exists or doesn't. Tengri on the other hand is real and you can't disprove that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Trent posted:Says the guy who writes like he's throwing darts at a jargon dictionary. I'm shocked I didn't notice any quantum toxins in there. a fair question: "evidence" of infinity - do you have any? it is virtually impossible to scientifically create an experiment to provide an infinite number of data points. how would you do it? write out an infinity of natural numbers? it's strictly mathematical. i just picked out an a priori concept that is tied pretty closely to surmising an existence of God. in dvaita Vedanta for example, it clearly states to "meditate on infinity". or the mahavira - that there are sets of larger infinities, and God is the largest one. or hell even Christianity - book of john - "no one has ever seen God". no one has seen infinity, the inclusion of everything. but the second point - why is that a good thing? if I only knew about premise X1, how could I be objective in premise Xn to conclude not X?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh c'mon now.... It's true as hell, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
dk2m posted:Christianity - book of john - "no one has ever seen God". no one has seen infinity, the inclusion of everything. Infinite invisible pink unicorns! Who exactly do you think is claiming infinite actual things exist? It feels like you are arguing against your own (apparent) side. I'm perfectly fine with a finite number of physical things. Concepts can be theoretically infinite, like numbers, but so what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's true as hell, sorry. Your statement is as true as a lake of fire where Jesus throws sinners to be tormented for all eternity because he loves them. Wait...
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Sorry but normal people don't become hardcore internet atheists forever whining about religion while still acting like the dumb-rear end conservative sect they just left 3 months ago, Normal atheists barely bother to even talk about it, because there's not much to say about things that don't exist (like god).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Trent posted:Infinite invisible pink unicorns! sounds like you just admitted there doesn't need to be natural evidence of infinity. why should i believe in it then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sorry but normal people don't become hardcore internet atheists forever whining about religion while still acting like the dumb-rear end conservative sect they just left 3 months ago, Normal atheists barely bother to even talk about it, because there's not much to say about things that don't exist (like god). What, in a thread about the existence of God? Surely not! So, basically, you came into a thread that is ABOUT discussing the existence of god to bitch about.....discussing the existence of god? Good job. Thanks for your effort posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
No I didn't. I came to make fun of people who are really bad at doing it on either side, like the DawkinLords and also that guy who's all "well god is real because %poorly constructed syllogism%".
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
maybe this thread finally settles the debate??
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
dk2m posted:sounds like you just admitted there doesn't need to be natural evidence of infinity. why should i believe in it then? What the gently caress are you even talking about? I don't give a poo poo if you "believe" in infinity. I certainly wasn't arguing that you should or must. What point do you think you just scored, exactly? Like, seriously, without any buzzwords, what position are you even supporting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Trent posted:What the gently caress are you even talking about? I don't give a poo poo if you "believe" in infinity. I certainly wasn't arguing that you should or must. Well it looks like he cast Confuse Ray, and it was super effective. Too bad it's his only attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
dk2m posted:sounds like you just admitted there doesn't need to be natural evidence of infinity. why should i believe in it then? Which infinity? ZFC posits an infinite set and then derives other stuff from that. An infinite set in that sense is "real" to the extent that whatever you're looking at is a model of ZFC; I don't see where "believe" comes into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Well it looks like he cast Confuse Ray, and it was super effective. Too bad it's his only attack. Non-damaging moves are not subject to the type chart and thus cannot be super effective. loving idiot baby scrubs.  /
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Non-damaging moves are not subject to the type chart and thus cannot be super effective. loving idiot baby scrubs. what if they tried casting Confuse Ray while they were confused, and hurt themselves in confusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Non-damaging moves are not subject to the type chart and thus cannot be super effective. loving idiot baby scrubs. out-fishmeching fishmech? pretty good... Also this post loving owns lmao: Trent posted:Your statement is as true as a lake of fire where Jesus throws sinners to be tormented for all eternity because he loves them. Wait...
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
dk2m posted:like economics and sociology in general, are not consistent like other natural laws. I'm just simply pointing out that humans and qualitative things in general are not reducible to laws and repeated behavior. that is a huge flaw of naturalism that I haven't seen a convincing argument for. what does this even mean. How does the fact that some things are unpredictable conflict with naturalism? dk2m posted:"evidence" of infinity - do you have any? it is virtually impossible to scientifically create an experiment to provide an infinite number of data points. how would you do it? write out an infinity of natural numbers? it's strictly mathematical. what is your point in this. I'm pretty sure anyone doing maths or physics understands that infinity is a completely artificial mathematic concept and not actually a real thing. Unlike god, who plenty of people think to be tangible and real in one way or another and base their life around this belief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Numbers aren't real, you imbecile. They're made up by us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:what is your point in this. I'm pretty sure anyone doing maths or physics understands that infinity is a completely artificial mathematic concept and not actually a real thing. Unlike god, who plenty of people think to be tangible and real in one way or another and base their life around this belief. "Numbers are not real, god is"  Uhhhhh....
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Numbers are not real, god is" that's not what I'm saying bro
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
I'm a numbers atheist. You can't prove to me they exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
dk2m posted:A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up? If it was presented as a pluralist vs. exclusivist argument that's one thing; it's probably that most atheists have not done their due diligence. Seems a bit cocky to me. Beautiful post
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
dk2m posted:A personal pet peeve - why do we automatically assume the Christian definition of God whenever these debates spring up? Because that is the definition held by the major religious systems where these debates spring up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Quift posted:Beautiful post No, it's an absurd post. The imprecision of the social sciences means causality doesn't apply to human behaviour? And also 'rationality' is a property written into the fabric of the universe and not at all a concept humans made up and define as they please, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
God isn't real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:God isn't real. Post lives up to promise of username
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 17:34
|
|