We know it's correct but we pretend it's not because religion helps with tardwrangling low iqs.
>>18262830La ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah
>>18262830as an agnostic i really value the virtues of Christianity but i cant stand that christfags dont lead by example
>>18262830>a worldview is "correct"This is a low IQ take to begin with. No worldview is correct. Some are just more pragmatic than others. And atheism isn't pragmatic whatsoever.
>>18262860Atheism isn't a "worldview", it's simply the proposition that gods do not exist.
>>18262863It is both. Just like theism or anti-natalism.
>>18262868You're an unironic, actual idiot.
>>18262872I would take it as an insult but now I see it is simply a proposition. And obviously it can't be both, right?
>>18262868If you used your brain, you'd realize that when I say atheism is correct, I probably mean that the proposition "gods do not exist" is correct. Sadly, you did not use your brain and here we are.
>>18262882I'm aware. It's still a worldview. But thanks for letting me know propositions about them exit, I totally forgot.
>>18262884>I'm aware.Then you made a stupid and dishonest response here >>18262860. Thanks for the concession :-)
>>18262830You can't prove atheism to be true.
I am God. I'm atheist. Be like God, be atheist. Sensibly, you can practice spirituality for its benefits, and still subscribe to no creed. Or chaosmagic your own creed, as per your needs. I don't fuck arround, I practice like a monk, yet I am atheist.
>>18262892I didn't concede :-)
>>18262830>lack of morals is correctnope
God is just about signaling you are not infallible
>>18262830Do we, though?
>>18263020I bet atheists think they're very infallible. Not in terms of beliefs but morals. And that's a very troubling proposition. So if one of them stabs their mother they're incapable of feeling guilt because only God makes imperfect people, and since atheists think they are the result of natural evolution and not a deity, they are the culmination of humanity's ever growing towards a state of perfection.
>>18263032>humanity's ever growing towards a state of perfectionThat's some sort of weird chiliasm, not evolution.
>my worldview your worldviewliterally make believe kek
>>18262863can you atheist cucks stop pretending you're any different? your rejection of god, the abrahamic monotheistic god to be precise, is ultimately a belief as well albeit it's more pragmatic and coherent it's still a belief nonetheless. you can't prove god exists just like they can't, so why should you be any different? you deny their proposition that god exists by invalidating their supposed proof (the bible and jesus) while making no proposition of your own (god doesn't exist), just simply attacking anyone who thinks he does. either god exists or doesn't, and between that spectrum of beliefs you too lay there, stop fucking pretending you're any less clueless than the average christfag. unless humanity makes time machines and travel there and see for itself im not falling for these mindgames.
>>18263038Its what atheists think, they are children of the Enlightenment. Ask any modern academic if humanity is getting better.
>>18263134This is incorrect on several different levels.
>>18262893Every historical fantasy in your desert cult has been proven to be false, there's no evidence of a global flood when it should have happened according to the bible for example. If all falsifiables happen to be false, then there's no reason to believe the unfalsifiables people make up on the spot have any credibility.
>>18262830You literally slid out of a utures against your will forever encapsulated in matter only capable of seeing the world through senses given to you, yet you claim to know the ultimate nature of reality. Atleast christcucks call it fate absolute midwitery. How can you know anything how could anyone? Everything you know was given by the world. We can discuss the bullshit of theology and modern day religious systems, we can discuss whether god exists or not whether its intelligently designed with its perfect laws of nature or whether its just a clockwork system. You and I are however completely utterly incapable of knowing the nature of reality the only intellectually honest position will always be agnosticism
>>18263576You're using a New Atheist epistemological framework. Ironic, isn't it?
"know" is a big word for an ape that small
>>18262844What do you suppose those virtues are?
>>18263579Who gives a fuck im agnostic im not dogmatically held to a single lens. The christian can only see the world through the christian lens through that worldview. The athiest can only see the world through the athiest worldview. You think because i apply knowledge i subscribe to it? You think im limited by such constrains? I know psychology philosophy religion, history, evolution from christianity to judaism to hindu to fucking spiritual western nonsense, psychedelics to quantum physics, to programming, to sound design, i know fascism, communism, libertarianism, zionism, globalism, humanism etc. etc. you think i subscribe or identify with any of these? My only mistress is the obtainment of knowledge, only lesser men identify with the various -isms or religions i simply take what is good from each and collect the lenses instead of dogmatically holding unto either. I totally understand if that filters you. I bet you cant even code switch fluently to get acces to different groups of people to further your own goals. Now instead of some fucking midwittery either deconstruct my point or fuckoff
>>18263618share with others, love everyone, dont be judgemental, etc
>>18263032"The world is getting worse and worse and humanity is corrupt and we need some sort of savior coming soon to uplift us" is a very classic abrahamic framework which many "culturally christian" atheists also adhere to through transhumanism and AI singularity narratives, this is not really related to religious belief though and is just cultural immersion. Evolution says nothing about perfection though, nor did I ever hear an atheist describing it as such, the narratives are usually in that technological context instead.
Realize!
>>18263625You don't know shit lmao. Peak midwit.
>>18263625>im agnostic>im not dogmatically held to a single lens
>>18262863Of course there's more than to a worldview than simply thinking it's true that there's no GodBut, it's obviously A PART of your worldview If your talking to a theist, it's probably a BIG IMPORTANT part, the thing you disagree about
>>18263032Evolution isn't about perfection but adaptation to circumstances. A bigger problem is theists "perfecting" their organizations by studying a perfect god (not realizing that the calling of the god perfect is not descriptive but flattery to avoid punishment), ignoring common sense morality, and attempting to convince people to stab a relative in order to better flatter that god.
>>18264450you replied to bait bro
>>18262830>We know it's correct but we pretend it's not because religion helps with tardwrangling low iqs.copetheology existing refutes thistheology is>inaccessible to low iqs>inaccessible to atheist midwits>accessible to high iqs
>>18264775>Our circlejerk is really intricate which lends it intellectual gravity
>>18264788>moving goalpoststhe OP is refuted because there's millions of high IQs today and in the past who aren't just "pretending" religion is real but deep down are secretly atheists. and needless to say, theology is completely unnecessary and even counterproductive if the goal is just to control people.
>>18262844This. It’s a sham so many of them are actually insufferable and fail to follow what they preach. Let alone grasp what they claim to follow
>>18262830beliefs undergo an evolution. They are not judged by objective truth, but whether the people who believe it survive.Atheism thrived for a while, but is now on the downswing for sociology/gametheory effects.Christianity relies on delusion to enforce loyalty. That sort of thing appears to be on the upswing.> We know it's correct but we pretend it's not because religion helps with tardwrangling low iqs.yeah basically.I think youre undersellling the issue though. Going back thousands of years, history is written by who can get low IQ to sacrifice themselves for you. Thats who you are. The people who were better than it are dead.
>>18264775>>18264840Theology exists for the purpose of convincing low iqs like you that high iqs believe in your religion. Thankfully I can tell you this without endangering the low iq tardwrangling scheme because you're dumb as shit and will keep on believing regardless.
>>18262863That would specifically make it the view that the world is the result of natural forces instead of magical wizards.
>>18262893Only because you can't actually define coherently god, so there is no real way to prove or disprove some vague incoherence which makes atheist logically correct and theism not even wrong.
>>18265044Incorrect.
>>18263020No, god worship is about signalling that you will totally be an infallible magical ghostman who will get to start hanging out in the sky with other magical ghostpeoples the exact moment you die possibly also when you go to sleep.
>>18263134They will readily admit they don't even know how the pyramids were built and it would still be a struggle with modern tech.
^This guy watches Handcock.
>>18265049Then what else do atheist view as having created the world if not gods or nature?
>>18263094>you can't prove god existsThe incompleteness theorem proves than omnipotent systems like gods or theories of everything can't possibly exist.
>>18263151Okay, then if the rate of religiosity is going down, and things are not getting better, wouldn't that disprove you?
>>18265058Anything that's not a god.
>>18265062No. Are you illiterate?
>>18264669I don't necessarily disagree with what I said though. I'm a writer of philosophy and intellectual history.
>>18265064I'm just saying. Are you?
>>18263576>You and I are however completely utterly incapable of knowing the nature of realityThen how can you possibly know that statement is true?You can't really appeal to your own ignorance, then use your own ignorance to justify your premise, once you start appealing to your own ignorance, your opinion is easily discarded.
>>18264997>completely dodges metaphysics You know i can tell you're a child of empiricism. Ask me how.
>>18265063No, it has to be anything that is both not a god and is not natural. So what is a specific example (realizing that simulation is just gods with extra steps)?
>>18264775How many angels can dance on the tip of a pin, theology man? Truly a worthwhile exercise of the human intellect.
>>18264888>beliefs undergo an evolutionCorrect >Christianity relies on delusion to enforce loyalty.But adherence to sensory experience does not? Kant was famous for his theory of the categorical imperative. Our consciousness organizes our interpretation of reality through space, time, color and shape. Could it be that outside of that the laws of the universe are completely unintelligible to us? That what we perceive in science is simply filtered through our sense organs and not all emblematic of what actually exists outside of that?
>>18263625A friend to all is a friend to none, pal
>>18265073>metaphysics is when magicLow iq.>>18265074>what specific thingThere is no single specific thing because atheism is not a worldview.
>>18265099>no single specific thingThen there should be a whole bunch of different specific things that would conform, yet you can't name a single one because you know it essentially boils down to logical natural causes instead of magical wizards.
>>18265099That's not what I said, but okay
>>18265110I can give you an example if you want.Magical wizards.
>>18265125I wasn't looking for an example of gods with supernatural abilities, I was looking for an example of things atheists view as having created the world.
>>18265136I didn't say gods, I said magical wizards. An atheist can believe in magical wizards.
>>18263423"B-but its a metaphor o algo...."
>>18265142No, magic is supernatural, magic users are supernatural beings which is how deities/gods are defined which is the very thing that atheists don't believe in.
>>18265151Atheism is not the claim that the supernatural does not exist, it's the claim that gods do not exist. The atheist can believe in any supernatural thing (such as wizards) as long as it's not a god.
>>18265136The mainstream atheist creation myth is that first there was nothing, and then nothing exploded and everything came from this explosion of nothing. They call it the Big Bang. Their end times prophesy is called the Big Crunch where everything implodes back into nothing.There's no basis for these claims, but it uses language that has a sciency feel to it so it's very attractive to the reddit types
>>18265160They don't believe in deities and deities are supernatural beings capable of magic, so not believing in deities specifically means not believing in magical people.>The atheist can believe in any supernatural thingNo, not supernatural beings, if they believed in supernatural beings, they would believe in deities and would no longer be atheist. They don't believe in lesser gods or omnipotent gods, its not just a supreme supernatural being they reject, but all supernatural beings.
>>18265176No, that's not atheism
>>18265168>There's no basis for these claims,Math justifies those claims.0! = 10^0 = 11-1 = 0Theists also believe nothing exploded and everything came from this, but they believe that happened because a god triggered it instead of it just triggering itself.
>>18265176You're confused about what atheism is. An atheist can for instance believe in Harry Potter, he just can't believe in gods.
>>18262894>>18265176Author is a scientific minded and formed atheist
>>18265179Then what is the name of this group of atheists that literally worship wizards as real people who really created the world?
>>18265186No idea, I'm atheist but I believe in spiritual stuff, just like buddhists do. Nootice, that I don't say there's no gods, but rather that I don't have one. And yes, I define myself as atheist (without god).
>>18265192>No idea,Because it doesn't exist, you are just arguing in bad faith or you would be able to name this wizard that atheists totally worship and refer to the name of the group known for worshipping it, but they don't actually exist, so you can't actually name them.>I believe in spiritual stuff, just like buddhists do. Buddhists can be theist, there are numerous sects that worship various types of gods, if you are using spiritual to mean your feelings, then you are atheist, if you are using spiritual to mean there are ethereal supernatural beings influencing reality, you are not atheist because you believe in deities and literal spirits instead of spirits as a synonym for moods.
>>18265186Also, I think the Left Hand Path could receive the name of the tradition you seek, which btw is my tradition, you see, a Left Hand Path mage believes himself to be the origin of the world. Such as myself.
>>18265201You claimed a very weird thing which can appply to my tradition actually. >>18265202
>>18265160you need into word composition dude, "supernatural" means it's above purely natural processes, i.e doesn't begin with and of them, so only the realm of divinity remains.
>>18265202So you don't think you had a mother and father, you believe that you alone created the world that you inhabit?
>>18265205>ummmm ackshually harry potter magic is natural, not supernatural heheShut the fuck up, faggot.
>>18265208We believe in spirits who are independent from the body. Also, as it happens, I can vouch I feel securer than Christian larpers.
>>18265208>createdNo, emanation, it's based off gnosticism and horror. I believe fear to be the mover and motivator. Has worked for Christians, they did the most insane things over fear.
>>18265212Magical ethereal beings are examples of deities, you are a magical thinking polytheist who believes in multitudes of deities, sorry to break it to you, it seems like you are just trying to conflate monotheism with theism in general so you can distance yourself from monotheists.
>>18265214>it's based off gnosticismThen its polytheistic.>I believe fear to be the mover and motivator.Fear isn't a magician though, its an abstraction, why would you be afraid of anything in the world if it is all just an emanation from yourself.
>>18265224>harry potter is a deity
>>18265209magic isn't real to an atheist, it can't be, by definition, because it would imply there are things above natural reality, unbound by it, which you'll find is the baseline definition of godhood in the traditional sense.
>>18265231I don't know of anyone who uses the word "god" the same as you. You're just playing word games.
>>18265230Harry potter is a fictional character in a magical fictional realm, if you started conflating him as a real being who used magic to escape the book and perpetually hide with invisibility magic and influence reality with hidden supernatural powers, then yes, he would be a deity at that point and you would be a theist if you worshiped that.
>>18265239Its sounds like you tend to associate with liars and larpers, so why would they use god in the dictionary accurate way instead of the way they have found maximized successful manipulation?
>>18265228People fear, then act
>>18265239>I don't know of anyone who uses the word "god" the same as youeveryone I know does, they just don't give it enough thought to see it that way.
>>18265246>why would they use god in the dictionary accurate way instead of the way they have found maximized successful manipulation?That seems to be what you're doing. I know that the specific phonemes used are not really relevant so I have no problem calling myself a schmatheist if it facilitates easier conversation. It won't change the content of what I believe.
>>18265249No, children have to learn fear by acting then failing.
>>18265250Nope, you're just projecting your ideas onto other people.
>>18265253You're retarded, why do you need shelter and security and sanitized food and water?
>>18265252>That seems to be what you're doing.>I have no problem calling myself a schmatheist if it facilitates easier conversation.No, retard, you literally just admitted that you like to abuse words if it helps manipulate other people in conversation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeityA deity or god is a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worthy of worship due to having authority over some aspect of the universe and/or life.
>>18265257People do those things when they want to be comfortable and healthy, retard, even then a lot of people will push themselves to the point of discomfort and illness to accomplish various goals.
>>18265254I urge you to ponder the meanings of words unto their most essential qualities, it's a very compelling exercise and it's funny since it's so accessible an endeavor yet most people don't ever bother with it.
>>18265261No, I literally just said that I'm willing to use another set of phonemes if you throw a tantrum and insist that we have to use your definition for the set of phonemes that I would've otherwise used.>A deity or god is a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worthy of worship due to having authority over some aspect of the universe and/or life.Arguing via wikipedia is funny, but it still doesn't get you where you want to be (i.e. Harry Potter fulfilling the definition of a god in common parlance).
>>18265266The meaning of words is equivalent to their use. That's all there is to it.
>>18265265I do not think you've ever felt danger, this is why you're disconnected from reality. Much like Christian larpers, you seem to think having your goods and money secured, being in shelter, having civil security guarantees, running water, hospitals and all sorts of commodities are a given. They arent. Have you ever been drugged and abandoned amidst a forest? No, that's wjy you don't know the experience. Besides, I never said the practicioner is the one experimentong the horror, just a gnosis to acquire and fill the world with. It gives me the impression you don't even watch the news
>>18265269>Arguing via wikipedia is funny,It is funny in a pathetic way that you claimed nobody uses a definition that is so common wikipedia has adopted it as their primary opening definition.You literally just said that you don't care about objective facts and you just want to engage in some rhetorical back and forth where the words don't inherently mean anything in particular and can just be redefined on a whim.Then you absolutely reinforced that strategy as your entire thesis >>18265270.
>>18265270Hence why I said essential.
>>18265276Case in point, Sky Trumpets. Here's a few examples. https://youtu.be/_P4XOiMKLhk?si=6Ouzen8GTxadAhc7https://youtu.be/vul4SYL4QiQ?si=QFSG0yGv4MTrEvkihttps://youtu.be/XBkh4-J2ZQ8?si=uwHagADmO5ZVf3WJThe phenomenon is worldwide, tell me, would this cause disquieting feels given how there's no known cause?
>>18265281>jazz practice>driller>wolvesthere, I solved the zeitgeist.
>>18265278Harry Potter is not a god according to the wikipedia definition, lil bro. >You literally just said that you don't care about objective facts and you just want to engage in some rhetorical back and forth where the words don't inherently mean anything in particular and can just be redefined on a whim.No, I literally said that I'm totally fine with using your definitions if you insist they're the ones that must be used. Given that under those definitions I'm not an atheist, I use the word "schmatheist" instead for the sake of clarity.
>>18265284Worldwide? No known cause? Your diatribe disproven? Industrial sounds in rural areas? At 4:00 am? Jazz practice at max volume at 4:00 am? (The sound is mostly nocturnal)
>>18265286According to fedoras people wake up at 3:30, to work for approximate hour or two till 5 or so, then go to bed again.
>>18265286unlikely, but all possible.
>>18265288What is possible is that you're a mental midget who's an inmature baby.
>>18265276>I do not think you've ever felt danger,Then you have refuted yourself >>18265249 by conceding that I have always acted and never feared.>Have you ever been drugged and abandoned amidst a forest? No, that's wjy you don't know the experience. That was my counterargument >>18265253 to your retarded claim that people can only act on fear >>18265249, retard.>I never said the practicioner is the one experimentong the horrorYou implied that you both experience the world and the world emanated from yourself.>It gives me the impression you don't even watch the newsAccording to you someone would have to be afraid of the news before they could act to watch it.
>>18265285>Harry Potter is not a god according to the wikipedia definition, lil bro.Because nobody actually believes he is real, his magic powers are known fictions, a god is when you believe it is real, so like I said if people actually believe harry potter was real and worshipped him for it, then he would be their deity, but nobody does that because everyone understands he is fictional unlike with other wizards that people really do worship and unironically believe are real.>No, I literally said that I'm totally fine with using your definitionsNo, if you were totally fine with using my definitions instead of your own, you wouldn't still be saying no and trying to correct me, you are a disingenuous bad faith liar is all.> I use the word "schmatheist" instead for the sake of clarity.That doesn't clarify anything though, it just proves you are a disengenuous bad faith liar who would rather make up absolute bullshit than learn the objective history and meaning behind the words you use and argue about.
>>18265291you're the immature one trying to argue something's spoopy even though it can very easily be explained away. let's not conveniently forget the news constantly try to stretch these nothingburgers thin, more than they were to begin with, alright? jesus you are a baby
>>18265295>Because nobody actually believes he is realHe's not even a fictional god (i.e. god within the context of his setting).>No, if you were totally fine with using my definitions instead of your own, you wouldn't still be saying no and trying to correct meWhether your proposed definition is in line with common parlance is a different argument. If you want to drop that argument and focus on the other one, that's totally fine by me too.>That doesn't clarify anything thoughIf you don't understand what I mean by schmatheist, you should have asked. I thought you did. After all, you were saying the way I use the word atheist is wrong, not that you don't understand how I use it.
>>18265058He's right mate. Atheism rejects one supernatural explanation but any countless explanations could be plucked from thin air and still be in line with Atheism. "A Ploanoe created the universe."
>>18265306>He's not even a fictional god (i.e. god within the context of his setting).Because what he does is not supernatural for the imaginary universe he inhabits.>Whether your proposed definition is in line with common parlance is a different argumentI already posted proof that it is the common definition and you just laughed it off because wiki is too common for your tastes.>If you don't understand what I mean by schmatheistThere is nothing to understand its something you completely made up to retroactively justify your retarded rhetoric.
>>18265309No, his argument is that there are atheists that believe a magical wizard rather than a god created the universe.
>>18265310>Because what he does is not supernatural for the imaginary universe he inhabits.It is. He lives in a world where the supernatural exists in the form of magic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(supernatural)>I already posted proof that it is the common definition and you just laughed it off because wiki is too common for your tastes.I laughed it off and then said that the wiki definition doesn't fit your definition.>There is nothing to understand its something you completely made up to retroactively justify your retarded rhetoric.It is a fact that I hold a certain set of beliefs, and that this set doesn't conform to your usage of the word "atheist". I offered an alternate word to distinguish the two so that two different usages of the word "atheist" wouldn't lead to confusion. What's your problem with that?
>>18265317>He lives in a world where the supernatural exists in the form of magic.No, he lives in a world where magic is an aspect of their natural world and nearly anyone, even nonhuman creatures and beasts, can learn to practice magic.> the wiki definition doesn't fit your definition.It does though, it says that a deity is a supernatural being which was my definition.>offeredNo you invented a word to try to get out of your rhetorical hole where the common definition presented does in fact say they deities are supernatural beings unlike what you claimed.
>>18265328>No, he lives in a world where magic is an aspect of their natural world and nearly anyone, even nonhuman creatures and beasts, can learn to practice magic.No, he lives in a world with supernatural elements. Anyone you ask on the street would confirm that.>It does though, it says that a deity is a supernatural being which was my definition.It doesn't say that every supernatural being is a deity.>No you invented a word to try to get out of your rhetorical hole where the common definition presented does in fact say they deities are supernatural beings unlike what you claimed.I didn't claim deities are not supernatural beings, I claimed that not all supernatural beings are deities. Furthermore, I did indeed offer an alternate term for he sake of clarity. You do not seem to want for there to be clarity and would prefer me to use the word "atheism" to describe my beliefs even though they do not fit the definition of atheism that you are employing. You want semantic confusion.
>>18265330>No, he lives in a world with supernatural elements.No he lives in a universe where elements we consider supernatural are natural parts of their existence to the point that spiders and dogs and other natural creatures can use it.>It doesn't say that every supernatural being is a deity.It says that deities are supernatural beings.> I claimed that not all supernatural beings are deities.Then you could only offer up fictional beings as examples instead of actual supernatural beings in this universe that aren't actually deities despite being supernatural beings.>offer an alternate term No, you made up absolute bullshit to try to cover your abuse of language.>would prefer me to use the word "atheism" to describe my beliefNo, because you already admitted you are a polytheist who recognizes a multitude of deities, so you should use the word polytheist to describe yourself because you are expressing characteristics of a polytheist.
>>18265313He is objectively right. There are eight billion people and at least two of them are Atheists (don't believe in any God) and believe that a magic wizard created the universe. Where's the problem?
>>18265334>No he lives in a universe where elements we consider supernatural are natural parts of their existence to the point that spiders and dogs and other natural creatures can use it.Nope, it's just a world where the supernatural is reasonably common to the point that there's maybe a couple thousand wizards and witches on the British Isles.>It says that deities are supernatural beings.I never disputed that. I'm saying that not all supernatural beings are deities.>Then you could only offer up fictional beings as examples instead of actual supernatural beings in this universe that aren't actually deities despite being supernatural beings.It's your claim that they don't exist, not mine.>No, you made up absolute bullshit to try to cover your abuse of language.No. I offered an alternate term because it would be an abuse of language to claim that I'm an atheist under your definition of atheism.>No, because you already admitted you are a polytheist who recognizes a multitude of deitiesNope, that was another guy who butted in (>>18265179), after which you ignored my response (>>18265184) and started talking to him.
>>18265230>This is what blue hairs unironically believe
>>18265340No, that just means a couple of theists don't understand the words they use in the same way there could be people who identify as theist but also claims there are no real gods or magic that exists.
>>18265345>it's just a world where the supernatural is reasonably commonNope, its not just reasonable common, it is part of the natural order of the universe that even animals utilize.>I'm saying that not all supernatural beings are deities.Yet you can't give examples of a real supernatural being, you can only talk about known fictional beings with obviously fictional properties.>It's your claim that they don't exist, not mine.So now you claim is that Harry Potter does actually exist and is not a fictional person?I didn't ignore your response, though, we have been talking about Harry Potter ever since then and now you seem to be saying you believe he is a real person and the harry potter universe actually exists because of magic which still makes you a polytheist since you actually believe in all the magical deities in the harry potter universe instead of recognizing that it is a known fiction with a known human author since one retarded argument always demands another.
>>18265359>Nope, its not just reasonable common, it is part of the natural order of the universe that even animals utilize.Nope, it's part of the supernatural order. The magical animals like unicorns and such are supernatural too.>Yet you can't give examples of a real supernatural being, you can only talk about known fictional beings with obviously fictional properties.I don't know if any supernatural beings exist or not, so obviously I can't point out one that definitely exists.>So now you claim is that Harry Potter does actually exist and is not a fictional person?Nope. I am simply not making the claim that wizards do not exist.>I didn't ignore your responseYou literally did, we only started talking again after I made another response to you.
>>18265364>Nope, it's part of the supernatural order.Nope, it is a natural part of their world and their universe's natural order, it might be supernatural to our universe, but it is a natural occurrence is theirs to the point common plants and animals express it.>I don't know if any supernatural beings exist or not,You were pretty confident that you knew of some supernatural beings that were gods just a minute ago, but okay I accept your concession, you can't actually name a real supernatural (not fictional) being that isn't a god.> I am simply not making the claim that wizards do not exist.You were making the claim that they exist and people worship them though, but I accept your concession there are no non deity supernatural beings commonly worshiped by atheists.Harry Potter is fictional not supernatural he doesn't actually exist he doesn't have any powers, he is just a character in a book and movie series that revolves around a universe where magic is a natural part of life.
>>18265377*super natural beings that were NOT gods
>>18262860>solipsistic obscurantism*yawn*
>>18265377>Nope, it is a natural part of their world and their universe's natural order, it might be supernatural to our universeIf there were wizards in our universe, you'd just claim they're natural too. You're implicitly working with a definition of the supernatural that excludes wizards.>You were pretty confident that you knew of some supernatural beings that were gods just a minute agoAre you ESL?>You were making the claim that they exist and people worship them thoughQuote where I made the claim that wizards exist and people worship them.
>>18265381>If there were wizards in our universe, you'd just claim they're natural too.If you were a olde english peasant who learned about electricians, you claim they were wizards too.>Quote where I made the claim that wizards exist and people worship them.>>18265125You specifically claimed there are atheists that worship wizards.
>>18265381>You're implicitly working with a definition of the supernatural that excludes wizards.No, you're explicitly working with a imaginary universe that includes fictional magical wizardry as part of their natural order.
>>18265385>If you were a olde english peasant who learned about electricians, you claim they were wizards too.So as I said, you're working with a definition of the supernatural that excludes wizards. Certainly not the common definition.>You specifically claimed there are atheists that worship wizards.I said there are atheists who believe in wizards, not ones that worship them.
>>18265387No, I am working with a definition of supernatural that doesn't count fictional nonsense as actual supernatural occurrences, but as the imaginary stories they are.>I said there are atheists who believe in wizards, not ones that worship them.No you were claiming that there are atheists that worship magical wizards as the creators of the world without being able to name the groups or the magical wizards they think created the world.
>>18265390>No, I am working with a definition of supernatural that doesn't count fictional nonsense as actual supernatural occurrences, but as the imaginary stories they are.Now you're just claiming that wizards don't exist.>No you were claiming that there are atheists that worship magical wizards as the creators of the world without being able to name the groups or the magical wizards they think created the world.I literally never said anything about worship or groups. And despite what you said here >>18265377, I also never claimed wizards exist.Your entire argumentation tactic is to lie about what I say or believe.
>>18265393>Now you're just claiming that wizards don't exist.I am claiming that the wizarding world of harry potter is entirely fictional and doesn't actually exist and isn't based on anything that actually existed.>I also never claimed wizards exist.Because you had to back down because you can't even name any atheists who think magical wizards created the world because such a thing does not exist its just your imagination like harry potter's wizard world is jk's imagination.
>>18265394>I am claiming that the wizarding world of harry potter is entirely fictional and doesn't actually exist and isn't based on anything that actually existed.If wizards exist in our world, are they supernatural?>Because you had to back down because you can't even name any atheists who think magical wizards created the world because such a thing does not exist its just your imagination like harry potter's wizard world is jk's imagination.True, it's possible that I'm wrong and no such atheists exist. You still lied about what I said.
There's an annoyingly massive range of possibilities contained in the word "god." Is it spooky, is it in some sense more powerful than a normal human? You could call it a god if you want. Aliens, wizards, and some ghosts could be called gods, I guess. Is it the all-powerful, all-knowing necessarily-existing creator of the universe? Yup, that's a god too.
>>18265406 (cont.)I want there to be a name for the vaguely Buddhist position where you could call it polytheism if you really wanted, but it's a strange sort of polytheism that's closer to atheism than to monotheism rather than having monotheism between them.
>>18265401>If wizards exist in our world, are they supernatural?If someone could manipulate reality in ways that are completely outside of the scope of our natural order and aren't just larpers in robes or doing advanced science that hasn't been fully articulated, then yea they would be supernatural gods.> You still lied about what I said.No, you didn't understand the implications of your claims because of the language barrier.
>>18265417>If someone could manipulate reality in ways that are completely outside of the scope of our natural order and aren't just larpers in robes or doing advanced science that hasn't been fully articulated, then yea they would be supernatural gods.So if schizos who think the wizarding world from Harry Potter more or less actually exists irl are right, those wizards are gods?>No, you didn't understand the implications of your claims because of the language barrier.No, that's another lie. You said that I claimed wizards actually exist and that atheists worship them. I never said that nothing I said implies that. You're a pathological liar, likely a narcissist too
>>18264065Yes thats what agnosticism means
>>18264058>When your athiestgoy brain cant think of a constructive counterargument because their not dealing with 90iq christcucks for onceMany such cases
>>18265299You're either too low IQ to be reasoned with or supremely trolling. Atheist has always meant without god, not without beliefs, that's the first one. Then I try for you to be more open minded and you drown in idiocy making up wishful thinking explanations for what scientific minded people havent. You're retarded, today and yesterday, no hope for tomorrow either.
Anyway, good audio gear + my ears claim this is creaking metals. https://youtu.be/_P4XOiMKLhk?si=N70RzXNVTY0zZaZF
>>18265355Indian
true, but there are some caveats. Belief is an incredibly strong tool.If you are a pragmatist as long as you don't fall into any dogma there is literally no downside to being religious. I used to be an agnostic Atheist, now I'm an agnostic Pandeist because I realized that believing in a god (or gods) is a lot more fun and helps strengthen your willpower even more than it usually is. Yes Atheism has the highest chance of "being right", but beside being objectively the most likely, it's not that useful as a tool in life, and can lead tonihilism (not the fun absurdist kind) if you just let it sit in your psyche for too long without reinforcing your willpower manually. If you are religious and suspend your disbelief while avoiding dogma you reap the rewards of bettering yourself for both your own being AND a greater power, you can boon yourself with confidence and humility in one fell swoop if you use your deity(s) as a guide. Not to mention getting involved in community and social stuff is a lot easier if you are in tune with some kind of religious belief. There's a reason why some of the smartest and most logical professors and scientists still choose to believe in god in some form, it's just efficient and practical with no downside if you don't get swept up into religion itself.
>>18262830>We redefine "atheism" to mean, "I dont believe in ghosts" so that we can argue against straw men. Take heart. It is I.
>>18262868No. It is a privation. It is like anarchy. It is the deconstruction of a mental framework, as anarchy is the deconstruction of a government. Absolute anarchy, and absolute atheism are like 0 Kelvin. Temperature is the motion of particles. Religion and government are the order of chaos. Atheism and anarchy are absolute chaos. You can't survive in that environment. We need some sort of stability, even if it is "arbitrary" at its origin.
>>18263094>ultimately a beliefIts worse then a belife. Its a privation. Its literally the destruction of beliefe.If a beliefe is bad, then it is a good thing to destroy that beliefe, but to define yourself as atheist, is to deny yourself entry into heaven, because the adversary serves no purpose in a perfect world.Satan is the king of hell. If you are in hell, you absolutly should follow Satan, and rebel against the wickedness around you.
>>18265572No, it means you follow the dogma that the existence of a god is unknowable, the very fact that it's framed as incontrovertibly true makes it a dogma.
>>18265689Atheist here, I believe in stuff, just don't, personally, consider to have a god above me. This creed is for the working of experimental stuff like chaos magick. And insanities I do, for magick and occult studies. Ymmv, but I think it's a very solid bet, plus you get to be a wizard. So far it's an interesting perspective, very informing of IQ, since people are generally not intellectually adventurous enough to see even the idea...
>>18264024>share with others, love everyone, dont be judgemental, etcAll the things that Jesus preached only work in the context that he thought the world was going to end in 2 weeks. He preached radical ethics because the situation was about to have a radical transformation once God returned.
>>18262830>religion helps with tardwrangling low iqs.Not too sure about that one boss
