>>23550479Dawkins is a Cultural Christian now
>>23550479Thats actually a dead on argument from who I'm assuming is a Muslim
>>23550500I too assume Mohammed Hijab is a muslim
>>23550479strawmanning the 5 proofs was pretty terrible. he didn't even quote them, just summarily created a straw man. the ending where he admits even though he doesn't believe it, he thinks it's a benign protective measure against something worse(islam, moral relativism purity spiral, etc). book is really silly.
>>23550504Lmao well. Hey. You never know If he's popular or something, I don't know him
>>23550504Kek
Dawkins went from >religion is evil and worthlessTo >religion can be good and I want christian culture but religion is also evil and worthless oh god christians please save me from the muslims and the woke left
Which works does he state that claim about morality in? It is possible that he did not believe it at the time he was writing that particular book.I’m sure Dawkins’ book is deeply flawed, but I’m not sure if that argument against it holds.
>>23550678Is this species of public intellectual related to the civic nationalist who doesn't see race and just wants to "integrate" immigrants to "Western values?"
>>23550678This mf spent his entire life being a fedora >but evolution proves that we used to be chimps so therefore the entire religious tradition of the world is gayWowwwwwwww genius!!!!
>>23550496He's been at too many of his own book signings. Nothing like seeing these pathetic freaks up close to realize you made a mistake.
>>23550479All morality including religious morality is subjective, that guy is right. For example human sacrifice is a moral good in aztec religion because it's leaders subjectively decided so. Human laws and values are like this too.
>>23550719remember when he had to walk back junk dna pseudo science? based retard
>>23550496Like how zizek is a christian atheistEmbarrassing
>>23550728>All morality including religious morality is subjective, that guy is right. For example human sacrifice is a moral good in aztec religion because it's leaders subjectively decided so. Human laws and values are like this too.So only leaders can have a say so on moral good? Their victim population immediately embraced the Lady of Guadalupe, when she identified herself and her Son as a victim of brutality. They just had no choice before.I'm sure it probably falls on deaf ears, considering half of you are petty loser chuds who are obsessed with personal empowerment. You love tyrants and hate the idea of dignity for anyone else.
>>23550728Moral disagreement is not evidence for morality being subjective. It’s possible that some of these claims are correct and some of them aren’t.
>>23550496>nowHe’s been saying that for over a decade.
>>23550771It didn't gain traction until he spoke up against trannies. But I remember back in the day he was still fond of the KJV bible.
>>23550753Nobody is listening because you sound like a cringe sóy faggot
>>23550728>For example human sacrifice is a moral good in aztec religion because it's leaders subjectively decided so.what if they sacrificed some poor bastard to the rain god or whatever and it actually worked? and then it worked every time? wouldn't that be seen as the rain good embodying morality and thus there being an objective morality above humans?
>>23550796>counterfactuals
>>23550780Sure, taking all of the Atzec leadership or pushing dorks like you down is real sóy behavior. News to me. What you don't get about so called "slave morality" is it lead by strong itself. Stronger than you. Who happen to insist on a more virtuous world than your stupid shit. We have and will continue to smack you around through every era of history. It's called Just War.
>>23550803are we sure it didn't happen every time?
>>23550479>there are 1000 supposed gods>a Christian rejects 999 gods>an athiest rejects 1000 gods>they only reject one more God... >therefore if a Christian wants to be consistent they should be an athiestI mean I can't spot any holes it in it, he's pretty wise.
>>23550849Pascal's wager.
>>23550849Christians reject their gods, not absolutely everything about other religions or traditions. Morality, a spiritual realm, etc.. Those things are true on the face of it. A Christian can work and dialogue with that. Total rejection is not the same thing.
Dawkins, like most new wave atheists, are good at rhetoric, which is good enough for the masses who are already looking to have their preconceptions or desires validated, but their arguments fall apart under any amount of philosophy scrutiny.
>>23550896Hes making fun of it
>>23550779When?He was most famous in the 2000s
>>23550479Atheists don't even exist. They never seem to understand this, which only makes it funnier.>>23550849This is an extremely stupid argument and is very hypocritical.>all religion wrong, therefore my religion rightIs the atheist's argument.They believe on faith that there is no God and build an entire worldview and dogmatic belief system with their own creation myth of the dumb big bang theory, the impossible abiogenesis myth, and the mathematically impossible evolution fairy tale; and they even create their own morals, what with moral relativism hypocrisy and SJWism. But all they have is semantics and pilpul to deny their beliefs are religious in nature and faith-based and dogmatic, or they'll define religion to require deities just like antiwhites will define racism such that only whites can be racist to justify their racism against whites. It's all so tedious.>>23550860This is also stupid. I'm tired of seeing posts like this too, just "herp derp pascal's peepeepoopoo"I know God, personally, through the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't just believe, I know. I don't need some stupid chart to know God. Faith doesn't come by looking at stupid charts, it comes by the word of God.>Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.>1st John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."that ye may know that ye have eternal life" -- You can know, not just believe, but know.>>23550900You say that, yet apparently don't realize that's how many atheists actually think. It's like you're just trying to save face for fools (atheists).
>>23550966I was obviously making fun of it lol
>>23550966Ray Comfort is cringe as fuck
>>23550966>I don't need some stupid chart to know God.Claiming knowledge of God is literally a sin in Christianity btw
>>23550973Vatican 1 made it required belief for Catholics, that the existence of God can be known through reason. John's gospel also heavily draws on greek philosophy who all had their own philosophical understandings of God. How would you explain the beginning of John's Gospel apart from an explicit understanding of God from philosophy?>>23550981sorry I still think sargon is a fag from gamergate sjw bashing days I will never get over that.
>>23550966High quality bait.
>>23550967So? You're still just a fool making other fools feel welcome by acting foolish and my argument still stands for the fools in the thread you've made feel welcome. There's a reason you don't get your kicks and giggles by acting retarded, you end up making retards feel welcome.>>23550971>le cringe afImagine being so afraid of other men that you fear being simply mocked. That's often enough to silence you cowardly unbelievers too, just some mockery and you'll keep silence out of fear of being ridiculed. You guys all turned silent once "cancel culture" took off too, afraid of the outrage mob coming after you or ridiculing you. I detest the cowardice of the unbelievers, it sickens me. Matthew 10:28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.>>23550973You should actually read the Bible before discussing it, fedoralard. Thanks for proving the other poster is a fool for making fools like you feel welcome.
>>23550981>OP hereLiar. I'm OP.
>>23550981Is this a bot?
>>23550967Look, I've spotted another fool you've made feel welcome, you useful idiot.>>23550988>can't refute it, therefore it's baitYou guys never have any real arguments and you can never argue in good faith. Atheists are simply the lowest quality posters, even worse than Papists.
>>23550985Sargon is a fag because he spams gay porn online to own the heckin nazis not because he rightfully bashed sjws
>>23550999I don't actually remember why I hate him, I remember listening to him when it first started. no clue why I can't stand him now but I'm sure I had a good justification.
>>23550999Sargoy is too coward now to actually get in debates or get involved with his old goons in his main channels. He now mostly spend his time trying to groomer the zoomers to do his beating.
>>23551003Because hes a snake and not to be trusted
>>23550999https://youtu.be/5QeVIMj3gio i think this is about him
>>23550998What do you mean?
>>23551020It's a matter of public record
>>23551020Don't feed the trolls.
>>23551022Really? Nothing comes up when I look it up
>>23551018Thanks for posting this. Its hard to discover these gems on your own.
>>23550985I dont subscribe to catholicism and that's among the many reasons why. It's an heretical sect>>23550989I've read the Bible Also I didn't say he's cringe af so he should be run out of town. Just that he's cringe afAs of this post btw you still dk what I believe
>>23550849this is fatally assuming all 1000 Gods are the same with the same traditions and systems. gr8 b8 made me reply
>>23551038>I've read the Bible Doubtful, but if you have you proved you don't understand it. >Also I didn't say he's cringe af so he should be run out of town. Just that he's cringe afYou also prove you can't discuss anything in good faith apparently.>As of this post btw you still dk what I believeI don't really care what some dishonest coward believes. Not like you've said anything of any substance or value yet and you have no boldness to proclaim your beliefs, you guys are so boring, so eager to say what you don't believe or claim others "just don't get you" and your special snowflake beliefs, but cowards who won't boldly proclaim your beliefs out of fear of mockery, otherwise you would've simply posted your beliefs instead of that. >>23551044>>>/b/>>>/trash/
>>23551096Bro smoke weed holy shit
>>23551038>I dont subscribe to catholicism and that's among the many reasons why. It's an heretical sectOh, you're one of those "Orthobros", aren't you? lol, I wonder if you're the same clown in the /wsg/ thread. You act just like him in the cowardice of your beliefs, clearly ashamed of them.>>23551102Literally go to /b/ or /trash/ or /bant/ or something, newfag.
>>23550504anyone got the >yes Jerry Seinfeld is jewishscreencap?
>>23551109No it's just that catholicism is clearly Roman beliefs plastered over Christianity to extend a political regime past the fall of the physical empireCatholicism is Byzantium. Clear as day I believe in a God thats different from your idea of him. But it doesn't matter what I say. It won't be able to compete with your "knowledge"
>>23551122And what denomination is the most similar to the early church?
>>23550479>>23550500Theists really think morals can't exist unless a daddy figure in the sky says so. I thought that was just a meme. Amazing.
>>23550516How did he strawman them?
>>23551130Thats not even what that says. He's saying Dawkins didn't disprove God, he just railed against why religion and the idea of God is "le bad"A polemic is not an argument or proof
>>23550973You couldn't even quote the verse you were twisting, even out of one of your counterfeit bibles, to call someone a sinner.>John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.>John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.>John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.>>23551122>I believe in a God thats different from your idea of him. But it doesn't matter what I say. It won't be able to compete with your "knowledge"You're right about that, you have nothing to add, funny that you just get offended like an SJW now and end your post with your little victimhood mentality snarkiness "because someone said meanie things to you!" -- You're pathetic, please grow a spine and stop acting like a PMSing woman or effeminate man.
>>23551129Doesn't matter. And honestly I don't know and you don't either, no one was alive to see the "early church," you take it on faith like all the rest. Or, as you call it, "knowledge." But if you trace the history it's blatantly obvious that it's an extension of Rome. Byzantium existed because Catholicism existed because Rome existed But its whatever. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. It's your "knowledge" claim I take issue with. These are your beliefs, they're not anything you know And none of us "know" God, believe that.
>>23550479I only listened to a podcast with Mohammad Hijab once and all he did was just rattle of Quran verses as if that's enough to blunt-force conversions to Islam.>>23550678Bill Maher is the same shit right now. Dawkins is a "cultural Christian" and Ayaan Hirsi Ali converted to Christianity for real.The world is more secular than ever but the New Atheism movement sure as fuck wasn't its shepherd.
>>23550728Human sacrifice is good according to Christian theology
>>23551141I'm not being emotive at all here, you are. I'm cool as ice But I also wasn't quoting a verse. It's baked in. Claiming knowledge where one cannot know is sin of pride.
>>23551145These people are shameless
>>23551130Yes.
>>23550860>"Pasca-- Ugk!"
>>23551149You're just a pathetic cowardly liar.
>>23551136For that criticism to stand, Dawkins would have to hold the belief that all moralities are equally good (that there is no way to measure one as better than another), which is a strawman of his position.
>>23550479BAN TWITTER POSTERS
>>23551169No, it's two qualitatively different arguments. He's trying to say that as a metaphysical fact, God doesn't exist, but he's arguing that from a position of morality, ie, all the religious concepts surrounding this idea of God have lead to a lack of applied reason, and a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. Aka, they're "bad." That doesn't disprove God's existence, just that humans are retards. Even if he was arguing it this way>morality comes from some "where" >my morality is the best and the right one>this is because it derives itself from the logic of the universe>my morality is metaphysically correctThat still doesn't even touch the question of God's existence
>>23551161Alright man
>>23551130>Theists really think morals can't exist unless a daddy figure in the sky says so.they are correct
>>23551130here's your atheist morality bro
>>23551130ok wise guy where do they come from the nhard mode: no appeal to instinct or "just because"
>>23550678This is basically what's happened with every atheist that didn't go down the Marxist pipeline in the 2010s.
>>23551204
>>23551188>He's trying to say that as a metaphysical fact, God doesn't exist,He literally is not. You fundamentally fail to understand his position.
>>23551188dawkins probably does not know what metaphysics even is
>>23551207There is a category of emergent experience which we instantly recognize as "good" or "bad". You know this is true and it goes by the name of "pleasure" and "pain" but also encompasses profound and meaningful experiences which we recognize as having the attribute of "good" of in suffering as "bad". This phenomenon arises objectively in reality and is experienced through our subjective experience. Morality is the negotiation of the maximization and distribution of "good" experiences and the lessening and distribution of "bad" experiences.
>>23551213Yeah he is. That's one of the core arguments of the book. That God likely doesn't exist
>>23551240>which we instantly recognize as "good" or "bad"who decides what is good and what is bad?>Morality is the negotiation of the maximization and distribution of "good" experiences and the lessening and distribution of "bad" experiences.>unironically using a utilitarian pleasure-pain argumentcome on man
>>23551207There is a category of emergent experience which we instantly recognize as "good" or "bad". You know this is true and it goes by the name of "pleasure" and "pain" but also encompasses profound and meaningful experiences which we recognize as having the attribute of "good" or in suffering as "bad". This phenomenon arises objectively in reality and is experienced through our subjective experience. Morality is the negotiation of the maximization and distribution of "good" experiences and the lessening and distribution of "bad" experiences.
>>23551250>who decides what is good and what is bad?No one decides in the sense that you don't "decide" to see a color, it simply is what it is.
>>23551102Lol>>23551109He's right. You're having an autistic fit.
>>23551249You are an embarrassment. You said "He's trying to say that as a metaphysical fact, God doesn't exist" and now you say he says "That God likely doesn't exist". Saying something is likely is vast oceans apart from saying it is a metaphysical fact in philosophy. Lurk more and read more little, kid, you'll get there eventually.
>>23551253so someone can rape and murder and if you ask them if what they did was good or bad, they just shrug and say "it is what it is" you'd be okay with that?
>>23551253>it simply is what it isthat's literally how God justifies his own existence. he just is.
>>23551252I'm going to lay out the clearest argument for God and what God is all aboutStarts with the first mover; everything in existence logically proceeds from God because God is the All. If you stripped away all formal content from reality, you'd be left with God. This is reflected in all of the religions, in Christianity, the verse about "I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things." Everything in existence, proceeds from God because it has to. God is ineffable. You cannot know him. You'll never understand him or know what exactly he wants. God defies all knowledge, you cannot not know the infinite. Morality is therefore, never set in stone. We intuit morality through consequence, the consequences of our actions make us feel a certain way and bring about physical results. The fact that this happens, is the will of God. We cannot know it but we intuit it. That's why life is a test, a lesson and an experiment. Were never sure, we try things and we sometimes fail, sometimes succeed.Humans have different moral ideas because each person is endowed with a set of feelings, and those feelings aren't the same. Wharever resonates with our feelings is what morality we gravitate towards. We tend to act out our true moral beliefs, and we deal with the results. If we don't like the results, we ignore them, or we amend our moral assumptions to get better results. As for the "true morality," whats really good and really evil, only God knows or could ever know that. We intuit it instead of knowing it, and God drops clues and hints through everything contained within life, through the consequences of actions. Everything written down by humans is a guess, everything is worth considering, it is all from the mouth of God, but when we decide to act and when we decide what we believe, we always do it on faith. Only God has knowledge
>>23551260I'm saying you don't make a judgement when you observe something arise in your consciousness. You only make judgements when you compare the volume of one experience and another, but you merely apprehend whether they exist as "good" or "bad". Do you deny that you experience the category of "good" and "bad" in your consciousness?
>>23551259>Lurk more and read more little, kid, you'll get there eventually.Lmao
>>23550479Is there anything he hasn't got wrong?
>>23551267Did he say that to you or did someone else write it down and you read what someone else said he said? I'm talking about experience which carries certain attributes which exist as such in your consciousness.
>>23551259Also it doesn't matter anyway; whether it's a fact or a probability, the same thing stands, Muhammad's critique was about how Dawkins used polemics to argue for what instead requires evidence or proofs. And you didn't get that that's what was being said, which was how we wound up here in the argument. So either way you're wrong and didn't understand from the very beginning
>>23551274i don't understand, i do not care whether someone interprets this or that, i care if what they do is fundamentally good or bad even in the absence of any witness. if you say for example, that good and bad simply just are, i ask what is the origin of such justification and lead back to God as an ultimately self-justifying entityit doesn't matter whether i personally categorize things as this or that, what we are talking about is universally applicable accross all circumstances and at all times, inherent moral laws of the universe and who is the creator of such laws
>>23551284You begin by a misunderstanding of Dawkins position because you accept the strawman that Dawkins "doesn't believe in an objective morality" as meaning he does not believe there is any metric by which to judge one morality as being better than another, which, when you actually law it out, is obviously a strawman and is dishonest. Dawkins' position is that there is not an all encompassing morality which has been handed down by a deity and can never be changed. Morality leads to better results when it is reasoned, argued, and changed with an eye to producing the best results. NOT by being deemed "objective" and immune from change or critique.
>>23551291>i care if what they do is fundamentally good or bad even in the absence of any witnessYou literally can't know that, that's impossible for any man to know. The second he claims to know, he's committed the sin of pride, he's already heading into moron land
>>23551291When a good thing happens to you, you feel good, right? That "feeling good" represents a fundamental aspect of reality which is experienced as "good". This is the measure by which a mode of morality can be said to be good or bad, that is, whether it maximizes these experiences or not.
>>23551293I never said, literally, any of that or even implied it
>>23551282both. God revealed himself in divine revelation>Exodus 3:14 King James Version 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto youbut one can also logically conclude God through reason, independent of one's own experience and one's own consciousness. tell me, do you believe mathematics is all up to one's "experience and consciousness"?
>>23551303You hear a voice in your head, and it's God?
>>23551293Not only did I not imply it, but this:>Dawkins' position is that there is not an all encompassing morality which has been handed down by a deity and can never be changed. Morality leads to better results when it is reasoned, argued, and changed with an eye to producing the best results. NOT by being deemed "objective" and immune from change or critique.Is the part of Dawkins I agree with, he's right about all of that. It just doesn't say anything at all about God. It says that dogmatic beliefs are fucking retarded and that humans make them up. Which I agree with. And said many times throughout this thread in different ways. If I didn't already understand what he was talking about I wouldn't have said what I've said. He dismantles dogma, he does not even come close to touching God's existence in the process. But the book is called the God Delusion and his argument for atheism, positive belief in the non existence of God, is that "he probably doesn't exist so it'd be better to assume he doesnt." Who's dishonest?
>>23551304Don't be so quick to dismiss what he's saying. I think religious dogma is retarded, but there's a reason men throughout all times and places have been able to sit down in a field for a long time and draw the exact same conclusions about reality.
>>23551314Yeah, your genetic inclinations because you have almost exactly the same DNA and have very similar conditions in life.
>>23551322Why you start in the middle of the chain?
>>23551295anon a child can ask, who created this chair and understand. if that same child asked, who created everything? the child would also understand>>23551296but telling the truth hurts but is the right thing to do. it feels bad, but is objectively right. unless you are telling me, it is okay for people to lie, in which case, how do i know you are not lying right now because feel it to be a good, even though it is objectively immoral
>>23551334Yeah the child would understand that he has no fucking idea which is why children are usually smarter than adults in a very core wayEver notice how most kids are puzzled when they see adults fighting about any topic It's all bullshit to a kid. They just want to enjoy lifeThey know they can't know and it's retarded to even think about
>>23551304i never said that. if logical conclusions are voices in your head i would get that checked out anon
To think that if Dawkins was more humble he would have realized that religion is in itself part of the evolutionary process and that there are objective virtues in life that we should adhere to even if we don't have parables to filter them through
>>23551336No, a child can know. They just move on.>someone had to have made this chair or it wouldn't exist, Timmy>so who made everything, including the people who made the chair?>God. And he made it because it was good, we just abused it and now have to deal with it, i'll tell you more later>okyou can have definitive conclusive knowledge without the full details anon
>>23551306if he says dogmatic beliefs are retarded, is that not a dogmatic belief in of itself? what was he thinking
>>23551334You hold the position that it is 100% always objectively wrong to lie? How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? No reasonable person would agree with you. If a child rapist with a gun asks where a small child is hiding, would you answer truthfully because it's objectively wrong to lie? Consider your opinions a little more carefully before posting next time.
>>23551334>how do i know you are not lying right now because feel it to be a good, even though it is objectively immoralYou are a retard who has never heard of the concept of moral relativism, easily apparent just from the fact you're speaking in absolutes
>>23551306Every claim about God is something someone made up
> dude god exists TRUST ME and also DO WHAT I SAYpass, god told me you're retarded
>>23551366>You hold the position that it is 100% always objectively wrong to lie? Yes>How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?Lying is fundamentally self-refuting, as it is a distortion of truth. Truth being universally correct in all circumstances, lying by definition is to knowingly distort the truth. If one maintains that lies are truth, and truth are lies, you cannot be logically consistent by definition, because you cannot tell if something is truth or lie>If a child rapist with a gun asks where a small child is hiding, would you answer truthfully because it's objectively wrong to lie?that is a false dichotomy. my choices are far more than just tell the truth or lie, if a man with a gun asks where a small child is hiding, i would try something else such that i would neither be lying but not aiding the child rapist to buy time and try to either escape or do literally anything else e.g. "the child is somewhere safe.">Consider your opinions a little more carefully before posting next time.consider yours>>23551375> who has never heard of the concept of moral relativismi have heard of it, and it is false as much as it is self-destructive and dangerous for individuals and societies
>>23551376Yeah and that someone was God
>>23551392>and it is false as much as it is self-destructive and dangerous for individuals and societies>hurr everything is black and white with no nuances whatsoeverTruly idiotic, even your response to the other Anon is pussy footing around the idea that there are in fact situations where lying is morally superior to abject honesty
>>23551411>tells me i lack nuance>lacks creativity in situations and defaults to lyingreally makes you think
>>23551392A person can believe they are lying, but in doing so, tell the truth. This one fact annihilates your entire "objectively 100% always" criteria.
>>23551473it doesn't matter what thet believe, they are either lying or telling the truth. that is what truth is: independent of anyone, universally consistentsorry relativists, try again
>>23551252you can't empirically prove anything you just said though. time, past, experience, consciousness, good, bad, morals, ethics, etc. these are all transcendental categories and arguing for one thing presupposes the others and can never be objective. it's like when peterson asked dillamonkey why him dying would be bad for him and he responded with, "well i have value because my ancestors thought they had value and didn't die". it's retarded logic full of fallacies. "blunt facts", "human flourishing", "secular humanism", "it just is", etc are all completely incoherent when put under a microscope.
>>23551306you don't even realize that the foundation of dawkins' and other atheists' thinking is dogmatic. you can't question them because they are "self evident" or "just is".
>>23550728>All facts are subjective. For instance, lots of people thought the world was flat. If you grew up in their culture you would also think the world is flat. They thought this because people decided it.The argument from varying opinions is completely retarded. It's only confirmation if you already assume morals are subjective, but the same sort of thing holds for all truth. People also think wrong answers to arithmetic are correct, but that doesn't make arithmetic arbitrary and wholly subjective.The entire ideal that "social construction" = the arbitrary and sui generis creation of man is also bankrupt. You basically have to assume some sort of acausal magical human will. Otherwise conventions have to do with how the world is in some way, since they don't spring from the aether.
>>23550504Kek'd
>>23551341I’d be willing to bet that he’s described religion as a meme before.
>>23551284That’s not what he said. He said that Dawkins’ moral critique of religion doesn’t hold because he has contradicted the basis for such critique elsewhere.
>>23550706Wait a second, is that Scruton?!
>>23551134NTAHe can't even correct STATE the Cosmological Argument, proving he totally misunderstands it and his attempt to refute it is pure fremdschamen.The rest of the Quinque Viae is just as bad. He also completely misunderstands Anselm's Ontological Argument.Reading it was like reading an essay from a Philo 115 student that didn't do the reading.
>>23551122>t catholicism is clearly Roman beliefs plastered over Christianity to extend a political regime past the fall of the physical empire>Catholicism is Byzantium. Clear as dayFFS, there is nothing worse than a guy with an 8th grade education discussing history.
>>23550728>>23550728Congrats!You just approved of Nazis and pedos!
>>23551376Every claim about everything is something someone made up
>>23550479this is very true and that is why i have tooo loook like this again, bt with correct eye colo
>>23551989well yeah most people called "pedos" today would be considered normal back when people were openly marrying girls in early puberty. that's a pretty good example of morality being just a bunch of customs that are always in flux
>>23551038>an hereticalEsl
>>23552113I don't believe in an objective morality intrinsic to the universe either, but your argument here is really dumb. Just because humans have behaved differently throughout time and have had different understandings of 'good' and 'evil', it does not necessarily imply that there are no right answers. Just because it was considered normal to marry pre-pubescent girls and now it isnt, it doesnt follow that it couldnt be wrong to do so objectively.
>>23552113Legalisms aren't morality. There are all kinds of considerations people come up with to form a law that have nothing to do with the ethnical part of it (unfortunately). Maybe some issue of process or practicality or politics worms its way in.
>>23552286ethnical*
>>23550728>morality is subjective>human sacrifice is a moral good"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
>>23552275No, that's correct. You do an before a word that begins with an h followed by a vowel. Nice try though
>>23550996Better than crying to the jannies because a meme hurt your feelings.
>>23552295Nope. Learn to write.
>>23550849>some local volcano god is equivalent to the creator of the universegr8 b8 m8
>>23551278His work in biology is seminal. Too bad smart people run the danger of their hubris getting the better of them, thinking that just because they mastered a subspecialty of a subspecialty, this grants the legitimacy to comment on any other field and its infinite subspecialties.
>>23552680>His work in biology is seminalIf you mean The Selfish Gene... as a field biologist I'd say it's not, but my "in vitro" colleagues regard it highly. In the end -as you very well put it- it's a matter of scope and perspective.
>>23551925You are talking about presuppositionalism which is actually only answered by exactly the type of thing Dillahunty was talking about but which is better laid out by Bertrand Russell in "The Problems with Philosophy". It is true that the only thing you can ever be sure exists is your consciousness in this exact moment. Your sense experience exists, and within it are sense data which carry certain attributes. When you see a color, you are experiencing what it is like to see a color. Therefore, within the universe, you can say there are objectively experiences being had of colors, since you can reference your own as at least one such occasion. Thus, when you experience something "good" it follows the same logic, that the universe objectively contains experiences of "good", since you can reference your own such experience and know it for certain to exist. All knowledge beyond your sense data is made by inference and has either stronger or weaker likelihood existing. This is all pretty basic stuff in philosophy.
>>23551980Causation implies a temporal relationship. Thus, it is inappropriate to apply the causation which we are familiar with (cause > time passes > effect) when speaking of "before time" or "the beginning of time". To say the first moment of time had a cause is an incoherent statement, because it implies there was a time before time for there to have been a cause which preceded the start of time in time. Thus, the cosmological argument in relation to causation is null.
>>23552067Wrong. "I think therefore I am" can be referenced and verified as a true statement by any thinking agent as necessarily true. Thanks for playing though.
>>23552284If you take a purely objective stance you could list off tons of pros and cons for child brides. Who is to say which way the scale swings?
>>23550860What about the god-that-rips-my-balls-off? One will condemn me if I worship any God but him and the other will rip my balls off
>>23551252Why shan't I make you me and my buddies rape toy? Our pleasure will outnumber your pain
>>23550985>John's gospel also heavily draws on greek philosophyNo, he doesn't. He uses the word logos a few times. That's it.
>>23550849CS Lewis covers this in Mere Christianity. >all religious people believe in a god, even if they don't agree on what exactly god is, so they have that fundamental belief in common>only Atheists see fit to go against every other person in history, by believing in no god whatsoever
>>23550849>people haven't believed in *your preferred scientific discovery* for 99% of humanity's existence>you should be consistent and still not believe in them
Optimal morals are no more subjective than the answer to 2+2. Different inputs (general psychometric characteristic tendencies of the group in the case of morals) will yield different answers. Sam Harris would disagree, claiming his own personal preferences as objective.
>>23555748Hottentots will have different morals from Bantus who have different morals from Edwardian Englishmen. Things like time preference, theory of mind, level of gelotophobia, capacity for remorse and capacity to abstract will determine the optimal morals for any group.
>>23550479He literally didn't even have the most basic understanding of any of Aquinas' five ways, dismissing the whole lot of them in about a sentence.
>>23551295how would you have felt if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
>>23550849Actually oddly this is only true for recent near secualr Christians. I don't reject any of these gods and know from Sacred Tradition and Scripture that they are demons. They're real but not in the way you'd want. Again, "religion" is a thing but talk to me when he's "debunking" St. Thomas Aquinas, Von Balthasar, or even Origen.
>>23555476please explain the beginning of his gospel then lol
>>23556020Logos is the closest equivalent Greek word for an already Semitic concept. The Memra (Word) in all the Aramaic Targums and some of the Intertestamental/Apocryphal books.The Targums were an Aramaic collection of translations of the Old Testament when Hebrew was already for more classical use. People like John, who were lower class fishermen, were brought up speaking Aramaic more often, and their bibles were a sort of paraphrase of the Hebrew. The "Memra" was often used as another divine word for God or the Angel of the Lord in the OT.Both ecclesiastical and fedora/mythicists writers are misinformed for leaning on Greek so much. Forgetting what's right in front in their face: It's not a Hellenic text and not from a Hellenic culture. That and ignoring so much of the Apocryphal texts, and treating the bible in some kind of vacuum.https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
>>23556040lmao literally from your link>It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term "Logos," which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence (see Reizenstein, "Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen," 1901, pp. 83-111; comp. Aall, "Der Logos," and the Logos literature given by Schürer, "Gesch." i. 3, 542-544). The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.Nothing you said or on this link explains the beginning of John's gospel or makes sense of it. John's gospel was written later than the others, and he lived in turkey where greek philosophy began, and you know wrote in greek. Unless you think somehow someone is writing in greek but had never read any greek works. Discounting the historical fact that the gospel's were written in greek with that languages cultural background also just seems horrifically ungrateful and putting your will above Gods
>>23551209>reads Peterstein once
>>23551013Isn't that smug smiling guy a homo?
>>23556058So what. Learn to sift and discern yourself. I'm not your dad. That's a century old encyclopedia made by rabbinic Jews who will obviously diminish Christian origins. The point is they themselves are familiar with it and are not Greeks.
>>23556075Who cares if they are familiar with a aramaic word? It literally does nothing to resolve the question. I asked you to explain the beginning of the gospel of John, randomly pointing to the fact the word "word" has been used in the bible before then doesn't do that. There is a quite obvious, clear, and coherent account if you read it in the you know, language it was written in. Using a greek work would bring about greek connotations, the thing wasn't written in aramaic. It also makes sense in the greek, with greek cultural influence. Literally everything points to that. If you have an alternative explanation that relies on some jewish scholars give it your best shot but linking some encyclopedia that agrees with me and says even the jewish usage of the word is influenced by greek philosophy doesn't help your case. Maybe you are aware of some letter by a Church father correcting greek people's misunderstandings about the gospel as any greek would obviously take that reading of it? Certainly that would have come up and been something they talked about.
>>23556085You didn't ask me anything. I'm not the same anon you were talking to. I'm merely chiming in very late. John is not written in Aramaic, obviously. But it's a broken English version of Greek. It's usually given to first year students because it's so rough. Simply put 2+2 together and realize it's not a product of Hellenic thought itself for being so poorly written. He's conveying Aramaic thought with Greek words. It's not that hard to understand. Don't make me play the part of dad again.
>>23556111It being written in greek is not a proof that it's not influenced by greek thought... you responded to a comment asking for a de-greeked explanation of the beginning of John's gospel and you are just whinging on about how it's not actually influenced by greeks at all while just affirming a bunch of evidence that it actually is. The traditions of early Christianity as it developed are also all just clearly rooted in greek philosophical thinking, as it's simply what's required to understand such subtle subjects. Jews and Aramaic's were not philosophers and simply did not have the capability of having any serious understanding of these subjects within their language. All the development of Christian theology was in greek and through greek philosophy (see the council of chalcedon and the homoousios debate)this is just ahistorical protestant claptrap, like I said if this was an issue there would be a Church father talking about it. They were taught by the apostles, they dealt with greek Churches, they wrote the theology and disputed it at councils. They all made use of greek thought.
>>23551209Not necessarily. They could also go down the Buddhist path, but the functionality of religion is still there I suppose. The basic reasoning is absolutely sound. You need a moral foundation for a society to function. Nihilism doesn't work out. Marxism isn't an ethical moral principle but rather a power dynamics ideology just with violence as preferred choice of method. Its a fairly evil ideology for certain.
>>23550753Leaders can easily be substituted for the majority at large, either way it's still the same effect of humans deciding. Not objective forces, so you will have differences between cultures and nations.>>23550767Nope. These cultures considered things we consider amoral good. Humans decide good and evil.>>23550796That's pretty much how they saw it. Sacrifice was le good to them despite being an abomination to us.>>23551147Many times zealots have claimed killing heathans as a good despite commandments condemning murder as a whole, there are countless "exceptions" made even by YHWH.>>23551944>All facts are subjective. For instance, lots of people thought the world was flat. If you grew up in their culture you would also think the world is flat. They thought this because people decided it.Except you wrote that, so cute false equivalence. The earth's shape is a material reality, it will always exist as it is regardless of what people believe. Morals were defined and ironed out over time as human society formed and developed. You are sentimental about it being a magical innate force that's always the same but you are unable to prove this claim.
>>23555417The principle of making other people a rape toy is a principle which would lead to a hellish nightmare for most people and would be vastly inferior to the current model of society. For all its flaws, modern society is actually extremely utilitarian compared with alternatives like the one you mention.
Moldbug filleted Dawkins so now he just admits he's a nontheistic Christian
Imagine getting this heated over some archaic fanfiction.
>>23551247>You know this is true and it goes by the name of "pleasure" and "pain" So if all I do everyday is watch anine and masturbate, then does that makes me a very moral person, just because I feel good when cumming? And if I work my ass off to feed children and give money to the poor, am I an immoral person because I feel bad whule working?
>>23551130There exists no non-religious reason why any moral claim is true. At best moral claims from a non-religious point of view is a matter of personal taste. If someone has evolved or been culturally indoctrinated into thinking killing children recreationally is bad they have no rational non-religious reason why those who are evolved into thinking it is good should not do it. Beyond personally dislike, and those who like killing children doesn't necessarily care about that so it is not a reason why you shouldn't recreationally kill children for most of them who think it is good.
>>23559185Within the scope of experience, there are "good" and "bad" experience, as a matter of category. When you apprehend a pleasurable experience, it carries an indelible character of "good" which you cannot help but know instantly. Thus, morality is merely the negotiation between people and within society of creating a framework to fairly maximize the category of "good" while minimizing the category of "bad". Every right, every freedom, every law is set up to maximize a person's ability to pursue "good" experience, and in fact, every system is instinctively rated on it's success as to whether people are happy and healthy or miserable and starving. The only thing religion adds is to pervert morality by introducing divine command (which is unverifiable) which necessarily moves the moral goal off of the "good" and onto something which will bring about less "good" and more "bad", as a matter of definition. Note also that, broadly speaking, the criteria of overlap between different people and what is "good" is staggering and almost complete, so that, for the overwhelmingly vast majority, the same basic things will constitute the good.
>>23559327k so if this group people say it is good to kill you and takr your stuff because it maximizes their pleasure by your own logic its fine
>>23550479can someone explain the redundant part? i don't get what he's saying.
>>23550749Westoids are simply built for Big Christian Cvltvre
>>23559327good and bad is a false dichotomypain and pleasure is a false dichotomysuffering and joy are the only choices
>>23553230The Cosmological Argument covers both a finite and infinite duration cosmos, which you'd know if you actually knew the argument. And I disagree that causation requires that there was/will ALAYS be a temporal element. Indeed, current scientific thinking refutes you with certain quantum effects having zero temporal delay.You argument is unsound and thus fails.
