Is Atheism a luxury?

>making fun of smugly correct it is

>tfw too stupid for atheism

Ideas can't be "luxuries." You'll find heroin-addicted squatters and pampered, wealthy, infantile coeds who espouse the exact same nonsense.

But are people who live luxuriously less often forced to confront their nonsense? Yes. It's unfortunate that "atheism" has become synonymous with radical humanism, which is a religion like any other.

>be me
>at Barnes & Noble
>Check out philosophy section
>No Kant, No Hegel, No Hobbes, no Decartes
>One Marcus Aurelius
>One Plato
>One Aristotle
>One Kierkegaard
>One Sarte
>One DFW who somehow snuck in
>5 Karl Marx
>48 books about athiesm

California is cancer.

Weirdly it depends on believers like a tick on a lamb. It actually is like a cancer-- once the host dies, it dies too. Personally, after rejecting something, I tend to move on..

why do the pol posters on this board like to larp as 14th century monks?
is it the same reason antifa nerds smash windows to larp as revolutionaries?

I don't know

Cavemen were probably athiests right?

>Barnes and Noble
Nigga, come on now...

Yeah, you can only really pull it off beyond edgy teenage years with a strong mind.

It's way easier to live your life if you think all of the horrible shit in the universe happens for a reason; you and your loved ones won't just shut off like a computer when you die; and morality is handed down from God and not something you have to figure out on your own. I can't imagine how someone who slaves his life away in a diamond mine in Africa or someone with a 90 points IQ has to deal with this shit.

Probably not actually.

Most likely believed in a more primitive religion.

Why do I get the feeling you're mixing atheism up with your teenage angst? They're very different. Choosing not to embrace any extant world religions and finding no reason to believe in any traditionally conceived God figure, and, perhaps most importantly, not feeling this lack of belief to be any burden or pain - this is atheism properly. Being young and having your hormonal imbalances and social dissatisfactions compounded by the intellectual ideology of secularism - this is a problem for angsty teenagers, not atheists.

>le atheists are only smart people XDDDD

I view spiritual belief as an inherent part of the human experience independent of the argument for whether or not a deity exists. From animism to modern day religious hierarchy spiritual belief has been a common element to the human experience, and I think that to deny the experience is a position of isolating oneself from that human condition.

Also those skeptical of theism are agnostic. Atheism is almost always an inherently anti-intellectual position.

That's not what I said, read again.

You could have just posted a fedora picture and save us some time.

People who take religion seriously are to SJWs what Atheists are to anti-SJWs. The former are annoying and the latter are pointless.

Actually I'm more or less taking Bertrand Russell's position with some caveats of my own, so I guess he's a fedora tipper too.

>the man who misunderstood 80% of continentals, wrote a big book of butthurt on this topic presenting it as historiography and founded analytical autism
Yes. Yes, he is.

Anything other than agnosticism makes no sense in our time.

Yes. It's the same with these alt-right think pieces. A bunch of dorks LARPing as intellectuals.

>being a filthy fence rider

>blindly believing what people tell you

Just deny God or believe. Flip a coin if you need to or go to church for the socialization but don't believe.

>human experience
Sounds like pretty bullshit idea, to be quite honest.

Gnostic atheism is bullshit. Come to think of it, Gnostic anything is bullshit. Like seriously, how do you even know that you know?

You already do that, that's why you sit on the fence.

I don't have to spend time reading shitty pseudo-philosophy, or go to church, or spend time praying, or pretend to feel things that aren't real, or argue with people of different faiths.

It's a time saving mechanism at this point.

Underrated.

Cancerous thread.

yes it is for the brain damaged

>Believe what I want based upon my own inquiry and research

Get a grip. Fence riders gtfo

How do you even know that you don't know? Or know that you don't know that you don't know?

Go back to redshit pleb

>the amount of mad in this thread just from the mention of atheism

>believing in something that has no proof of existence
>rational

I don't care if people are religious, but it's ridiculous to assume that disbelief is irrational when there's no proof to begin with. Religion relies on faith and faith alone.

>deliberately damaging your brain turns you into a leftist
They didn't think that article through did they?

Two of the examples cited are clearly jokes. Are jokes irrational, or are you just dim?

>Atheism
>Autism
really makes you think

'Proof' is the culture that nourished you, whatever your culture, inclusive of its institutions. Ultimately, a non-believer declares his or her own 'individuality' via rejection, which is easy. Get together and form some brave new world when rejection becomes neither here nor there then 'madness' strikes (you) too. In other words, it's very easy to say no. And very difficult to debate a sieve. It's a cute position because it really is no a position at all.

>I know (you) are, but what am I?

they highly correlate

It's the same kind of luxuries Wall Mart or Adderall are. You cannot get it in shitholes but it isn't that bad, in the end…

Actually, disbelief is irrational as long as no proof of inexistence has been provided. The burden of proof is a matter of courtesy, not a principle of formal logic.

This. One cannot refute a philosophy without offering one that is better.

…this isn't what I meant. It's fine to be atheist—I am—but there's nothing rational with this. If one were to stick with rationality, his conclusion would be that neither the existence nor the absence of existence is proven, thus no further action can be carried on. That's all. A lack of evidences doesn't infer the inexistence.

Considering a conception is contained entirely within its application, no, you can not posit unneeded entities. I mean, you can, but then you are bloating your ontology for no reason.

Peirce and James talked about this a lot. With science, you have the ability to hold on to a belief knowing very well it could and should be modified in the future. Any belief that is not founded on empiricism ultimately rests on tenacity and nothing else. When you posit an entity like God, you attempting to explain phenomena with an ultimately ad-hoc principle. Naturalist explanations have the edge because they can successfully tie into our experiences, which are the foundation of all belief anyway.

What is a redshit? I wouldn't know what that is.

>proof
The problem of evil + The paradox of free will
Now refute this faggot

>proof of inexistence
>inexistence

No such thing lad

Neither of those are valid.

>a lack of faith is irrational
you are truly a religious mind

No, believing god doesn't exist is irrational. Not caring is neither rational nor irrational, and acknowledging the absence of conclusion is the only genuine rational position.

The problem of evil was solved by Dostoevsky

Being mad and making weak jokes are not mutually exclusive. For example, your post.

Atheism is, ultimately, a delusion brought by the misunderstood positivistic aspirations
Look no further than these sad individuals, who pitifully think that their lives are based on 'reason':

you are implying the believe "god doesn´t exist"
i tell you that´s not what it means
it means "not believing god exists"
this is not just semantics either

Atheism is literally caused by damage to a neurophysiological pathway, and possibly, the pathway that causes autism, and the one that causes Atheism are either linked together or the same exact pathway. Which could explain the correlation... but that takes quite a leap.

>I believe God exists
>God exists
>I don't believe God exists
>God doesn't exist

Putting "I believe" in front does not change anything unless you follow it up with, "I could be wrong". Which we all know isn't part of the Atheists vocabulary.

Do you have any proof to back up that statement?

Just because you haven't seen something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>

>false equivalency

>challenge an atheist to prove that he loves his mother
>he can't
>starts crying

>challenge an atheist to prove that suicide is wrong
>he can't
>kill himself

Are you also agnostic about schizophrenic hallucinations? Keep in mind that the person claims any tests showing that they're insane are rigged by invisible demons.

Just because you claim something exists doesn't mean it exists.

Agreed. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.

So youre saying that you cant handle the truth. You need muh faerie tales

What is it supposed to mean?

Yes.

What do you mean? Yes, you shouldn't. It's handy.

I think you are denying the horror of the article. You know what this really means right?

>truth

You're dreaming.

>THE ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD

Tell us.

are you dense or are you just pretending
"believe" never implies "know"
if i say i don´t believe god exist then that´s what it means, i don´t believe it
and with that
it follows that i could be wrong
there is no need to follow it up with it though because everyone with half a brain-cell understands that believe doesn´t mean know and thus implies the possibility of being wrong

I cut this excerpt from Baudrillard and Enrique Valiente Noailles' "Exiles of Dialogue" for another thread, but I want to post it here as well.

Denying that God exists isn't particularly relevant today, when the dominant ideology of Scientific Materialism and Multicultural Humanism are essentially just Christianity with the supernatural elements subtracted.

Today's heresy is to deny reality.

It's really not.

OPIUM

Ehhh-- tick on a LAMB; cancer's HOST? That person was not only not a believer, but blaspheming in his complete indifference! To his credit, he evidently doesn't care much for your position either. Are all weak jokes this subtle, moron?

>At Barnes and Noble
>also in California
>Two Kierkegaards
get good my dude

If you could be wrong then why have any position at all? If you wish for me to believe you've arrived at that belief because of any sort of logical conclusion, yet you are so ready to say Ehhhh I might be wrong then you are the dolt, not me.

>2deep4u lmao
youtube.com/watch?v=lMss1CeHOiM

By definition it is.

>It doesn't show IQ above 110 because it bends back to being religious

>religionfag assuming things without evidence because it makes him feel better
What a surprise.

Definition of what?

>says the laser posting a faked unsourced chart

A false equivalence. Go back to redshit

If you want to call something a false equivalence, you have to prove the two things are not equivalent. Just saying "by definition" is not an argument. Saying reddit is also not an argument.

>I believe in God even though I have no proof, that's my faith
>HAHAHAH FAGGOT

>I believe that I shall die in when I reach the age of 80-100 years even though I have no proof, that's my faith
>Thats perfectly reasonable, my man

I miss when Veeky Forums was a haven for atheist libertarians who just wanted to jerk off and troll eachother. How can any Christian tolerate the excessive hatefulness, pride, and perversion of this place?

>haven

I KNOW I won't make it to my 30s user.

Cuckistians are not good people.

>If you could be wrong then why have any position at all?
because we as humans who are fallible creatures have to draw a line
we can not disprove a fictional being and thus we have to live with the 10^-99! chance that we might be wrong
the same goes for you too since you may believe it but the chance that you are wrong is still there

you sound like that idiot who hears someone saying "i´ve thrown 50 dice and all came out with a 6 on top" and says that´s impossible

Next you're gonna tell me that priests can't hypnotize cars