Atheist philosophers are better than theistic philosophers because theistic philosophers are bound by a preestablished...

t. guy who regularily posts on a white supremacist anime site

thanks captain obvious.

>atheists: theistic philosophers are bound by a preestablished framework.
>also atheists: if it's not science (tm) it's wrong

atheist philosophers are already bound by being brainlets

shut the fuck up loser go read a book.
or go to church, i dont care just fuck off.
go to /christ/ or somth fucks sakes
goodbye
agressive catholic rapist lve me be loser

>the scientifik method is the onlee path to knawwage

Apply scientific method to scientific method

how do you know you arent a brain in a vat being fed experiences?

because you have hands

how do you know you have hands?

because you have sense perception

how do you know you have sense perception?

because you have hands

>implying nihilism isn't the pre established framework for atheists

>how do you know you arent a brain in a vat being fed experiences?
>because you have hands

that doesn't make sense. my having hands doesn't prevent me from being a brain in a vat

>proves your framework incomplete
Everyone needs a little faith Bert! That's why I use my intellect to make ontological proofs for God, and why your work will be remembered as nice but ultimately futile.

TIL bert is short for Bertrand

>ontological proofs for God
mother of keks

he's referencing moore (1939) 'proof of an external world'

Bertrand Russell is a REEETARD
He got fucked on by Wittgenstein and never recovered.

wow you know its dangerous to play with all that edge you got there, son

Here's the main issue with religious thought (based on personal experience, though there are undoubtedly outliers), it seems to consitently leave the door open for flagrant stupidity. Having faith based on there being form in the void or other so-called proofs is fine (not to imply these are the only arguments), but then it often runs off into craziness. So they believe in god of some kind, fine; then they very often start believing in Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. Then they start esposing the virgin birth, reincarnation, or other absolutly rediculous and abhorent idea.

It's similar to those that are anti-western medicine. The argument that pharmceuticals are over perscribed, fine; the argument that there are capitalistic issues with kick-backs for mediciation, fine; becuase of this you should use homeopathy, not fine. These anti-reason and establishement ideas always seem to lead to the most rediculous ends, even if the original ideas are not bad in themselves.

If you have concluded that there is no God, isn't that a pre-established framework by itself?

Russell was actually a pretty good philosopher until he met Wittgenstein

Its only afterwards that he became a retard

>if it's not science it's wrong

This is a 100% accurate statement, yes, what's your point

>Literally feels vs reals

>ontological proof for god

No, it's an framework I've established myself through my own reasoning. Theists follow what has been dictated to them (overwhelmingly by millennia old desert tribes who knew fuckall about anything).

Irreligious people are mentally ill.

Oof. That's some real shit science, and some REAL shit theology there, boi.

Enlighten me

The virgin aristotelian
The chad platonist

Do you not need to have an established, prior framework of quality to make such a statement?

>it's an framework I've established myself through my own reasoning. Theists follow what has been dictated to them
Are you the first atheist, who passed it onto others?

philosophers are all niggers and should be tried for crimes against the species and then thrown into a lake of fire. All philosophy is mind control and socialized violence

That's not hypocritical at all...

Yes, but that reestablished framework is true because the Judaeo-Christian god is real.

see

>People who had no idea what they were doing
People that survived and wrote tips on surviving for their future generations?

Yes but what happened before the Big Bang?

>Arguing about who's better
>wasting time not testing ideas for reason and searching for the good

Veeky Forums philosophy everyone

/thread

Big bang> matter spreads out > matter sticks together > matter falls apart > gravity wells pull matter back together > matter pulled into singularity > repeat

Material monism

Telling their kids not to eat the red berries because their uncle died from them, isn't the same as telling them Zeus is their god and Hades is waiting for them.

probably same thing that happened before god
>inb4 god created god because god is great lel

When the Catholic priest who invented the Big Bang came out with his theory he was ridiculed by atheists at the time for trying to inject his religious beliefs into science.

Your point is? It takes a while for accept broad changes to their beliefs? Crazy opinion there, lad.

It reminds me of Wertheimer meeting Glenn Gould in The Loser. His confidence was demolished in the face of genius and he didn't really do anything of consequence after.

It's just too perfect to be an unironic post.

Is there even any point to philosophy if you have all of your beliefs decided for you?

>Inb4 God created God because God is great

Nigga that's literally the truth.

There is truth to this statement, but it's not an entirely negative conclusion. Many religious followers relay visions and supernatural 'feelings' that could be misconstrued mental imbalance. There is a puristic, healing aspect in a lot of religious instillation that is good for the psyche of someone who is otherwise prone to ill humor and psychopathy. At the same time these misconceptions can be further relayed into other people's belief system, which is dangerous, or even worse manipulated by false pedagogues for the religion itself - very dire stuff. Faith Healers or some of the remote, secluded religious covens that border on cultism are good examples.

yet... matter are moving away from eachothers faster than they are being attracted to eachothers. heat death is looking like a stronger theory than the big rip.

Why doesn't something greater than god create itself, just by virtue of being the concept of something greater? There's no upper limit on "greatness", because all you have to do is imagine "something greater than the previous greatest thing".

Why do you think we moved on from polytheism to monotheism? The God is the greatest god.

unironically agree

Because the romans couldn't suppress the christians. Also that doesn't make any sense, and is utterly retarded.

"Humanity moved from mostly polytheism to mostly monotheism a few thousand years ago because 14 BILLION years ago God was really cool dude, like, the coolest"

For a progressive, you don't seem to get it. God is always active.

yeah but...

WHICH GOD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

Who else?

If we became monotheistic because god is great, and god was always great, why were ever monotheistic? Because god was not great, god is not great, or there is no god?

Why did life start out simple? Ideas and memes evolved.

Exactly. We started out with nothing, made up gods, made up god, and then killed him.

Atheism almost always (99%) accompanies presuppositions of materialism, empiricism and determinism, which unironically create a much shallower world view than any religion.

I would wade in a real shallow pool than pretend to be in an imaginary ocean.

Nice platitude sweety, but it doesn't change the fact that atheist """philosophers""" are bound by much smaller preestablished framework than theistic philosophers.

We killed ourselves is what we did.

>The Pentateuch = Moses's Declassified YHWH Survival Guide

>all atheist thinkers are as addlepated as Dennett or Harris

Stupid fuck who's never read the proslogion

where did the matter come from? did it just start existing from nothing?

Yes. Same way some subatomic particles seem to "pop" into existence, eventually (and notice time is irrelevant before this happens anyway) they arrived in such a combination that it triggered a chemical explosion that we are still a part of now.

i wonder how that happens

You can pretend that money is the gargantuan titan it seems to be, and keep on feeding it, sacrificing for it. Yet you claim to be atheistic...

>hahaha stupid dumb christcuck fucks think that an eternal, all-encompassing source is necessitated by the existence of the universe we don't need an eternal, all-encompassing source that's retarded lamo backward ignorant superstitious religitards
>probably just the universe is eternal and all-encompassing, now THAT'S thinking with SCIENCE WUBBALUBBADUBDUB
>wtf LLLMMMAAAAAOOOOO unironically needing a BOOK to tell you the difference between right and wrong in the >current year sounds like a psychopath to me t.b.h. what kind of a baby relies on a religious text to inform them on morality I mean seriously the absolute state of religious """""""""""people"""""""""""
>it makes much more sense to retroactively invent justifications for the judeo-christian values I've unconsciously absorbed from being steeped in western culture (which has been inextricably intertwined with christianity for the past millennium and a half) from a half-baked understanding of darwinianism, except for all the parts of darwinianism that contradict those judeo-christian values like sexual dimorphism and the total negation of civil rights for all people unable to reproduce
>heheh babby apologist let me tell YOU something well guess what I read the esv once back in sixth grade before I entered my edgy phase and started smoking weed and skipping church and I'm pretty sure me and ONLY ME gets to determine the exact interpretation of this precise passage written by paul and wdhmbt, despite the fact that I don't know any of the context or even original koine but trust me this totally contradicts what you're saying and tbqhwyfamalamadingdong, the very fact that somewhere in this world there are two different christians with different opinions on this passage PROVES that there is NO real truth to be found, and it's just a free-for-all where everyone makes up their own interpretation based off of what makes them feel comfy in their INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE
>fortunately all of my scientific journals that I don't actually read are always in complete agreement, there are no disagreements or even room for disagreements in the world of SCIENCE because all the facts are totally, completely, one hundred percent knowable and known RIGHT NOW by scientists and there is absolutely no room for debate on metaphysical questions because all the answers are known with certainty
>BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY

God is alive, West is a graveyard.

Not him, but I don't think there is any reason to assume he worships Mammon.

I understand what you mean, but pious atheism has been a recognized phenomenon since the middle of the 19th century. The only people that don't seem to comprehend this are or were themselves pious atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Did you forget to take your haloperidol?

>missing the point

>Not him, but I don't think there is any reason to assume he worships Mammon
He lives and is not starving.

>if you use money, you worship it
ok

It works on faith. Like Placebo and idolatry.

Yeah, maybe if you don't pretend as if you already know you could be one of the people who helps to find out.

You summed it up perfectly.

That's an overgeneralization. The philosophy of Epictetus for example works in both a theist and atheist framework just the same, even though he was a theist.

This is the difference between early Napoleon and late Napoleon: he started to believe his own bullshit. One can use others' false beliefs to one's own advantage without internally sharing the delusion.

I agree. However, the atheist completely ignores his presuppositions, especially regarding things of faith - hence he worships mammon; makes sacrifices for it and keeps it taboo. He will never doubt it the same way he doubts the ban of homosexuality. He will never put it under STEM to get his beloved {nothing matches with scientific data} result.

>t.

Again, you can be an atheist without being a pious atheist. I'm using "mammon" as a stand in for money, not all things material. But if it were to mean the latter, I would say radical materialism is just as much a religious notion as radical idealism. The only difference lies in what is worshiped. Some atheists (proper atheists) do indeed worship nothing, not even the material, or themselves.

lol go read some Durkheim, faggot.

Why should people be healthy, if not for the preferable state of being?

I agree with you in principle, but your perspective on what is ridiculous and "crazy" seems quite harsh. Just picking the Virgin birth: if you are fine with believing in Christianity, what is inherently wrong with God himself being born into this world (which you're already ok with occurring) from a virgin? You doubt God's power, or the idea that His birth could be somehow pecial?

I could justifiably nitpick on your rejection of reincarnation, or any belief of another religion. It seems you reject unorthodox claims of religions just because they violate common sense, which is a fair way to evaluate folklore, but not religious beliefs.

Either come to terms with agnosticism, atheism, or theism, but do not be on the fence this much.

>ben stiller
Such a small thing, but made my poor soul laugh so much

i think there's an unending chain of things we won't understand so it makes sense to act out life in the best way for ourselves, be that a "religious" lifestyle or not

People are mentally ill.

Because evolution operates on survival of the fittest, humanity has to do so to? What obligation does humanity have to pass on the best genes possible? Why the fuck should we care?

>implying the religious creation stories are not generally speaking identical to the Big Bang Theory