Question

Case in point, part 2.

In pantheism, God is everything in the immanent universe. In panentheism, God is not only everything in the immanent universe, but also extends beyond it.

See this is why nobody likes atheists

>The fact that different people have interpretations of what is beyond the material world means there is nothing beyond the material world
Oh yeah in the same way different people have different theories on materialistic phenomon therefore materialistic phenomonon don't exist
>I'm a noeliberal
>Im an anarcho syndicalist
>Oh shit looks like the economy no longer exists, I mean why would people disagree about how they see it?

This thread begs the question, are pretentious 'intellectual theists' the new Fedoras? tip of the mitre?

They can only respond in self assured meme answers and never actually engage anyone intellectually? What a shock

>Religion is mumbo jumbo determined by faith alone, but the scientific method is an infallible system to view reality with, and people who say otherwise are hereti- I mean nutjobs
This is the 15 year old who just turned atheist position

oh alright, well in that case
the obvious solution is pantheism.

Clearly the economy doesn't exist, idiot. It's just a made up explanation for money.

>and would be considered insufficient by theological types
Pretty much, "religious experiences" is a very vague phraseology in the first place, and something like a near death experience or having a sudden spike in dopamine due to some accomplishment doesn't really do anything to debate the existence of things beyond the material world

Pantheism is materialist drivel

tell me more

I really wish /pol/ would stop leaking into Veeky Forums

Near death experience and dopamine spikes are not the extend of religious experience. I admit that it's a vague term (although I feel that it is far more concrete than discussion of immaterial absolutes), but when I use it I intend to encapsulate everything from the feelings associated with simple prayer to the extreme end of full-on visions and revelations. While there is no thing as a purely religious experience per se, there are potential religious dimensions to every other feeling, from despair to awe to gentle contentment.

Personally, I think that most everything that is important in religion consists of these kinds of feelings, these emotions and experiences which are evoked by and exist in relation to religious content. From a pragmatically organismic perspective, they are the only good reason I see for people to live religiously, but that doesn't mean they aren't a good reason.

I can't help but view debate over afterlife and immaterial abstractions and so on as a little bit boring. They don't tap into how life is actually lived, and there will never be any way for us to evidence them. But religious living is fascinating and radical and wholesome. Saintliness is something to aspire to.

I really wish leddit would stop leaking into Veeky Forums and assuming that athiest vs theist threads are /pol/

Absolutely. They demonstrate the same behavior, arrogance and self-righteousness you'd expect from a traditional tipper. Horseshoe theory and all that.

Alright then. Let's start with some simple questions. Does morality exist? If so, is it object or subjective? And what gives it it's authority? Can this authority be empirically proven? If so, what teleological end does it serve? If not, aren't atheists simply putting faith into an abstraction no different than a god?

These are simple questions for which I have never heard any clear answers or convincing arguments for unless you advocate abject nihilism or total absurdity, both of which still rely on faith in some metaphysical concept of "truth".

>Desperate athiests try to turn the men against those who created it
Kek

Has been for some time. They want to reject the meaningless Enlightenment and revert to mythology because symbols and mystery fill the void left by postmodernism. Its trying to take 10 steps back to fix a problem that can be done moving forward. Of course secular humanism doesn't provide the objective and universal meaning that religion does, but what is true and scientifically knowable is good enough. They think atheists are idiots for thinking they can live decent lives without such grandiose meaning. It's just not true. I do think that spirituality is important, and the bible has influenced virtually all of western literature, and should be studied. But spirituality does not need organized religion, and the bible can be studied alongside other important texts.

I can tell this is /pol/ because of the shallow depth at which this discussion extends and how it always ultimately devolves into autism/hitler/fedora circlejerk posting. I can tell this is /pol/ because I lurk there, and they have threads just like this and use those brainlet wojaks more than any other thread on Veeky Forums. And I can tell this is /pol/ because non-christian, agnostic and atheist are essentially lopped into the same category, because these threads are always created by a /pol/ user promoting Christianity under the guise of an actually interesting materialism vs theism discussion.

But the REAL reason I know this is /pol/ is because of the leddit posting, as no board other than /pol/ is so critically conscious of being compared to reddit as they themselves are basically reddit.

he can’t, no one in this thread means anything they say its all just posturing to feel better about the void

only replace the word "infallible" with "reliable", and you arrive at a one hundred percent true statement, every particular clause of which is completely true.

The fifteen year olds are right. Do you know that?

t. thirty-three year old

You sound like a theistic neetchee

>The material world

This is just framing atheists with the same origin questions that religion can answer either. The answer that its God because it is does nothing to explain anything.

Morality for the atheist is synthesized from many variables in societal life in order to maximize freedom for everyone involved. It doesn't need to have some objective cosmic tally to authentic anything as good or bad. There are just better and worse things for living. It's really simple.

Yes it is a leap of to assume there isn't a God as well. Yes it is a leap of faith to implicitly assume reason is internally consistent. But which bet would you rather take... The scientific side which progresses towards an answer in a manner that proves what is true, or something that is timeless and cannot change? I would rather be on the side of change and progress.

I'm not even an atheist, it's just that LARPing as sincerely believing Scholastic theology is a bit much. It's interesting to read but we are ultimately modern Western people(I'm assuming), so our worldviews are inescapably colored by the destruction science has done to religion in the past few centuries. Religion as metaphor or allegory, let alone moralistic fable, is a very weak replacement for actual cosmology, theory of man, metaphysics, etc.

That’s a nice Hitler you have there

I really wish you faggots would go back to le ddit

Here's some more Hitler

These are the types of theism and atheism threads that I don't want, I believe I may speak for most that they don't want garbage either.

Let's get back to this recently archived thread:
It wasn't particularly discussing atheism against theism, but the discussion was actually good lol.

Maybe /pol/ is bleeding through Veeky Forums into Veeky Forums. I'd pin that on Jordan Beep Eaterson, Molymeme, Ben Sharpie, and other right wing philosophical pseuds(except for Ben Shapiro in regard to Constitutional law. He is clearly not a pseud in regard to legislative politics).

Horrible thread OP
Humanity is naturally attracted to worldly pleasures so by that logic hedonism is A-ok. Also what makes you think that humans are naturally religious?
> if he is omnipresent then why does he let his popes and main followers sin to the higher levels

God exists. Get over it. Burden of proof, none. Have nothing to prove. You have something to disprove as this thread suggests. Faithful theists live quiet lives of content and devotion. There exists no argument for atheism. No concrete proof that it is all intrinsically nihilist. I'm sorry, but atheism has always been about negating religion rather than proving that everything came from nothing. Theism has always been about believing in God. Do you see the difference? How one group moves toward actualization and the other just wants to have an intellectual pissing contest? This group is the one of atheists. Can any atheist writer or philosopher come close to theist writers across the world, through time? No one has. Darwin was not it, certainly. Modern atheists? They're like undergraduates in a critical thinking class, popping their pimples, stroking each other's penises.

God can't be negated. God can't be denied. You may choose to not accept this proposition. But remember, you can never completely debunk 'The God Delusion'. No one can. Because some truths are Absolute. I am the Absolute. I am the Truth. Amen.

>Jordan Beep Eaterson, Molymeme, Ben Sharpie,
These guys are not popular on pol though. Pol is much more extreme than them

huh, really? That is surprising. Perhaps the influx of garbage is coming from young men who once surafced Veeky Forums—not /pol/ specifically—, but have turned more right wing by reactionary conservatism. Nevertheless, it's definitely young adult men that are shitting up this place with those right wing pseuds, given that they appeal to young adult men mostly.

suck my cock u delusional bitch

The fuck are you talking about? You’re the one making a claim. If you think god exist show me the facts, if you can’t then shut your damn mouth. You have everything to prove

pol is what you would consider garbage and pseuds but it is more of the 'hitler did nothing wrong' variety, which rather precludes approval of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson

I think the masses of alt-right shitposters are coming from Reddit