so atheism isn't a coherent philosophy right?
>take nothing for granted
>only truth is that which is observable
so you right off the bat have violated your first principle. Essentially atheism doesn't allow a priori assumptions so it falls apart under its own logic.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
...
Atheism isn't a philosophy at all. It's a lack of belief or state of disbelief in god.
If you're talking to your friend and you say "Oh my god, I can't believe your girlfriend was actually a MTF transsexual" that's not a philosophy either.
>it's a troll episode
Atheism uses evolutionary philosophy
"take nothing for granted" is not an atheist philosophy. It shouldn't be anyone with permission to operate a motor vehicle's philosophy in any case. Certain things are safely taken for granted, like if you wreck your car into a semi head-on you probably won't get to fuck Halle Berry in an ice cream cone as a result. You'll just die.
Not sure what the confusion on this point is - maybe you are trolling? I don't take the existence of God for granted because it isn't self evident. It requires a leap of faith. I do however take it for granted that when I shit kittens aren't going to come out of my ass.
Yeah atheism is a description of belief, but not an organized structure of belief like a religion.
It simply means you do not believe in a religion. The lack of religion doesn't mean you have a philosophy around it.
What?
We implications now
>atheism
>philosophy
the lie created by Charles Darwin that a rock gave birth to a monkey that gave birth to a man
New Atheism is made up of incoherent philosophies. Scientific naturalism and a flawed understanding of mind and epistemology. The movement takes a number of things for granted that don't add up.
But I don't think atheism in and of itself is incoherent.
Certain movements within the New Atheism such as street epistemology, for example, make very flawed assumptions about knowledge. It's successful when dealing with idiots who don't question how or why they claim to know something, but it's very limited.
>evolutionary philosophy
memo supremo
You do realize the Catholic church was executing people for being atheists before Charles Darwin was born right?
What is the basis atheists use to disprove a first cause for existence? Notice I mentioned nothing about religion, this is a philosophical question not theological.
Usually atheists argue there is not evidence for a first cause that is observable, so we can't infer one.
Well personally I don't give a shit, I just don't have a religion.
>prove
>belief
t. tommy aquinas
>first cause
>big bang is god
>ayyyy
then you're not an atheist
atheists BELIEVE only observable things exist
I'll keep reposting the initial thesis until you address it.
This isn't a scientific debate. Do atheists really think only the scientific method of observing the natural world is the only source of knowledge? In which case is abstract thought and philosophy itself considered irrational?
>a-THE-ism
>THE-ological
>not even studying original texts in greek
>not even going to services in latin
>he reads the kjb
>I'll keep reposting the initial thesis until you address it
>not having 5 thesises on why god exists
>Do atheists really think only the scientific method of observing the natural world is the only source of knowledge?
no, but it's certainly a good one
I'm not talking about God whatsoever. How do atheists ascertain knowledge? How do they work within their own defined framework without circular reasoning?
so atheists are ok with abstract thought and philosophy?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>then you're not an atheist
I am though
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
>lack of belief
>philosophy
>requiring god
>what is demiurge
haha wat
do you even plato?
that's not meeting up to the burden here:what is your argument for not believing in a God, or anything else? You can't observe it, but by what principle is observation the only source of knowledge?
Easter?
lol boy do you know what atheism means
the church has been killing people for atheist before there was a scientific method
The concept of a demiurge is compatible with atheism?
I was asking about the atheist model for knowledge.
only observable data is relevant. because... why can you explain how you can prove that while being faithful to the same rule?
how is that relevant?
>what is your argument for not believing in a God
personally I don't give a shit about whether or not a god exists. Deciding to trick yourself into having faith in something like that seems like a retarded waste of time.
> You can't observe it, but by what principle is observation the only source of knowledge?
Sounds like some bullshit that 90+ percent of atheists don't care about either.
>what is your argument for not believing in a God, or anything else?
that there isn't a good argument in favor of one
>then you're not an atheist
Dang, how do you call these people who don't have a religion, just for reference.
oh, ok. so you don't care if your philosophy is consistent. You just don't like religious people as a general matter of taste.
I wasn't really asking why you don't like religion.
>what is your argument for not believing in a God
Why would I?
>Dang, how do you call these people who don't have a religion, just for reference.
why would a category be necessary?
I'm just asking how a philosophy of atheism is logically sound. I'm not interested in how you feel about religion morally.
>philosophy of atheism
There isn't one.
It's rather creepy knowing there's people who can't comprehend the idea of not believing in deities so they assert atheists "believe" in a sort of negative version of their religion
I can understand if you're not interested in considering what causes existence, but that isn't an argument for atheism.
I don't know. Before we could observe X-Rays they existed.
That said, I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but if he does he is a poor communicator.
I mean you got the Catholics who say they were inspired, protties who say no they are the true believers, and then you got Jews and Muslims.
And chances are that if you are born into one of those faiths you won't convert to the other so its a crap shoot to whether or not you can find the true faith.
I mean if God is on your side, would not your faith exterminate all the other faiths?
Atheism is just not being religious.
I'm not talking about a deity. I'm talking philosophy of knowledge generally.
>>philosophy of atheism
>There isn't one.
so what is the reasoning behind atheism? Is there no logic to it?
No religion is convincing to me.
I was not raised in a religious family, so I did not become attached to it as a kid.
I am not a rebelling teen, I am an unconvinced adult.
So it's belief based not evidence or logic based.
why is god required for philosophy you dumb cunt
>how do atheists explain this shit
maybe because scientific method has nothing to do with atheism
>philosophy of knowledge
What do you mean?
so you just don't think about metaphysics.
because whats dumber
using a 2 year old text book, a 20 year old textbook a 200 year old textbook or a 2000 year old textbook??
BTFO
T
F
O
maybe you should learn to use a dictionary
no that big book you have is not the dictionary thats called the bible
Are you asking if all atheists are empiricists?
I was asking you about the logic of atheism.
How do you gain knowledge?
>reasoning behind atheism
Why would there be a need for one?
>knowledge
Define knowledge.
metaphysics and religion aren't the same thing
Yes. And if yes, why is empiricism a valid method of gaining knowledge.
That has nothing to do with atheism
An atheist does not believe in deities
Period
There's a tribe in the amazon that is utterly atheistic, but they still believe in ghosts
People have various reasons for being atheists, much like religious people have various reasons for believing in deities
Some just don't know about gods, others see too much conflict between mythology and scientific fact, etc
It's not a "philosophy" any more than not believing in vampires is a "philosophy"
What is knowledge?
I'm no expert but religion usually has 1/2 metaphysical part, Genesis for example.
>if yes
No, not all are.
>oh, ok. so you don't care if your philosophy is consistent.
I don't have a philosophy
>You just don't like religious people as a general matter of taste.
I don't mind religious people.
>I wasn't really asking why you don't like religion.
I don't mind religion, I just didn't get raised in one and don't see any reason to start. I don't see why you're getting so offended, I don't do plenty of other things, but people don't get offended when I tell them I don't watch football.
there has to be a logic to an idea, unless it's just a lifestyle, or even a moral choice.
2000 years ago some people believed the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth.
>logic of atheism
atheism can be the result of logic, or it can be the result of lack of logic
i dont get your question
>be Veeky Forumsfaggot
>be philosopher
>work at mcdonalds
>WAAAAAH THOSE *OTHER* PEOPLE DON'T HAVE COHERENT PHILOSOPHY TO "GUIDE THEIR LIFE"(except it doesn't guide them at all)
>look at me - I have coherent philosophy to back me up and see how well I've ended up!
I'm not even atheist - who the fuck cares if glorified rhetoric experts think your life stance is coherent or not.
yeah, the dumb not greek people like jebus
Nah. Atheism can be because of logic, but it can also be when you say "Fuck it. I don't believe in god because it hurts when I pee."
>there has to be logic to an idea
Says who?
Many ideas have little or no logic to them
I'm pretty sure most Greek's thought the sun went around the earth. They may have realized it was round, but not the sun part.
truth or what you know to be so
Anaxamander thought the stars were shaped like cones with a great source of fire/light in the back of the cone. The shape would also explain why they can change their facing so easily. Not a bad theory actually.
They understood the earth to be round and even did some math to figure out it's circumference. They were only off by a couple hundred miles.
I don't know any truths.
What is truth?
>but by what principle is observation the only source of knowledge?
We aren't talking about knowledge though, we are talking about facts.
You keep changing what you are trying to debate.
Well yeah. The Greeks were better than most other people's at the time, but the Jews were not one of those people and neither were contemporary Christians (Byzantines were nothing like the ancient Greeks).
And even then, I'd rather trust a newly published astronomer book than a 2000 year old even Greek text when it comes to explaining the stars.
There was one single philosopher that said otherwise but couldn't prove it.
The idea of geocentrism was backed by Aristotelian physics though.
It goes like:
Every object tries to go back to the centre of the world(hence the weird approach to dynamics Greeks proposed), it was logical that if a body was doing rotational movement, it would do it around the centre of the world, which was supposed to be centre of the earth because - duh - when you drop things down they fall towards the centre.
You should try answering his question.
What reason does anyone have to believe in a god or any other unverifiable idea? What service does that do us?
If your answer is "why not?", then the counter argument is why don't you believe in every other superstition beyond "because I don't want to"
I am actually religious, but I can assume the Devil's advocate.
The current evidence points to religion being man-made and there is probably no such thing as a higher power. The evidence also strongly suggests that we all might be just insigificant litle specks in an uncaring universe.
On a purely empirical basis, there is probably no such thing as a higher power, and until new evidence proves that otherwise, it will remain as such. Should strong evidence come up in the future to prove that there ia indeed a higher power, I wil merely realign my understanding to the knowledge revealed and tested empirically.
If I were a scientist, I'd never make that leap of faith for or against.
Everything is a "belief" if you really want to split hairs.
The only difference is some beliefs have evidence while others don't.
en.wikipedia.org
The problem was that the Socrates, Plato, Aristotle trio was just so good, people tended to take them at face value for everything.
>devils advocate
>literally regurgitating the devils deception
Perhaps atheism is like a tree falling in the woods - If you ignore your spirituality it won't exist.
Atheism validates itself by refusing to conform to religious criteria or ideology. It simply is refusing to acknowledge spirituality, regardless of worth.
It comes down to opinion and interpretation.
If you say art has no value, and I do think art has value, we are both right and wrong because it's our perception of a non-essential element in life.
You need spirituality like you need art. Living life denying art will not make it cease to exist, it simply won't exist or have any value to you.
However, denying art will leave you intellectually dull but denying spirituality will leave you morally dull.
Look at China. Confucianism began 500 years (roughly) before Christianity and shaped their country, people and morals into what they are today.
China has achieved great things, but they are also consistently violating human rights and seemingly have no remorse for the suffering of others. They boil and torture animals to death for a perceived better flavor.
Shaitan pls go
>You do realize the Catholic church was executing people for being atheists before Charles Darwin was born right?
They were killing heretics, not atheists
>some heretics are atheists, not all heretics are atheists
We're not talking about value, or art
It's about not believing in deities
And nice /pol/ memes about China
Many Chinese believe in deities like the Jade Emperor, Guanyin, and Chang'e along with a host of gods of luck
We're no more cruel than anybody in the west
Their heresy was atheism. You do realize the church considers atheism as a form of heresy right?
>responding to satan
heretics were called such because their definiton of god was different from the dogma of catholic curch
atheists simply dont belive in god, period
so no, there were no atheist heretics
>be chinese
>pray to the lord of the magnificent beard
>have shitty asian facial hair
>stop believing in gods
My life story
Believing in ghosts or spirits would be considered Spiritism, like Shinto in Japan.
It's a form of religion / spirituality.
atheism back then was just a slur you used to put your opponent in a bad like, kinda like calling people nazi today.
Atheism is literally a form of heresy. Stop making up definitions.
This thread started with the OP redefining atheism into a philosophy. Did you expect something else?
He's correct in the terminology
hersey=/=anything the church dislikes it has a certain meaning
but there never were heretics who preached atheism to the masses.
exactly. you can be religious and be an atheist if that religion doesn't include gods. that's how wide the scope of atheism is. of course there isn't one coherent atheist philosophy since it isn't even an organized group but more of a catch-all
Moslim
believing in ghosts is superstition, not religion
That's a pretty sure way to get yourself killed by angry violent religious people
>hersey=/=anything the church dislikes
Actually, that's almost exactly what it means. It basically means it goes against doctrine. Considering the belief that god exists is taken for given in Christian doctrine, atheism is heretical.