How can you be an athiest and not a fatalist...

I think its possible to come to christianity logically. I'm not a genius regarding Nietzsche or nihilism but you could break down all moral guidelines, and realize that christian morality is closest to the best, and think - well there is already a structure and tradition so I might as well use it.
I also think Plato is right that some people will be able to come to these realizations through reason, but the majority of people will be hedonistic without a strict moral code and a fear of god. (The gold/reason-minded vs the bronze/profit-minded ) they can only avoid nihilism with the ideological stick

Because the soul will outlive your body

>you could break down all moral guidelines, and realize that christian morality is closest to the best
I'd be impressed for you to do this now. you could forever disprove the idea that morality is subjective

I don't think anyone comes to their beliefs logically. We pick beliefs that speak to our condition out of pure sentiment. Christianity appeals to a certain mindset, and then people try to justify it logically. This isn't a criticism of them either, everyone does it.

Nietzsche's point is that Christianity staves off the nihilism of existence by offering you a way out of it; a promise that the things you do and value in this world matter because there's a bigger, better world beyond this one. His project was largely trying to get people to think the stuff they think and do matter in this world without the promise of a next one, hence his eternal recurrence thought experiment.

Inb4 Lewis spam.

A soul is a soul.

A brain in a vat is a brain in a vat.

You can't tell those two things apart, Igor?

> reality is black and white and you can only be one thing or another

You have a lot to learn about life, my sweet child.

Well, what is the difference in essence between these two if they're both originators of conscious thought?

What even is a soul? No one can ever define it properly or prove it's real.

Atheists don't exist, they're just deceived edgelords.
Logic is disgusting.
One can be killed by destroying its container.
The other cannot.

Is that so difficult?

>prove
MUH PROOOOOOOOOOOOOFS

>Not believing in a soul

Causal interaction bitch.

We are by far either manifesting our mental states via functionalism or the identity theory. That doesn't necessarily mean one need be a fatalist, as JC Smart mentioned, the idea of a soul was simply because we could not adequately explain how our bodies were motivated, that doesn't necessarily exclude existence of an afterlife either, just not in the form Christians or other religions suggest.

And by far, not having any second chances and only having one life motivates people to be more cautious and caring than being able to pray like hell on their deathbed for a life of sin does.

>le science
Fuck off

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>Man or Rabbit?
youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

>One can be killed by destroying its container.

What is essential about this difference? If the brain were indestructible and eternal, would it cease to be a brain despite possessing the same basic structures? Would the soul cease to be a soul if it were finite and capable of being destroyed?

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

> there is already a structure and tradition so I might as well use it.

" no guru, no system, no mantra."

Thats the highest form; no form.

If it were indestructible then it would require a soul.

That doesn't follow. It being indestructible requires only one thing: it to be indestructible. You're dodging the question.

Are you seriously going to paste this in every thread?

He'll get bored of it eventually. Just ignore shitposters, they get sick of it after a time. I've seen several dozen of them come and go.

>an organ is indestructible
Nope. So, you are claiming there is something BEYOND the matter it is composed of. There is a metaphysical entity independent of the matter which is indestructible and can possibly reconstitute a new brain.

Not this fag. He's literally been here since the first week of this board. It's a shock he's been permabanned yet

Nope. I'm claiming that if this brain had a hypothetical property of matter that made it indestructible and eternal (perhaps a hitherto unknown exception to the time portion of space and time) that it would still be a brain, to point out that your claims aren't essential to the nature of these things.

Also, spiritualism is just physicalism using fictional materials.

Really? I recall some mentions of C.S. Lewis, but this brand of shitposting seems new to me; I remember mocking him for bringing him up as a proponent of natural law rather than Cicero or Aquinas and then this occurring shortly after.

>Le philosophy*

Besides, any proclamation of faith when under any sort of duress is not true faith.

>Also, spiritualism is just physicalism using fictional materials.
STEMsperg, back to riddit.
>I'm claiming that if this brain had a hypothetical property of matter that made it indestructible and eternal
Wow, a fictional material. Totally not spiritualism in your case. Nope. le reddit argumenter 1 le fucking crisden 0
Redditisms are not philosophy.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Nah, he's the same shit poster that was here with Kent Hovind posting using the exact same arguments and the exact same links on how creationism is truth and evolution is lies from the devil.

>STEMsperg, back to riddit.
>Wow, a fictional material. Totally not spiritualism in your case. Nope. le reddit argumenter 1 le fucking crisden 0

So, I take it you don't have an argument.

Look man, I'm telling you this to be nice, I'm ignoring you and I encourage other people to do likewise. You aren't willing to argue in a fashion that's acceptable to the format of Veeky Forums (you know, in a fashion that doesn't expect people to concede by fucking offer for hours to watch several videos), so you're just a shitposter, you're nothing special. As I said, I've seen several dozen come and go, you're not even that good at it.

How can you function as a human when you're only able to think in false dichotomies?

Facts don't exist.
>So, I take it you don't have an argument.
Arguments aren't good.

Regardless, I just presented one. Learn to read.

You just admitted that an indestructible brain is just a spirit made from one type of matter rather than another.

No, I said it's a hypothetical property of matter. That would by like saying that a hypothetical finger has to be a thumb.

Not all fictional materials are spirit, all spirit is a fictional material.

>going back on what you said
>'lol there is no soul cuz i sed so fuckin crisdens reeeee'
>hypothetical
Fictional under precepts.

For your reddit claim to work under current precepts, then there would have to be a metaphysical force behind the matter constituting a brain.

Which is just a soul.

>Whining about reddit

YT is never a source. Ever.
You wasted a post.

>Fictional under precepts.

Fictional as in it cannot be demonstrated to exist and thus can be assumed to not exist.

>For your reddit claim to work under current precepts, then there would have to be a metaphysical force behind the matter constituting a brain.

No, only a hitherto unknown property of the physical universe. The strong force and weak force were not metaphysical before they were discovered.

>Which is just a soul.

There's considerably more to metaphysics than the soul. The question of free will vs. determinism does not necessarily include souls. The nature of morals does not necessarily include souls. The cause of the universe does not necessarily include souls. The nature of human perception versus objective reality does not necessarily include souls.

Our soul is the conscious part of us, composed of mind (intellect), will, and emotions. It makes choices and controls our behavior by giving orders to the body. Our spirit is the subconscious part, an internal adviser to the conscious soul. It’s our conscience.

Both our soul and our spirit are intangible and eternal and are housed in our body which is tangible and temporal.

A hammer and a bee.

They are both originators of minor injuries; what is the difference between them?

So, what's the essential difference between a brain and a soul?

Brain's made out of meat.

Soul is made out of spirit.

Everything is made out of light.

What exactly is light in this context, since I'm assuming you don't mean photons? What separates it from spirit on a basic essential level?

What made you distance yourself from Singer's views?

Photons don't exist. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

When Jesus said "man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God", he was not kidding.

In the beginning of creation, God said "Light, be" and light was.

From then on he was merely fashioning the light into various things, from plants to planets to animals to dirt, from which he made us.

So, the brain is made out of the exact same stuff as the soul. What separates them on an essential level again?

>Photons don't exist. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

Interesting. Have you revolutionized science with this discovery?

This clown again.

Such a dumb platonic answer to such a beatiful post...

Science was already revolutionized by Tesla and the rest of the Electric Universe folks.

You know, people who produce results.

Your infantile reasoning is something like this: twinkies and atom bombs are made up of the same particles, so they should be the same.

I do applaud the effort you expend in forcing yourself to be this fucking stupid. Most people would just hit retard level and stop right there.

What a dumb platonic response to such a beautiful refutation of an idiotic post.

>I baked

>Science was already revolutionized by Tesla and the rest of the Electric Universe folks.

The existence of particles is still considered standard. Photons have been observed as both particle and waves.

>Your infantile reasoning is something like this: twinkies and atom bombs are made up of the same particles, so they should be the same.

They're not essentially different, would be my point. Neither ultimately has a "real" existence and we've described them as such, but there's no etching in the universe that says that one is this thing or that thing.

Check'd

No, they're only hypothesized by Atomists.

You call Atomists "QM" so as to pretend they're something new and different.

Ever notice that with each generation of tech, we keep finding smaller and smaller "particles"?

>Ever notice that with each generation of tech, we keep finding smaller and smaller "particles"?

Meanwhile, in 1000 BCE: Ever notice that with each generation of ship, we keep finding new and further islands? The earth is obviously just the infinite base around mount Olympus.

Really? You think that is a good analogy?

How about this.

Ever notice with each new generation of telescope we keep finding more and more stars?

>Fictional as in it cannot be demonstrated to exist and thus can be assumed to not exist.
Why? muh ideology?

Moron, there is no such thing as "nihilism". The people who use this word are the ones who misunderstand Nietzsche, you do not practice a philosophy which says there is inherently no point in anything. It's no practicable, practicing nihilists are literally, the most retarded people on the planet, weak individuals who think they found a philosophy which says it's okay to give up, without killing themselves.

>metaphysics

What do you mean?

Not this copypasta again.

> i just believe in things i feel like believing in.
More importantly why should it be assumed to exist? Not who you were replying to but generally you dont assume things exist, things are normally proven to exist the burden of proof is on you for claiming a soul exists

No reason to think it does.