All fedora-tipping memes aside, does the argument have any merit?

Imagine a 30-year-old Richard Dawkins goes to a fortune teller upon completion of "The Selfish Gene"...

Dawkins: What will be the most popular criticism of me 40 years from now?

Fortune-Teller: It will be that you are a 'meme'.

Dawkins: A 'meme'? But I just invented that word last month.... how does that even, I mean, what the..?

Fortune-Teller: It's... complicated.

>Parents always implicitly or explicitly brainwash their kids, it is unavoidable.

Indeed. I would wager that parents who do not attempt to instil religious fervour in their children tend to brainwash them less than those who do.

>Atheists while not always being immoral have to define morality on their own terms while the religious person has a morality thrust upon them by their religious beliefs.

Indeed. Unfortunately this requires actual effort. How much easier to believe in a divine dictator who watched your every move.

>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.

True, but evolution and sincere Abrahamic belief are. The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible which creates tensions in those who attempt to believe both.

"I’ve seen a dog & bitch indulging in full 69. Males of many species including Drosophila lick female genitals before copulation."

I think parents should try to respect the autonomy of their children but a parent who is religious will believe that they're doing the right thing by instilling piety in their children, in the same way that parents believe they are doing the right thing by teaching their children not to steal.

>The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible which creates tensions in those who attempt to believe both.
When the Bible is interpreted non-literally, evolution becomes not a problem but rather further proof of God's great plan.

When the Bible is treated non-literally it becomes, at best, an inconsistent philosophical tract or, at worse, the collected ravings of hundreds of self-interested sociopaths. For if one part may be interpreted as metaphor who's to say any of it is literal?

>When the Bible is interpreted non-literally, evolution becomes not a problem but rather further proof of God's great plan.
Bullshit.

The Bible while appearing in that form is not a single text and should not be treated as such. Exodus has a different intended audience and context to the Gospels, while they exist within a continuum they aren't fulfilling the same purpose.
As to which parts are to be treated as metaphorical and which parts are treated literally, that is down to individual denominations to decide but there is a strong tradition of non-literal traditions for the entire history of Christianity.

Humanity may not have always been 'special', evolution is responsible for allowing humanity to develop to the point where we are 'special'.

Then you're reduced to being spoon-fed your philosophy which is unhealthy to say the least.

Of course, religions are very insular self-serving entities but that isn't to say that they are without value. Religious groups have their dogmas and their theology and at the end of the day you can hardly expect them to come to conclusions which are against themselves.

>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.

Can you tell that to the millions of Americans who think the world is 6000 years old?

>anything but agnosticism

>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.
Genesis 1-28:
In the beginning, God set up some arbitrary physical constants and an initial set of conditions which eventually led to simple molecules coalescing into more complex amino acid structures which replicate themselves, creating near-identical copies with slight variations. The better-suited variations allow some copies to reproduce more reliably, and produce more slightly variant replications growing in complexity over time. Eventually this led to single-celled organisms, trees, fish, dinosaurs, birds, the HIV virus, cockroaches and the first man, Adam.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

>le smugly superior middle ground opinion

[Your favourite philosopher] would laugh in your face if you said you were an agnostic, and call you a mental child.

t. insufferable memesters

...

Literally makes the argument
>If everyone were atheist, 9/11 wouldn't have happened
>9/11 was bad
>Therefore religion is bad

...

agnosticism is the only right choice
face it

It's for pussies who can't take a proper stance.

stop memeing and give me a counterargument

So far the only one who has made an argument here is I

my argument is quite obvious: it's not possible to know whether god exists or not

hey man i'm sorry you got memed into believing bullshit but there's no reason to take out your frustrations on anonymous posters on a cantonese noodle forum

Maybe when "god" is defined as some very abstract natural structure.

Not when "god" is defined the way Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Pagans, etc. define the word. Any particular version of god (or gods) that have been proposed by actual religious people can be demised outright.

>Falling for Rationalist wankery
Negative Theology or get out, also the more philosophizing you do the further you get from an understanding of God

>when "god" is defined as some very abstract natural structure
my point exactly

ofc religion is bs, i've never claimed otherwise

I don't know what any of that means.

But 99.999% of theists are referring to a specific supernatural story. They're not talking about how the laws of physics are so mathematically elegant or some shit. They talking about how Jeebus literally rose from the dead, etc etc.

It's not possible to know whether or not invisible ghost fairies live in you colon. Doesn't mean you can't choose to disblieve such an unsupported claim.

You're an idiot if you think preposterous ideas should automatically be given credence just because it's impossible to prove a negative.

An atheist is a person who does not believe that a God or Gods created the universe/world.

A deist believes that a God or Gods created the universe/world, but does not need to be worshipped nor takes any interest in human affairs.

A theist believes that a God or Gods created the universe/world and needs to be worshipped and takes a personal interest in you.

All of those positions are at least honest, and can be backed up by either rational sceptical arguments or theology.

The agnostic position is essentially, "I can't prove a God created the universe so I'm not going to take a stance either way." - which is a dishonest position because it clings to part of the theistic position - yet ignores the fact that the theistic position doesn't require proof - it's a faith position.

It's also dishonest to the rational position, because it's based on a fallacy. Just not being able to prove something is not true does not therefore give it credibility. Russel's teapot is the most common proof, but I also like the flying spaghetti monster. It's also an interesting thought experiment to get an agnostic to replace whatever God they're "not sure doesn't exist" with Ra, Apollo or Astaroth, and see if they are still in doubt.

tl;dr: Agnostics are either atheists who don't want to be called fedorafaglords on the internet or too dumb to realise theyre atheists.

KILL YOURSELF

>An atheist is a person who does not believe that a God or Gods created the universe/world
an atheist is a person that claims god doesn't exist
>The agnostic position is essentially, "I can't prove a God created the universe so I'm not going to take a stance either way
but i do take a stance
it's not only about me, noone can prove or disprove god
>it's a faith position
not at all. it requires you to have 0 faith aout anything in this matter

Back when I was a teenager/Christian I used to be really into religion vs science internet "debates". I don't remember a whole lot of specifics, but I do remember Richard Dawkins being a weak contender. Even many atheist scientists don't like associating with him, and he makes some pretty idiotic claims, many of which he's had to retract (Jesus never existed comes to mind).
Pretty much, he can't refute any God he didn't invent himself. His views of Christianity and Islam are tainted too heavily with bias to be considered accurate. I'm sure he's a perfectly adequate biologist

I'm agnostic because I acknowledge the fact that we don't know enough to say that the creation of life is a product of intention, or otherwise.

Just because you all pulled the belief-trigger too early does obligate me too follow suit

This post-modern understanding of God as just a compilation of "feelings, man" and "sumthin ain't come from nuthin" is missing the plot hardcore. The reason Atheists love to pull the whole "God shrinks as scientific knowledge expands" thing is a because contemporary religion doesn't trust itself and takes refuge in vague assertions that scientists can't refute yet.

All of that goes back to the Middle Ages when scholars began to become fixated on the idea of "Proving" dogma with their newfound pet, Reason. However, the whole point of God has always been inherent un-knowability, naturally dooming the whole effort to failure. It literally makes no sense to expect a divine entity to comply with human-made rules of logic and science and all that. With the coming of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, philosophers and academics began to realize this conflict, but instead of revising their premises they just kind of threw out the idea of an intimate divinity completely and replaced it with vapid Deism and eventually Romantic Transcendentalism, both spiritually void philosophies with no resemblance to the ancient worship of Abraham.

Now here we are with empty churches and empty altars and grape juice. And we wonder why sincere faith is so hard to find.

The best thing anyone can do to revive an understanding of true spirituality is to study the ancient, original essence of Jewish belief in the context of the surrounding Sumero-Akkadian/Assyrian world. Here's a hint: the Jews were reacting to Mesopotamian religious structures, and nearly every aspect of the ancient faith can be traced back to those traditions in some sense. The Holy-of-Holies is the room where the idol would be kept in other religions: the Jews chose to keep it empty. Why do you think that is?

Not that user but, at best you're between atheism and deism. Agnostics between theism and atheism. Why not just call yourself a deist.

Oh jesus, oh god, here we go.

Agnosticism and most kinds of atheism say the same thing.

¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)

b being belief, P being god exists. A couple of hardcore mouthbreathers actually believe there's cause to believe the definite non-existence of god, but most lack belief either way. Calling yourself agnostic is the best way to distance yourself from the extreme fedora factor of atheism.

Things that will live on long after libshits are dead:

- conservatism
- theism

because these things just werk™

>believe there's cause to believe the definite non-existence of Tony the Tiger
>They're Grrrrrreat

We've gone over this. It's an irrational position.

>an atheist is a person that claims god doesn't exist
Absolutely incorrect
Much as I hate arguing semantics this is a seriously deluded self--congratulatory stumbling block.
>it's not only about me, noone can prove or disprove god
This. This stance is orthogonal to the matter of whether or not you believe there is a god as outlined in There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

>¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)
Wrong quantifier there. You're looking for "and."
>tfw there are fuckwits who not only don't realize ¬b(P) != b(¬P) but make this misunderstanding central to their arguments
>I DUN HALF ENUF FAITH 2 BE ATHEISS XDD

>likens the prime mover to childish fantasies

This is why atheists are considered lame, pretentious teenagers by so many people.

>¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)

You mean

¬b(P) ^ ¬b(¬P)

or

b(P) v b(¬P)

>There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists
no such things

Because it wouldn't be true.
I "feel" like that's more accurate, a creator mechanism, but that doesn't make it true to me. It could be very easily argued that "divine intervention" or some similar god-function occurs in a degree or frequency beyond perception, or even understanding. Deism seems like a more rational "I dont see him, he's not real".

I don't really do beliefs, I just acknowledge the possibilities and get on with my life, but I do see the highest possibility as panentheism. If I HAD to pick a beleif it would be that

>Wrong quantifier there
Wrong term there. You mean 'logical connective' -- not 'quantifier'.

The bottom line is: given currently available evidence, it's irrational to believe in gods. Beliefs must be constrained by reality - they cannot be freely chosen based on wishful thinking.

lel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

No.

Browsing from a potato.

But tell me this: is the atmosphere of planet x nitrogen-based?

¬b(P)=/=b(¬P)

You typed all that out and said almost nothing. This is why "we" (nice contemporary LIE btw) are getting almost nowhere.

"Here's a hint": Don't think you have all the answers

>the meme chart

That chart is incoherent nonsense.

>The bottom line is: given currently available evidence, it's irrational to believe in gods. Beliefs must be constrained by reality
Agreed.
>they cannot be freely chosen based on wishful thinking
I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.

>Browsing from a potato.
What
>But tell me this: is the atmosphere of planet x nitrogen-based?
I don't know
>¬b(P)=/=b(¬P)
Agreed

>"Here's a hint": Just don't be religious

>I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.
I believe you freely choose to believe what you just said.
Bud do you believe me?

>tfw all this powerautism brings sick pleasure to its participants, and just goes to show that everyone who isn't theist is a sperglord who finds his religious ecstasy and fervour in jerking off over semantics

Cool logic 101 tho.

>Christians: 100000 points
>atheist/agnostic: 0

>Notable Christian writers: Joyce, Tolstoy, Shakespeare
>Notable atheist writers: Dawkins, Harris, the people of this thread

>¬b(P)
The proposition "God exists" does not believe?

Do you realize how bizarre and absurd that sounds? You're ascribing the ability to believe to an abstract object: a proposition.

What you want is a binary relation, B, between an individual capable of holding beliefs and a proposition. If "a" denotes a flesh-and-blood individual (make it Britney Spears) and "P" denotes a proposition (make it "God exists"), then "B(a, P)" means that Britney Spears believes that God exists.

>"Ugh, just don't, I can't even"

- most atheists

>he thinks all those authors subscribed to any sort of Christianity he'd recognize
>he can't tell that they're fucking with him
Christians confirmed for autistic or illiterate.

It's true. You cannot simply choose to begin believing something which contradicts your current beliefs. You can choose to read arguments which may convince you of that belief, you may choose to get drunk or high enough to temporarily think some ugly chick is hot, you may try to condition yourself into believing something through self-talk and creating cognitive dissonance, but belief itself is a purely psychological phenomenon.
I mean, just look at theists

>implying

>implying it wasn't implied

AUTIST TEARS

'b' is a belief operator, asshat.

+ Neutral/Weak Agnostic: it's rational to believe there are no gods, but also rational to believe there are gods
+ Agnostic/Weak Atheist: it's rational to believe there are no gods, and irrational to believe there are gods
+ Positive/Strong Atheist: it's rational to believe there are no gods, and irrational *not* to believe there are no gods

>Do you realize how bizarre and absurd that sounds? You're ascribing the ability to believe to an abstract object: a proposition.
Hello there! How's week one CS treating you?

>What you want is a binary relation
Hahahahahahahahaha jesus take the wheel

Agnostic: it's irrational to believe there are no gods, but also irrational to believe there are gods

ftfy

I am kazakh buddhist, and I watch this thread with amuse

Dog cannot see color, so not exist. Great logic.

>I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.

Yes, and that's why the distinction between "believing" and "claiming to know" is illusory, and hence why weak agnosticism is a nonsensical position.

If reality doesn't force a belief upon you, then it should not be adopted. That is, if there is no evidence for p, not only should you not believe that p, you should believe that it is irrational to believe that p.

Counter this, atheistards

There are no belief operators you retard. Operators are functions and no epistemic logic that I know of uses one as such. They are privileged predicates obeying certain axioms.

You fucked up (not to mention that you utterly failed to specify which logic you're using leading to a widespread confusion among most posters that went on replying to your incoherent, pseudo-formal bullshit). You got called out and now you will have to deal with it.

How can it be irrational to believe that x doesn't exist when there is no evidence that x exists?

>You typed all that out and said almost nothing.
Reading comprehension?

Here's what I'm saying:
RATIONALISM AND FAITH DO NOT MIX
Don't know what rationalism is? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
MIXING RATIONALISM AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF RESULTS IN A-SPIRITUAL BULLSHIT, IE CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIC CHRISTIANITY

In other words, engaging Atheists in this kind of debate is destructive to sincere spirituality and gets no where.
>Wait but if I make my God as abstract and clinical as possible I can win
No you can't. Lose lose.

cuz there is no evidence that x doesn't exist

How should the dog know that there are colours?

>There are no belief operators you retard.

Oh really?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic

>I found a flaw in your metaphor and therefore defeated your argument

>RATIONALISM AND FAITH DO NOT MIX

In other words, religion is irrational horseshit. Got it.

Seeing this kind of anti-intellectualism espoused unironically on a website with a young userbase is really odd.

What was the argument again?

And what would that consist of?

"Dont think, just do as I say God wants you to do"

nothing
as such argument will never exist

There you go.

It's not "anti-intellectualism," it's frustration that so few people seem understand that the two systems play by fundamentally different rules. Choose one and get over it: you can't have both.
>But in order to be an intellectual you have to either subscribe to rationalist interpretations of dogma or be an atheist
>You have to either take a fundamentally incorrect religious position or get rid of religion all together
See the issue?

The problem is, even theists rely on rational constraints when judging beliefs about anything other than theological matters. There is no corresponding asymmetry on the atheist side.

No, I don't see the issue except that you're greentexting things nobody said. Obviously religion doesn't play by rational rules, but there are good reasons to think the rules it does play by are not useful or true.

It is irrational to believe in the existence of something that leaves no evidence behind.

>For if one part may be interpreted as metaphor who's to say any of it is literal?

You're on fucking Veeky Forums you fedora sperg lord. You should at least understand the differences in literary genres and techniques. The Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books. Each book is separate into certain literary categories. Not every book in the Bible is meant to be taken literarlly. Some books aren't even stories, they're simply legal tracts (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc.) The wisdom books are filled with poetry, allegories, etc.

If you can't even understand basic literary theory you shouldn't be on this board. Fuck off back to Veeky Forums.

>the collected ravings of hundreds of self-interested sociopaths
So it's the worst case then, gotcha.

You didn't even read the post you responded to, did you?

i've never denied that