EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Why are you pretending like he isn't parroting the Frankfurt school propaganda?

>Frankfurt school propaganda

le cultural marxism

What? I don't understand, I'm defending Postmodernism here senpai.

daily reminder

He's making fun of you for pushing the cultural Marxism meme

But that wouldn't make any sense, or does he not realize that the Frankfurt school is generally opposed to post-modernism? Marxists love objectivity and would agree with the statements made by Krauss.

His post wasn't concerned with whether or Marxists would agree with Krauss, he was simply making fun of the fact that you brought up cultural Marxism as a bogeyman

Putting drooling husk babies into the world for everyone else to take care of is pretty shitty

Nothing wrong with it until it is normalized after hundreds of years and then every kid is Charles II-tier

Worked out great for UK

"Take notice how a “moral man” behaves, who today often thinks he is through with God and throws off Christianity as a bygone thing. If you ask him whether he has ever doubted that the copulation of brother and sister is incest, that monogamy is the truth of marriage, that filial piety is a sacred duty, then a moral shudder will come over him at the conception of one’s being allowed to touch his sister as wife also, etc. And whence this shudder? Because he believes in those moral commandments. This moral faith is deeply rooted in his breast. Much as he rages against the pious Christians, he himself has nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian — to wit, a moral Christian."

Despook yourself.

>christianity invented revulsion from incest

I'm always genuinely shocked at how dense this nigga is

>Having to accept christian morals to understand that you need christian morals
This doesn't make sense

E M P I R I C A L

I absolutely hate nothing more than these fashion 'empiricists'. Dumbnuts, empirical data cannot be 'made into' evidence without rational processing. Not even a machine can escape skewing during this process.
Knowledge then comes from a rationalization of 'empirical evidence', not from the 'empirical evidence' itself.
Only something like a fucking rock can obtain knowledge from empirical evidence, and a rock can't obtain knowledge.

These people are not machines, nor do they not want to be machines. They want to be fucking rocks yet somehow employ the objective experiences of a fucking rock. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

But can he define empirical?

oh boy.

...

>(FUNNY)

kek

yeah it does. if something making you feel icky doesn't mean it's wrong, you might as well extend that logic to the idea that nothing means anything at all is wrong.

He's so fucking dense light bends around him.

.......and I thought Libertarians were stupid

t. Letzter Mensch

>just because it makes you feel icky doesn't mean its wrong
A sociopath uses this argument against your feefees you call morality. What do?

Considering the fact that Egyptians and everybody influenced by them did think highly of incest, Zoroastrianism, the effects of polygamy... The main cultural contributor against incest has been either artificial or Christianity.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it isn't a very smart thing to do, but it does take a religion to tell the masses such things. Not sure on how European pantheons liked incest, but their gods did.

You sre mentally challenged and clearly have never read anything from the frankfurt school.

Incest doesn't necessitate reproduction

Krauss specifically removed that from the equation.

I show how he's retarded and perfomatively contradicting himself through the praexology of Hoppe's argumentation ethics

ooga booga

An idiot he may be, but there is literally nothing wrong with what he said here.

>fucking your sister once in a while is perfectly fine and in no way corrosive to society. I mean, I haven't got any empirical evidence for that
Ok Lawrence, gotchu senpai

how is "society" affected by incest?

You see any thriving societies in which incest is celebrated these days?

Die-Jenny-Racie

epic argument

I don't care for Krauss, but the booing he got from the peanut gallery was ridiculous. An intellectual debate isn't a fucking baseball game

It's the 'funny' that just denotes 'light-hearted', I think.

The debate happened in front of a bunch of towelheads, would you expect order and civility from them?

Serves him right desu. He, Hitchens, Harris and their lot care more about reactions from the public that buffer their egos than civilized debates. It's all about the applause, the sarcastic comment here and there, the cynic smile.

In fairness, Sam Harris doesn't try to entertain anyone.

Then why do dogs, sheep, livestock, etc, breeders force animals to commit incest all the time?
Incest is a viable option as long as you know what you are doing. That there is a lot of maintenance, culling, and introduced genetic diversity involved.

Say the last man and woman in the world were brother and sisters, is incest wrong then?

Empiricism is epistemology, but these dumb nu-atheists treat it like its ontology.

It's better to be firm, committed, and clear in your argument and come off as an asshole than using wavy words so that later on you can excuse yourself that the opponent misunderstand your language.

I'm Catholic but I actually like Hitchens explicitly because of the entertainment factor. He was an actual character. I'm almost sad that God turned him into an egg for a year before killing him

t. muslim

>It's better to be firm, committed, and clear in your argument and come off as an asshole

Reminder that this is your response to a comment that had the following:

>It's all about the applause, the sarcastic comment here and there, the cynic smile.

>engages in philosophical argument
>denies philosophy

everytime

youtube.com/watch?v=kZJSmUExU6M

Krauss is both really ugly and really unlikeable. You'd think someone who looks like he does would try to work on his personality.

I'm not even religious, I just don't like their style. And it's a shame because it's never harmless banter. Hitchens particularly does it with the intention to belittle his opponent. That takes away his credibility, unless you are there to be amused.

With him it's more about his smug disposition.

i just happened upon this guy via JRE and i felt the glory of good fortune that i found Jordan Peterson before i turned into a immoral materialist like Krauss.

he's philosophy?

the only way you can believe this is if you also believe in sterilizing the mentally ill, disabled etc.

You've never even seen a documentary on the BBC on any indigenous people ever, did you? The moment any incestuous tribe gets discovered is the moment anthropology will have to sit down and rewrite entire books, it's something that doesn't happen at all in humanity.
If anything, european royalty was more incestuous than most other peoples.

Thinking that things like cannibalism, necrophilia and incest are intrinsically morally wrong is an indication of intellectual immaturity

There are rational reasons to avoid cannibalism and necrophilia though. Largely disease.

>Largely disease.
Yeah, clearly disease is the largest argument against cannibalism. If only we could eliminate this one annoying factor, we could all enjoy delicious well-cooked babies in peace

Name another.
Also babies can't consent you idiot, it would have to be done with consent, and probably a natural death
>Sex is bad, imagine having sex with babies, look how horrible that sounds, sex is immoral

>Christianity is what makes incest a tabboo

Is Krauss actually retarded? Maybe himself the fruit of incestuous relations?

...

>Consent is bad because i sed so

>That reading comprehension

I meant 'consent is good' but didn't care to delete my post or correct my post in a follow-up post.

...

It's stupid how many of these nu-atheists are out there. They're so close-minded because they believe that the only way to know something is through scientific evidence so it's impossible to have a conversation with them. No matter how many reasons you give to believe in something like God they'll just repeat the mantra of "no evidence, no proof, no empirical data." instead of engaging with the reasons provided. I think they just do it to protect their ego. They can never be proven wrong if they don't challenge their ideas so they just fall back onto that mantra to kill the conversation.

I'm one of those nu-atheists, and I legit can't see a problem with believing something once it's supported by evidence
It seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss something that isn't empirically supported and work with things that are, that's what has always worked, and nothing else has
If cold science people like Krauss and Dawkins annoy you, you can read/listen to people who are more well read in philosophy, like Pinker who is a linguist or Hitchens who is a writer

There is no direct empirical evidence or scientific experiment that can prove the belief that all true beliefs must be validated with the scientific method. Do you see the problem with this? It's a self defeating belief.

What the fuck you're just wrong

>They're so close-minded because they believe that the only way to know something is through scientific evidence
You shouldn't trust experience, humans are to naive to access any absolute truths, we're deeply mentally flawed, if something can't be externally verified in some manner I don't see why I should place any deep faith into it

>I legit can't see a problem with believing something once it's supported by evidence
Can you see a problem with the idea of entertaining a concept ONLY once it's been supported by evidence? To ascribe to that is to cut off productive thought at the knees.

>Can you see a problem with the idea of entertaining a concept ONLY once it's been supported by evidence?
Yes, and that's not how science is done, you make hypotheses based on what you know and the devise experiments to test them
Can you see the problem with believing something to be true (not just "entertaining the idea", that's not what religious people do) before it's supported?

>if something can't be externally verified in some manner

I absolutely agree, We don't verify mathematical or logical truths with the scientific method because the scientific method isn't the only way to know truth. The problem is that these nu-atheists narrowly restrict the term "evidence" to mean direct empirical evidence. I don't think they realize what they're doing.

>The problem is that these nu-atheists narrowly restrict the term "evidence" to mean direct empirical evidence. I don't think they realize what they're doing.
There has never been a different form of, meaningful, useful evidence

Well that makes you as nu-atheist and everything I've said applies to you.

So are you obviously, because you can't name a different kind of meaningful evidence

I just gave you two, mathematical and logical. I'll give you another one for free - historical truths.

>Historical truths
We gather evidence to support those
There are personal anecdotes, but they are often not taken too seriously in academia, documents etc. are preferred

>Mathematical and logical
Those aren't kinds of evidence, they are systems, and the way we've discovered them to be inherent in the universe is through empiricism

I don't think any "nu-atheist" would challenge logical truths, or mathematics, or historical information. What is being challenged is:
>Revelation
>Profecy
>Faith
>Intuition
>Authority
>Dogma
>Augury
>Clairevoyance
>Conventional Wisdom
>Subjective certainty

listen mate. no one in their right mind would claim that empiricism should claim totalitarianism over epistemology. Most scientists are well aware of the limitations of empiricism which is why filtering information through as many epistemological layers as possible is part of the scientific method. You can't deny the fact that even though limited, science has a self-purifying/correcting property like no other method. The definition of a scientific theory doesn't claim absolute truth value and the antidote for bad science is more science which hopefully makes it good science.

The sociopath is also an egoist. He doesn't care about being a hypocrite, and shows that by thinking in such terms you submit to a creed.

Placebo proves you naive.

Why would you need philosophy if you are always right?

Have you seen the guy in this thread that I've been talking to? He just made the claim that the only way to know truth is through science. I'm not attacking science or denying its usefulness, I don't know why you believe that I am when I'm only saying science is not the only way to know truth.

The scientific method has a very narrow purpose, so to say "which is why filtering information through as many epistemological layers as possible is part of the scientific method." is complete nonsense that only makes sense when you conflate the scientific method with epistemology. You can't filter historical, logical, or mathematical evidence through the historical method.

god you're stupid

No matter how carefully you demonstrate to an atheist that scientism is a self defeating philosophy they always seem to ignore it and double down on their belief. Some men just can't be reached.

>You can't filter historical, logical, or mathematical evidence through the scientific method.

Fixed that

Have you tried to make them admit that they even exist as actors in this interactive world? They usually deny that. Must be the TV influence, video games are a step in the right direction.

so not subscribing to any form of epistemological totalitarianism makes god self-evident. to you all atheists are scientismists. wew lad.

nu-Christians/theists are just as bad as nu-atheists. Probably even worse, as they're not doing a very good job at mirroring the image of Christ.

>Probably even worse, as they're not doing a very good job at mirroring the image of Christ.
I guess atheists mirror the image of nothing better, but anything above zero is closer to the infinite by default.