"The only real truths are objective statements about things that exist...

Okay whichever descriptor you like, the map is not the territory.

I would introduce them to Wittgenstein.

KEK.

Richard Dawkins is so fucking cringy.

These pop-scientist hacks can just fuck right off.

.Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are fucking cringy pop scientists that should be gassed immediately

Post more cringy atheists.

I wouldn't say it's completely true. When using the scientific method, we should be investigating the natural world, it isn't really applicable to, say, History. But, as far as it concerns investigating the natural world, it's basically correct.

if these two werent such enormous faggots, this might trigger me.

how could someone hold such an opinion? how could they be so ignorant of everything that's ever happened? i think they might just say shit like this as part of their own marketing gimmicks to get people EXCITED ABOUT SCIENCE and show complete lay morons that they dont need to WORRY ABOUT THOSE WACKY PHILOSOPHERS IN THEIR IVORY TOWERS

Kinda on topic,
Has anyone here actually read Dawkins? He gets a lot of hate by association but I dont think he deserves it. Im reading The God Delusion for a unit at uni on "new atheism" and I'm finding his way of laying out his points really endearing. He's obviously very intelligent, has an obvious love for philosophy and poetry (even that pertaining to the divine).
The dawkins that gets spoken of here and other places is not the dawkins im seeing in this book. He is just very passionate about something he thinks is causing people harm.
The only cringey stuff is his 'outreach' to 'closeted' atheists, and his whole foundation for reason. But I can see that he means well.

>They both are actually decent scientists in their respective niches.

They should however quit doing their public charades.

> has an obvious love for philosophy

His points are often superficial at best though.

This user is correct in the most stylish way ITT

These guys are the textbook example for the classical empirical positivist trap. Karl Popper had a round at reshaping the whole scientific method to deal with faggots like this, and people like Dawkins, Krauss, Greene and other progressive goody scientists are undoing all his efforts to place science in a proper place. They are attempting to go beyond the falseability principle and stepping on pure ideology territory, and are disaggregating the scientific method from even being a method at all, but rather being an "absolute beholder of truth values", a vapid tautology in the form of "it is like this because we observe it like this".

>The only way to make objective statements about things that exist are through the scientific method.

Look at this load of horseshit that could only have been spit by someone who has never touched even the cave allegory. What is an objective statement, what meaning does it serve? How can you establish a method for objective statements if it doesn`t even hold any ontological status (you are denying the possibility of ontology to begin with)? These people believe empirical data holds "truth" rather than just being data, and hold that their precious equations are the "why" of things, even though all they can do (at best) is to establish relationships among objects which. they can't even define in standalone (what is energy, without mentioning work, force or other arbitrary definitions which all circle back to their definitions depending on energy?). These relationships are good to know HOW things CHANGE in relation to one another, but are NOT objective statements about reality, they are just models, no matter how precise.

By the way I'm a physicist, and if you want to see the pinnacle of hypocrisy regarding "objective truths based on scientific method" look no further than our "most advanced model", the Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Without knowing anything about math, just keep in mind that QFT is a theory that is neither fully falsifiable (it uses ad hoc propositions left and right in order to match experimental data) nor is it fully self-consistent (some of it is built upon negations of its own statements, e.g en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haag's_theorem states that we cannot do precisely what mostly everyone does in order to match their predictions to experiments). And this is what people like Krauss sells as "objective statement about things that exist". It is a statement all right, and it allows for technology all right, but as for being objective, and about things that surely exist, not at all.

How would you prove that "murder is wrong" based on the scientific method?

The scientific method assumes causality exists, and this existence cannot be proven with the scientific method. It is self-refuting.

Read your Kuhn.

Good post.

Very good post.

You wouldn't. This argument only works if you assume that murder is in fact wrong.

Just ask them whether the Holocaust happened, and look at how fast their epistemology runs out of the lab.

Even though I dislike threads about figures like Krauss, I do find it difficult to respond with a convincing and relatively succinct argument to people who simply believe that truth is only what we can perceive in such a way as to be considered evidence. In other words, I find it difficult to argue against the scientism rhetoric that has swept up so many self-described free thinkers.

Some of the answers help, but I really feel as though I am barely taking in anything that I read because of my inability to present their ideas in a simple manner.

The fun part is when they sperg about the assumption of "God came first" because this makes the origin problem more complicated by introducing an infinitely more complex entity to describe, "where did God come from then?", all the while championing their own brand of circular logic.

I'm a fedora and even I'm embarrassed.

and how exactly would Wittgenstein respond?

>real truths
>objective statements
perhaps you could use less obscure terms. As i see it right now these terms make the entire sentiment meaningless.

I think their problem is that they've cornered themselves argumentatively.

Whenever these people are asked why killing is wrong they reply with the golden rule. This is fine, and it absolutely requires no deity to perform, but they are such hypocrites when they trash philosophy (and by proxy, ethics) because they immediately associate it with solipsism and "lol we can't know nuthing".

This is a severely underrated post and should be archived.

kys

So math is essentially a compendium of non-truths
or worse, truths about things that do not exist ?

I have a profound interest in science, but these people are truly identical to religious nuts and similar ignorants. They're just being close minded and near sighted on a slightly higher educational level.

I think you're right. Dawkins is not responsible for the warped ideas that pseuds get about atheism or science or religion when they read his stuff or listen to him. He would be better off distancing himself from them, but everyone needs a base to support his opinions and these people do fit the bill.

Just recognize that the position is self refuting and point it out. There is no scientific experiment that can show that all true beliefs must be validated by the scientific method or with empirical evidence.

He does a very poor job of refuting Intelligent design. Instead of giving it a fair hearing or accurately representing what the more sophisticated IDer's believe they choose to go after the easy targets, kind of like how he'll write pages on Pascals Wager and less than a paragraph discussing Aquinas. They portray the anti-science young earth creationists as representative of intelligent design and place ID in opposition to scientific theories like evolution when in reality they aren't even attempting to answer the same questions. Evolution is a theory dealing with how organisms develop over time while ID is a theory dealing with WHY they develop at all.

Even if we were to take an extreme reductionist view like Dawkins does and just consider life to be a piece of DNA the chances for life developing on his own are astronomical. DNA is a nucleic acid that stores the cell's genetic information in the form of a strand, consisting of sequences of the nitrogenous basis A, G, C, T (abbreviations for adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine). Even for a very, very small DNA strand of 100 bases--much, much smaller than we find in any actual cell--the odds against getting a particular lucky combination is staggering, 4^100 to one against. Keep in mind that this number is assuming that all of those bases are in one particular spot and a particular time. Couple this with other parts of the cell and the chances of life developing on its own increases exponentially.

Couple this with the fact that the universe is not eternal. If the universe and earth were eternal I would be more receptive the idea that life could develop by chance because there would be an infinite time frame for those odds to work itself out, but universe has only been around for about 13 and a half billion years and the Earth has only been around for about 4 and a half billion years, and it's only been cool enough for living things to develop for about 3.8 billion years. The simplest cells formed on our planet almost immediately upon our planet being cool enough to allow for the simplest biological life. If getting the right chemical combination to allow for the simplest cell by chance is anything like getting a perfect deal in a game of bridge, we are really really really lucky. It looks like somebody stacked the deck.

These are strong reasons to believe that an intelligent designer is ordering or guiding the universe and they deserve grown up responses, but guys like Dawkins don't even attempt to engage.

Asking WHY is what children do. Grow up.

I'm with you in his bias but improbability is never a good argument for intelligent design. It doesn't matter how unlikely something is if we don't fully grasp the system in which such event can develop. We keep finding more and more planets in the Goldilocks zone and, at the risk of going on a tangent, there's nothing to prevent us from assuming this is not the only universe.

So we know it happened here because it happened here.

Why do children do that?

Quantum mechanics shows that things don't exist in any objective sense, since prior to a measurement, things are described a by the Schrödinger equation in terms of probabilities.

Yeah I'm with you. No matter how unlikely it is that life developed on its own there's always going to be the chance that it actually did develop randomly. I'm just in the camp that this chance is so unlikely to be true that it seems more probable that there's some metaphysical cause like God behind it.

meant for

Despite criticizing Dawkins for portraying anti-science young earth creationists as representative of believers in Intelligent Design you sure do a good job at being an anti-science young earth creationist. I mean seriously, the "lightning zapped goop and bam a monkey appeared!" meme? Really? And arguing as if anyone (other than the Bogdanovs) in the scientific community has ever claimed to be able to tell with happened before the Big Bang or what will happen to the universe? Seriously dude? You should have just posted a Jack Chick comic.

There are no adult reasons to believe in intelligent design, and Dawkins doesn't attempt to engage them because all of them are completely retarded and, as you demonstrated, are based on not having a single fucking clue about what's even being discussed.

I'm going to respond as if you're not trolling because I honestly can't tell. Can you pinpoint what I said that was scientifically inaccurate? I have no idea what you're talking about with this "lightning zapped goop" thing and I didn't say anything about before the big bang.

I understand that some people believe the universe expands and recedes eternally but even if this were true it wouldn't contradict what I said because the universe as we know it (in this expansion, so to speak) has only existed for 13 and a half billion years and the earth has only been livable for 3.8 billion years. We're still stuck with this finite time frame for the odds to work themselves out even if you believe the universe exists infinitely before the big bang.

If I just accidentally cut my finger and it's bleeding, I can see that without hypothesizing, performing an experiment, etc., and can pretty reasonably objectively assert that it is, in fact, bleeding.

This is the very easiest refutation to that argument. They'd just improve it a bit while defending what they're trying to get at, which I still disagree with, but your wording makes it really easy to refute.

I thank you for putting this much effort into a post.

What is the reason for this science cult that is ever so increasing? People which don't know two shits about science or which got their knowledge from meme pages on Facebook shit on all of philosophy and think they're smart as all hell.
My thought is that this idolatry of science is the result of the materialism. Hell, a lot of today's "religious" people resemble atheists, save that they just add a creator in there somewhere. It's terrifying how many hypocrites there are. The materialism also leads into blind hedonism. I know the majority of the populace was stupid in the old times too, but how many teenagers today actually sit to read some thoughtful books? Or interest themselves for the world around them in general?

They have to fill that void left from their abandonment of religion somehow. If you don't worship God you'll end up worshiping man.

>They have to fill that void left from their abandonment of religion somehow

Bingo, there's a need for a stable reassuring order.

You have to worship something, it's inavoidable.
The "religious" ones are a phenomenon, because they behave nihilistically and hedonistically, yet they claim and think they're religious and fair because they believe in a "creator".
One of the funniest thing happened to me on my university less than a year ago. After a talk with a respected professor which spouted unbelievable stupidities (for example, how we can get morals from materialism, because in certain serial killers it has been found that there are less synapses in the limbic system - I won't go into detail here why this is stupid as all hell, it's too obvious), he gave us all a break from the lecture, so I wen't outside. There a girl from my year approached me and started talking about religion amongst other things. Get this - she basically made fun of people believing in a God (it was subtle, though), and literally seconds afterwards started talking about some kind of "energy" (which she didn't define what it was or how it worked) existing.
How do these people exist? Makes me think they would stop breathing if they didn't have a center in their nervous system for it.

>If getting the right chemical combination to allow for the simplest cell by chance is anything like getting a perfect deal in a game of bridge,
it isn't like that, there are lots of combinations that work good enough, you happen to be one of them. and so did the first "cell" which wasn't even close to a cell and probably didn't have even close to the complexity you are describing

by "cell" i mean self-replicating entity

Assuming again for the sake of conversation DNA itself is all that's needed "seed" a planet so to speak, If you had to guess, how many different combinations of DNA do you think could have been viable? I don't if that question get's across what I'm trying to ask but I can't think of a better way to word it.

I would accept it and then gently remind both of these distinguished gentlemen that every time they are opening their mouths to talk about religion or anything remotely related to it that they are breaking their own rules and should shut the fuck up.

Everybody wins.

viable for it to self-replicate? i don't know, probably thousands of millions among the 4^100 that you mentioned, but that's still minuscule compared to the total.

my point is that the first self-replicating entity probably wasn't anything close to today's DNA or even RNA so i don't think your initial argument holds

Logical positivism lost merit a long time ago.

Nonetheless, it's going strong, and you know this yourself. Look at our society.

>Truth exists

heh nice one kiddo

That's it folks. We've reached the end of mankind. Nothing is knowable, nothing is true, research is pointless, lets drop dead or jerk each other off in the rubble of civilization until we die.

Uncut nihilism is so drab.

hmm very raskolnikovian hmmm yes

>modern "scientists"

It's hilarious seeing you liberal arts babbies talking about science

Who are you quoting?
Also, no they're not

Scientifically prove that sentence.

I'd further define it as "objective statements being things other than personal opinion, based on the facts available"

and facts as "things which we can test or measure with a high enough probability (somewhere >90%) and that will consistently show itself to be true"

and "ultimate" truth being what is actually true, whether or not we know it and "truth" more as a colloquial thing of what we can measure to be consistently reproduced in reality, say taking 50 mg of zinc oxide daily will raise your zinc blood levels.

Anyone have a problem with this? I don't care for 100% super duper accurate and I feel like those are the only types of arguments I see against proposals such as the one in OP, whereas I don't actually think they're making these claims of 100% absolute certainty.

>You have to worship something, it's inavoidable.
I don't believe in a God or some retarded mystical energy. I know plenty of people who don't. I believe it just boils down to the good ole human "we don't know so let's invent an answer". The only times you'll find me guilty of this is prescribing motives to people based on personal probabilities (most people do this), I only ever take it to be the likely answer though, not the real answer.

To continue to exist, you need a driving force, and it has to be on such a high level that it can be called worship. For people which don't believe in a God, energy or anything else (be it stupid to you or not), it's always something else. That's why there are a lot of degenerate hedonists nowadays, because they replace God with mindless degeneracies like sex and alcohole. Parties are also a big waste of time.
I know no one can prove to anyone that a God definitely exists, but objectively it's better to have a society believe in one.
Facebook and Instagram (and other social networks) are the biggest cancer in a long time, and that, grouped with the toxic liberalism (which was actually good back in the days when there were slaves and other people needing their liberties) which induces mass fear in people of being stigmatised for being backwards, primitive, fascists etc. just because they offer valid worries and complaints to certain issues, is what will drive our civilization slowly to ruins, and I'm sad that I have to watch this unfold. But to be perfectly honest myself, I never cared for certain old values too much, like the family (I don't plan on ever getting married or having children). Still doesn't make me a hypocrite for pointing out what's happening nowadays.

That covers the existential domain.
What about the evaluative, or the prescriptive?

>That's why there are a lot of degenerate hedonists nowadays, because they replace God with mindless degeneracies like sex and alcohole. Parties are also a big waste of time.
I know no one can prove to anyone that a God definitely exists, but objectively it's better to have a society believe in one.
Oh. So you're going by the definition
>extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Well, sure. But not to some ultimate "this is everything"-degree. I probably ""worship"" my family just as much as a religious person (possibly more since if they die, they actually die?) but what does this really say? Nothing. Just that I love my family. You mentioned hedonism, my variant is maximizing pleasure in the long run for myself and the people I care about (so booze could be detrimental to my long-term pleasure in that it could make me dumber, more impulsive, damage my liver etc, but it could also be a worthwhile sacrifice in creating memories, forming bonds etc).

>but objectively it's better to have a society believe in one.
I disagree. Japan, France, Sweden (where I'm from, great country -the retarded immigration policies). In fact wealthier nations tend to be less religious, we know IQ and education is correlated with non-religious belief and well, ultimately, I think it's generally bad for people to hold unproven beliefs without a reason, because that will leave them susceptible to doing the same with any other belief. If you can believe in X on faith, you may as well believe Y in faith since that's internally consistent. If you anchor your beliefs in fact (as defined by ) then a lot of problems wouldn't be problems. You could look at the stats and realize the islamic world is fucked up in many regards (pertaining women and other specific beliefs), that the gender wage gap is closer to 1% for an unknown reason etc etc.

Most of my qualms with modern society are actually based on people believing things without evidence, and I definitely don't think religion would be the solution here.

Please don't call for the deaths of people you disagree with. Are you asking for more atheists so you can add to your fantasy kill list? Please read a book whats subject is a biography of an atheist instead. Perhaps by investigating the life of an atheist you might grow compassionate enough to end this rude and offensive behavior.

>possibly more since if they die, they actually die?
It's paradoxical that atheists have things they worship too, because if they believe they go to nothingness after they die, literally nothing matters to them, doesn't matter what they say.
>but it could also be a worthwhile sacrifice in creating memories, forming bonds etc
Under two conditions:
1. If you don't get drunk as all hell and embarrass yourself plus forget everything that happened in that time period
2. If you have discussions in that time, preferrably intellectual, so it means that booze per se won't create any memories
>that will leave them susceptible to doing the same with any other belief
It's pretty logical to separate a belief in the creator of everything that exists from things that are part of that existence. God is a special case, like looking at the line that makes the circle that contains the things inside a Ven's diagram.
>Sweden
>France
You already know in which direction these two are going.
>Japan
I'll give you this one, but it's not because of them being non-religious (although they do have buddhism), but because they have harsh and strict rules so degeneracy isn't as present as in, say, Europe, and also because they're isolated and xenophobic.
>If you anchor your beliefs in fact
Nothing is a fact, you can be and should be skeptic of everything and always keep in mind that nothing is 100% proven true. Science is a good tool, but it should not be turned into a religion. Not a lot of philosophy reading is required to notice the shortcoming of Science already mentioned in this thread, although in an agressive manner.
>gender wage gap
You don't really believe this, do you?
>Most of my qualms with modern society are actually based on people believing things without evidence
How is someone who believes in a God without any evidence more of a problem than a teenager who wastes his time on booze and isn't self-conscious, as in, has no developed views of his own, because he didn't read and learn about the world he exists in?
I'll take the former over the latter any time of the day.

>It's paradoxical that atheists have things they worship too, because if they believe they go to nothingness after they die, literally nothing matters to them, doesn't matter what they say.

I'm an atheist and can answer this from my PoV. There's value in feeling good, because feeling good feels good and I want to feel good. It's simple.

>literally nothing matters to them
Feeling good matters, because feeling bad feels like shit and I'd rather not do that. This can come about in multiple ways, many of them beneficial to others. Also as I care about my friends and family, it matters to me that they also feel good and if they don't, then I feel bad.

>Under two conditions:
1. If you don't get drunk as all hell and embarrass yourself plus forget everything that happened in that time period
2. If you have discussions in that time, preferrably intellectual, so it means that booze per se won't create any memories
Well, I'm probably unique in this regard in that I have an excellent memory and don't tend to forget shit even under the influence of both cannabis and alcohol. I've done a DNA test and I have multiple alleles for good memory, episodic and otherwise.

>It's pretty logical to separate a belief in the creator of everything that exists from things that are part of that existence. God is a special case, like looking at the line that makes the circle that contains the things inside a Ven's diagram.
I'll give you that, people are pretty good at being logically inconsistent and holding different standards for two things, but I believe it seeps through anyway and leaves them more prone to believing in non-sense.

>You already know in which direction these two are going.
Good countries despite shitty immigration policies. France is a different case than Sweden in this regard, but I don't much care to get into this. Sweden is still an excellent country.

>I'll give you this one, but it's not because of them being non-religious (although they do have buddhism), but because they have harsh and strict rules so degeneracy isn't as present as in, say, Europe, and also because they're isolated and xenophobic.
That was my point though, you can have great non-religious countries. Just go back a couple of years and even by your standards, Sweden, Germany, France etc would've fallen in this category. They're still great, but slightly worse off than before.

>Nothing is a fact, you can be and should be skeptic of everything and always keep in mind that nothing is 100% proven true. Science is a good tool, but it should not be turned into a religion. Not a lot of philosophy reading is required to notice the shortcoming of Science already mentioned in this thread, although in an agressive manner.
I referenced a post to show what I meant by "fact" in which it was made clear that it was nothing about 100% proven or 100% certainty, so we are probably in agreement here? IF not we can flesh this out, I find this type of conversation interesting.

>You don't really believe this, do you?
No, of course not since I look at the evidence and it shows that it's about 1% for an unknown reason (probably negotiating power or something like that), that was my point though. Evidence/facts/the scientific method will lead to NOT believing in this type of unproven hogwash.

>How is someone who believes in a God without any evidence more of a problem than a teenager who wastes his time on booze and isn't self-conscious, as in, has no developed views of his own, because he didn't read and learn about the world he exists in?
I'll take the former over the latter any time of the day.
The first guy in your example isn't more of a problem than the second one. Nowhere did I say that. I was pretty clear with my wording, "most". So I live in Sweden and two of the biggest qualms I currently have is this dumb feminism and dumb approach to immigration and conflating of facts. BRÅ 2006 stats shown that immigrants rape 5x more on average (and European immigrants are factored in here if I recall correctly, so it'd be even higher for non-European immigrants -- this can also be seen by the stats from the Bundesamt etc). People pretend like this isn't true. People pretend like women are discriminated against. There are tons of things like this with no evidence behind them, and they just so happen to be my biggest problems (probably because they're put forward as problems when they actually aren't). When approaching things like this from a science perspective, you just aren't justified in holding these views whereas if you don't, you can just make up any non-sense and it'll be just as valid as any other non-sense.

>There's value in feeling good, because feeling good feels good and I want to feel good. It's simple.
It literally doesn't matter if you go to nothingness.
>Feeling good matters, because feeling bad feels like shit and I'd rather not do that. This can come about in multiple ways, many of them beneficial to others. Also as I care about my friends and family, it matters to me that they also feel good and if they don't, then I feel bad.
There's no reason to care if you really think that we're going to nothingness. Nothingness is the main thing here, nothing can oppose it, nothing matters when compared to it, no matter how much anyone wants to rationalize it.
>I'll give you that, people are pretty good at being logically inconsistent and holding different standards for two things
I was saying that it was logically consistent to separate a factor that created existence from the things inside existence, but I do agree that humans can have contradicting viewpoints, I've met a lot of people like that. It all comes from not examining your own thoughts and thinking for yourself - not being self-conscious, basically.
>Sweden is still an excellent country
Give it a few more years.

>Evidence/facts/the scientific method will lead to NOT believing in this type of unproven hogwash
While I do agree that it can be used as a model for examining relations to certain things (even though we have the always present problem of induction), most people won't believe arguments (related to evolutionary psychology etc.) as they are abstract and non-material, and want "solid" proof, which basically means they want statistics. For example, how many women cheated on somebody etc.
The problem with this approach is that they can always, literally always, claim that it just so happened that so many of examined women happen to be like that, and as we know, it's impossible to do a study on literally every woman in existence, or even a considerably big chunk of them, so you always lose. We need to make people want to accept arguments, not just things tied to materialism.
>People pretend like this isn't true
Not only that, but as I said above, they think it's only those cases and that others are all goody two shoes.
>you can just make up any non-sense and it'll be just as valid as any other non-sense
Arguments, as being abstract, are more prone to making no sense, because it's easier to trick people as they aren't self-conscious enough, but it's possible to create good arguments which are better than any scientific study. The arguments considering the nature of women is much better than any study that can ever be done, but people don't want to believe it because it's too harsh, plus it's easy to disregard it.

You guys need to cool it with this autistic greentexting

>It literally doesn't matter if you go to nothingness.
>There's no reason to care if you really think that we're going to nothingness. Nothingness is the main thing here, nothing can oppose it, nothing matters when compared to it, no matter how much anyone wants to rationalize it.

What do you mean by matter? I mean that I care about it. Nothingness sucks and all, but I'm not going to delude myself into believing in something just because I'd prefer it not to be the case.

>logically consistent to separate a factor that created existence from the things inside existence
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. They're both claims about reality and should be held to the same standard imo.

>The problem with this approach is that they can always, literally always, claim that it just so happened that so many of examined women happen to be like that, and as we know, it's impossible to do a study on literally every woman in existence, or even a considerably big chunk of them, so you always lose.
Then they're retarded, plain and simple. They should go take a statistics 101 course. If you have a sizeable enough random sample, and they come with this shit then they're not worth talking to. Well that's a little harsh, I'd try to explain it to them but that'd probably be a fruitless effort.

>We need to make people want to accept arguments, not just things tied to materialism.
I guess I agree if you mean what I take this to mean. Well-founded arguments should definitely be accepted.

>The arguments considering the nature of women is much better than any study that can ever be done, but people don't want to believe it because it's too harsh, plus it's easy to disregard it.
What type of argument? I mean, I consider them to be more social and this is shown by studies showing that they tend to go more into social fields, they're more acute to social signals and body language, etc, there's a litany of research on this coming at it from various angles.

>While I do agree that it can be used as a model for examining relations to certain things (even though we have the always present problem of induction), most people won't believe arguments (related to evolutionary psychology etc.) as they are abstract and non-material, and want "solid" proof, which basically means they want statistics. For example, how many women cheated on somebody etc.
I generally agree. I'll believe arguments stemming from evolutionary psychology if there's good reason to believe them to be true, if they have predictive power, it tends to coincide with my lived experience (personal evidence) etc. I'll believe it in the sense that I can use it as a sort of framework for approaching the world, but not with the same type of certainty that I believe the sun will rise tomorrow etc (of course). I'll believe things like this with a lower degree of certainty, and I'll more easily disregard them if contradicting models make more sense and so on, I'm probably sliding off topic so I'll jus

>You guys need to cool it with this autistic greentexting
Not going to happen, pal.

>There's value in feeling good, because feeling good feels good and I want to feel good. It's simple.
>>literally nothing matters to them
>Feeling good matters, because feeling bad feels like shit and I'd rather not do that. This can come about in multiple ways, many of them beneficial to others. Also as I care about my friends and family, it matters to me that they also feel good and if they don't, then I feel bad.
Well, at least you're honest. I do hope you're capable of understanding the implications behind this mindset.

We're having a discussion and actually putting effort into it. I know it's rare to see on Veeky Forums, but you don't have to insult us.
>but I'm not going to delude myself into believing in something just because I'd prefer it not to be the case.
That's not an argument, because not only do there exist people which believe in a creator not because of their fear of nothingness, but because there also exist the opposites, people which would prefer to go into nothingness and "delude" (to use the word you used) themselves into thinking a creator doesn't exist.
>They're both claims about reality and should be held to the same standard imo.
One claim is related to the creation of the reality, and all the others are related to that reality, so it's not the same.
>What type of argument? I mean, I consider them to be more social and this is shown by studies showing that they tend to go more into social fields, they're more acute to social signals and body language, etc, there's a litany of research on this coming at it from various angles.
I know I'll probably be marked by mentioning this, but it's a good example - the woman hate threads on /r9k/. Yes, /r9k/ is full of people which despise themselves and shit on everything and everybody, but if you look at the woman hate threads, there are some actual good statistics, for example, and a lot of people are more than willing to disregard them because the women in the studies were like that, it doesn't mean everyone is like that and so on. I understand, generalization can be bad, but if a certain thing has certain characteristics, they are present in each and every variation of that thing.
>I generally agree.
I knew you would, but a lot of other people don't, because the human nature is really dark if we look at it through that prism. I'm a theist who holds the views of evolutionary psychology, and while that probably sounds contradicting to some, I think it fits inside my system nicely.

>I do hope you're capable of understanding the implications behind this mindset.
What are you trying to tell him with this?

>I do hope you're capable of understanding the implications behind this mindset.
I do, but which implications do you think it holds? I mean, take into account that I have a conscience, empathy etc. I feel bad seeing others feeling bad or people doing unjustified bad things to others.

I feel like I'm just honestly putting into words the framework most people live by anyway, but pretend not to (since it seems egocentric and what not, it won't make you seem virtuous being honest with things like these). I think it's to a large part just human nature.

>I think it's to a large part just human nature.
I agree - but since you have no rational basis for your sense of morality(it's just feelings and instinct) it seems to me you couldn't make a reasoned case for(or against) behaving the way you do.

>We're having a discussion and actually putting effort into it. I know it's rare to see on Veeky Forums, but you don't have to insult us.

Yeah it's like listening to two homeless guys on the bus having a conversation. They're incomprehensible to everyone else but they're somehow able to converse with each other. If only they would put in the effort to speak properly.

Science tells us fuck all. "What is the true nature of the world." is a bad question.

>That's not an argument, because not only do there exist people which believe in a creator not because of their fear of nothingness
Just to be clear, #notall. I believe this is a big motivating factor for a belief in an afterlife etc, whether they know it themselves or not. You won't find many religions with Gods where you just cease to exist when you die; there's always an afterlife.

>but because there also exist the opposites, people which would prefer to go into nothingness and "delude" (to use the word you used) themselves into thinking a creator doesn't exist.
I've heard this but I have a really hard time believing in it. I can't imagine anyone who'd pick nothingness over eternal bliss. It's unthinkable to me, if I could choose between God being real or not I would, even if the qur'an turned out to be true and I'd have to amp up the worship a few notches, it'd still be worth it.

>One claim is related to the creation of the reality, and all the others are related to that reality, so it's not the same.
From my point of view, reality is everything that is. If God is, that's part of reality and thus falls under the same umbrella.

>Yes, /r9k/ is full of people which despise themselves and shit on everything and everybody, but if you look at the woman hate threads, there are some actual good statistics, for example, and a lot of people are more than willing to disregard them because the women in the studies were like that, it doesn't mean everyone is like that and so on
I agree, people tend to shy away from uncomfortable statistics, pretend they don't exist etc etc. My sister is a uni educated psychologist who'd do just about anything to pretend that there aren't real differences in mean IQs between countries, this is just one example of course but this tends to hold true for just about anything pertaining to differences between people (men vs women being one of them).

>I knew you would, but a lot of other people don't, because the human nature is really dark if we look at it through that prism. I'm a theist who holds the views of evolutionary psychology, and while that probably sounds contradicting to some, I think it fits inside my system nicely.
100% with you here.

Can you elaborate on this though from your last response?
>What do you mean by matter? I mean that I care about it.
I really don't know what you mean by matter if not that. I care about it to the extent that I'll take actions to prevent myself from feeling bad in the future, and secure my future well-being (and those of people I care about).

Well, I believe morality should be anchored to human well-being and that that is what we as a species/society should care about. If something was 10% detrimental to me but 80% beneficial to the group then I'd suck it up and accept it, even though I wouldn't necessarily like it.

I'll give you a free bone to chew on though, I believe eating meat is wrong but I still do it. I don't care on a visceral level, it tastes well and is a good source of protein among other things. But to be fair, I'd pay slightly more for lab-grown meat were it possible, and I can vaguely justify it by wanting to speed up the process of getting to that stage, a bad kind of "the ends justify the means" self-rationalization. That and nutrition, price etc. So I don't always hold true to this, of course this is no different from Christians sinning etc, having an objective source of morality doesn't necessarily mean you'll always follow it, but the good of it is that it's for the most part consistent and, if implemented on a societal scale, would trump the individual wrong-doings.

Anyway, that's the reasoned case I'd make. It's not just feelings and instincts, though that does play a part as in my meat example (where I do something I know to be wrong for various reasons: lack of empathy, financial-, practical- and nutritional reasons). Still knowing it is wrong is good though, imo. I'd change it given the opportunity.

>I believe this is a big motivating factor for a belief in an afterlife etc
Yeah, I agree.
>I can't imagine anyone who'd pick nothingness over eternal bliss
Don't forget there's a possibility of hell too, and people would pick nothingness over that. Hell, some people just hate existing and would find eternal life (and bliss) bad.
>If God is, that's part of reality and thus falls under the same umbrella.
God is the one who made the "is" possible, he shouldn't be considered in the same category. If we create a virtual world, we should be considered separate from it, unless we're considering existence itself. Then we should count too, as we didn't create existence.
>My sister is a uni educated psychologist who'd do just about anything to pretend that there aren't real differences in mean IQs between countries
I have a more horrible example - a professor on my university (I study medicine) was talking how the male and the female organism are exactly the same, save for genitalia. He didn't take into consideration anything else, from muscle mass to hormones etc.
This is the result of the toxical liberalism I've mentioned before, which wants and thinks everyone and everything is equal. This stupid "reasoning" is also found in other categories of life, most noticeable in looks and intelligence. Ironically enough, even though people say all that, they still behave differently. For example, you have females telling some males they look great, while being in a relationship and fucking some other guy. Or females bragging how they don't care about looks etc. while being in a relationship with a guy who is pretty high on the looks scale. I've seen both of these examples live (you can guess how the first one happened), and it's pretty annoying and baffling.
>I care about it to the extent
I'm curious, why do you care? It literally doesn't matter if we go to nothingness when we die. If you truly believe this, why have morals and other things?

>Don't forget there's a possibility of hell too, and people would pick nothingness over that. Hell, some people just hate existing and would find eternal life (and bliss) bad.

Right, but if we're talking about reality and beliefs then we can't just pick and choose. If I believed in heaven and hell and wanted with all my heart it not to be true, I'd still believe in it as belief isn't a choice. By ignoring it I would just be willingly choosing hell. I mean, at the crossroads of believing it, why are you going to pick "sure hell" over "possible hell" or "probable heaven".

>God is the one who made the "is" possible, he shouldn't be considered in the same category. If we create a virtual world, we should be considered separate from it, unless we're considering existence itself. Then we should count too, as we didn't create existence.
I disagree on the first point, God was "is" before we were. If we create a virtual world, that now is and claims about this virtual world would be a claim about reality. We count too.

>I have a more horrible example - a professor on my university (I study medicine) was talking how the male and the female organism are exactly the same, save for genitalia. He didn't take into consideration anything else, from muscle mass to hormones etc.
Wow. That's seriously unacceptable. How these people have jobs is beyond me. I think the US is waay worse in this regard though (politicized education, SJWs etc). There's an incentive for the universities to cowtow to it's students so that they'll get their tuition dollars etc. Here education is free and the professors could just tell you to be quiet or fuck off basically. I've not seen many SJW tendencies here desu (uni of Stockholm, Södertörn might be somewhat worse from what I've heard, but it's shit and everyone knows it), though I know those dreaded SJW courses exist.

>This is the result of the toxical liberalism I've mentioned before, which wants and thinks everyone and everything is equal.
Yup, there's no such thing as a blank slate. Even personality is susceptible to influence by genes. (I view at it more as the baseline/the direction the ship is going and the environment as the influence/steering the ship a certain direction with differing strengths).

>This stupid "reasoning" is also found in other categories of life, most noticeable in looks and intelligence. Ironically enough, even though people say all that, they still behave differently
Yup, happens all the time. It's just virtue signalling imo, I tend to be honest about things like this and you can tell how uncomfortable it makes some people. A lot of people will agree though, I think a lot of people just talk shit for social brownie points but know that it's shit and will drop it if they know you know too. Sort of.

>I'm curious, why do you care? It literally doesn't matter if we go to nothingness when we die. If you truly believe this, why have morals and other things?
Because I care about feeling good. I feel good living in a society where people help each other out, treat each other well, are kind etc etc. I don't think I'd feel good living in the Congo where half the population will be raped (which could include myself and my family). A good society produces good conditions for a good life. I want a good life, I want the people I care about to have a good life. Having a good life is simply preferable to not having one, in terms of having an enjoyable moment-to-moment experience and the prospects of maintaining this in the future.
Some more on morality here

Basically even though my time is limited, I want to make the most of it. A movie will end, but that's no reason to skip to the end sort of thing.

>why are you going to pick "sure hell" over "possible hell" or "probable heaven".
Because you're absolutely positive that you go to nothingness after death and that nothing matters. Also, there are a ton of religions, and what are the odds of picking the correct one? Not to mention that you can go to hell if you believe in one religion just to be saved, as you're not being sincere.
>We count too.
We created it (the virtual reality), we are above it. How can we be on the same level as it?
>I tend to be honest about things like this
I don't, because if I did, a lot of people would hate me and my life would be harder than it already is (and it already is hard enough). I hate myself because of this, though, as I'm not staying true to my beliefs.
>I think a lot of people just talk shit for social brownie points but know that it's shit and will drop it if they know you know too
I can't be as optimistic as you, I think we're in the minority. A lot of people truly, actually believe in that bullshit they spout.
>I want a good life, I want the people I care about to have a good life. Having a good life is simply preferable to not having one, in terms of having an enjoyable moment-to-moment experience and the prospects of maintaining this in the future.
I understand all that, but if you consider that you go to nothingness after you die, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're raped, or anybody else. It doesn't matter if people kill, steal etc.
Why should you care about anything? The logical conclusion to this is suicide, as it is the only thing that does something, and that is that it plunges you into nothingness immediatelly. Nothing else you do is valid. If you choose to drink coffee, it doesn't matter. You could pick up and read something, but that doesn't matter either. Suicide removes the useless (because of the viewpoint of going to nothingness) existence. But I can still understand why you'd want to be on the ride.

>A movie will end, but that's no reason to skip to the end sort of thing.
I don't like this analogy, as you still exist after the movie, so why should you skip to the end?

>Because you're absolutely positive that you go to nothingness after death and that nothing matters.
Alright, I kind of wrote that coming from the point of someone already believing in a religion and leaving it to avoid hell. You seem to be talking about people walking around picking & choosing beliefs based on what they want to be true, rather than what the facts hint at being true? I'm against that entirely desu, it's intellectual dishonesty and I just can't get on board with fabricating a world based on what one would want to be true, rather than what actually is (or seems) to be true.

>We created it (the virtual reality), we are above it. How can we be on the same level as it?
The virtual reality isn't a reality as much as it is a sub "mock reality" inside reality (which I define to be everything that is). This virtual reality would be more akin to a fish tank or an ant farm or something along those lines from my PoV.

>I don't, because if I did, a lot of people would hate me and my life would be harder than it already is (and it already is hard enough). I hate myself because of this, though, as I'm not staying true to my beliefs.
Well, I tend to be honest when I don't particularly care about the outcome. I definitely won't be honest with my boss or my professors or anyone who could actually "punish" me for it. But if I'm just talking to strangers then I'll do it. It doesn't come up a lot but when it does, I'll drop the bombs. Islam/immigration policies etc being the more common ones atm, and I almost feel a duty to talk honestly about these things to do my part in causing change.

>I can't be as optimistic as you, I think we're in the minority. A lot of people truly, actually believe in that bullshit they spout.
I don't doubt a lot of people truly do believe this shit. But I feel like even my sister didn't believe that shit when she was talking about it. I think it's more that they (some of them, it's too hard to put a number on) believe it's bullshit but insist to no end that the proven proposition is false in order to improve society in some way. For example, acknowledging that immigrants tend to commit more crimes would lead to discrimination, which would be bad and affect even the innocent ones who are law-abiding and haven't committed any crimes. At least in Sweden, I believe a large portion of the people talking shit would fall into this category, it's hard to say how many, because I know there are so many people who actually believe it to be true as well (the less educated ones generally, I'd wager).

Actually I think you're right, we're in the minority but it's a more sizeable minority than most people think. Also most people are prone to evidence and changing their minds in the face of it so there's that too. It's not all too bleak.

>>but if you consider that you go to nothingness after you die
Right, for me it doesn't matter at that point since there will be no me. But it matters now and it will matter for the X number of years I have before my death (which could be quite a lot considering the science done on aging). So all the things do matter.

>Why should you care about anything? The logical conclusion to this is suicide, as it is the only thing that does something, and that is that it plunges you into nothingness immediatelly.
No, that's not logical at all because I don't want nothingness and I would avoid it if I could. Nothingness is not a nice prospect, but it seems to be the real one.

>Suicide removes the useless (because of the viewpoint of going to nothingness) existence.
It's useful as long as it's there, but I'm just reiterating myself.

>But I can still understand why you'd want to be on the ride.
Exactly. The ride is preferable to the non-ride. If I could choose to live longer, I would. I hope science continues to make great strides in life extension research.

>I don't like this analogy, as you still exist after the movie, so why should you skip to the end?
Because just as with the rapes or anything else, I will still exist at the end of these events.

>based on what they want to be true, rather than what the facts hint at being true
It's possible to interpret "facts" in many different ways. It's hard to come to a consensus.
>intellectual dishonesty
Not everyone who believes in a creator was dishonest with himself. There are people which truly believed and examined existence. Would you say Aquinas, Kierkegaard and others were intelectually dishonest?
You are right about certain individuals being like that. The problem is, a majority of them is. An atheist like you is better than some typical "christian" of today, even though I can't fathom you care for anything in this existence if you consider yourself forever gone afterwards.
>we're in the minority but it's a more sizeable minority than most people think
I wouldn't say we're a sizeable minority, because people hate truths that are uncomfortable.
>Also most people are prone to evidence and changing their minds in the face of it
I beg to differ, but I wish you were right.

>But it matters now and it will matter for the X number of years I have before my death (which could be quite a lot considering the science done on aging)
It never matters and never will if you believe that you go to nothingness. That is an infinite time period and these few years of life pale in comparison so much that they're irrelevant.
> I would avoid it if I could
Talking under the assumption that you're correct and that we do go to nothingness - yes, and a lot of other people would avoid it, but it's unavoidable.
>Nothingness is not a nice prospect
Some people would disagree, but they are hard to imagine.
>but it seems to be the real one
Nothing in this existence up until now was propagating nothingness, or the lack thereof. We should think for ourselves and try to come up with our own answers. Other than our own mind (if we were fortunate enough to have the genes for it so that it developed enough), we have the "help" (I put quotation marks as some can confuse you or not help you) of philosophers and other people which had their say in this. We will see in the end who was right, I am content to have examined (and will examine, as this life isn't over yet) and been self-conscious enough, as opposed to a lot of people I have known. I have a hard time dealing with the fact that there's not enough time in this life for me to examine and experience all I want (read a considerable amount of books etc), but I guess there's no use thinking about that.

>Because just as with the rapes or anything else, I will still exist at the end of these events.
You will die anyways, but I'm reiterating myself.

>It's possible to interpret "facts" in many different ways. It's hard to come to a consensus.
Right, but there are clear cut cases such as with crime statistics and what ethnicities commit what crimes in what proportions.

>Not everyone who believes in a creator was dishonest with himself.
You misunderstood me. Picking & choosing beliefs is what I was calling intellectually dishonest. If you have some personal revelation and believe as a result, I wouldn't call that intellectually dishonest.

>Would you say Aquinas, Kierkegaard and others were intelectually dishonest?
I don't know the basis for their beliefs, but probably. It's likely. I'd have to look into it I guess.

>I wouldn't say we're a sizeable minority, because people hate truths that are uncomfortable.
I'd guess we're at least 20%, but this is based on personal experience, my environment etc. I think Sweden as a whole might be better in this regard than many other countries desu.

>It never matters
I have to go back to what I asked before. What do you mean by matters? What I mean is that I care about it, it's a priority for me.

>Some people would disagree, but they are hard to imagine.
Indeed they are.

>Nothing in this existence up until now was propagating nothingness, or the lack thereof.
For me it's as simple as knowing that my personality, my thoughts and everything are a product of my brain. And we know that the brain ceases to function after death, and that it'll eventually rot away. What extra force would be responsible for somehow saving this collection of atoms and keeping it living somewhere else, somehow? Here you'd posit a supernatural being, which I wouldn't because there's literally no reason to. Reason being indications of it actually being true as opposed to just something we'd prefer be true.

>You will die anyways, but I'm reiterating myself.
Right. I've never denied this, we're in agreement here. I believe you and everyone else will too. Belief can't bend actual reality.

>such as with crime statistics and what ethnicities commit what crimes in what proportions.
100% agree, I meant the more complex themes like nature of existence etc.
>You misunderstood me. Picking & choosing beliefs is what I was calling intellectually dishonest. If you have some personal revelation and believe as a result, I wouldn't call that intellectually dishonest.
Right, my bad, and I agree.
>I don't know the basis for their beliefs, but probably. It's likely. I'd have to look into it I guess.
You definitely need to check them out. How familiar with philosophy are you in general?
>I'd guess we're at least 20%
Eh, I don't think you've encountered enough people to claim that one fifth of the world populace is like that.
>I think Sweden as a whole might be better in this regard than many other countries
Why do you think this? Because of how its systems (like educational) are structured?
>What do you mean by matters?
Objectively mattering, I guess. If it matters to you, that's a different case. Still doesn't change the fact that if you were right and we go to nothingness, nothing really matters.
>And we know that the brain ceases to function after death, and that it'll eventually rot away. What extra force would be responsible for somehow saving this collection of atoms and keeping it living somewhere else, somehow?
That's all from a purely materialistic basis, but I can understand why you (or anyone else for that matter) would be skeptical of anything psychical.
Here's some things I have for you to ponder over, all related to neuroscience as every other branch is irrelevant to the nature of existence.
1. When we touch something, to feel it, action potentials travel throughout the nervous system and into the sensory area. Now, tell me - how do the neurons transcend the material to give us the "feeling"? Additionally, how do neurons at that exact place "know" that they have to turn the signal into a feeling, and not into sound or anything else? Neurons do not have a sense of space, they do not know they are in the sensory area of the brain. Even if they did know somehow (anyone can always claim there are neurons with different cell markers etc), how does the action potential turn into a feeling?
2. How do we act? Reaction is simple to grasp, we touch something, it initiates a signal which is somehow transcribed into sound, feeling etc.
How do we initiate acts, though? Say I want to move my arm. The signal starts from my motor part of the brain, but how exactly? If we know that action potential depends on the flow of iones, it would imply that I can willingly control the flow of iones, and that's certainly impossible. How does the signal start? What more, how is it transferred into the action potential?
3. The image you see through your eyes doesn't "exist" anywhere. Where is this image? It's not in the material world.

>Eh, I don't think you've encountered enough people to claim that one fifth of the world populace is like that.
Yeah definitely not of the world populace. But Sweden at the very least. Most people are dumb as rocks and I'd expect this number to be way lower in, say, Afghanistan or the Congo.

>You definitely need to check them out. How familiar with philosophy are you in general?
I know more about particular philosophies and beliefs than the individuals themselves. The concepts or ideas may or may not be new to me.

>Why do you think this? Because of how its systems (like educational) are structured?
Pretty much, and that it's free, quite high quality, obligatory, most people even have some form of higher education since that's free too. Source criticism is taught etc. It's not just taught but people discussing sources and their validity isn't uncommon at all.

>Objectively mattering
I don't know what that is. If this requires infinity, say, it objectively matters not to burn in hell for an eternity because that's a net positive of suffering for an infinite amount of time and the reverse for heaven, is the criteria for "objectively" mattering infinity? I'd prefer not to suffer for a finite time either.

>Still doesn't change the fact that if you were right and we go to nothingness, nothing really matters.
It does matter for the X amount of years that I or whoever we're discussing is alive. AFTER their death it doesn't matter for them, since there is no them. But that's not something I care too much about now.

>1.
>2.
>3.
This is something for neurologists or experts in any given field to find out, if they don't know then "I don't know the minute details of our sensations at the atomic level" It's a young field, we'll have to wait and see.

I can only give you what I believe to be the answer to 3: in my brain.
As for the other two, I can only say something vague along the lines of neurons clicking in a certain way as to somehow produce that result, such as by sending signals to that part of the brain which causes a combination of molecules to produce that sensation in the brain etc. I can't explain things at the atomic level.

>we'll have to wait and see.
True, but there are people which say "science will explain in time", which is no worse than people saying "god did it" for everything.

I don't think they're equally bad. One is somewhat plausible (depending on what is claimed will be proven) with a proven track record, the other is just attempting to explain what we don't know by something else we don't know.