Atheism only works for high iq individuals. Low iq people need religion to give them a moral compass. People have recognized this since antiquity and for some reason it’s still controversial.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Prove the inexistence of God
Prove the existence of god. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists. Atheism is simply the absence of making a claim.
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16367986
>Atheism is simply the absence of making a claim.
That would be agnosticism, atheism is the claim of no god.
Prove god exists, doesn't exist, or declare yourself agnostic, any other outcome is faith.
Agnosticism is a form of atheism...
It isn't, I've met more god-fearing agnostics than even theists, just because of Pascal.
God lets tens of thousands of American parents change their child’s gender with hormones and surgery without violently smiting them. He punished Sodom and Gommorah in the Bible with hellfire for doing the same thing. Either Gods standards have changed drastically or he’s an abstract force of nature that doesn’t care about human morality.
God gave America COVID 19
Prove to me that the universe didn't fly out of a unicorns butthole
Omnipotence is impossible. Imagine the insane amount of power God would require just to exist. It's absurd.
The second coming never happened.
No need to commoner.
did you just support the 'low iq people need religion' position?
People of all classes and IQs need religion
And yes freemasonry and atheism are also religions
The suffering of the innocent exists. If God exists, he looks down upon his children and says to himself, "their suffering pleases me". Therefore it is much more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist. I would also insist that anyone who argues that suffering is good should prove their point by poking their eyes out with a knife. Bet you won't.
*blocks you're path*
Fricking moronic. I asked Claude to summarize it and it's already the same normie cope rationalizations that everyone else makes. "muh soul growth". Why can't God grow your soul without pain if he's omnipotent? And CS Lewis says animal suffering is different from human suffering because they don't have the capacity to grow closer to God. Fricking moronic. We are animals. You think we don't do animalistic shit? What do you think the picture I posted is? Love of God? Or hatred of political enemies? Any why should innocent rabbits suffer in the jaws of a fox? Because "muh Eve ate an apple"? Also fricking moronic. The *undesired suffering of the innocent* is UNJUSTIFIABLE. Oh you want "muh soul growth"? Poke your eyes out with a knife. Bet you won't.
>muh summary
Literally everything you said is already answered by Lewis. Can't convince someone unwilling to change their mind I guess.
Wow look at you, you read a useless book that I've easily disproven in one post. I'm not going to read it, so instead of making empty claims that the book I won't read counters my point, why don't you counter my point (which you can't)?
>I've easily disproven the book I won't read
You're that braindead that your argument is literally to post an image of a book and say "the answers are in here, but I won't tell you them. I expect you to buy and read this entire book before the thread gets archived"? I think asking Claude 3 to summarize it was a decent move on my part. You still haven't countered my arguments. Are you trolling?
this
a great read
typical illiterate fedora
the fedoras on IQfy are absolute bottom of the barrel cringelords
Some people read only one book, they consider themselves literate because of their repeated reading of one book.
Some of us read fiction and then, on top of It are educated on several religions and systems of ocultismo del autismo.
Infact, I dare say you know only the bible, a few Christian books and you called It a day, with only Christian armchairism behind your belt.
Meanwhile I have been on several religions and even was a member of an occult order.
Why, then, do you pressume to know what is true and what isn't?
What occult order? Why did you leave? Do you think there are any good and powerful secret societies in the world that are open to atheists?
Ordo Draconis et Atri Adamantis (Dragon Rouge).
I left because I prefer to be alone and not paying, lol.
Chaos Magick orders generally don't require to be theistic.
Oh it's a left-handed organization. I guess I should start looking for powerful secret societies that follow the right-hand path. I'm not feeling very optimistic that I'll find any, though.
This one likes the smell of his own farts.
What a nonce.
Oh, you were in le secret club? Wow, how enlightened by your own intelligence you are. No girls allowed.
I'm sure you're a walking vending machine of esoteric wisdom beyond all ages.
Not, lmao. You're hilarious, and your complete lack of self awareness only makes it funnier.
Yes, we are all very impressed by how edgy and cool you are.
Magic, my word. Imagine the limitless arcane powers this one possesses because of his high IQ and sense of style, truly awe inspiring.
I tip my fedora to you, supreme gentleman.
My dick is hanging from between my legs, not in your keyboard, I think you want to handjob me and not type.
Oh, I hit the bullseye, did I not? Not a single teaching kept, and full time n armchairism
mega cringe
next time you decide to post a picture of a magic book to look 2deep4u on the internet, try to avoid the entry level kabalah shit most autists like me are already familiar with
for one, I will give a good example of a book you have no idea exists already
Hypnerotomachia Poliphili
Define God.
>NOOOOOO!!!! IF IT WEREN'T FOR JESUS THE GUY WHO MAKES THE FRIES WOULD BE DESIGNING ORBITAL HABITATS FOR PHOBOS!!!!!!
Literally the opposite of what I just said. I’m agreeing with you.
I'm aware, I'm doing a pantomime via high level jak discourse of the sentiment that is frequently echoed on this board.
I disagree with you though in any case, you wouldn't believe the moronic shit intellectuals believe in, communism for instance. And highbrow folks have their own cults, the green imperialism meme for one, aka climate change.
Sorry I’m used to dealing with morons on this board without basic reading comprehension
Yes atheism is a religion, just like any other one: it has symbols, priests, oppressions, lies, dogmas, creation myth, hierarchies, social rules and so on. It has also a theology, but it's atomized (ie the rats believe in self determination in order to be compatible with the propaganda of the human rights). The only novelty by atheist rats is that they say ''atheism is not religion, it's an ideology'', because those dimwits deeply believe that if they change the words they use, reality will change.
reminder that contrary to the atheist propaganda, there is no several flavors of atheism. The truth is that there is only one atheism but atheists keep making up various flavors, like social liberalism, nationalism, communism, to keep people running in circle among all the atheist religions. In other words, atheists use their fantasy of market to balkanize their own religion in order to keep people trapped in it while thinking they become free thinkers when they explore the various flavors of atheism.
the bourgeois created atheism and their revolutions precisely to remove any theology bigger than society, so that the wageslaves can ''create their own goals'' , ie self determination, and be an active ''citizen''. This was at the time of the bourgeois invention of ''nationalism''. Nowadays the bourgeois manages the other side of its self-made individualism with the exact opposite (equally controlled by the same bourgeois), ie perennialism, internationalism , interdependence ie ''being a citizen of the world''.
You have to understand that in a balkanized atheist supermarket of political sides, the bourgeois control all sides, all the narratives. It's the bourgeois who choose what narrative is trendy and what narrative will be frowned upon through the bourgeois means, ie mercantilism and legalism.
>commie Christian seething about atheism
Interesting
"Atheism" isn't a religion but there are atheistic religions. Perhaps the most famous one (since it self-identified as a religion and was explicitly meant to substitute Catholicism in France) was the Cult of Reason.
so much seething.
Because tards will not comprehend that they are morons so they believe that they are as smart as any other. Tards will tard bro
>secular religion
It's called nationalism
Theistic religions became obselete in the modern world a long time ago, when Monarchies fell. Monarchies which were mostly justified by theism now are nothing more than living artefacts. Religions such as christianity, judaism, islam or any of the minor ones that have existed for centuries to millennia are only remnants of the past maintained by tradition and peer pressure within familial environments.... in the west at least, the world's standard.
Now in the 21st century, even nationalism is starting to become obselete because of mondialisation with things such as internet people no longer cling to their native country as their holy providers and have started the process of emencipating, it will not be instantaneous such processes take more than a lifetime to take any kind of serious effect yet we can see the changes occuring in our daily lives. Even here with us not being of the same countries.
Is it a bad thing? Could be a necessary change toward humanity's next step in its evolution since we have officially started moving the stage beyond the confines of the Earth. Humanism as a religion becoming widespread would benefit us more than continuous nationalistic tribalism with the convergence of worldwide resources, research and technology toward our species's expansion. In fact it has already started.
The death of theism isn't the death of religion, merely a change of focus.
Glory to Mankind!
All things centralize. Never forget that. Religions centralize. Nations centralize. The earth with centralize. İt's why fighting against Muh GLOBALİSM is so moronic. İt's like when tribal languages get assimilated by national ones...
>İt's why fighting against Muh GLOBALİSM is so moronic
Globalism must be resisted now because it is at the expense of whites. It was fine when it benefitted whites. This should be intuitive to you, Turk; your country is being overrun and going down the drain like mine.
Globalism never truly benefited whites, and it doesn't benefit the groups seemingly advantaged by it now. Globalism is the alcohol of nations, seemingly a great boon at first but each sip of the poison destroys your people a bit more.
i am religious and have high iq so this is 100% confirmed false
You clearly do not have a high IQ or else you would see why that doesn't contradict the OP.
i clearly do and that fact alone refutes the OP's conjecture
Atheism only works for highly proud individuals. Humble people dont expect their human mind to be able to understand the Ancient One who created all things.
>Humble people dont expect their human mind to be able to understand the Ancient One who created all things.
Why are religious people so proud then?
Because most religious people dont know God, worship him or do his will. Most are proud because they think believing in God makes them special and puts them above the rest of the heathens. They think they are better and holier than the rest. While the one who loves God is kind to everyone and treats those below him as if they were above.
Only low IQ atheists actually have morals, high IQ atheists just pretend to be moral
You failed to comprehend the purpose of religion.
>when you invent a new religion to control people but forget to remove the radical egalitarianism so they all hate you instead
He didnt tell you why the rulers find it useful.
The LAST thing I want is morons believing.
Those are fine as atheist
But that's the natural state of theism, its social control for dumb morons.
That's why the most religious places (africa/middleeast/south america/india) are also full of man-apes with no higher thinking.
Why do you think this happens?
>Wdym?
Voudon gnosticism is a made up religion, currently going strong, monasteries and all. Every adherent knows it's fake.
Why do you think it happens?
This is why I distrust anyone who claims to be atheist
Oh no you and your fentanyl laden family in the boonies are distrusting of me
He simply hadn't heard the Gospel
I think not wanting to have a moral compass leds to atheism than the other way around.
I am not impressed with the “moral compass” of the atheists.
IQfy mods should do more to address the fact that Christian posting on IQfy is just a Trojan horse for right wing political b***hing
I don't get how atheism is inherently communist when Ayn Rand's objectivism is pretty much the polar opposite philosophy and also atheist.
Probably because both try to reduce morality to materialist rationalism.
>moral
A moronic concept to begin with.
>measures objective thought with thorough elimination of alternate explanations before settling on a conclusion belongs to leftism
Thanks man
>for some reason it’s still controversial.
It's not. You know these people who attach gigachads to validate their posts even though they know how pathetic it is? That's religion today.
People knowing they are wrong but embracing it because that short burst of endorphines is more valuable than integrity truth or self improvement.
Low IQ individuals will never be moral regardless of what you do. Low IQ Christians just mentally rationalise their actions or don't even think about it at all.
Unironically low IQ people are too stupid to understand christianity which is why you have boomer evangelicals.
That’s because Christianity is completely subverted. Islam works extremely well for low impulse control individuals by providing a highly strict literalist moral code.
>Seneca
>by the wise as false
>by the rulers as useful
Yeah, I'm not thinking so much, how's that troony-ethics/moral reasoning going?
>Yeah, I'm not thinking so much
I can tell lmao
OP is enlightened by his own intelligence.
He's a better intellectual nice guy than most normies, what a class act. Superb!
*tips fedora*
>M'lady.
Anyone else notice what arrogant fartsniffing tools the fedoras all are?
They really think they shit gold and deserve praise.
>atheists
>moral compass
lmao
IFLS morons don't know how compasses work
PROTIP
a compass objectively always points towards magnetic north unless it's broken, that's what makes it useful for navigation
an objective reference point, you need it to get around without becoming lost
atheists literally reject the existence of objective morality, to them what is right and wrong is a matter of subjective personal preference
they take a look at a compass, and see a christofascist telling them which way to go
they would rather amble around in circles forever than admit to objective morality being as real as magnetism
you can't make this shit up, the fedoras who lurk this board are the dictionary definition of sheltered midwits with no grasp of basic concepts
>atheists literally reject the existence of objective morality
Most contemporary academic philosophers are atheists, but most are also moral realists.
Those positions are irreconcilable.
How can moral principles of nature be real without a cosmic author?
They aren't part of physics or anything.
Do you think most contemporary philosophers are extremely stupid, like 90iq territory?
No, in fact the only people capable of the mental gymnastics you'd need to override the cognitive dissonance from holding these two contradictory positions would be overeducated types with one positive standard deviation between their IQ and that of the general population.
Have you ever attempted to read how they justify their position?
Hmm, read?
I haven't even set foot inside a philosophy department since I took that 300 level course on symbolic logic.
Maybe you could go ahead and explain yourself how one can reconcile the non-existence of the divine with the simultaneous existence of objective moral truth.
I do better with dialectic than just passively reading. It helps me fit new information into my own categorical frameworks better if I work through it.
So you haven't? Why not? This seems like an awfully important thing to you, seems weird to completely ignore what your "opposition" is writing.
Seems weird of you to completely ignore my repeated requests to make an actual argument yourself. Namely, that these two positions regarding God and objective morality are in fact coherent in conjunction.
Rather than just say "read a book" without even name dropping an author.
As for why I don't read randomly selected philosophy papers, my hands are full boinking your mom.
Now get to it champ, source me.
Anon, you seem to be confused. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist and moral realism is true, I'm questioning why you're taking a hardline stance against the majority of contemporary philosophers without having read any relevant literature.
Why would you want to study a specific philosophical problem by questioning some random guy on IQfy instead of investigating the literature?
You're the one who hasn't read any of the literature, or else you would have a source that claims God doesn't real and also objective morality is a thing by now.
You don't have one because you have read any yourself, this is all damage control because you made an appeal to authority that somehow objective morality can exist without divinity.
But it's a stupid appeal for the following reason. Just because there are a number of professors who are atheists and a number of professors who think morals have independent existence doesn't mean there is a published article that argued both points.
That literature doesn't exist until you prove it does. That's your job, because you're telling me to read something that should exist but won't tell me where to find it.
But you haven't even bothered trying to argue that position yourself, you're just offended by the idea that atheists reject the objective existence of right and wrong. Which they do, it's not controversial.
Until you have literature, or an argument, you can frick right off.
You're tilting at a man made of straw - you can reread our conversation, and you'll notice I never made any claims as to whether god exists or moral realism is true. This is a topic that you care about, not one I care about. The topic I care about is people taking hardline stances on topics they haven't researched, which I think is a rather midwitted way to approach any given topic.
>I never made any claims as to whether god exists or moral realism is true
You claimed that there exists academic literature arguing both that God is not real and morality is real, criticized me for not reading it, and subsequently failed to provide the source you claim exists.
That's damage control. Simple as. Now frick off.
Anon, do you honestly think no such literature exists? I don't think you do, I don't think you're that stupid. So why do you do this? Do you hope to get me to argue that a specific line of reasoning in a specific book is right so that you can argue against it? I don't get it.
If you're honestly desperate to find any literature arguing this viewpoint but utterly failed at finding a single such book, I think Parfit might be a good starting point.
Yes. The fact that you say it must exist somewhere but refuse to give a single example has convinced me of this.
You're the illiterate here, not I.
>you're honestly desperate to find any literature arguing this viewpoint but utterly failed at finding a single such book, I think Parfit might be a good starting point
Well go on then, use it yourself. You're the one with something to prove here. Go on, do research.
So you really just want me to pantomime an opponent for you? Why? Are you lonely?
So you're a bot, right? That's why you can't substantiate your own claim.
What claim? That there are philosophers who have written stuff trying to support the claim of objective morality without god? I already gave you Parfit. Do you think Parfit is a made up character?
>Parfait
Oh I thought this was some kind of academic resource you could use to find papers, not a real dude.
I'll look him up, but it would be nice to get a title of the book in which argues that God isn't real.
Otherwise I'll restrict myself to this for now.
>An act is wrong if and only if, or just when, such acts are disallowed by some principle that is
one of the principles whose being universal laws would make things go best,
one of the only principles whose being universal laws everyone could rationally will....
a principle that no one could reasonably reject.
He seems to rely on the idea that human reason is sufficient to understand universal moral law or it's principles. I am inclined to disagree, because human reason isn't universal in scope. That's not to say universal morality doesn't exist, I'm saying instead that out ability to understand it is not sufficient.
Am I misunderstanding his position?
You are misunderstanding my position. As I already told you, whether morals are objective or whether objective morals are compatible with atheism doesn't interest me in the slightest. Did you think I was lying to you when I said that? If you did, I should tell you that you're wasting your time here. The only thing I was interested in was why you didn't research any of this.
>human reason isn't universal in scope
This is why a universal reason, a cosmic mind, is actually necessary for objective morality to exist.
Because our limited human reason could not produce a truly universal morality, and the reality of such a universal morality is assumed to be an axiom, the only possible being that could conceivably produce a universal moral system would be one possessed of truly infinite reason.
A omniscent being. Something we could call a god.
>The only thing I was interested in was why you didn't research any of this.
Well I don't need to, I'm not a professional. Why would you expect random anons to be intimately familiar with every last 20th century philosopher of ethics and their positions on every subject?
>Well I don't need to, I'm not a professional. Why would you expect random anons to be intimately familiar with every last 20th century philosopher of ethics and their positions on every subject?
It's a subject that you seem to care about a lot, that you have very strong opinions about, and one that you disagree about with most academic philosophers, whose works you incidentally haven't read.
It's weird, kind of like if I had strong opinions about some arcane subject in mathematics that go against what most mathematicians think, all the while not having read any of their works.
For the record I also have strong opinions on certain mathematical subjects that are completely at odds with most professional mathematicians.
I try and do my own thinking as much as possible, like I said. Dialectic is how I learn best.
Dude arguing with random anonymous morons on the internet is not a replacement for reading primary literature lol.
Oh trust me, none of you idiots know what my theory entails.
It's my own work, I didn't get it from anywhere, we can leave it at that.
I'm sure a theory tested against random morons on IQfy instead of the works of the best and brightest minds in philosophy is bound to be amazing. You're totally not just wasting your time.
I usually don't talk about math with anons.
Like I said, it's a private project I'm in the middle of. No reason to inform anyone who doesn't need to know.
Ethics is a different story, the subject is to important and so riddled with glaring errors for me to ignore it.
By all means keep ignoring all relevant literature, but that way you're guaranteeing that your personal project will stay personal. Nobody in the field will ever be interested in what you have to say if you have zero familiarity with the contemporary state of moral philosophy.
>contemporary state
I try to remember that the opinion of people alive today is no more important or valid than the opinions of those long dead.
Until I start seeing valid and rigorous arguments being made to the contrary, I will continue to use reason to discern truth on my own.
You’re being overly literal to the point of plausible autism. It’s a figure of speech meaning you have an internal sense of right and wrong.
compass is a metaphor you swit
talk about autism
>internal sense of right and wrong
conscience is the word you're looking for
just as some compasses are shitty or break, some people have a malfunctioning conscience
regardless, objective breaches in morality come when someone ignores the dictates of their conscience
the particular action they take actually matters much less than the fact that their heart told them something was wrong, but they just went ahead with it anyways
opposite, low IQ people live by moral instinct, its the high IQs who need to be reigned in with something that specifically targets the neurotic elements
>pffft I am le good without religion
congratulations on your MENSA rejection.
Us Intelligent psychopaths need schizophrenia, now uh go die in the millions on our behalf HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAA
>it is morally required to pull the switch in the trolley problem, as Parfit assumes
Dropped btw.
There's no way I can take this dude seriously if he really fell for that absolute meme. That shit test of philosophy departments around the world.
He fell into the trap of trying to justify killing people using a hypothetical false choice dichotomy, which itself is a breach of morality and has been used before by many evil people to work evil in the guise of good.
>he still doesn't get it
I'm not arguing Parfit is correct, lmao.
I think the meta-solution to the trolly problem is the only acceptable one.
It's not a real problem, your professors are just testing you to see if you will entertain hypothetical murder. Anyone who even considers, *considers*, touching the switch has already failed. Doesn't matter which conclusion they reach.
You are exposing your low iq by thinking the alternative to atheism is religion. Also, stupid people don't usually know they're stupid. Just as crazy people don't know they're crazy.
Alternatives to religion;
>Atheism
"I do not believe in a God"
>Agnosticism
"I do not know whether or not there's a God (thus I do not believe in a God but with extra steps)"
>Apatheism
"I do now care whether or not there's a God as its irrelevant"
>Deism
"I believe in a God that might as well not even exist"
>Deism
>"I believe in a God that might as well not even exist"
What are you dumb?
Deism reduces the role of God to some purely metaphysical prime mover.
No it doesn't. It just means there is a deity, and you don't really know shit else about it. Including your drivel trying to access it. It could be the glue that holds reality together. Or a dude with a beard who gets pissed off when you jack off.
Not necessarily, but that is the most basic assumption.
Deism is a philosophical position distinct from any particular instance of religious conviction.
>Atheism
>"I do not believe
Nobody cares what you believe. We care about your claims. Which to an atheist, is that God does not exist.
It's the diametric opposite of theism, which is the claim that God exists.
If you only don't *believe* God exists, you're an agnostic. Deal with it, agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable position.
The only question an agnostic has to wrestle with is if it's possible to know if God exists or not. Weak agnosticism vs strong agnosticism.
>Which to an atheist, is that God does not exist.
Thats strong atheism or anti-theism, weak atheists simply do not believe a God exists.
Weak atheists are puffed up agnostics.
At least strong atheists are willing to take a stand and say God is certainly not real. I respect that, even if it's nearly impossible to argue.
Weak "atheism" is an extended copout.
>Weak atheists are puffed up agnostics.
sort of, agnostics really are just atheists but they're too gaslit by fedora memes to want to call themselves that
You have it backwards.
Most so-called atheists are really agnostics. They just prefer the tone of the word "atheist", and are unprepared to argue that God is not real.
That's why when pressed, they use religious language like "belief".
>and are unprepared to argue that God is not real.
There's nothing to argue about, atheists simply do not believe a God exists because they have been given little reason to do so and are unconvinced by religion
religion has nothing to do with it
it doesn't matter what you believe
nobody cares about your beliefs
they aren't an argument
wrong:
>atheism
>i believe there is no god
>agnosticism
>i don't believe there is a god, and don't believe there isn't
>apatheism
>i don't believe god existing matters enough for me to care to recognize if i believe in him or not
>deism
>i believe there is a god, but I can't know anything about him
Let me test your reason now.
What makes something objectively right or wrong?
Does God command certain things because they are right, or are these things right because God commands them?
Like, is there weak and strong theism?
Not really.
"I'm pretty sure God is real, but I suppose I could be wrong." is not a valid position.
"God is real."
Now we're talking.
Religion is full of shit but God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Only a child or teenager would be a legitimate atheist.
>God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
thats not proof, thats just an argument in favor of God, and I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this but its a shit argument. It makes the assertion that God must exist for anything to be logical, but this argument does not work if you don't believe in God, since you can remove God from all models of reality and those same models will remain valid
>you can remove God from all models of reality and those same models will remain valid
Not if we just define God as an intelligent creative force. That is a required variable for a logical existence. For the laws of physics, themselves. Thus God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Intelligence cannot come from non intelligence. It's illogical.
>Intelligence cannot come from non intelligence. It's illogical.
There is little reason to believe this is actually the case you know?
>There is little reason to believe this is actually the case you know?
It's a necessary variable to intelligence just as a square must have four sides.
This is presuppositionalism, impossibility of the contrary is just circular logic. You assert things must be logical because God exists and that God must exist because things are logical. I'm sorry anon but this argument just doesn't make any sense
Theism cannot be falsified, and falls squarey under phillosophy alongn with the rest of the metaphysical, religion itself, however, can be falsified, as religion makes claims that are meant to be relevant to the physical world
>impossibility of the contrary is just circular logic.
Well then explain a hypothetical example of how intelligent systems can be derived from non intelligence.
Well theoretically life itself can be an example of this
>Well theoretically life itself can be an example of this
Well, cutting to the chase, that theory is based on the laws of physics resulting eventually in life. But the laws of physics work in an intelligent manner. We have no reason to conclude intelligent systems can result from non intelligence. Just as we have no reason to conclude squares can have anything other than four sides. We can just say "hey, maybe we just don't know of a way a square can have five sides", but that's not how logical premises work. We only know squares can have 4 sides. And we only know intelligence can come from intelligent means. Thus physics themselves must have come from an intelligent designer.
But what if the laws of physics are only described to work in an intelligent matter because its simply the most convenient for us? Physics exist on every single scale from the quantum to the massive, and quantum scalle physics are not intuitive to humans, they are not something we woud describe as "intelligent", in fact they seem to be mosty random on those scales. We describe physics that are relevant to our scale as humans as "intelligent" because we evolved within this scale of physics. If we evolved within a quantum enviornment instead, we might instead describe quantum physics as intelligent, but we do not, which shows that physics are not intelligent on all scales, just those relevant to us.
>But what if the laws of physics are only described to work in an intelligent matter because its simply the most convenient for us?
Well I could ask the same thing about a square. What if we only see squares as four sides because it's the most convenient for us? Just because we can ask this doesn't mean it becomes a logical statement to say squares might have five sides.
calling a shape with 4 sides a square is not the same thing as describing physics as "intelligent" which is something far more broad and vvague
Are you suggesting the laws of physics are random happenstance, and accidentally worked in a manner that resulted in an infinitely elegant universe?
>infinitely elegant universe?
I'd hardly describe the universe as "infinitely elegant" when its largely inhospitable to humans and largely irradiated
Every atom of all that comprises that inhospitable environment is infinitely elegant. The very idea of an infinite multiverse proves God as well. Since all possibilities exist, that means a creative being who made the multiverse also exists. It's self defining. God is inescapable in logic.
atoms are fuzzy clouds of subatomic particles, don't get me wrong anon, I think there is a lot of beauty in the universe, but this angle is a fairly poor argument in favor of God
Well, good discussion, regardless.
Don't get me wrong anon, I'm not even saying God cannot exist, I tend to lean more towards the idea of God as a prime mover though, I think God must not intervene in this universe, lest our accomplishments mean little, and our free will compromised
>I think God must not intervene in this universe, lest our accomplishments mean little, and our free will compromised
I think that's rational. What about lowercase "gods" having also been created, that do intervene. Possible?
This is a non sequitur response and also an example of Reductio ad absurdum
you not liking presuppositionalism isn't a counter argument
My argument is presuppositionalism is circular logic because you have to assert the condition that God exists for the rest of the argument to follow. It does nothing to prove God actually exists, however
I'm not actually using presuppositional apologetics. I'd be asking you how you know what you know.
>Theism cannot be falsified, and falls squarey under phillosophy alongn with the rest of the metaphysical, religion itself, however, can be falsified, as religion makes claims that are meant to be relevant to the physical world
Exactly. No model can answer the question without falsifiable empirical evidence and circular logic, so any models outside of what can answer "where does the logic we interpret stems from" is useless as far as proving anything observable by that logic. If you can't question the basis of the logic you subscribe to, up to it's root point, and get an answer not approachable as not being the root by that logic, then that logic has an irredeemable internal inconsistence. Material logic systems can seem to produce knowledge, but all the knowledge is refutable by the logic system itself, which means those logic systems can be useful tools but can't encompass reality.
As far as usefulness goes, religion is as useful as any material science.
Theism, not being falsifiable, is actually a good root to base religion upon, which makes it a better system for a logic system than any other, because it can get to the right answer even with wrong metodology (making Sisyphus happy). Other systems can't ever reach the right answer, just elucidate around it never getting to the point. Material sciences and atheism are a long-winded foreplay session without the orgasm, never partaking on the divine act of producing life, reality, itself.
>Material sciences and atheism are a long-winded foreplay session without the orgasm, never partaking on the divine act of producing life, reality, itself.
Naturalism is far more relevant to us and produces actually useful products and knowedge we apply to life every single day. The Bible did not teach man how to builld computers, it was decades of research into the physical world that gave us these things. Religion is dying because its simply not useful anymore
>Religion is dying because its simply not useful anymore
atheism is dying
anon...
ok and? atheism is still declining regardless of what americans are doing
Can americans really not read graphs? Is that why you give so much utmost importance and power to number crunchers? Geez, I'm feeling embarassed for you brother.
>americans
anon...
so you're admitting atheism is declining but you don't like it? weird cope I guess
Seeing as you ignore data directy in front of your face it actually makes a lot of sense you'd be religious....
what data? nothing you presented has countered the fact that atheism is declining
China seems like a ripe frontier for religious growth if Christianity can find its way in.
East Asians are naturally non-religious. Sure they might have some superstitions and folk traditions but Confucianism had such a hold for such a long period of time I doubt they would be interested in an institutionalized, theistic religion.
These population projections are completely fake. Imagine someone making a demographic graph after the WWII baby boom in America assuming it would last forever. The US should have at least a billion people by now.
That isn't how they're made.
>Line goes up
>Must mean line goes up forever!
I have some tulips to sell you.
Again, that isn't how projections are made.
anon the world is more religious today then in the 1980s
https://colinmathers.com/2020/09/30/global-trends-in-religiosity-and-atheism-1980-to-2020/
The basic assumption that religious people have religious children is not correct anymore, especially after COVID. Zoomers in the US for example are the least religious generation in history, even zoomers raised by religious people stop going to church. The Mormon Church in America is collapsing because of how many Americans are leaving, in spite of their high birthrates.
you didn't even read the article it isn't making any assumptions or predictions its looking at the religious trends over the course of the last 100 years.
more people are religious today then in 1980
>Zoomers in the US
You're limiting your claim to short of 70 million people in a billions game anon.
This board routinely shits on sub-Saharan Africans 99% of the time, do you really expect people to care about them when it comes to Christianity or Islam? If Africans were capable of making positive contributions to the world their religion might matter.
Define positive contribution.
What does any of your post have to do with the veracity of the false claim that religion is dying?
Religion is dying in countries that matter, i.e. European countries, the US and the Anglosphere. Again, why is Africa relevant to the conversation?
>Religion is dying in countries that matter
so this is now an ad hoc backpedaling when your claim that religion is dying was proven wrong
>European countries, the US and the Anglosphere
so religion is dying in countries where the population is also in decline? quite telling
>Again, why is Africa relevant to the conversation?
because it proves you wrong9
>countries that matter
Define "mattering" you goalpost mover-kun.
To religion all countries can matter. As for naturalism, if you are right about what matters, then only dying countries matter. I mean, you went on and on about religion dying due to dwindling numbers, natality in those countries is going down.
Once again, Religion is infinite and it's own meaning, while naturalism proves to be a finite world-eater, eating itself.
>in the US
>in Europe
There are a lot more people not in the countries than in them.
>God is real because Black folk
The absolute state of Christian apologetics on IQfy.
>needs to call others Christian apologetics
I'm not religious bro, I just don't want people like you spewing the absolutely most moronic takes know to man out there, it makes me look bad by association.
the absolute state of fedoras on IQfy
this entire thread is an embarrassment
>in the US
>in Europe
>There are a lot more people not in the countries than in them.
>people
kek
Why are your material baubles useful?
People's lives are still as hard as they ever were, computers get to produce art while you slave away. Religion is useful in the fact it helps you reach faith in god, it's final objective that satisfies it's use. Naturalism can never reach it's final objective, as it defies the meaning of final by design, it can only make people want more, it gets you trapped in it's knowledge-yearning ignorant basilisk.
Religion's god gives while naturalism's basilisk takes.
What does religion dying have to do with anything? Does the death of the library of Alexandria proves the uselessness of the lost knowledge? Is being able to sustain a household on a single salary a bad thing since it died way earlier than religion?
>it gets you trapped in it's knowledge-yearning ignorant basilisk.
It takes some extreme mental gymnastics to frame naturalism this way, one could just as easily frame religion as a way to keep people ignorant by asserting some final word on the nature of the world and discouraging people from seeking further truth
Way to ignore the main course and focus on the ketchup sachet but I'll bite.
Religion doesn't discourage people from the truth as much as naturalism. Religion at least claims there is a truth that they can attain.
Naturalism may tickle all your curiosity, but it utlimatelly claims no truth can persevere as all of them are deniable by naturalism. All of your useful baubles can be proven false by a researcher on a whim, the whole exercise is masturbatory, it poses models that just serve to massage egos of those trapped in ivory towers.
With Religion the truth you seek may actually be true by religious standards.
Stop embarassing yourself brother, learn what a percentage and a billion mean before making bold claims and presenting data that contradicts it.
>all models of reality and those same models will remain valid
All models of reality posed outside of religion fall apart when questioned where does everything come from?
Religion ay answer through circular logic but models outside of religion can't really attack that circular logic when the most respected ones are based on empirical (thus falsifiable) evidence reviewed by peers (circular anyway).
Both use circular logic and falsifiable evidence, but religion at least can answer that question.
There is nothing on an atheist's moral compass that determines, for example, whether or not consensual sex with one's own blood relations is a bad thing
only if they're neutered and degenerate. Your statement is retorted
How do you objectively decide what is degenerate and what isn't?
Not true. There were plenty of high iq individuals throughout history that were not atheists: Issac Newton, Leonardo DaVinci, Blaise Pascal, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarizmi. Just because a great number of university professors and intellectuals today are atheists or irreligious does not mean smart people should be atheists.
The mechanism behind gravity is still a theory. The double slit experiment is a thing.
Athiesm is at best an oversimplification for the sake of convenience- a religion in its own right.
Tell me anon, what does religion have to say about gravity? What does Christianity say about gravity?
Religion is a dogma, and I don't frick with b***hes.
>what data? nothing you presented has countered the fact that atheism is declining
....
>in europe
>in america
And the world as a whole, as that anon is saying?
so you're arbitrarily limiting the qualifiers to a small section of the world?
you do realize that religion declining in Europe and atheism as a whole declining aren't mutually exclusive right?
>OMG religion will go down in europe, a hellhole with a natality crisis
Let me crunch this for you in terms you could understand my little sub-80 IQ darling, for every european Niles and american Kyle that drops religion, an indian Pajeet, arabian Muhammad or chinese Zhao is breeding his wife for 5 other religious kids. You earlier sounded smug posting about churches in the US, churches are a term exclusively for christian temples, your reddit-approved anti-christian narrative may point to you that the only religion out there is christianity, but it's just the one that it's acceptable to hate. Other religions will mog your atheist ass in numbers you can't dream of, and I will laugh at your ignorance with them.
none of you can into standard deviation for significance
all of the charts and projections you post are insignificant
they don't matter at all what is objectively true
empty rhetoric, vanity
You can tell how brown IQfy has become by how many people care about what ooga booga religion Africans worship.
glad you don't like it
yeah no kidding lmao, apparently religion doesn't matter in America, Europe, China.etc and atheism is dying because there's more brown people
>for some reason
Without artificial backing from usurist banker families abrahamoids would still just be raping goats in the middle east
I think you need a high IQ to develop the perspective to understand the universe without a God but it still doesn't explain why some people with far higher IQs than mine believe in some God. I suppose wisdom is more important than intelligence?