Following a religion might be a good thing for social, psychological and Pascalian reasonings, but from a completely detatched and rational point of view, atheism remains the most rational choice
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Religion is needed to keep the serf's optimistic and not thinking of funny ideas. If they believe that the wealthy will be scrutinized by God and that they themselves will be rewarded for a simple life then things become much easier for those above but still on earth. In the modern day people are far more educated and critical of coping mechanisms so religion is disintegrating for other forms of cope.
It´s human nature never gonna end.
See;Denial of Death by Becker
True Believer Hoffer.
Anything by Carl Jung interesting individual.
>Atheism remains the most rational choice
It always be in minority i think.
This sounds like atheist cope. Such great pinnacles of wisdom you guys are and know exactly how and why theism is incorrect but can't share why, know atheism is true but can't explain how, know theism is worse for society but can't explain how or why, know that men can become women but can't explain what is a woman, can see what is wrong with the church but can't say how to fix it, know the meaning of life but can't share it
>tfw religious people are more educated than non-religious people
modern theists intepret religion with metaphor ridden heresy compared to the original goatfrickers that took it seriously. This is disintegration.
Also,
>statistics that don't take into account individual zealotry
You are so moronic. israelites are one of the most irreligious people imaginable and notorious sc*ence lovers.
>know exactly how and why theism is incorrect but can't share why,
Theism is faith-based. Which means it welcomes no challenge and insists that it can confirm itself. Like trannies do.
>know atheism is true but can't explain how,
Itheism needs to be taught, it's theism that has thousands of different schools and intepretations and changes over the centuries. Therefore it's not monolithic, it's the asserting idea. If you're asserting an idea to people there needs to be evidence behind it to do more than faith-based garbage. Otherwise I can disagree with it, like I do with trannies.
>know theism is worse for society but can't explain
Proliferates moronic faith based mentalities that leads to things like pajeets playing with cow dung.
>know that men can become women but can't explain what is a woman,
A woman has two x chromosomes and man has x and y. A man can sire offspring while a woman carries offspring, etc. You can assert whatever american garbage you want, I simply won't believe it because science is a changing field, not dogma. You can disagree with it.
Trannies are justified by trannies using faith based argument much like theists do, aka: "I have FAITH and BELIEVE I'm a woman, that means I'm a woman and you can't disagree with me because I'm going to change how people use words like gender to affirm myself!", religious people use faith based troony logic that confirms itself only through their own circles.
>can see what is wrong with the church but can't say how to fix it,
Not my prostitutehouse.
>the meaning of life
Humans invent the meanings, thats why all of your religions say different things.
Ok but what about Christianity?
Atheism is an irrational, absurdist position. If the universe exist for no reason (i.e. if it has no creator), then everything (i.e. everything within the universe) exists for any reason.
In other words, as an atheist, a screwdriver does not exist to screw screws: it just exists, for no particular reason.
Pretty much. Honest atheists will look at a smartphone and conclude it arose through random chance from nothingness
Atheists understand cause and effect, they just pretend not to. But if the universe itself has no cause, how can anything that exists within it have a cause? It's logically impossible; the universe must have a cause, therefore it must have a causer.
if some cause gets the special treatment of being a causeless cause because I say so, I'll eliminate the middle man and just declare the universe to be the causeless cause.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because unlike God, the universe actually IS a physical object. So does cause and effect apply to physical objects or not? Clearly it does in every single case...except the universe? No, of course not.
One thing is the universe in its entirety, another thing are the particular objects in the universe. We know cause-effect is true in the case of particular objects, but we don't have any reason to conclude this is also true to the universe in its entirety.
Basically, your arguments are non-sequitur.
>but we don't have any reason to conclude this is also true to the universe in its entirety
Because it physically exists?
Because it's different than its particular object.
>We know cause-effect is true in the case of particular objects
Not what I am arguing, the dependence relations of a set with its constituents have nothing to do with cause and effect. This is unaffected even if the universe is eternal or subject to an infinite regress of causes and effects.
The universe exists for the reason that its existence is necessary. There can be a reason without the need of a creator.
>The universe exists for the reason that its existence is necessary
Necessary for what? And who determined that is was necessary?
"Necessary" in philosophy means: it has to exist, therefore doesn't need to have a cause
"Contingent" means: it can exist or not exist, so if it exists, it needs a cause.
Why does it have to exist?
Because there is a need for prime movers as to avoid infinite regression of causation.
But prime movers don't prevent that.
Something had to start the starter.
His mother's womb, moran.
Don’t blaapheme you rascal.
I'm surprised that the religious man doesn't know how to put a bun in the oven.
I know that, but the prime mover is God, not the universe itself. I was asking why the universe is necessary, not why God is necessary.
None of these things are necessary, and you're moronic.
>the big bang/(insert literally anything except god here) can't be the prime mover because... it just can't ok?
Not him, but that's an invalid question in this context. If there were a reason why it exists (or has to exist), it would be contingent rather than necessary.
Contingent = if condition Y is fulfilled, X exists. If Y isn't fulfilled, it doesn't.
Necessary = there is no condition the lack of which could make X not exist.
Fyi this is also what theist philosophers means when they say God is a necessary being.
So... none of these things are necessary, and people just have their heads up their asses.
Not sure I get what you mean. Are you just sperging out because "necessity" as a technical term in philosophy means something else than what it generally means in normie speech?
no, because by that definition none of these things are necessary, duh.
How do you know that?
Neither god nor the universe are required for nothing to not-exist.
That is not the claim that is being made here. You're still understanding "necessary" as "necessary for what?". That is not the way the word is used as a technical term in philosophy.
no, I'm literally using your definition, you just don't have a rebuttal.
The definition I gave doesn't imply that either god or the universe are required for nothing to not-exist.
hence me saying they're not required.
But the universe could conceivably not exist, even within an atheistic frame. If the Big Bang simply didn't happen, there would be nothing, and there's no logical issue. But under a theistic frame, even if the universe does not exist, God still exists. And if God does not exist, the universe also cannot exist. But under atheism, there is no reason to believe that the universe is necessary. Literally just no Big Bang.
>If the Big Bang simply didn't happen, there would be nothing
The big bang is not the origin of everything. Nobody thinks that there is a metaphysical nothing before the big bang except for confused theists.
In any case, the actual stance of people like Graham Oppy is that there was a necessary initial state of the cosmos.
Without the rapid expansion of material, the universe wouldn't exist in any recognizable or intelligible form. It isn't necessarily the same thing as a metaphysical nothing, but it also doesn't matter in any practical way, to make a distinction between "nothing" and a reality in which there was no Big Bang.
Right, our observable universe is contingent on the big bang which is contingent on the necessary initial state, or at least that's Oppy's theory.
It’s literally not nothing.
Calling all matter and energy in the universe nothing is moronic and streaming Christian bullshit
I've never seen a theist say God is metaphysical nothingness... but plenty of atheists who try to redefine nothing into something to avoid further questions. Also indeed the big bang is simply a convenient point to mark time moving forward and space expanding for this universe at most.
>its existence is necessary
If you are saying the universe is the necessary being in question then it cannot be true unless you demonstrate how that particular screwdriver (and everything else) is logically necessary. If it isn't necessary then the universe could have been another way and therefore it is contingent
>Western religious: Uh God created the universe because he just felt like it and that's the only possible reason anything is invented afterwards
>Western atheist: Uh the universe exists because its existence is the reason
>Eastern: I don't know what created the universe for what reason but we're in it now, and we have to deal with it.
Abrahamics destroyed Western philosophy and I will not elaborate
>I don't know is preferable to an answer
kek, the reason you can't elaborate is because you are wrong
Atheism is just rebelling against God, atheist believe in God in the subconscious level, they just hate him.
G.K.Chesterton says without God, there’d be no atheists.
Which god am I rebelling against now? You have so many, and you keep schisming.