I became one because I never understood the concept of god, why Jesus was supposedly super duper special, and every religious "explanation" made less sense than not.
Just admit it, there is zero good reason to believe in your desert myths and you hang onto them because you lack the thinking ability to question what your mommy and daddy taught you
Saying things like this makes people hold onto their beliefs more. Whenever you drastically misunderstand someones point it affirms to them their view as being correct.
Im not altruistic person so Cucktianity looks like psychosis to me. Also hilarious for christards to claim they care about sinning when thats all you do
There are some Christians who do and there are others who do not, but you have left faith in God in order to carry out earthly desires, so you are trying to find excuses so that you do not believe in him as "science."
Lol there is no proof for any god no matter how much you wanna cope about it. There is as much good evidence for god as there is for Bigfoot, maybe even less lol
I’m atheist because I don’t believe in anything, not even causality. I accept the possibility that the world might not make sense to me, or that there is no external reality at all and that solipsism is true, or that truth objectively exists and causality etc. but I am just unable or simply never will know it. And I don’t really care. My life is meaningful enough through trying to better myself to be healthy and one day start a family. Even theists operate on the basic biological urge for immortality through reproduction, but they believe in a magical realm where you never die, effectively achieving the same end. Sin is bad, I agree, but it always affects you in this life. Heaven and hell are here and now.
>I accept the possibility that the world might not make sense to me, or that there is no external reality at all and that solipsism is true, or that truth objectively exists and causality etc. but I am just unable or simply never will know it
You don't accept that kind of absurd hyper-skepticism when you get cold and put on a jacket or get thirsty and drink water.
Those are done by habit. Also, just because it appears to me that drinking water quenches thirst doesn’t mean I will proclaim it as truth. I could use this same reasoning to live as though God existed but the desire just doesn’t manifest within me. Read Sextus Empiricus
>You actually secretly believe in God like me >you will burn in hell! Repent! You should be scared!
Are Christian posters genuinely incapable of thinking from others’ perspectives? Have they not fully developed theory of mind?
Lol it's their way of coping with the fact that they know there's literally not a single good, solid reason to believe in any god. They have to pretend that "everyone secretly knows God exists"
Lol quoting a line from an ancient book is not proof of anything. If I quoted you a verse from the Quran, are you just gonna take the truth of the Quran for granted? No, you're gonna come up with cope and horseshit about how YOUR holy book is real and all the others are fake. You lack the capacity to apply that logic to your own faith lol.
You lack the capacity to apply logic at all, if the laws of logic are nothing more than an illusion experienced by a meat sack caused by misfiring neurons then it is absolutely untrustworthy and could not be used for any purpose
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yet another victim of Turek's lucrative empire...
2 years ago
Anonymous
> you can't trust your brain, muh chemical reactions > i trust my brain when it tells me this book is true and that god exists > i also trust that the authors whose brains also function in the same untrustworthy way as mine
Lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
Those are done by habit. Also, just because it appears to me that drinking water quenches thirst doesn’t mean I will proclaim it as truth. I could use this same reasoning to live as though God existed but the desire just doesn’t manifest within me. Read Sextus Empiricus
The point is that you claim to believe that the existence or non-existence of the universe are equally valid propositions yet every moment of your life is lived utterly inconsistently with that stated belief. You yourself said that your life is meaningful and you want to be healthy and to have a family, but aren't you a liar? Is that all not completely inconsistent with your stated worldview? You do not operate in a manner consistent with your worldview only because if you did it would be impossible to function in this world, yet even the idea of functioning in this world is incoherent according to that worldview. You're a thief, Anon. You have stolen from my worldview in order to make your life work.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can't trust your brain regardless of whoever says whatever, according to your own argument. Try again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
What utter dogshit drivel lol. If this is how Christians defend their faith, it's no wonder people in developed nations are becoming less religious. You have to be an absolute moron to have read your reply and thought it was good.
By your own logic, atheists can trust their brains as well because their brains function just as much and in the same way as yours and according to you, God created the world you both share. How moronic are you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Atheists do trust their brains because they too live in God's world and they too are made in the image of God. However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains. We are not judging the truth claims of Christianity here but those of atheism. The existence of God is proven in the impossibility of the contrary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Can you prove that?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains
This is moronic and literally just not true lol.
Your belief in god is the product of the same brain activity you say is not trustworthy lol. By your own moronic logic even your belief in god is unjustifiable and without foundation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
Then why do atheists’ brains work improperly? Doesn’t it make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Then why do atheists’ brains work improperly?
They do not work improperly, the atheists use them improperly. >Doesn’t it make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
No.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why not?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The universe doesn’t have to exist. It merely has to appear to exist. If I knew that solipsism were true, and that everything I see is only occurring in my consciousness, does this mean I will inexplicably become suicidal and stop caring about everything? No, I will still like eating, and people, and sex.
Atheists do trust their brains because they too live in God's world and they too are made in the image of God. However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains. We are not judging the truth claims of Christianity here but those of atheism. The existence of God is proven in the impossibility of the contrary.
If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
this logic filters theists. If my brain is just chemicals, then my brain is just chemicals. Simple.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes. The fact that you believe in God proves that our brains are deceiving people
2 years ago
Anonymous
The laws of logic are just sort of descriptive of the universe and thinking in accordance with how it works
2 years ago
Anonymous
So the laws of logic are merely a convention?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nope they are fundamental to the universe or just in line with how the universe works depending on how you define it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What is their origin?
>However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains
This is moronic and literally just not true lol.
Your belief in god is the product of the same brain activity you say is not trustworthy lol. By your own moronic logic even your belief in god is unjustifiable and without foundation.
I have said repeatedly that our brains are trustworthy, just not if atheism is true. It is precisely because atheism is false that our brains are trustworthy.
The universe doesn’t have to exist. It merely has to appear to exist. If I knew that solipsism were true, and that everything I see is only occurring in my consciousness, does this mean I will inexplicably become suicidal and stop caring about everything? No, I will still like eating, and people, and sex.
[...]
If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
>No, I will still like eating, and people, and sex.
The words "I like eating" are incoherent if the universe is a mere illusion of your consciousness. Would it be sensible to argue with an illusion of your consciousness? >If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>our brains are trustworthy, just not if atheism is true
You haven't demonstrated this at all lol, all you've done is assert it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If atheism is true then every single human thought is reducible to an electric chemical reaction. Your every thought has no greater significance than an electric current running through water, you have no basis for believing it has the ability to inform you of reality
2 years ago
Anonymous
So? If my brain is just chemicals, then my brain is just chemicals. The truth value of an external proposition has nothing to do with how a system is evaluating it, that's why calculators work, and better than human brains at doing math.
Btw, you still haven't proved that your assumption is correct, you just keep repeating it.
>The words "I like eating" are incoherent if the universe is a mere illusion of your consciousness.
“I like eating” just means that I like the conscious experience of eating. I like dreaming of sex, this doesn’t require actually having sex. >Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
If our brains are untrustworthy, then our brains are untrustworthy. I can neither argue for atheism nor theism. You should try imagining a reality in which there really is no God and that our brains evolved to use reason and find patterns in the world. Even if in this world, the brains are ultimately untrustworthy, it would still be the case that God doesn’t exist. I merely imagine the possibility that we are living in such a world, and, not knowing which is the case, I find myself unable to come to a conclusion. I simply do not know.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>“I like eating” just means that I like the conscious experience of eating
However if all things were a mere illusion of your consciousness there would be no such thing as an experience of eating, the sensation itself would be unreal. Saying "I like eating" would contain no truth value, it would be no different from saying nothing. >Even if in this world, the brains are ultimately untrustworthy, it would still be the case that God doesn’t exist.
You forgot to answer the question last the last time you said this, so I'll just ask it again. Did you use your brain to determine this proposition? >You should try imagining a reality in which there really is no God and that our brains evolved to use reason and find patterns in the world
It is the same thing as trying to imagine a square circle since the world only exists because Jesus made it and consequently there are no possible worlds in which atheism is true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon can you stop running away? Don't be a coward for Jesus.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Running away from what, friend?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Scrutiny
2 years ago
Anonymous
How am I running away from scrutiny?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You keep dodging questions.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What question was I asked that I dodged?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why it doesn’t make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>evolved
sperg incoming
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, anon. The sensation IS real. The seeming IS real. But that is all. >Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
Obviously. >It is the same thing as trying to imagine a square circle since the world only exists because Jesus made it and consequently there are no possible worlds in which atheism is true.
That’s odd, because I have an easy time imagining it. I simply imagine that causality is an illusion invented by human minds, and that causal patterns exist coincidentally, so that existence does not need any explanation at all. There is no problem. Then God is unnecessary. And we can further imagine a sort of “multiverse” so that there could exist universes in which monkey brains believe in God and over time they evolve their idea of God for societal control etc. and end up with something resembling Jesus (not to mention countless other competing belief systems). There is nothing contradictory about any of this. If causality isn’t real, then it isn’t real. If God doesn’t exist then he doesn’t exist. If you are right then it must be the case that God has purposely warped my brain to accept something as non-sensical as a square circle, seeing no problems with it. In that case, I can’t really be blamed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Obviously.
Then it may be rejected out of hand since it is founded on an unreliable source. >That’s odd, because I have an easy time imagining it.
Yet what you describe is not imagination but delusion. Legitimate imagination is the mental construction of plausible things, delusion is self-deception. I could "imagine" that I do not actually exist right now or ever, but that would be the same thing as lying to myself. Since the only reason this world exists is because Jesus made it imagining a world that was not made by Jesus is the same thing as imagining this world and lying to myself that Jesus did not make it. >If causality isn’t real, then it isn’t real.
And yet when you get thirsty you will drink water because you believe it will quench your thirst. When you are cold, you will put on a jacket because you believe it will make you warm. And when you want a woman, you will behave in a way you believe will attract her. >If you are right then it must be the case that God has purposely warped my brain to accept something as non-sensical as a square circle, seeing no problems with it. In that case, I can’t really be blamed.
The truth claim of my religion is that out of the wickedness of your heart you have warped your mind as you have demonstrated you have in order to remove the God that made you whom you hate from your knowledge. And when you stand in His presence, there will be no excuses, your mouth will be shut in shame because you will not be able to deny your guilt. But God has left one door open, that by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ sinners might be saved, for He is able to save perfectly all who draw near to God through Him because on their behalf He took upon Himself all the wrath of God which they merited by their rebellion against Him and nailed it to the cross so that through Him they might have peace with God who raised Him from the dead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Then it may be rejected out of hand since it is founded on an unreliable source
Sure, all things can be rejected if you’d like, including your religion. That’s the whole point. I don’t affirm nor deny the existence of God, nor my ability to know anything. >that’s a delusion
Not an argument. I can imagine something appearing out of thin air, without a cause. Thus non-causality is not as non-sensical as a square circle. Now what is actually contradictory about an effect not having a cause? It only contradicts your experience of effects having causes. So your logic would look like this: >every effect I have ever observed appears to have a cause >therefore an effect without a cause is impossible
which is just a horrible argument. If there were an effect without a cause, then this wouldn’t break reality. If tomorrow we started observing effects without causes, we would simply accommodate ourselves to this new reality, and accept that some things have causes and others don’t. So there is nothing contradictory about a world in which “causality” isn’t real. It doesn’t even make sense for such an abstract concept to somehow exist objectively in the first place. Because of the assumption of law of causality, we have countless more questions and Münchhausen trilemmas. >And yet when you get thirsty you will drink water because you believe it will quench your thirst.
Is this logically impossible? I can imagine a world in which organisms believe in causality and live by habit, even though all causal chains in this world are coincidences and there is no special relationship between a “cause” and the “effect.” I have an urge to drink water, so I drink water. Why do you eat at all? Why do you want to go to heaven? Why do you want to be happy? In the end there is no logical answer. It is beyond reason entirely. >And when you stand in His presence, there will be no excuses
The problem is that this could just be an illusion, of course.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Is this logically impossible?
It is logically inconsistent. It directly contradicts your stated beliefs. You might claim that all these dumb organisms are acting on the basis of their belief in non-existent causality, but why do you who knows better act that way?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do I act at all? Because I have urges to act. Even the dumbest animal will eat and drink, without knowing reason. It is habit, instinct. I don’t even need to ponder causality to drink water. It just happens naturally. Again, this process can easily occur in a world without a law of causality. I never said that one shouldn’t live by habit, or even act as though causality isn’t real. I just said that it is ultimately an illusion. The fact that I also am deceived by this illusion at times doesn’t disprove this possibility. Of course causality seems real to me, almost all the time. The world seems objectively real to me. Etc. But it could all be illusion. It could be the case that the only thing that exists is my stream of consciousness and nothing prior to or outside of it. None of this is logically contradictory or impossible. Because it is possible, I have no idea what is the case
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, it's completely contradictory. The urge doesn't matter, without causality there is no relation between the urge and the act, drinking the water won't satisfy your thirst. But you and I both know the reason you don't act like that is because if you did you would die. We demonstrate we know we live in God's word every moment of every day.
2 years ago
Anonymous
God's world*
2 years ago
Anonymous
>without causality there is no relation between the urge and the act, drinking the water won't satisfy your thirst
Now you’re starting to make sense. This is true. You can’t actually prove that drinking water quenches thirst. Neither can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. But you will still plan on tomorrow’s existence, by habit.
I’m not sure what’s so logically contradictory about me recognizing the possibility that causality is an illusion while behaving as if causality is real in daily life. Again, I don’t know if causality is real or not. I simply do what I feel like doing, as always.
2 years ago
Anonymous
P1: you can't solve the problem of induction/hard solipsism/Munchhausen's trilemma
P2: if you can't, anything I say must be true
2 years ago
Anonymous
What problem? There is no problem. If solipsism is true then solipsism is true
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree that it's still shifting the burden of proof but I guess the problem of hard solipsism is "you can't prove that other minds exist (yet you accept or tacitly accept that they do)".
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did you flunk logic or something
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree that it's still shifting the burden of proof but I guess the problem of hard solipsism is "you can't prove that other minds exist (yet you accept or tacitly accept that they do)".
This
P1: you can't solve the problem of induction/hard solipsism/Munchhausen's trilemma
P2: if you can't, anything I say must be true
argument is terrible, I was being sarcastic as to why I thing theists bring up any of those problems.
Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.
Now tell me, Anon, how did reading this make you feel? How do you think your post sounded to me?
Christians employ a personalistic -- hubristic -- hermeneutic with regards to their scripture. They can't help themselves. Their faith's sustenance rests on insolence.
I became an atheist because I was very disappointed by the religious institutions that surrounded me. They taught evil and incorrect things, and I became very disillusioned when I realized that.
Once I was able to reconcile the existence of evil Christianity with the truth of Christ, I returned to the faith.
Its interesting, there are many religions that don't have a concept of "sin" so why would I have to be an atheist?
Perhaps there is more to it than just wanting to sin?
If anything, this thread is a good example of how loose we tend to be in defining the terms of our argumentation, especially in the context of evaluating religious claims.
The gentleman who entertains notions of either a hypothetical solipsism or a subjective idealism is to be especially commended for his slippery wriggling; some arguments he posted are nearly word for word David Hume. I would heartily recommend the works of Thomas Reid in addressing the hard skepticism advocated for by Hume and other Neo-Pyrrhonists, especially with regards to the origins of causality as a necessary idea for human thought and action. Dan Robinson has an excellent series of lectures on Reid's philosophy available through Oxford's podcast archive, wherein he makes several illuminating comparisons with Kant's intellectual project in delimiting the "tools of reason" in his various Critiques.
I myself am of the opinion that only through the synthetic unity of apperception, as well as a thorough understanding and recognition of the innate dispositions and principles of judgment that Reid refers to as "common sense", can we move towards an epistemological framework that does justice to both subjective human experience as well as scientific insights.
I’m not an atheist but sins are a religious thing and all religions are crystal clear as fiction based.
In fact if a God is real and cares about anything God would probably be furious that you think They are a character from primitive folktales.
I’m Assyrian and I’ll gladly admit that I became atheist cause I got annoyed with my mum taking me to church. Although it wasn’t just that, she took me to a church that spoke some kind of archaic Assyrian so I could never understand anything they were saying. Maybe if she had taken me to an English speaking church, I would have enjoyed it more.
I feel you, I was like you at some point. She is probably doing it out of love and concern, and because of the cultural significance that your church cares. Regardless of that, I really hope you won't forget your identity.
>she took me to a church that spoke some kind of archaic Assyrian >some kind of archaic Assyrian
Yeah. You're a complete idiot. All Assyrian churches use Classical Assyrian for liturgy and biblical reading. Every Assyrian that isn't a drooling moron (i.e. assimilated into western culture) knows what the Pešita (ܦܫܝܛܬܐ) is — the standard Assyrian bible.
Maybe if Assyrians bothered to learn how to read Classical Assyrian (like how Arab Mohammedans learn how to read the archaic Arabic of the Quran), you wouldn't be such a moronic atheist. I don't have a problem with atheists, but moronic Assyrian atheists oblivious of their own cultural history deserve the rope.
I became an atheist because Christians are hypocrites who pretend that infinite regress is absurd, but see no problem with infinite power, knowledge, presence, etc.
I'm a deist, and I wish I was a Christian. I once was but I could not come to terms with a bunch of things. One of the glaring ones was that Jesus said he would return for end times with his rewards during the lifetimes of some of those alive then. So it never happened.
no, I became an atheist because I was never really indoctrinated into a religion, I was left to figure religion out on my own, and I feel that it's very obvious how most religions are constructed to control people, Islam makes this particularly clear. I'm not much of a sinner either, I have pretty strong morals, I refuse sex with anyone I'm not dating, I'm only intemperate with alcohol like once a month, I've never stolen anything, I've never intentionally hurt anyone, I would even go so far as to say I'm fairly virtuous "sinning" is not a thing I believe in, and it is only my moral framework that keeps me from "sinning"
I became one because I never understood the concept of god, why Jesus was supposedly super duper special, and every religious "explanation" made less sense than not.
The big bang makes less sense than a god existing
So?
So your first point is moronic
Why?
Just admit it, there is zero good reason to believe in your desert myths and you hang onto them because you lack the thinking ability to question what your mommy and daddy taught you
Saying things like this makes people hold onto their beliefs more. Whenever you drastically misunderstand someones point it affirms to them their view as being correct.
You got me there
Im not altruistic person so Cucktianity looks like psychosis to me. Also hilarious for christards to claim they care about sinning when thats all you do
There are some Christians who do and there are others who do not, but you have left faith in God in order to carry out earthly desires, so you are trying to find excuses so that you do not believe in him as "science."
Lol there is no proof for any god no matter how much you wanna cope about it. There is as much good evidence for god as there is for Bigfoot, maybe even less lol
Yh your doujins are very holy hypocritical shit
I’m atheist because I don’t believe in anything, not even causality. I accept the possibility that the world might not make sense to me, or that there is no external reality at all and that solipsism is true, or that truth objectively exists and causality etc. but I am just unable or simply never will know it. And I don’t really care. My life is meaningful enough through trying to better myself to be healthy and one day start a family. Even theists operate on the basic biological urge for immortality through reproduction, but they believe in a magical realm where you never die, effectively achieving the same end. Sin is bad, I agree, but it always affects you in this life. Heaven and hell are here and now.
>I accept the possibility that the world might not make sense to me, or that there is no external reality at all and that solipsism is true, or that truth objectively exists and causality etc. but I am just unable or simply never will know it
You don't accept that kind of absurd hyper-skepticism when you get cold and put on a jacket or get thirsty and drink water.
Those are done by habit. Also, just because it appears to me that drinking water quenches thirst doesn’t mean I will proclaim it as truth. I could use this same reasoning to live as though God existed but the desire just doesn’t manifest within me. Read Sextus Empiricus
>You actually secretly believe in God like me
>you will burn in hell! Repent! You should be scared!
Are Christian posters genuinely incapable of thinking from others’ perspectives? Have they not fully developed theory of mind?
Lol it's their way of coping with the fact that they know there's literally not a single good, solid reason to believe in any god. They have to pretend that "everyone secretly knows God exists"
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God
Lol quoting a line from an ancient book is not proof of anything. If I quoted you a verse from the Quran, are you just gonna take the truth of the Quran for granted? No, you're gonna come up with cope and horseshit about how YOUR holy book is real and all the others are fake. You lack the capacity to apply that logic to your own faith lol.
You lack the capacity to apply logic at all, if the laws of logic are nothing more than an illusion experienced by a meat sack caused by misfiring neurons then it is absolutely untrustworthy and could not be used for any purpose
Yet another victim of Turek's lucrative empire...
> you can't trust your brain, muh chemical reactions
> i trust my brain when it tells me this book is true and that god exists
> i also trust that the authors whose brains also function in the same untrustworthy way as mine
Lol
I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
The point is that you claim to believe that the existence or non-existence of the universe are equally valid propositions yet every moment of your life is lived utterly inconsistently with that stated belief. You yourself said that your life is meaningful and you want to be healthy and to have a family, but aren't you a liar? Is that all not completely inconsistent with your stated worldview? You do not operate in a manner consistent with your worldview only because if you did it would be impossible to function in this world, yet even the idea of functioning in this world is incoherent according to that worldview. You're a thief, Anon. You have stolen from my worldview in order to make your life work.
You can't trust your brain regardless of whoever says whatever, according to your own argument. Try again.
>I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
What utter dogshit drivel lol. If this is how Christians defend their faith, it's no wonder people in developed nations are becoming less religious. You have to be an absolute moron to have read your reply and thought it was good.
By your own logic, atheists can trust their brains as well because their brains function just as much and in the same way as yours and according to you, God created the world you both share. How moronic are you?
Atheists do trust their brains because they too live in God's world and they too are made in the image of God. However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains. We are not judging the truth claims of Christianity here but those of atheism. The existence of God is proven in the impossibility of the contrary.
Can you prove that?
>However, if atheism were true, they would have no basis to trust their brains
This is moronic and literally just not true lol.
Your belief in god is the product of the same brain activity you say is not trustworthy lol. By your own moronic logic even your belief in god is unjustifiable and without foundation.
>I can trust my brain because my God made it so that I can function in the world He made
Then why do atheists’ brains work improperly? Doesn’t it make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
>Then why do atheists’ brains work improperly?
They do not work improperly, the atheists use them improperly.
>Doesn’t it make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
No.
Why not?
The universe doesn’t have to exist. It merely has to appear to exist. If I knew that solipsism were true, and that everything I see is only occurring in my consciousness, does this mean I will inexplicably become suicidal and stop caring about everything? No, I will still like eating, and people, and sex.
If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
>If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
this logic filters theists. If my brain is just chemicals, then my brain is just chemicals. Simple.
Yes. The fact that you believe in God proves that our brains are deceiving people
The laws of logic are just sort of descriptive of the universe and thinking in accordance with how it works
So the laws of logic are merely a convention?
Nope they are fundamental to the universe or just in line with how the universe works depending on how you define it.
What is their origin?
I have said repeatedly that our brains are trustworthy, just not if atheism is true. It is precisely because atheism is false that our brains are trustworthy.
>No, I will still like eating, and people, and sex.
The words "I like eating" are incoherent if the universe is a mere illusion of your consciousness. Would it be sensible to argue with an illusion of your consciousness?
>If atheists have no basis to trust their brains…then atheism is still true…
Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
>our brains are trustworthy, just not if atheism is true
You haven't demonstrated this at all lol, all you've done is assert it.
If atheism is true then every single human thought is reducible to an electric chemical reaction. Your every thought has no greater significance than an electric current running through water, you have no basis for believing it has the ability to inform you of reality
So? If my brain is just chemicals, then my brain is just chemicals. The truth value of an external proposition has nothing to do with how a system is evaluating it, that's why calculators work, and better than human brains at doing math.
Btw, you still haven't proved that your assumption is correct, you just keep repeating it.
If atheism is true then atheism is true
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
Enjoy
>The words "I like eating" are incoherent if the universe is a mere illusion of your consciousness.
“I like eating” just means that I like the conscious experience of eating. I like dreaming of sex, this doesn’t require actually having sex.
>Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
If our brains are untrustworthy, then our brains are untrustworthy. I can neither argue for atheism nor theism. You should try imagining a reality in which there really is no God and that our brains evolved to use reason and find patterns in the world. Even if in this world, the brains are ultimately untrustworthy, it would still be the case that God doesn’t exist. I merely imagine the possibility that we are living in such a world, and, not knowing which is the case, I find myself unable to come to a conclusion. I simply do not know.
>“I like eating” just means that I like the conscious experience of eating
However if all things were a mere illusion of your consciousness there would be no such thing as an experience of eating, the sensation itself would be unreal. Saying "I like eating" would contain no truth value, it would be no different from saying nothing.
>Even if in this world, the brains are ultimately untrustworthy, it would still be the case that God doesn’t exist.
You forgot to answer the question last the last time you said this, so I'll just ask it again. Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
>You should try imagining a reality in which there really is no God and that our brains evolved to use reason and find patterns in the world
It is the same thing as trying to imagine a square circle since the world only exists because Jesus made it and consequently there are no possible worlds in which atheism is true.
Anon can you stop running away? Don't be a coward for Jesus.
Running away from what, friend?
Scrutiny
How am I running away from scrutiny?
You keep dodging questions.
What question was I asked that I dodged?
Why it doesn’t make more sense that your brain is actually just a monkey brain evolved to find patterns and latch on to explanations and invent ideas like God?
>evolved
sperg incoming
No, anon. The sensation IS real. The seeming IS real. But that is all.
>Did you use your brain to determine this proposition?
Obviously.
>It is the same thing as trying to imagine a square circle since the world only exists because Jesus made it and consequently there are no possible worlds in which atheism is true.
That’s odd, because I have an easy time imagining it. I simply imagine that causality is an illusion invented by human minds, and that causal patterns exist coincidentally, so that existence does not need any explanation at all. There is no problem. Then God is unnecessary. And we can further imagine a sort of “multiverse” so that there could exist universes in which monkey brains believe in God and over time they evolve their idea of God for societal control etc. and end up with something resembling Jesus (not to mention countless other competing belief systems). There is nothing contradictory about any of this. If causality isn’t real, then it isn’t real. If God doesn’t exist then he doesn’t exist. If you are right then it must be the case that God has purposely warped my brain to accept something as non-sensical as a square circle, seeing no problems with it. In that case, I can’t really be blamed.
>Obviously.
Then it may be rejected out of hand since it is founded on an unreliable source.
>That’s odd, because I have an easy time imagining it.
Yet what you describe is not imagination but delusion. Legitimate imagination is the mental construction of plausible things, delusion is self-deception. I could "imagine" that I do not actually exist right now or ever, but that would be the same thing as lying to myself. Since the only reason this world exists is because Jesus made it imagining a world that was not made by Jesus is the same thing as imagining this world and lying to myself that Jesus did not make it.
>If causality isn’t real, then it isn’t real.
And yet when you get thirsty you will drink water because you believe it will quench your thirst. When you are cold, you will put on a jacket because you believe it will make you warm. And when you want a woman, you will behave in a way you believe will attract her.
>If you are right then it must be the case that God has purposely warped my brain to accept something as non-sensical as a square circle, seeing no problems with it. In that case, I can’t really be blamed.
The truth claim of my religion is that out of the wickedness of your heart you have warped your mind as you have demonstrated you have in order to remove the God that made you whom you hate from your knowledge. And when you stand in His presence, there will be no excuses, your mouth will be shut in shame because you will not be able to deny your guilt. But God has left one door open, that by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ sinners might be saved, for He is able to save perfectly all who draw near to God through Him because on their behalf He took upon Himself all the wrath of God which they merited by their rebellion against Him and nailed it to the cross so that through Him they might have peace with God who raised Him from the dead.
>Then it may be rejected out of hand since it is founded on an unreliable source
Sure, all things can be rejected if you’d like, including your religion. That’s the whole point. I don’t affirm nor deny the existence of God, nor my ability to know anything.
>that’s a delusion
Not an argument. I can imagine something appearing out of thin air, without a cause. Thus non-causality is not as non-sensical as a square circle. Now what is actually contradictory about an effect not having a cause? It only contradicts your experience of effects having causes. So your logic would look like this:
>every effect I have ever observed appears to have a cause
>therefore an effect without a cause is impossible
which is just a horrible argument. If there were an effect without a cause, then this wouldn’t break reality. If tomorrow we started observing effects without causes, we would simply accommodate ourselves to this new reality, and accept that some things have causes and others don’t. So there is nothing contradictory about a world in which “causality” isn’t real. It doesn’t even make sense for such an abstract concept to somehow exist objectively in the first place. Because of the assumption of law of causality, we have countless more questions and Münchhausen trilemmas.
>And yet when you get thirsty you will drink water because you believe it will quench your thirst.
Is this logically impossible? I can imagine a world in which organisms believe in causality and live by habit, even though all causal chains in this world are coincidences and there is no special relationship between a “cause” and the “effect.” I have an urge to drink water, so I drink water. Why do you eat at all? Why do you want to go to heaven? Why do you want to be happy? In the end there is no logical answer. It is beyond reason entirely.
>And when you stand in His presence, there will be no excuses
The problem is that this could just be an illusion, of course.
>Is this logically impossible?
It is logically inconsistent. It directly contradicts your stated beliefs. You might claim that all these dumb organisms are acting on the basis of their belief in non-existent causality, but why do you who knows better act that way?
Why do I act at all? Because I have urges to act. Even the dumbest animal will eat and drink, without knowing reason. It is habit, instinct. I don’t even need to ponder causality to drink water. It just happens naturally. Again, this process can easily occur in a world without a law of causality. I never said that one shouldn’t live by habit, or even act as though causality isn’t real. I just said that it is ultimately an illusion. The fact that I also am deceived by this illusion at times doesn’t disprove this possibility. Of course causality seems real to me, almost all the time. The world seems objectively real to me. Etc. But it could all be illusion. It could be the case that the only thing that exists is my stream of consciousness and nothing prior to or outside of it. None of this is logically contradictory or impossible. Because it is possible, I have no idea what is the case
No, it's completely contradictory. The urge doesn't matter, without causality there is no relation between the urge and the act, drinking the water won't satisfy your thirst. But you and I both know the reason you don't act like that is because if you did you would die. We demonstrate we know we live in God's word every moment of every day.
God's world*
>without causality there is no relation between the urge and the act, drinking the water won't satisfy your thirst
Now you’re starting to make sense. This is true. You can’t actually prove that drinking water quenches thirst. Neither can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. But you will still plan on tomorrow’s existence, by habit.
I’m not sure what’s so logically contradictory about me recognizing the possibility that causality is an illusion while behaving as if causality is real in daily life. Again, I don’t know if causality is real or not. I simply do what I feel like doing, as always.
P1: you can't solve the problem of induction/hard solipsism/Munchhausen's trilemma
P2: if you can't, anything I say must be true
What problem? There is no problem. If solipsism is true then solipsism is true
I agree that it's still shifting the burden of proof but I guess the problem of hard solipsism is "you can't prove that other minds exist (yet you accept or tacitly accept that they do)".
Did you flunk logic or something
This
argument is terrible, I was being sarcastic as to why I thing theists bring up any of those problems.
>my book says you're dumb
Fool bros... Not like this ...
Don't worry, foolbro, according to the same book, they look like fools to us too (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.
Now tell me, Anon, how did reading this make you feel? How do you think your post sounded to me?
I'm atheist because great sins have been committed by people who proclaim themselves to be Christian.
You mean that's the excuse you use to disregard God's law and holiness entirely, a true hypocrite
What law? The shrimp one? Or the no denial of Jesus one? Both? None?
Christians employ a personalistic -- hubristic -- hermeneutic with regards to their scripture. They can't help themselves. Their faith's sustenance rests on insolence.
The only sin I've commited is jerking off
I became an atheist because I was very disappointed by the religious institutions that surrounded me. They taught evil and incorrect things, and I became very disillusioned when I realized that.
Once I was able to reconcile the existence of evil Christianity with the truth of Christ, I returned to the faith.
Its interesting, there are many religions that don't have a concept of "sin" so why would I have to be an atheist?
Perhaps there is more to it than just wanting to sin?
I became atheist when I was young because the religion was very restrictive and I felt like I was praying to thin air.
Luckily for me, I took up a meditation practice and I achieved what many mystics set out to win, union with the Divine for some moments.
Of course, it wasn't Jesus.
After the discovery of evolution religion became ridiculous.
If anything, this thread is a good example of how loose we tend to be in defining the terms of our argumentation, especially in the context of evaluating religious claims.
The gentleman who entertains notions of either a hypothetical solipsism or a subjective idealism is to be especially commended for his slippery wriggling; some arguments he posted are nearly word for word David Hume. I would heartily recommend the works of Thomas Reid in addressing the hard skepticism advocated for by Hume and other Neo-Pyrrhonists, especially with regards to the origins of causality as a necessary idea for human thought and action. Dan Robinson has an excellent series of lectures on Reid's philosophy available through Oxford's podcast archive, wherein he makes several illuminating comparisons with Kant's intellectual project in delimiting the "tools of reason" in his various Critiques.
I myself am of the opinion that only through the synthetic unity of apperception, as well as a thorough understanding and recognition of the innate dispositions and principles of judgment that Reid refers to as "common sense", can we move towards an epistemological framework that does justice to both subjective human experience as well as scientific insights.
>book suggestion
Lame. Just give the argument if you understand it
I could do sins as a monotheist, Id just have to not be an abrahamicuck
I’m not an atheist but sins are a religious thing and all religions are crystal clear as fiction based.
In fact if a God is real and cares about anything God would probably be furious that you think They are a character from primitive folktales.
I’m Assyrian and I’ll gladly admit that I became atheist cause I got annoyed with my mum taking me to church. Although it wasn’t just that, she took me to a church that spoke some kind of archaic Assyrian so I could never understand anything they were saying. Maybe if she had taken me to an English speaking church, I would have enjoyed it more.
I feel you, I was like you at some point. She is probably doing it out of love and concern, and because of the cultural significance that your church cares. Regardless of that, I really hope you won't forget your identity.
>she took me to a church that spoke some kind of archaic Assyrian
>some kind of archaic Assyrian
Yeah. You're a complete idiot. All Assyrian churches use Classical Assyrian for liturgy and biblical reading. Every Assyrian that isn't a drooling moron (i.e. assimilated into western culture) knows what the Pešita (ܦܫܝܛܬܐ) is — the standard Assyrian bible.
Maybe if Assyrians bothered to learn how to read Classical Assyrian (like how Arab Mohammedans learn how to read the archaic Arabic of the Quran), you wouldn't be such a moronic atheist. I don't have a problem with atheists, but moronic Assyrian atheists oblivious of their own cultural history deserve the rope.
99% chance your lineage is from Urmia, Iran too.
What do those words in the pic say? I can't read cursive.
I became an atheist because Christians are hypocrites who pretend that infinite regress is absurd, but see no problem with infinite power, knowledge, presence, etc.
I'm a deist, and I wish I was a Christian. I once was but I could not come to terms with a bunch of things. One of the glaring ones was that Jesus said he would return for end times with his rewards during the lifetimes of some of those alive then. So it never happened.
no, I became an atheist because I was never really indoctrinated into a religion, I was left to figure religion out on my own, and I feel that it's very obvious how most religions are constructed to control people, Islam makes this particularly clear. I'm not much of a sinner either, I have pretty strong morals, I refuse sex with anyone I'm not dating, I'm only intemperate with alcohol like once a month, I've never stolen anything, I've never intentionally hurt anyone, I would even go so far as to say I'm fairly virtuous "sinning" is not a thing I believe in, and it is only my moral framework that keeps me from "sinning"