Slow boy here. How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?

Slow boy here. How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview? Matter simply exists, you can't derive anything else from it philosophically. A rock, a tree exist, they have no deeper meaning or purpose. Now take a piece of rock and fasten it to a sturdy branch, you've got an axe. An axe has purpose. Creation implies purpose.

If the universe is uncreated and God doesn't exist, there can ultimately be no purpose to anything, nor justification for anything. If we take it to the extreme of biological determinism (which, again, is a given without God), then you have no free will, you aren't even a person, you're just a clump of cells, a genetic sequence with brain chemistry, a biological automaton, no different from any other form of matter in the universe.

I don't see how any argument you could make under this worldview would differ from
>Well we exist
>Therefor we should continue existing
>Cause we exist

I feel like I'm being a moron and missing something really obvious in this argument. Tear it down IQfy bros.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You just proved that God exists. Everyone is amazed, and afraid to say anything.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks anon.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Materialists overwhelmingly tend to implicitly view their volatile emotional reactions to things they dislike as synonymous with divine law. No they have no explanation to this, and they don't think about it, they simply feel very passionately about some things.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Materialists overwhelmingly tend to implicitly view their volatile emotional reactions to things they dislike as synonymous with divine law.
      My Black person in christ, your worldview LITERALLY rests upon "divine command", a word of God that becomes necessarily corrupted the moment Man impresses his "interpretation" upon it.

      Beat tradLARPERs.
      Burn tradLARPERs.
      Kill tradLARPERs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?
        Materialism is scientifically self-refuting.

        Materialists are fricking morons, don't bother trying to "reason" with unreasonable idiots who think their ancestors are fish, lmao.

        That's for adding more data points to all the studies proving atheists are psychopaths. Do the world a favor and have a nice day.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Materialists are fricking morons, don't bother trying to "reason" with unreasonable idiots who think their ancestors are fish, lmao.
          I'm autistic though, arguing is fun.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Matter simply exists, you can't derive anything else from it philosophically.
    Christians pretend that saying that God simply exists is somehow better. 😐

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't see much of an argument for any of the claims in this post. Why should I think that things can't have purpose or meaning just because things weren't created by a God? Why should I think that materialism entails determinism, and why should I think that determinism entails that you have no free will? And why should I think that materialism entails that you aren't a person?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why should I think that things can't have purpose or meaning just because things weren't created by a God?
      Because something happening out of random chance can't have purpose. Only something that is created can have purpose.
      >Why should I think that materialism entails determinism
      What other alternatives do you have? Biological determinism is a logical conclusion to materialism.
      >and why should I think that determinism entails that you have no free will?
      Have you ever tried thinking?
      > And why should I think that materialism entails that you aren't a person?
      Personhood is reliant on freewill.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Only something that is created can have purpose.
        Why think that?
        >Biological determinism is a logical conclusion to materialism.
        It's not. There's no reason why there can't be objective indeterminism on materialism.
        >Have you ever tried thinking?
        This is not an argument.
        >Personhood is reliant on freewill.
        Why think that?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >something happening out of random chance can't have purpose. Only something that is created can have purpose.
        I find a round rock, I give it the purpose of hitting OP in the cranium. I throw the rock at OP he falls and bleeds. The object formed by random chances was given purpose and fulfilled it
        >biological determinism
        There are way more parameters that you can conveive. You cannot determine the limitless. That goes against your limited thought process and you cannot comprehend it.
        Even if things couldn't have happened another way and you, all of your desires, decisions and actions, are a product of your environment. Does it matter really? You can only guess the future with relative accuracy.
        You'd be the same with your claimed God, even more so than in randomness. You'd be his dolls. He knows everything you were going to do and think before he even made the first man.

        Personhood is reliant on the interactions between agents, we act with agency, we think therefore we are, we desire and act. We have freewill whether there is some bigger agent above or not. The mechanism behind it existing within materialism which you reduce to atoms in your ignorance that we share, we can only graps so much of the infinitely small that's why science is an evergoing effort.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not exactly sure how pretending the universe was created and it has purpose solves anything

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't have to solve anything, I merely want to know how materialists justify anything.

      >justify
      You justify what you can prove, everything that exists and is observable/detectable can be proven within materialism through simple analysis.
      Even your very emotions, we can analyse them through monitoring your brain activity.

      >simply exists
      It doesn't need to do anything else other than exist and interact with itself.

      >a rock
      Has formed deep within the earth from silicon and other materials being pressured and heated for millions of years before going back to the surface, being shattered by seismic forces and erosion then being picked by you centuries after.
      That's all there is to know about a rock, that's plenty.

      >tree
      A living organism, a vegetal, once a seed that fell from another tree that managed to sprout and fixate its roots within the soil, collecting water and minerals as well as tangling with the mycelium of a fungus forming symbiosis exchanging carbohydrates for more minerals. Carbohydrates it forms within its leaves that collect carbon dioxide in the air and realease the oxygen we collect by breathing, using this carbon dioxide and photons from sunlight collected through the green pigmentation of its chlorophyll gained through the the merging of a bacteria into the cell of its ancestor. Carbohydrates heterotrophes depend on. Growing large and forming a dense bark with latex to protect against external attacks. Reproducing through flowers, releasing pollen to pollinate another flower, the embryo being encased ina seed itself contained within a fruit that shall seperate for the fruit to disperse the seeds and grow other trees.
      So much to say about trees and Earth's ecosystem, all within materialism.

      >axe
      homosexual Sapiens which developed intelligence and the ability to manifacture and use tools. Took the materials he had at its disposition and assembled them into a tool that would respond to a problem he encountered which for an axe was breaking the dense bark and sturdy wood of trees his bare hands couldn't. *Material*

      >That's all there is to know about a rock, that's plenty.
      >Why does water boil?
      >Because the heat from the flames gets conducted through the copper pot agitating the molecules of water
      >It boils because I want a cup of tea
      This is the main problem with materialism as a worldview, it focuses entirely on the material.
      >You justify what you can prove, everything that exists and is observable/detectable can be proven within materialism through simple analysis.
      Prove that 2+2=4, empirically.

      >Only something that is created can have purpose.
      Why think that?
      >Biological determinism is a logical conclusion to materialism.
      It's not. There's no reason why there can't be objective indeterminism on materialism.
      >Have you ever tried thinking?
      This is not an argument.
      >Personhood is reliant on freewill.
      Why think that?

      >Why think that?
      What purpose does matter have?
      >It's not. There's no reason why there can't be objective indeterminism on materialism.
      If you adhere to materialism then I fail to see how you manage to divorce biological determinism from it.
      >This is not an argument.
      You've made very few arguments yourself.
      >Why think that?
      Because we don't consider animals to be persons, and under biological determinism we're only different from animals in that through some evolutionary error we've developed self awareness.
      But if all our actions are biologically predetermined, we're no different from other organic matter that isn't self aware.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What purpose does matter have?
        Whatever purpose we give it.
        >If you adhere to materialism then I fail to see how you manage to divorce biological determinism from it.
        "I fail to see how" isn't a persuasive argument.
        >Because we don't consider animals to be persons
        I consider animals to be persons.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Whatever purpose we give it.
          Purpose can't be subjective. An axe is made for chopping wood, you can use it to kill someone, but that still doesn't change the purpose of it.
          Although we can create tools and inject purpose into an essentially purposeless existence, we can't give purpose to existence itself, only God can.
          And if we're unable to do so, then we run into problems of justification, moral, philosophical, whatever.
          >"I fail to see how" isn't a persuasive argument.
          It isn't. I'm asking you to explain to me how you manage to divorce biological determinism from materialism.
          >I consider animals to be persons.
          You considering something isn't an argument.

          We don't need to justify anything since its apparently obvious by consensus. The burden of justification rests on idealist cucks who have to prove their ideals exist outside some manufactured metaphysical framework.

          >We don't need to justify anything since its apparently obvious by consensus.
          So if enough people say that 2+2=5 it becomes true?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            2+2 is not materialism moron, math is a branch of ontology which is basically metaphysics, materialism deals with science which is epistemology and where observations are king.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >math is a branch of ontology which is basically metaphysics
            That's my point.
            >materialism deals with science which is epistemology and where observations are king.
            If one subscribes to an entirely materialist worldview, then in such a worldview math doesn't exist.
            If one doesn't subscribe to an entirely materialist worldview, one must at least allow for the possibility of the existence of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one does that and math doesn't have to exist physically for it to be useful. Math is basically the quantifiable relationship btn material objects. It doesn't need its own platonic universe for it to be useful or for us to talk about it. Some metaphysical frameworks though are too flimsy to talk about.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No one does that
            No one does what? Subscribe to an entirely materialist worldview? I think most atheists do when they object to the existence of God.

            >something happening out of random chance can't have purpose. Only something that is created can have purpose.
            I find a round rock, I give it the purpose of hitting OP in the cranium. I throw the rock at OP he falls and bleeds. The object formed by random chances was given purpose and fulfilled it
            >biological determinism
            There are way more parameters that you can conveive. You cannot determine the limitless. That goes against your limited thought process and you cannot comprehend it.
            Even if things couldn't have happened another way and you, all of your desires, decisions and actions, are a product of your environment. Does it matter really? You can only guess the future with relative accuracy.
            You'd be the same with your claimed God, even more so than in randomness. You'd be his dolls. He knows everything you were going to do and think before he even made the first man.

            Personhood is reliant on the interactions between agents, we act with agency, we think therefore we are, we desire and act. We have freewill whether there is some bigger agent above or not. The mechanism behind it existing within materialism which you reduce to atoms in your ignorance that we share, we can only graps so much of the infinitely small that's why science is an evergoing effort.

            >The object formed by random chances was given purpose and fulfilled it
            Yes, but it's all based on a purposeless foundation. If existence itself has no purpose, then the purpose we inject into it is ultimately just as purposeless as existence itself.
            >Does it matter really? You can only guess the future with relative accuracy.
            It does matter. I'm not interested in predicting the future, I'm interested in how you manage to have moral justifications if all our actions are biologically predetermined.
            >You'd be the same with your claimed God, even more so than in randomness. You'd be his dolls. He knows everything you were going to do and think before he even made the first man.
            True, except then my biological determinism would have purpose. Without Him it doesn't.
            >we think therefore we are
            For that to constitute personhood our thinking would have to result from something other than biological determinism. If our thinking is the result of determinism than we're fundamentally no different than an animal which is guided purely through biological instinct.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like I said but you keep intentionally forgetting, not believing in god is just rejecting one framework of metaphysics not all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Like I said but you keep intentionally forgetting, not believing in god is just rejecting one framework of metaphysics not all.
            >I reject one metaphysical framework based on materialism
            >But I won't reject other metaphysical frameworks
            How's that not self-contradictory?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Rejecting god is not based on materialism. The very concept of god escapes materialistic definition, hence its rejection is necessary by definition and to avoid any contradiction or self referential paradoxes.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Rejecting god is not based on materialism.
            Christians are obsessed with materials anon.
            You fricks are beings of pure idiocy.
            church crosses, power, wealth, massive buildings, tithe payments that are mandated in the bible etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am not a christian you ignorant homosexual.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I am not a christian you ignorant homosexual.
            Lol, Christian psychopath does the old "I started a threat to proselytize but I'm not a Christian" schtick...
            Lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did not start the thread you schizo homosexual, is the christian in the room with you now? Is he screaming at you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I did not start the thread you schizo homosexual
            Your lies are as transparent as the finest glass Christ-tard sociopath samegayger anon.

            Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract. God on the other hand is a concept that humans don't understand or can't even agree on. Math is taught the same way in every university. God is understood in different ways and is a source of much strife in human society. So they are not the same.

            >Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract
            Exactly. The statement "humans have ten fingers" is an objective statement that exists without it being communicated or counted in a human language.
            God on the other hand doesn't exist. The fact that thousands of religions claim their thousands of gods are real is a contradiction.

            >A robot or a rock do not have desires or reasons for acting.
            Desires are merely the biological and chemical equivalent of mechanics, programming and electricity for robots. In other words, if we aren't organic machines, what are we?

            >Desires are merely the biological and chemical equivalent of mechanics, programming and electricity for robots. In other words, if we aren't organic machines, what are we?
            That's kind of like saying that supercomputers are no different from single transistors because a supercomputer is made up of transistors.
            It's a completely new order of being with different properties.
            A human brain and even the primitive neural ganglia of a bumblebee are able to do things that a modern supercomputer can't. We can't even predict the firing of simple neuron networks.
            So Although definitely material in origin, the human brain is in another league of its own entirely.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The very concept of god escapes materialistic definition
            So does math and logic.
            >Rejecting god is not based on materialism
            >hence its rejection is necessary by definition and to avoid any contradiction or self referential paradoxes
            So it is based on materialism?
            Either way, you can't reject one metaphysical framework purely based on materialism without rejecting them all.

            >It can be, but it was created for cutting trees, that is its purpose.
            Well no...
            Axes are far more effective at killing people that felling trees. The saw was invented a long time after the axe. The axe's use for tree cutting is a later repurposing.

            >If biological determinism is true, it has to be based on materialism.
            Lol, you mean reality? materialism is an "ism" that Christians created as an imaginary enemy to justify their faith. Despite the fact that Christians have always been obsessed with building churches. But Christians are too moronic to notice their own logical inconsistencies.

            >Yeah, I think every single atheist argument I've seen is based off of a materialist worldview, do you disagree?
            Lol. The list of completely meaningless Christian buzz-words Atheism/Satanism/Materialism/Paganism/Idolatry
            etc...
            By the way anon. IRL People who don't believe in any god don't call themselves atheists. Literally the only people who use that word are Christians and weird forever online redditer types.

            >Alright, animals aren't persons because personhood is reliant on the existence of self-awareness that isn't based on biological determinism.
            And that makes zero logical sense and doesn't explain anything.
            The only animal groups proven to have self awareness are some Mammals and birds.
            How do we know this?
            Some animals in those families will self-medicate with provided opiate-laced food if they are in pain but won't when they are not in pain.
            Others will pass the mirror test.

            >I'm biologically programmed to murder people.
            You are a psychopath. There is no doubt about that anon.

            >Give me a moral justification for not doing it.
            Only psychopaths need to be taught to not murder others mindlessly. You are literally just outing yourself as a psychopath.
            Normal people don't kill another person unless that person is trying to kill them.

            >Only psychopaths need to be taught to not murder others mindlessly.
            Doesn't matter, their biology determines their actions, they can't be taught or not taught to do/not do it.

            >Axes are far more effective at killing people that felling trees. The saw was invented a long time after the axe. The axe's use for tree cutting is a later repurposing.
            It doesn't matter if they're far more effective at doing another thing, they were created to fell trees.
            >The saw was invented a long time after the axe.
            You can also use it to saw someone's head off, but it's purpose is still to saw wood.
            >Despite the fact that Christians have always been obsessed with building churches. But Christians are too moronic to notice their own logical inconsistencies.
            Alright, I'm not gonna waste anymore time with you anon. Have a pleasant day.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract. God on the other hand is a concept that humans don't understand or can't even agree on. Math is taught the same way in every university. God is understood in different ways and is a source of much strife in human society. So they are not the same.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mathematics is a form of logic, a system of positional naming required for scale-independent measurement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Math is not purely logic, its ontological in that it studies the abstractness of quantities. Logic here is just a tool used to connect ontological or philosophical concepts in a coherent manner.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Purpose can't be subjective. An axe is made for chopping wood, you can use it to kill someone, but that still doesn't change the purpose of it.
            An axe can be used for many things. Why think that one of those uses is its "objective" purpose?
            >I'm asking you to explain to me how you manage to divorce biological determinism from materialism.
            I could if you gave me any reason at all to think that one would follow from the other.
            >You considering something isn't an argument.
            You are failing to grasp the dialectic here. You're the one who made a post claiming that atheism entails all kinds of things. You have the burden to justify those claims with arguments. If one of those arguments has a controversial premise (e.g., "Animals aren't persons"), you are the one who has to justify that claim. If you don't, the skeptic has absolutely no reason to accept your arguments.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >An axe can be used for many things. Why think that one of those uses is its "objective" purpose?
            It can be, but it was created for cutting trees, that is its purpose.
            >I could if you gave me any reason at all to think that one would follow from the other.
            If biological determinism is true, it has to be based on materialism. If materialism is true, then all of our actions derive from processes in our brain, which are material in nature.
            Like I said I don't see how you can divorce one from the other.
            > You're the one who made a post claiming that atheism entails all kinds of things.
            Yeah, I think every single atheist argument I've seen is based off of a materialist worldview, do you disagree?
            >You have the burden to justify those claims with arguments.
            Alright, animals aren't persons because personhood is reliant on the existence of self-awareness that isn't based on biological determinism.

            >Slow boy here. How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?

            What the frick is with Christ-tards stating personal beliefs as questions?

            What the frick is with Christians starting threads about Christianity, defending Christianity and then claiming later on that they aren't Christian because they never specifically said they are?

            What the frick is with Christians admitting that they would all be homosexuals, drug addicts and gamblers without a sky daddy to tell them "no"?

            Why do Christians magically think that a physical origin to Consciousness changes anything at all? Nobody person or supercomputer will ever be able to predict your future thoughts. Your free will was never taken away by anyone and it was never given to you by any of the gods.

            Why the frick do Christians admit that they would be mentally ill aimless freaks without their faith?
            God has nothing to do with meaning or purpose.
            I like reading, so read books.
            I like camping, so I camp.
            I like girls, so I have always chased after girls.
            I met the love of my life whilst camping.
            We now have had kids.
            etc...
            Literally none of that involved god because me and my partner aren't mentally ill freaks that need
            schizophrenic sky-daddy hallucinations to hold our hands through life like semi-moronic babies.
            The Christian view itself is nihilistic because it reduces this life to nothing more than a test to get into the imaginary afterlife.

            This all points to Christians being fricked up sociopathic victims of their dumb israeli belief system.

            >I do the things I like cause I'm biologically programmed to do them
            I'm biologically programmed to murder people. Give me a moral justification for not doing it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It can be, but it was created for cutting trees, that is its purpose.
            You're just asserting what needs to be proved.
            >If materialism is true, then all of our actions derive from processes in our brain, which are material in nature.
            And why would that be incompatible with free will?
            >personhood is reliant on the existence of self-awareness that isn't based on biological determinism
            Why think that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And why would that be incompatible with free will?
            If your actions are predetermined on your biology, you aren't acting with free will. Your actions are predetermined. Predetermination is incompatible with free will.
            >Why think that?
            If one is an automaton acting in a predetermined manner based on biology, there's no difference between them and a rock.
            Now you have to either refute that or make a claim for rocks being persons.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your actions are predetermined on your biology
            That doesn't follow from the claim that all of our actions derive from processes in the brain.
            >If one is an automaton acting in a predetermined manner based on biology
            From the fact that all of your actions are determined by biology, it does not follow that you are an automaton, nor does it follow that you are like a rock. A robot or a rock do not have desires or reasons for acting.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A robot or a rock do not have desires or reasons for acting.
            Desires are merely the biological and chemical equivalent of mechanics, programming and electricity for robots. In other words, if we aren't organic machines, what are we?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Desires are merely the biological and chemical equivalent of mechanics, programming and electricity for robots.
            Do you have any justification for that claim?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have an argument that would invalidate what I said?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure how you expect to convince anyone by just throwing out claims that no one who disagrees with you would accept and then shifting the burden of proof every time someone asks you to give an argument for them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Usually, the way arguments work is
            >One person claims x
            >The other person comes up with an argument as to why x isn't true
            And then you can get into it.
            So far you haven't come up with a single argument as to why my position isn't true, instead you doge and ask for justifications.
            If materialism doesn't imply biological determinism, and that doesn't make us biological machines without free will, you'll have to give me an argument as to why that isn't true if you want to continue the discussion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If materialism doesn't imply biological determinism, and that doesn't make us biological machines without free will, you'll have to give me an argument as to why that isn't true
            You haven't proven your initial position though. So there is nothing to argue against. You don't have anything to argue against.
            If I start an argument with "fish write books under the sea"
            You don't have to reply because that isn't a proof or argument.
            It is just a made up statement. Just like your belief of God magically giving free will to people.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You haven't proven your initial position though. So there is nothing to argue against. You don't have anything to argue against.
            Biological determinism logically follows from materialism.
            Where else do you derive motivation for action in a materialist worldview?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Biological determinism logically follows from materialism.
            >Where else do you derive motivation for action in a materialist worldview?
            That isn't a proof for god giving free will to humans Christ-tard anon lol.
            Where's your proof?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If your actions are predetermined on your biology
            Absolutely nothing changes....
            Absolutely nothing...
            A god given origin doesn't magically give you free will either...
            >you aren't acting with free will.
            So Christians have free will because they believe in god but everyone doesn't because they don't believe in the Christian god?
            Lol, wtf.
            >Your actions are predetermined. Predetermination is incompatible with free will.
            See, this is your problem. Something that's impossible to predict isn't predetermined...
            So, the human mind/brain.
            >If one is an automaton
            Lol, an automation by definition is an imitation of a human activity. It isn't a biological human. Likewise God is Anthropomorphism of the non-human world by humans.
            Neither concept are actual real humans that actually exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A god given origin doesn't magically give you free will either...
            We know that certain men are more inclined to rape than others. If God exists then it follows that our reason doesn't derive from our biology but from the logos. If that's the case man can use the logos to transcend his baser, biological desires.
            >But why would God put in biological programming for rape
            That's a topic for a different time. So, if God exists, then freewill existing becomes a possibility whereas in my view, if God doesn't exist and materialism is true and, by extension, biological determinism, then free will existing is an impossibility.
            >So Christians have free will because they believe in god but everyone doesn't because they don't believe in the Christian god?
            No, if God exists we all have free will.
            >Something that's impossible to predict isn't predetermined
            Just because you can't predict it doesn't mean it's not predetermined.
            >Lol, an automation by definition is an imitation of a human activity
            This relies on free will existing. If your actions are purely biologically determined you're just as much of an automaton as a robot, even if you think that you aren't.

            Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract. God on the other hand is a concept that humans don't understand or can't even agree on. Math is taught the same way in every university. God is understood in different ways and is a source of much strife in human society. So they are not the same.

            >Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract.
            So, lets say the universe is a vacuum of nothingness. Literally nothing exists, materially. Does 2+2=4 stop being true?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That thought experiment is disingenuous, but yes, there's no way to do math in a universe that contains nothing. There's no quantity to abstract, there are no relationships to observe, etc. It doesn't stop being true, since there's no way for that statement to have ever been true in an empty universe, the correct position would be that the statement becomes meaningless if at all it can even be called a statement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just because there's no quantity to abstract or relationships to observe, twoness doesn't stop being twoness.
            But you're right of course, math being invented or discovered is a bit of a dead end in terms of argumentation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does in an empty universe and a new kind of math emerges where rules such as 1 = 0 can be logically justified.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It does in an empty universe and a new kind of math emerges where rules such as 1 = 0 can be logically justified.
            0 is nothing but a placeholder and isn't actually needed in mathematics.

            [...]
            I can easily identify your posts which stand out by quite a margin in comparison to all other posters, which is good because at least I can have an argument with the other anons.
            I refuse to waste my keyboard on you. Have a good day.

            >I can easily identify your posts
            Because you only converse with idiots like yourself lol. Or you samegay.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1 = 0 can be logically justified.
            That can't be justified even in an empty universe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logically it can. I can create a new system of logic that justifies it. Logic has that kind of power. Our current system of math assumes 1=1, we can do the same with 1=0 but only a being that lives alone or that can enter an empty universe would be able to make an intuitive understanding of that. We do the same with four dimensions even though we can't really imagine what that looks like.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Our current system of math assumes
            I don't think mathematics is capable of assumptions anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know what i meant, x=x is one of the peano axioms of arithmetic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Logically it can.
            Lol. You have got rocks in your head anon.
            There is nothing logical about 1=0 in an empty universe.
            One universe doesn't equal no universe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are talking as a being outside the universe homosexual, i am talking about if you were able to enter the empty universe alone and with no idea of being able to tell whether there was anything else or having had any memory of there being anything else prior to entering. Expand your brainlet mind, you would have no way of imagining any other quantities, even counting would be an unimaginable foreign concept.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are talking as a being outside the universe homosexual
            Wrong. You are in it. You are observing it. That's One, not zero. Thus one doesn't equal zero.
            You aren't intelligent and never will be.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao you are observing nothing you brainlet homosexual. The universe is empty, there's no reference to quantify anything else. There's no identity to compare yourself with, there is nothing to name or count, there's no precedence for any experience or interaction. You are basically in a coma.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Lmao you are observing nothing
            If there was truly nothing you would have no observer at all making both our arguments completely pointless and invalid.
            But your observation is something, so a one. Also you are seeing ONE empty universe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you experience an empty universe, tell me? How would you know anything about ones or twos if there's nothing else. You have basically woken up, how do you learn about math if there's nothing to count? You made an assumption about an empty universe and want to talk about it, there's no way to do that unless you as the observe come to the conclusion that there's nothing else there and once you do, you can't do math.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >homosexual, i am talking about if you were able to enter the empty universe alone and with no idea of being able to tell whether there was anything else or having had any memory of there being anything else prior to entering.
            But by entering the empty universe it would stop being empty.
            Even if you weren't to enter it and were merely observing it from the outside I fail to see how you'd logically justify 1=0.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I said there's no memory of entering or coming from somewhere, you just basically wake up to nothing, you have no knowledge of anything. That's the best way to make sense of an empty universe since we are assuming there's no other universe apart from the empty universe, you have to allow for the possibility of being in it since there's no other way of experiencing it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I said there's no memory of entering or coming from somewhere
            You don't need a memory. You count your own existence as a one and the one universe you see as a one. So you could even count to two.
            Or count yourself as 1 and the universe as zero.
            In any case you never get a zero=one situation.
            That's just your autistic idiocy anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You name and quantify NOTHING, that's one, so 1=0 lmao. Refute that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You name and quantify NOTHING, that's one, so 1=0 lmao. Refute that.
            Well no, the universe is something that isn't me and I am something that isn't the universe. That's two different entities if your counting entities.

            If you are just counting people I become one and the universe becomes zero, so one doesn't equal zero.

            How do you experience an empty universe, tell me? How would you know anything about ones or twos if there's nothing else. You have basically woken up, how do you learn about math if there's nothing to count? You made an assumption about an empty universe and want to talk about it, there's no way to do that unless you as the observe come to the conclusion that there's nothing else there and once you do, you can't do math.

            None of that concludes that 1=0 which was your original point...

            Fundamentally, this describes the rationale of why I chose theism. Thanks OP, even in this thread so far, I haven't read anything that convincingly counters it because by its own nature, it has to describe that there is a meaning or worth to anything without the existence of something omniprescent with the ability to define meaning.

            >Fundamentally, this describes the rationale of why I chose theism
            You're samegayging OP.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're samegayging OP.
            kek, I'm not though.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >kek, I'm not though.
            Kek... You literally are samegayging OP anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have no knowledge or references of any other entities so you can't make that distinction. There's no room to categorize, no precedence and no justification for philosophical discourse. You are basically a child crying alone with no guidance or history of anything. No confirmation for your empty echoes or room for any conclusion. You wouldn't even be able to discern truth, since knowledge is basically impossible. You have to start thinking philosophically and shed your math intuition that has already developed in a quantifiable universe. I didn't think math cucks were this unimaginative.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You have no knowledge or references of any other entities so you can't make that distinction
            Nope. You are there observing an empty universe. So all you have are yourself and the non-yourself.
            That doesn't lead to the belief of 1=0.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao, yourself and non-yourself are categories outside your experience and knowledge, only an outside observer can know that. You have no knowledge of any quantities since you haven't interacted with anything yet.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We know that certain men are more inclined to rape than others.
            Because god decided to create them and make them kill others...
            Which contradicts with the idea of God being good.
            Because god doesn't actually exist.
            Satan was created by God. God doesn't send Satan to hell but he sends people to hell.
            >If God exists then it follows that our reason doesn't derive from our biology
            That doesn't follow at all lol.
            "My book said so" isn't an argument.
            >So, if God exists, then freewill existing becomes a possibility
            So god wanted people to kill, rape and eat each other because he's evil or he doesn't exist. Wow are you stupid.
            >No, if God exists we all have free will.
            The bible literally admits that other gods exist.
            Yahweh lost a fight against Chemosh.
            >Just because you can't predict it doesn't mean it's not predetermined.
            You have no evidence for it being predetermined if you can't predict it...
            >This relies on free will existing.
            It has literally nothing to do with the existence of free will. Humans create tools called automitons. or automations because we are intelligent creatures with free will.
            >So, lets say the universe is a vacuum of nothingness. Literally nothing exists, materially. Does 2+2=4 stop being true?
            There is one universe so you can still count by ones and perform all arithmetic operations.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It can be, but it was created for cutting trees, that is its purpose.
            Well no...
            Axes are far more effective at killing people that felling trees. The saw was invented a long time after the axe. The axe's use for tree cutting is a later repurposing.

            >If biological determinism is true, it has to be based on materialism.
            Lol, you mean reality? materialism is an "ism" that Christians created as an imaginary enemy to justify their faith. Despite the fact that Christians have always been obsessed with building churches. But Christians are too moronic to notice their own logical inconsistencies.

            >Yeah, I think every single atheist argument I've seen is based off of a materialist worldview, do you disagree?
            Lol. The list of completely meaningless Christian buzz-words Atheism/Satanism/Materialism/Paganism/Idolatry
            etc...
            By the way anon. IRL People who don't believe in any god don't call themselves atheists. Literally the only people who use that word are Christians and weird forever online redditer types.

            >Alright, animals aren't persons because personhood is reliant on the existence of self-awareness that isn't based on biological determinism.
            And that makes zero logical sense and doesn't explain anything.
            The only animal groups proven to have self awareness are some Mammals and birds.
            How do we know this?
            Some animals in those families will self-medicate with provided opiate-laced food if they are in pain but won't when they are not in pain.
            Others will pass the mirror test.

            >I'm biologically programmed to murder people.
            You are a psychopath. There is no doubt about that anon.

            >Give me a moral justification for not doing it.
            Only psychopaths need to be taught to not murder others mindlessly. You are literally just outing yourself as a psychopath.
            Normal people don't kill another person unless that person is trying to kill them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is the main problem with materialism as a worldview, it focuses entirely on the material.
        How is it a problem? I can find a "material" reason why you'd boil the water for a cup of tea.
        Tea contain compounds that promote the production of or mimic endoctrine hormones. You made that tea for its material properties, mental state included.

        >2+2=4
        Maths are a man-made logical system based around our mental perception of units. Materially there is no such a thing as a unit outside of human/whales/parrots/crows/whatever organism with the ability to count cognition. Materially colors are not an "object"(which we define as units), photons with specific waveleights are. Everything being fluctuations in the vacuum field "we" really only put boundaries between the fluctuation "we" sense differently and call those different objects, determining color pathches in a sea of nuances. But I'm going way to far with that. Our very ability to demonstrate is based on the assumption of units afterall. Can't sail without a boat
        ....
        Yet colors and units while based on perception are both materially bond by the very material process of neurons firing, encoding information.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Maths are a man-made logical system based around our mental perception of units.
          No empirical proof of this exists however, merely non-empirical, metaphysical presuppositions.
          You do see how using metaphysics to justify a material worldview is self-contradictory don't you?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because we don't consider animals to be persons, and under biological determinism we're only different from animals in that through some evolutionary error we've developed self awareness.
        Most animals are definitely self-aware, pretty much every mammal at least, see the mirror test.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Most animals are definitely self-aware, pretty much every mammal at least, see the mirror test.
          Yeah, I've seen the mirror test, they usually think it's a different animal.
          But even when they realize it's just their reflection that doesn't imply self-awareness in the sense of the way we use the word.
          I suppose if I said consciousness you'd say
          >They're clearly conscious, they're moving around

          >It doesn't.
          It does
          [...]
          >Make me, moron
          I'm not your mother autistic anon.

          It doesn't.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, I've seen the mirror test, they usually think it's a different animal.
            Yeah, I would disagree with all mammals being sentient, but some aside from humans definitely are.
            The mirror test isn't the only test. Another one is the selective self-administration of opiate laced food by injured animals. This implies a self-awareness of pain. Many mammals and birds pass that test but no other animal groups do.

            >It doesn't.
            It does. You're a pathological liar anon.
            Jesus the perfect person free of sin was literally a virgin.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This implies a self-awareness of pain. Many mammals and birds pass that test but no other animal groups do.
            Ants have also been shown to do this, alongside passing the mirror test.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Another one is the selective self-administration of opiate laced food by injured animals. This implies a self-awareness of pain.
            It doesn't though, because the animal in that case is merely responding to pain stimulus or rather the reduction of it.
            If you touch a hot stove and you pull back your hand that doesn't imply self-awareness, certainly not in the sense that I use it in.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yep a large number of mammals and some birds.
          However I am 100% certain that no reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, plants etc are self-aware.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Just because you were created for a purpose doesn't mean you have to fulfill that purpose. You have free will! How would one justify submitting to God?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >justify
    You justify what you can prove, everything that exists and is observable/detectable can be proven within materialism through simple analysis.
    Even your very emotions, we can analyse them through monitoring your brain activity.

    >simply exists
    It doesn't need to do anything else other than exist and interact with itself.

    >a rock
    Has formed deep within the earth from silicon and other materials being pressured and heated for millions of years before going back to the surface, being shattered by seismic forces and erosion then being picked by you centuries after.
    That's all there is to know about a rock, that's plenty.

    >tree
    A living organism, a vegetal, once a seed that fell from another tree that managed to sprout and fixate its roots within the soil, collecting water and minerals as well as tangling with the mycelium of a fungus forming symbiosis exchanging carbohydrates for more minerals. Carbohydrates it forms within its leaves that collect carbon dioxide in the air and realease the oxygen we collect by breathing, using this carbon dioxide and photons from sunlight collected through the green pigmentation of its chlorophyll gained through the the merging of a bacteria into the cell of its ancestor. Carbohydrates heterotrophes depend on. Growing large and forming a dense bark with latex to protect against external attacks. Reproducing through flowers, releasing pollen to pollinate another flower, the embryo being encased ina seed itself contained within a fruit that shall seperate for the fruit to disperse the seeds and grow other trees.
    So much to say about trees and Earth's ecosystem, all within materialism.

    >axe
    homosexual Sapiens which developed intelligence and the ability to manifacture and use tools. Took the materials he had at its disposition and assembled them into a tool that would respond to a problem he encountered which for an axe was breaking the dense bark and sturdy wood of trees his bare hands couldn't. *Material*

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      An axe does not exist accept only in our minds. We imagined an axe that is in harmony with governing rules that enabled us to then go out and create one into existence. The axe is made out of material, but the concept of an axe goes beyond.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Concepts are no different than tools, we made them too. They are tools of communication.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>>
      >purpose
      A concept developed by homosexual Sapiens determining the fuction for the roles and tools he made and assumed.
      He first made the axe for the purpose of cutting wood but he can use it to cut limbs too if he so desires, the purpose of a tool is decided by its user not just its maker.
      Purpose is simply something he communicates. Another homosexual sapiens with a better axe that cuts bigger trees could come to his axe, call it useless and dispose of it denying the purpose given by its maker.
      "Purpose" is an ever-changing piece of communication. Something to be made known or denied.

      Even if the universe was created we are its current users, whatever purpose its maker had for it we can deny and ignore, we can give it our own decided purpose and use it in that new frame. We as agents.
      A prior agent such as the God you claim can also have its purpose denied, rejected. Its existence not even been known only claimed.
      >you have no purpose
      We are agents, we gave ourselves purpose, roles, goals.
      >you're just a clump of cells
      With agency, or act of agency. We never needed to be anything else.

      For agents, it goes like this
      >Well we exist
      >we want to continue existing
      >so we do until we don't

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Even if the universe was created we are its current users, whatever purpose its maker had for it we can deny and ignore,
        You can't do this.
        If you allow that the universe was created with a purpose, then only the creator gets to determine what the purpose is.
        You can of course deny or ignore it, and claim an entirely different purpose but that still wouldn't change the purpose.
        To do so would be akin to me saying that crime and Punishment isn't actually a novel about a wayward student in Saint Petersburg who murders an old babushka pawnbroker and instead of proving his great men theory he discovers guilt and redemption through regret, but that it's actually about... I don't know, transgenderism and communism and something about fascism.
        I struggle with even trying to come up with a redefining of the meaning the author had. And yes, Dumbledore is gay.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >NOOO YOU JUST CAN'T!!!!
          Yes I can
          >comparing the universe to a book
          It's interactive so it's like a game, watch me add mods to this game, use it how I feel like using it. I don't care if the creator whines about my mods.
          >you will get banned!!!
          Lightning hasn't stroke on me yet

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's interactive so it's like a game, watch me add mods to this game, use it how I feel like using it. I don't care if the creator whines about my mods.
            Except the author of the mod and the game aren't the same, and the modded game isn't the same as the vanilla game. We're now discussing forms, if I add a bit of black to white the white stops being white and becomes gray. In the same way, if I mod a game it's no longer the same game.
            In the case of our universe, you're less of a modder or creator and more of an NPC.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your assertions of materialism, determinism & reductionism are indeed valid. You’ve failed to consider the existence of an “uncreated” entity.

    God or any other transcendent being, if exists, is able to grant meaning and purpose to its own creations, thereby resolving the seeming circularity of your argument.

    I shall provide an example, in case you fail to grasp my point. A human writer may create a character with purpose in a world of their own. That character would be created, but may develop its own purpose and actions of their own volition.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If the universe is uncreated and God doesn't exist, there can ultimately be no purpose to anything, nor justification for anything.
    God not existing doesn't automatically mean this.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We don't need to justify anything since its apparently obvious by consensus. The burden of justification rests on idealist cucks who have to prove their ideals exist outside some manufactured metaphysical framework.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do you think legal systems evolved exactly? Why do you assume anything rather than that you are simply ignorant?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How do you think legal systems evolved exactly?
      The evolution of legal systems... proving what exactly?
      >Why do you assume anything rather than that you are simply ignorant?
      I assume that too, which is why I started the thread.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Slow boy here. How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?

    What the frick is with Christ-tards stating personal beliefs as questions?

    What the frick is with Christians starting threads about Christianity, defending Christianity and then claiming later on that they aren't Christian because they never specifically said they are?

    What the frick is with Christians admitting that they would all be homosexuals, drug addicts and gamblers without a sky daddy to tell them "no"?

    Why do Christians magically think that a physical origin to Consciousness changes anything at all? Nobody person or supercomputer will ever be able to predict your future thoughts. Your free will was never taken away by anyone and it was never given to you by any of the gods.

    Why the frick do Christians admit that they would be mentally ill aimless freaks without their faith?
    God has nothing to do with meaning or purpose.
    I like reading, so read books.
    I like camping, so I camp.
    I like girls, so I have always chased after girls.
    I met the love of my life whilst camping.
    We now have had kids.
    etc...
    Literally none of that involved god because me and my partner aren't mentally ill freaks that need
    schizophrenic sky-daddy hallucinations to hold our hands through life like semi-moronic babies.
    The Christian view itself is nihilistic because it reduces this life to nothing more than a test to get into the imaginary afterlife.

    This all points to Christians being fricked up sociopathic victims of their dumb israeli belief system.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >matter simply exists

    What exactly is matter? Does non-composite matter exist? Is the "atom" (irreducible matter) an object? I don't get straight answers from materialists / eliminativists on this one..

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If we assumed that we are separate entity and to avoid circular reasoning, matter is any entity whose interaction with any other entity (other matter or idealistic) has a measurable/observable effect.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This might be the most autistic thread I've ever created.
    My head hurts.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This might be the most autistic thread I've ever created.
      >My head hurts.
      That's right Christ-tard.
      Everything you start is absolute autistic shit.

      >The very concept of god escapes materialistic definition
      So does math and logic.
      >Rejecting god is not based on materialism
      >hence its rejection is necessary by definition and to avoid any contradiction or self referential paradoxes
      So it is based on materialism?
      Either way, you can't reject one metaphysical framework purely based on materialism without rejecting them all.
      [...]
      >Only psychopaths need to be taught to not murder others mindlessly.
      Doesn't matter, their biology determines their actions, they can't be taught or not taught to do/not do it.

      >Axes are far more effective at killing people that felling trees. The saw was invented a long time after the axe. The axe's use for tree cutting is a later repurposing.
      It doesn't matter if they're far more effective at doing another thing, they were created to fell trees.
      >The saw was invented a long time after the axe.
      You can also use it to saw someone's head off, but it's purpose is still to saw wood.
      >Despite the fact that Christians have always been obsessed with building churches. But Christians are too moronic to notice their own logical inconsistencies.
      Alright, I'm not gonna waste anymore time with you anon. Have a pleasant day.

      >Doesn't matter,
      Yes it does matter. Nobody wants to hang around a genetic freak like you that could go on a killing spree if he forgets to attend church.

      >their biology determines their actions
      Exactly. Some people are evil and can never change, others are evil but can control themselves to an extent, others aren't evil at all.
      You are clearly in the first category and should just be shot in the head.

      >It doesn't matter if they're far more effective at doing another thing
      It does matter you moron. They weren't created specifically for felling trees or cutting off peoples heads. Your bible literally claims that the chair was invented by a random guy in the middle east when we now know that to be historically incorrect.

      >You can also use it to saw someone's head off
      Lol... And we have no copper or bronze age depictions of people having their heads sawn off.
      Literally just clubs, axes, spears, slings, chariots etc.

      >The very concept of god escapes materialistic definition
      So does math and logic.
      >Rejecting god is not based on materialism
      >hence its rejection is necessary by definition and to avoid any contradiction or self referential paradoxes
      So it is based on materialism?
      Either way, you can't reject one metaphysical framework purely based on materialism without rejecting them all.
      [...]
      >Only psychopaths need to be taught to not murder others mindlessly.
      Doesn't matter, their biology determines their actions, they can't be taught or not taught to do/not do it.

      >Axes are far more effective at killing people that felling trees. The saw was invented a long time after the axe. The axe's use for tree cutting is a later repurposing.
      It doesn't matter if they're far more effective at doing another thing, they were created to fell trees.
      >The saw was invented a long time after the axe.
      You can also use it to saw someone's head off, but it's purpose is still to saw wood.
      >Despite the fact that Christians have always been obsessed with building churches. But Christians are too moronic to notice their own logical inconsistencies.
      Alright, I'm not gonna waste anymore time with you anon. Have a pleasant day.

      >Alright, I'm not gonna waste anymore time with you anon. Have a pleasant day.
      Lol, you can't even deny that Christians by their own definition are "materialists"
      Wow are you fricking stupid.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I did not start the thread you schizo homosexual
        Your lies are as transparent as the finest glass Christ-tard sociopath samegayger anon.
        [...]
        >Math basically starts from counting material quantities then gets more abstract
        Exactly. The statement "humans have ten fingers" is an objective statement that exists without it being communicated or counted in a human language.
        God on the other hand doesn't exist. The fact that thousands of religions claim their thousands of gods are real is a contradiction.
        [...]
        >Desires are merely the biological and chemical equivalent of mechanics, programming and electricity for robots. In other words, if we aren't organic machines, what are we?
        That's kind of like saying that supercomputers are no different from single transistors because a supercomputer is made up of transistors.
        It's a completely new order of being with different properties.
        A human brain and even the primitive neural ganglia of a bumblebee are able to do things that a modern supercomputer can't. We can't even predict the firing of simple neuron networks.
        So Although definitely material in origin, the human brain is in another league of its own entirely.

        I can easily identify your posts which stand out by quite a margin in comparison to all other posters, which is good because at least I can have an argument with the other anons.
        I refuse to waste my keyboard on you. Have a good day.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is an Icon? If you can’t derive philosophy from matter why venerate an icon?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fundamentally, this describes the rationale of why I chose theism. Thanks OP, even in this thread so far, I haven't read anything that convincingly counters it because by its own nature, it has to describe that there is a meaning or worth to anything without the existence of something omniprescent with the ability to define meaning.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, atheists would have a far more effective and coherent argument if they abandoned atheism and became agnostic, but they can't do it without abandoning materialism and empiricism as their worldview.
      I've yet to see an atheist such as Dawkins or Hitchens come up with a scathing critique of Christianity as Ivan did in the Brothers Karamazov.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, atheists would have a far more effective and coherent argument if they
        More samegayging OP mental illness lol.
        People who don't go to church don't call themselves atheists. It's literally only used by Christians and Communists. Two stupid religions for mentally ill people.

        >but they can't do it without abandoning materialism and empiricism as their worldview
        Mentally ill people who hallucinate naturally see things that don't exist. They aren't "materialists". They don't build massive churches either because they are locked up in asylums. So they are actually less materialist than Christians.

        >I've yet to see an atheist such as Dawkins or Hitchens come up with a scathing critique of Christianity as Ivan did in the Brothers Karamazov.
        You're too stupid to even understand other people half the time.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I believe IQfy X allows you to see who's samegayging and who isn't.
          Not that it would make a difference since you've done nothing but shitty up an otherwise, imo, pretty nice thread, ever since you decided to grace us with your low IQ.
          And while I might be a slow boy, seeing you makes me realize I ain't the dumbest motherfricker on the planet, which is good I suppose.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I believe IQfy X allows you to see who's samegayging and who isn't.
            IQfy X can't tell you how many IP's the troony autistic forever online OP is using to samegay and avoid bans...

            >And while I might be a slow boy,
            You're a psychopath OP. Lol you are literally quoting yourself as the OP. You are the OP lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for bumping the thread though.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Thanks for bumping the thread though.
            Lol, thanks for proving that all christ-tards are pathological liars and manipulative psychopaths just like their israeli foreskin god Yahweh that hates them.

            Lmao, yourself and non-yourself are categories outside your experience and knowledge, only an outside observer can know that. You have no knowledge of any quantities since you haven't interacted with anything yet.

            >yourself and non-yourself are categories outside your experience and knowledge,
            No they aren't. It is self evident to new-born animals as soon as they are born...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes its self evident because they already interact with numerous objects you homosexual. They can touch and hear and feel. You interact with nothing at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes its self evident
            Yes, so your opinion is completely wrong then lol.
            Holy shit you moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >yes
            Your opinion is also wrong because you also said yes lmao, want to continue with this juvenile line of reasoning?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your opinion is also wrong
            It isn't, read

            >Yes its self evident because they already interact with numerous objects
            Was literally just born and saw their mother that isn't them.
            Dude suddenly appears in a universe and sees black cold darkness that isn't them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes its self evident because they already interact with numerous objects
            Was literally just born and saw their mother that isn't them.
            Dude suddenly appears in a universe and sees black cold darkness that isn't them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The mother can interact with them, a cold universe can't, it offers no response or confirmation for anything. There's literally no way to be an animal or even learn anything in such a case.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The mother can interact with them
            The mother doesn't need to interact with them they are pre-programmed to find mummies milkers regardless of what the mother does otherwise they die.

            >a cold universe can't
            A cold universe doesn't look like a person or yourself so by you intrinsically know that it isn't you or yourself. It is an automatic response. It doesn't require any experience. It is primitive and genetically pre-programmed.
            You sir are a moron lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no way of knowing the difference homosexual. There's no precedence for mother or anything else. You are genuinely moronic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no way of knowing the difference homosexual
            Nope, you're simply wrong anon and you will never admit it because you're an autistic psychopath that desperately wants 1=0 lol.

            You're interpreting the statement incorrectly, the "and" is purposeful because I'm allowing that a world without random creation and absolutely meaningless assembly has inherent purpose divorced from God and explicitly excluding it also. Nobody in the thread so far has been able to argue this convincingly, but I saw that anon's were detaching meaning from God so did the same despite the fact that it's obvious why God=Meaning is not a difficult conclusion to come to.

            >You're interpreting the statement incorrectly
            Nope, that's exactly what you are saying.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are so wrong anon
            Excellent debating skills homosexual. I accept your concession.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Excellent debating skills homosexual. I accept your concession.
            Keep on telling yourself that anon lol.
            What a delusional autistic moron haha...

            >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?
            You see op humans are motivated by emotions so if your mental health and emotions work you’ll be motivated to do things, usually specific things.
            People usually aim to provide and take care of their family, socialize with friends and occasionally strangers, maintain and improve their health, engage in art, hobbies and entertainment, have sex.
            Why? Because these things make people happy or at least stave off suffering.

            >You see op humans are motivated by emotions
            Lol. The OP is an alien from out of space who is just learning about humans for the first time haha.
            OP is without a doubt an autistic who doesn't understand humans.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are so wrong lol
            Is wrong in the room with you homosexual?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Is wrong in the room with you homosexual?
            Calm down irate autist...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are so wrong
            Make me, moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Dude suddenly appears in a universe and sees black cold darkness that isn't them.
            Nothing is not cold blackness
            Nothing is nothing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I believe IQfy X allows you to see who's samegayging and who isn't.
            IQfyx does the opposite actually since I believe you can toggle a post you made to be someone else's.

            >You name and quantify NOTHING, that's one, so 1=0 lmao. Refute that.
            Well no, the universe is something that isn't me and I am something that isn't the universe. That's two different entities if your counting entities.

            If you are just counting people I become one and the universe becomes zero, so one doesn't equal zero.

            [...]
            None of that concludes that 1=0 which was your original point...

            [...]
            >Fundamentally, this describes the rationale of why I chose theism
            You're samegayging OP.

            If the world has no God and no inherent meaning, then samegayging, schizophrenia, and integrity are also equally meaningless. If there is meaning that someone should not samegay, then there is evidence of God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If the world has no God and no inherent meaning
            That doesn't follow at all. You are the king of mentally ill circular reason that never deviates from "my book said it's the word of god so it's the word of god."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're interpreting the statement incorrectly, the "and" is purposeful because I'm allowing that a world without random creation and absolutely meaningless assembly has inherent purpose divorced from God and explicitly excluding it also. Nobody in the thread so far has been able to argue this convincingly, but I saw that anon's were detaching meaning from God so did the same despite the fact that it's obvious why God=Meaning is not a difficult conclusion to come to.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >You can’t pull philosophy from matter
    >Reads bible

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?
    You see op humans are motivated by emotions so if your mental health and emotions work you’ll be motivated to do things, usually specific things.
    People usually aim to provide and take care of their family, socialize with friends and occasionally strangers, maintain and improve their health, engage in art, hobbies and entertainment, have sex.
    Why? Because these things make people happy or at least stave off suffering.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Because these things make people happy or at least stave off suffering.
      >I do things because they make me happy
      isn't a particularly great worldview to have.
      The drug user also uses drugs because it makes him happy, to disastrous long term consequences.
      >if your mental health and emotions
      Funny, since atheists are far more likely to be neurotic than theists.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?
        You see op humans are motivated by emotions so if your mental health and emotions work you’ll be motivated to do things, usually specific things.
        People usually aim to provide and take care of their family, socialize with friends and occasionally strangers, maintain and improve their health, engage in art, hobbies and entertainment, have sex.
        Why? Because these things make people happy or at least stave off suffering.

        You could argue that a heroin user typically suffers adverse physical and mental consequences from their drug use that points to the familial unit as naturally more favorable but I'm pretty sure the point here is that we only view this in a particular way because we've been conditioned towards the idea that one happiness is inherently more valuable than another.
        I think the question is why should shooting up heroin and dying in a euphoric high be no more valuable than dying surrounded by loved ones?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >we've been conditioned towards the idea that one happiness is inherently more valuable than another.
          Lol ? Yes anon, Society told you to post crap on IQfy.
          >I think the question is why should shooting up heroin and dying in a euphoric high be no more valuable than dying surrounded by loved ones?
          Mentally ill people can do anything regardless of logic. you aren't really saying anything of any value here.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >think the question is why should shooting up heroin and dying in a euphoric high be no more valuable than dying surrounded by loved ones?
          People die in hospitals with their loved ones on prescribed opioids all the time, that’s very normal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The drug user also uses drugs because it makes him happy
        No, drug users aren't happy people autistic idiot OP.
        You are confusing temporary pleasure with happiness.
        It's called "addiction" for a reason.
        >Funny, since atheists are far more likely to be neurotic than theists.
        Lol, Catholic priests fricking boys?
        Many Saints having seizures and mental illnesses that are interpreted as "divine gifts".
        Christians being against the abortion of down syndrome fetuses?
        Who are you kidding Christ-tard anon?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >isn't a particularly great worldview to have.
        .>The drug user also uses drugs because it makes him happy, to disastrous long term consequences.
        Yeah that wouldn’t be staving off suffering or making you happy. That’s a bad strategy, so don’t do drugs

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Matthew 19:12
    >For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Indeed the OP is a mentally moronic Christian eunuch who will never see a pussy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        LoL Bible also says that not to marry and have kids...
        Not as a command, but as the better option between the two...
        Literally a Virgin Religion...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Virginity is unironically based.
          Both men and women should be virgins until they're married.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure.
            Why does the Bible recommend against marriage tho?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't.
            It does

            >you are so wrong
            Make me, moron

            >Make me, moron
            I'm not your mother autistic anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is the mother in the room with you schizo anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Is the mother in the room with you schizo anon.
            Calm down autistic anon... go to bed.
            I'm not your mother. I can't force you to do anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you are just a psychotic schizo who thinks mothers and space are the same. You just imagine mothers coming out of space lmao. Was your mother empty space anon, were you raised by the void lmao.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Most animals are definitely self-aware, pretty much every mammal at least, see the mirror test.
            Yeah, I've seen the mirror test, they usually think it's a different animal.
            But even when they realize it's just their reflection that doesn't imply self-awareness in the sense of the way we use the word.
            I suppose if I said consciousness you'd say
            >They're clearly conscious, they're moving around
            [...]
            It doesn't.

            It literally does, can you not read?
            Have you not read the bible?
            >Matthew 19:10
            >His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
            >Matthew 19:11
            >But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is what happens when you cherry pick verses from the Bible without even bothering to read the entire chapter.

            >And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

            >2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

            >3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

            >4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

            >5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

            >6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

            >7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

            >8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

            >9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

            >10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

            I know you're baiting, but even by the bait I can tell you're low IQ anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >recommends against marriage
            >claims not to recommend against marriage
            It literally says it is better.
            Not always, and not as a command, but it is better for some not to marry.
            You are calling someone low IQ? You have no reading comprehension...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not always, and not as a command, but it is better for some not to marry.
            >therefor all marriage is wrong
            Yeah, I'm calling you low IQ because you are low IQ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, I'm calling you low IQ because you are low IQ.
            And there is no verse in the bible that encourages people to get married...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I specify it is not a command but a recommendation
            >b-bUt nOt aLwAyS
            Holy Shit you are moronic...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So marriage isn't wrong then? Just sometimes?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have nothing against marriage, but the bible says it is better to not marry than to marry...
            What the actual FRICK
            Are you so dense that you cannot read?
            What is
            >I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
            Supposed to mean then?
            Explain it to us moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It means you aren't supposed to remarry.

            [...]
            Lol, you still have provided a single verse that explicitly encourages marriage. Just one quote that discourages marriage.
            Holy shit lol.
            Wow are Christ-tards stupid.

            >Lol, you still have provided a single verse that explicitly encourages marriage. Just one quote that discourages marriage.
            >The Bible doesn't condone marriage
            >Based off of one verse I posted
            >Without even bothering to read the chapter or understanding the verse within the context of the chapter
            >I'm not a huge dumb frick moron
            Okay anon, whatever you say.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It literally give marriage as a last resort option for not going to hell, because you can't handle your sexdrive.
            If you are 'strong' enough for castration, you cut them off.
            If you are unmarried stay lonely and virgin.
            This is what the Bible says, you are just coping because your view of Christianity was different, and technically is heretic.

            According to the Bible, the Chadest of Christians cut their own balls off...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *gives marriage

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is what happens when you cherry pick verses
            That isn't cherry picking. Your stupid book literally contradicts itself many times and your quote isn't saying what you think it is saying. Also your Hero Jesus is a israeli Virgin that was nailed to a Cross by Romans. The majority of the apostles weren't ever married and died childless.

            No you are just a psychotic schizo who thinks mothers and space are the same. You just imagine mothers coming out of space lmao. Was your mother empty space anon, were you raised by the void lmao.

            >No you are just a psychotic schizo
            Calm down autistic anon. I'm not your mother.
            Maybe play with your fidget spinner or something?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you are not a mother maybe a troony who imagines themselves as mothers. Do you dream about being a psychotic troony anon?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No you are not a mother
            Lol, you literally talked to me like I'm your mother autistic anon.
            I can't stop you from spazzing out when you have no argument.
            I'm not your mother okay?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You literally can't stop thinking about mothers can you homosexual? You have no argument either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally can't stop thinking about mothers can you homosexual?
            Calm down irate autistic anon. I'm not your mother.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you are just a moronic schizophrenic who dreams about mothers. Were you abandoned as a child anon, are you looking for mothers on IQfy?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Bible: unmarried
            >Christ-tard: must mean they have married before...
            Also:
            Why is castration recommended?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is castration recommended?
            Because Christianity is a stupid cuckold religion?

            No you are just a moronic schizophrenic who dreams about mothers. Were you abandoned as a child anon, are you looking for mothers on IQfy?

            >No you are just a moronic schizophrenic who dreams about mothers
            Calm down autistic anon.

            It means you aren't supposed to remarry.
            [...]
            >Lol, you still have provided a single verse that explicitly encourages marriage. Just one quote that discourages marriage.
            >The Bible doesn't condone marriage
            >Based off of one verse I posted
            >Without even bothering to read the chapter or understanding the verse within the context of the chapter
            >I'm not a huge dumb frick moron
            Okay anon, whatever you say.

            >Okay anon, whatever you say.
            That isn't a biblical quote. If you had one you could have posted it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >calm down autistic anon
            Is this the only thing you remember saying to you as she abandoned you anon lmao?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your stupid book literally contradicts itself many times and your quote isn't saying what you think it is saying
            >Except not in this one verse I used which I thought was a contradiction but turns out it isn't
            I know not all atheists are low IQ, but some of you are more moronic than southern snake handlers.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So marriage isn't wrong then? Just sometimes?

            Lol, you still have provided a single verse that explicitly encourages marriage. Just one quote that discourages marriage.
            Holy shit lol.
            Wow are Christ-tards stupid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So marriage isn't wrong then? Just sometimes?

            Lol, you still haven't provided a single verse that explicitly encourages marriage. Just one quote that discourages marriage.
            Holy shit lol.
            Wow are Christ-tards stupid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also:
            >Corinthians 7:8-9
            >I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

            Literally saying it's better not to marry than to marry

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Technically a materialist could believe there is a material God in spacetime somewhere who created everything.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Well we exist
    >Therefor we should continue existing
    >Cause we exist
    What's the problem with this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's circular logic.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is certain, proved by empirical testing and not by speculation is that the purpose of all Life is to reproduce and ensure the continuation of itself through its descendants. All human endeavors therefore are an extension of this, all societies formed so that each and every individual could follow its own purpose of Life without interfering and being in conflict with other humans. All scientific, philosophical and technical advancements in knowledge are in part fueling human Control, which is just a broader definition for techology. Every generation of humans, as a collective, have furthered human Control through advancing knowledge. Every life is therefore lived with an egoistic purpose which is inherent to us, and all lives which depart from this are just altruistic denials of one's own purpose so that other humans may pursue their own with greater facility.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You got it right cousin.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If the universe is uncreated and God doesn't exist, there can ultimately be no purpose to anything,
    But didn't you just explain how there can be purpose in an axe because it was created by humans?

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not a single atheist or materialist in this thread could actually engage with what OP was saying. All they could do was insult, evade, quibble, and derail with off topic Bible verses

    Absolutely pathetic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Haha you salty?

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >uuum this art looks like shit.... ON PURPOSE! IT REPRESENTS HIS UHHH DUAL NATURE AS BOTH MAN AND GOD! YEAH!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's right bro.

      Reminder that the something came from nothing is a christian strawman that they pretend atheists came up with.

      >that the something came from nothing
      IIRC quantum physicist are now claiming that the reaction that led to the Big Bang was photon particles popping in and out of existence in a vacuum.
      Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, without God it logically follows that either
      1) The universe has always existed
      2) The universe ultimately resulted from matter at one point popping into existence out of nothingness.
      These are the only two possibilities as far as I can tell. Both seem impossible.

      Personally, I see no difference between a materialistic failure to explain where matter came from and a theistic failure to explain where God came from. Both worldviews simply draw an arbitrary line and stop thinking beyond it. Matter simply exists. And there is nothing beyond it. God simply exists. And there is nothing beyond it. Same shit, different packages if you want my opinion. The only way to make sense is to keep asking questions, and that leads to endless regress. There has to be an explanation for the matter and the Creator and so on. If there isn't one, then everything is absurd and meaningless. It doesn't matter whether it is materialism or monotheism.

      >Personally, I see no difference between a materialistic failure to explain where matter came from and a theistic failure to explain where God came from
      This is where I pull out my theist uno reverse card and say
      >It doesn't matter where God came from

      We exist whether you like it or not.
      Dead matter is a form of existence, and is the one most commonly found in the universe.
      Living matter however is rare.
      Now we could have a discussion on what constitutes life itself, but without going into that...
      If we accept that life is more valuable than lifeless existence, basically a huge range of things follow.
      Continuation of existence it necessary for you to follow certain rules which pertain to your life.
      Like hedonism, may sound enjoyable, but you will eventually die.
      If you procreate, you cannot squander wealth and energy on self enjoyment alone, you need to invest in your offspring.
      Who then perpetuate life.
      Now to many this may still sound like of little importance, in the end what is the point of perpetuating this cycle.
      To this however I would argue that there are always thing we do not know about the Universe.
      Thus making the conscious decision to end the life perpetuation cycle, would be akin to claiming that we know all hence we don't need to perpetuate life to investigate more or additionally we have found out that existence truly has no meaning.
      Now technically speaking such a determination cannot be made, since you can never know if you know all there is to know.
      Thus the life perpetuation cycle is to be upheld eternally.

      But, it also may be in some turn of events that we discover a meaning beyond the mere material, something outside, and more extraordinary than anyone could've thought...
      Maybe...
      But in that case it could be something akin to meeting God, but rather than basing a relationship with him on faith, we would have proof.
      (however god here is merely an example, there may be completely different discoveries, having the same impact though)

      tl;dr we should perpetuate life Indefinitely because you not doing so ends the possibility of discovery of anything, which would be akin to claiming that there is nothing to discover, which cannot be determined

      >If we accept that life is more valuable than lifeless existence, basically a huge range of things follow.
      You have to justify this belief, under a materialistic worldview you're unable to do so.

      No explanation is needed for anything. That's just your monkey brain trying desperately to make sense of the world.

      >No explanation is needed for anything
      So materialism is wrong?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >So materialism is wrong?
        There's no such thing as wrong or right. If you are a materialist at least. That's just a moral system existing in a manufactured metaphysical framework.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There's no such thing as wrong or right. If you are a materialist at least
          If I had said materialism is untrue, would that have made a difference?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it would. Because right and wrong are prescriptive and true is neutral. I wouldn't even use the word true, I would say materialism is real or apparent.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You have to justify this belief, under a materialistic worldview you're unable to do so.
        I have however given the justification within my original answer:

        We exist whether you like it or not.
        Dead matter is a form of existence, and is the one most commonly found in the universe.
        Living matter however is rare.
        Now we could have a discussion on what constitutes life itself, but without going into that...
        If we accept that life is more valuable than lifeless existence, basically a huge range of things follow.
        Continuation of existence it necessary for you to follow certain rules which pertain to your life.
        Like hedonism, may sound enjoyable, but you will eventually die.
        If you procreate, you cannot squander wealth and energy on self enjoyment alone, you need to invest in your offspring.
        Who then perpetuate life.
        Now to many this may still sound like of little importance, in the end what is the point of perpetuating this cycle.
        To this however I would argue that there are always thing we do not know about the Universe.
        Thus making the conscious decision to end the life perpetuation cycle, would be akin to claiming that we know all hence we don't need to perpetuate life to investigate more or additionally we have found out that existence truly has no meaning.
        Now technically speaking such a determination cannot be made, since you can never know if you know all there is to know.
        Thus the life perpetuation cycle is to be upheld eternally.

        But, it also may be in some turn of events that we discover a meaning beyond the mere material, something outside, and more extraordinary than anyone could've thought...
        Maybe...
        But in that case it could be something akin to meeting God, but rather than basing a relationship with him on faith, we would have proof.
        (however god here is merely an example, there may be completely different discoveries, having the same impact though)

        tl;dr we should perpetuate life Indefinitely because you not doing so ends the possibility of discovery of anything, which would be akin to claiming that there is nothing to discover, which cannot be determined

        To stop the perpetuation of life, is to stop the possibility of discovery.
        Since from a Materialistic view we don't know if there is any special meaning, then the only way to find out, is to perpetuate it.
        And, I should add, not to merely exist, but to strive for ever higher understanding, to both overcome evergreater challenges and to come to a greater understanding of existence, the universe and whatever else may lie beyond.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if there is any special meaning, then the only way to find out, is to perpetuate it.
          Except you can't justify this either. What justification do you have to try and discover special meaning if materialism is your starting point?
          >And, I should add, not to merely exist, but to strive for ever higher understanding, to both overcome evergreater challenges and to come to a greater understanding of existence, the universe and whatever else may lie beyond.
          All of that requires justification that materialism can't cover.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because as I said before, you do not know whether it is there or not.
            If you don't look for it, you make the assertion that it isn't there.
            Look your problems seems to be to assume that Materialism doesn't allow for special meaning to exist, which trips you up from understanding that imperfect knowledge of the world is a given, hence if we truly want to know, we have to look for it.
            On top we epistemologically cannot determine if there isn't always more to discover, hence we can follow this discovery principle eternally.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because as I said before, you do not know whether it is there or not.
            Well, you as a materialist should know, that there isn't.
            In merely saying that there could be "special meaning" you're in fact admitting to not being a materialist.... or atheist for that matter.

            Yes it would. Because right and wrong are prescriptive and true is neutral. I wouldn't even use the word true, I would say materialism is real or apparent.

            >I would say materialism is real or apparent.
            This statement is based on presuppositions that materialism doesn't account for, like epistemology.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How doesn't it account for that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because if only matter is real then you can only prove knowledge through empiricism, epistemology is a different category.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And where is the contention with that? All we know comes from what we have observed, everything else is belief constructed into thoughts which have yet to be verified. I could say an ant talks because it's a statement that combines me observing an ant and me observing a man talk. It doesn't say anything beyond that, the statement's realness or truth is yet to be observed, hence it remains a belief as with other metaphysical ideals.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All we know comes from what we have observed, everything else is belief constructed into thoughts which have yet to be verified
            How do you know what you're observing is real?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the definition of real vs imagined? Its pretty obvious what i can touch or interact with is real vs an imagined concept that someone else believes in and that i have never interacted with. The fact that we name objects with human language means that we agree as a species that there are real and imagined entities.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eh, not quite, you're kind of in a VR-like environment, it's all illusion, but you can touch it because your body is also illusion.

            Source: billions of mantras, meditation and qigongs.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a consensus on what is real and what is not. If i hit you with a stone you are going to feel pain and we can all agree on that. If you threaten me with the wrath of your god, then you have to prove to me that he will punish me. This is pretty basic stuff. You have to prove that i am illusion, i don't have to prove that op is a homosexual, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a consensus on what is real and what is not

            >I'm in a room with 50 people
            >26 of them say 2+2=5
            >Therefor 2+2=5

            >The scientific community says x is true
            >There is consensus
            >Therefor it must be true

            >x is real because it's real
            >okay?
            kek
            >MUH CONCENSUS
            >MUH CONCENSUS
            >MUH CONCENSUS

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ooo, I got another one.
            >A bunch of talking matter decided to get together and concluded matter is real

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a very well constructed contrivance but it doesn't prove anything. I could devise an even better experiment where i start handing people off gold pieces based on how well they can add 2 and 2 and we would all agree everyone got their fair share of gold pieces.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but it doesn't prove anything
            It proves materialist inconsistency.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't prove anything because its never been done. It exists entirely in your head for this one argument that you have failed to make convincing. Why are idealistic cucks coming out of the woodwork like wienerroaches suddenly?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It exists entirely in your head for this one argument that you have failed to make convincing
            You mean like materialism?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes thoughts are just electrical signals in the brain.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you read up on empiricist philosophers, such as Hume, you'll find that they grant that you can't actually know what you're observing is real. The I think therefor I am schtick.
            So there's also no real way of knowing if materialism is true or not since what we're observing may not actually be real at all.
            The problem with the materialist worldview is that it tends to grant itself a lot of stuff that, if it were consistent, it would dismiss outright.
            But then the worldview would collapse.
            >Ah but what about theists
            >The universe exists because God created it
            >This reality is real because God created it
            >I can infer things about reality because God granted us the logos
            You might not go for that sort of thing, but that foundation is a lot more consistent.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's because their definition of real is idealistic. What is real is apparent by consensus, anything else is belief. You can't know anything else apart from that. And i never said materialism was true, i said its apparent. Truth is another idealistic concept.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What is real is apparent by consensus
            That is also a belief.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No its not, its reproducible and even falsifiable. You can test it hundreds of time which is basically what science does.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >its reproducible and even falsifiable
            Problem of induction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Induction works locally. The sun has never failed to rise in recorded human history, so we can continue assuming it never will until it does.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so we can continue assuming it never will until it does.
            >There's no way of knowing if the sun will rise tomorrow
            I agree, in a materialist worldview there's no way of knowing anything, apart from what can be inferred at a given moment in an empirical environment, using empirical measurements, but of course, all of that might not actually be real either.
            So no, actually, there's no way of knowing if anything is real, or true, including materialism itself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like i said, what is apparent by consensus is real, if you stopped using your moronic idealistic definition of 'real', then you would understand the argument under its assumptions. You have no way of knowing what might not be real other than what is apparently in front of you and everyone else around you, any other belief is unverified imagination.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what is apparent by consensus is real
            Can you explain to me how this isn't a belief? Or is this also a belief and the only one that's true?
            >if you stopped using your moronic idealistic definition of 'real', then you would understand the argument under its assumptions
            Whether it's idealistic or not doesn't matter, the problem of induction proves that you have no way of knowing if the observable phenomena you've concluded is true will be true in the future.
            >Yes, and why is this a problem
            It's a problem because you're subscribing to a worldview that can't actually claim if something is true or not.
            The logical conclusion is that you also can't claim that the worldview is true or false. It's self refuting, is what I'm getting at.
            >any other belief is unverified imagination
            Like materialism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A belief can be/not be reproducible. There you go again using truth, i'm not responding to that because i've repeated many times what i think about that. Truth is a metaphysical concept, its not materialistic. Everything else in your argument i've addressed. Observable phenomena don't need to be true, they need to be real, concepts need truth on the other hand, learn the difference.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A belief can be/not be reproducible.
            But a belief in materialism is still a belief.
            >Truth is a metaphysical concept, its not materialistic.
            Exactly, so you can't make truth claims under your worldview.
            >Observable phenomena don't need to be true
            kek
            >they need to be real
            You have no way of knowing if it's real or not apart from
            >muh consensus
            if you don't understand why that's moronic, then I don't think I can explain it to you.
            >concepts need truth on the other hand
            >materialism isn't a concept
            Okay, well, I do have to grant that you're probably the most consistently inconsistent materialist I've come across, so props for that I guess.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes materialism is a concept that is reproducible, under metaphysical worldview it is real because its reproducible. Its truth on the other handle can't be determined using the same reproducible framework. And i never denied that concepts don't exist in materialism. Mathematical concepts for instance work very well in materialism, concepts such as god and unicorns don't. You must be confusing me with someone else.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes materialism is a concept that is reproducible
            It isn't, it's just a concept. Scientific experiments are reproducible.
            >under metaphysical worldview it is real because its reproducible
            But materialism rejects metaphysics.
            >And i never denied that concepts don't exist in materialism.
            So you aren't a materialist.
            >Mathematical concepts for instance work very well in materialism,
            Math can't be empirically proven, even if the theory can be applied to the material there's no way to empirically prove that math exists.
            >concepts such as god and unicorns don't
            You should reject math on the same grounds you reject God, if you were consistent. You're starting to be a little inconsistently inconsistent, I don't like that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Materialism rejects the idea that concepts can exist in some platonic sense. The concept of numbers for instance can be understood materially by counting two objects, the numbers don't need to exist in some separate plane of reality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Materialism rejects the idea that concepts can exist in some platonic sense.
            Are you arguing for or against my original post? Cause you're basically saying that you're unable to justify anything right now.
            >the numbers don't need to exist in some separate plane of reality.
            Not in a separate plane of reality perhaps, but they absolutely exist as an immaterial concept.
            Before the first human started counting rocks or whatever the frick, he had to first formulate the concept of twoness, even if he did so intuitively the platonic form existed before it was applied.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Before the first human counted, he knew that there were rocks. So i can equally argue that the material existed before numbers. There is no way to do math without matter. I already argued about this with my empty universe experiment before.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So i can equally argue that the material existed before numbers
            Alright, so if math can't exist as a concept in the platonic form of twoness, then neither can materialism.
            >There is no way to do math without matter
            That's only assuming that materialism is correct, but since it's self refuting to say that it has holes in it would be the biggest understatement since the logos came into existence (it's eternal).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Alright, so if math can't exist as a concept in the platonic form of twoness, then neither can materialism.
            Nta; how is this relevant?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because materialism is ultimately a metaphysical concept, if the existence of metaphysical concepts are rejected by a metaphysical concept, then that concept becomes self-refuting in the purest, dare I say, platonic sense.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Materialism doesn't need to exist platonically, it doesn't even need to be a belief until you try to deny it. The belief is a relationship btn your senses and whatever is apparent to you, just like the space btn you and the door. Its a name for what is apparent and it can be easily changed, it doesn't make it less apparent. The only people who think its correct/not correct are metaphysics fanatics. Materialists don't need to prove that because they are not under the same metaphysical assumptions that the idealists are under.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Materialists don't need to prove that because they are not under the same metaphysical assumptions that the idealists are under.
            But materialism itself is metaphysics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes that is not relevant though. The people who make that categorization are burdened by proving its truth. I am merely resigned to the fact that what is before me is apparent, i don't even care about what that is called or whether its true - another metaphysical concept.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm making truth claims under a framework that rejects truth claims
            I'm sorry, that's self-refuting.
            Even if you don't care about truth claims and you think you're not making them, you are.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes in your framework and assumptions you view my statements and evaluate them as true or not true, I don't have to assume the same. This has now become a language game. I care about observation, you care about truth, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes in your framework and assumptions you view my statements and evaluate them as true or not true, I don't have to assume the same
            It's not even a question of framework at this point, it's just a question of logic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are different types of logic, i don't have to subscribe to the transcendental logic that proposes concepts exist in some separate plane of reality. Epistemology has its own kind of logic that deals with observation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am a materialist because I have no knowledge or experience outside the material world.
            I am however open to the idea of something existing outside of the material world.
            Which is why I follow this principle.
            If it is your opinion that this makes me fit into one label or another, that is your business.
            But this is still a long shot away from even going into Theism.
            In fact if a God existed, he would still have the same uncertainties as we do now, meaning that even he could not prove that he knows all, there is always more to discover.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that the something came from nothing is a christian strawman that they pretend atheists came up with.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are correct, I have been saying for a long time that atheism is an anti-intellectual worldview. You fully understand it. Under a strictly materialist view, a cogent argument is impossible. If there is no inherent meaning in the universe, reason is impossible: therefore, evidence is not a valid category.
    In order to make any kind of argument at all, you need to assume that meaning exists. In order to assume that meaning exists, you must assume the existence of a God.
    If you do not do this, then you are intellectually equivalent to a deer or a mouse. I don't spend time debating beasts, because beasts do not believe that God exists - they are the true atheists.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Personally, I see no difference between a materialistic failure to explain where matter came from and a theistic failure to explain where God came from. Both worldviews simply draw an arbitrary line and stop thinking beyond it. Matter simply exists. And there is nothing beyond it. God simply exists. And there is nothing beyond it. Same shit, different packages if you want my opinion. The only way to make sense is to keep asking questions, and that leads to endless regress. There has to be an explanation for the matter and the Creator and so on. If there isn't one, then everything is absurd and meaningless. It doesn't matter whether it is materialism or monotheism.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The most obvious flaw in your reasoning is that you are comparing matter, which is physical, to God, which is immaterial. Why do you believe that these two things are comparable?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          In terms of meaning, why should it matter that God is metaphysical and matter is physical? If one can deny that physical things have meaning (on what basis, just arbitrary nihilism?), then one can deny that there is meaning in the metaphysical. Personally, I believe in the meaning of the physical, metaphysical, pataphysical and more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because God is capable of creation, whereas matter is not. Matter does not create itself, as you said, it merely exists. Therefore, because it is a physical object, it needs a creator. God, not being a physical object, does not require a creator.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Matter does not create itself, as you said, it merely exists.
            But so does God. It would be one thing if God created himself, but if he somehow just exists..... He is no better than the matter of materialism.
            > God, not being a physical object, does not require a creator.
            This is where I disagree. I believe that God was created by an even higher and even more meaningful entity. In order for the world to be meaningful, everything must have a rationale or explanation.... A higher reason for existence.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        These worldviews lead to different perceptions though. If you're arguing that God exists then you are arguing that God has demands, standards, and expectations that need to be upheld. If you're arguing that matter just exists and nothing beyond that then you aren't arguing for anything at all nor do people have reason to listen to you. Idk why you think they're comparable.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Materialism has its own expectations and demands. You wouldn't listen to a physicist who explains that you will die if you jump out of a window based on a purely materialist paradigm,? As if there is no reason to trust any physical theory? People can't just ignore materialists as if matter doesn't matter (lol).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those are not demands from anyone. Those are observable consequences that happen regardless of whether physicists exist. A lion does not have to know physics to understand that fire burns.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        True enough, but there are at least materialists who take the fundamental question of metaphysics seriously. Theists, generally, just ignore it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No explanation is needed for anything. That's just your monkey brain trying desperately to make sense of the world.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God himself has no reason to exist, so theism is as meaningless as materialism.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We exist whether you like it or not.
    Dead matter is a form of existence, and is the one most commonly found in the universe.
    Living matter however is rare.
    Now we could have a discussion on what constitutes life itself, but without going into that...
    If we accept that life is more valuable than lifeless existence, basically a huge range of things follow.
    Continuation of existence it necessary for you to follow certain rules which pertain to your life.
    Like hedonism, may sound enjoyable, but you will eventually die.
    If you procreate, you cannot squander wealth and energy on self enjoyment alone, you need to invest in your offspring.
    Who then perpetuate life.
    Now to many this may still sound like of little importance, in the end what is the point of perpetuating this cycle.
    To this however I would argue that there are always thing we do not know about the Universe.
    Thus making the conscious decision to end the life perpetuation cycle, would be akin to claiming that we know all hence we don't need to perpetuate life to investigate more or additionally we have found out that existence truly has no meaning.
    Now technically speaking such a determination cannot be made, since you can never know if you know all there is to know.
    Thus the life perpetuation cycle is to be upheld eternally.

    But, it also may be in some turn of events that we discover a meaning beyond the mere material, something outside, and more extraordinary than anyone could've thought...
    Maybe...
    But in that case it could be something akin to meeting God, but rather than basing a relationship with him on faith, we would have proof.
    (however god here is merely an example, there may be completely different discoveries, having the same impact though)

    tl;dr we should perpetuate life Indefinitely because you not doing so ends the possibility of discovery of anything, which would be akin to claiming that there is nothing to discover, which cannot be determined

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      (i hate the amount of typing mistakes i made here, hopefully the idea is still parseable)

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Slow boy here. How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview? Matter simply exists, you can't derive anything else from it philosophically.
    This is probably true under a reductionist, illusionist materialism. However, one can reject reductionism in favour of emergentism, or illusionism in favour of an a posteriori physicalism.

    >purpose
    Term that does not have a widely agreed upon, common definition, so I don't know

    >If we take it to the extreme of biological determinism (which, again, is a given without God), then you have no free will
    Reductionists claim everything can be reduced to scientific physics, not biology, so that's irrelevant. You would have to analyse it on that level.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're right, but God still isn't real and materialism is still accurate.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview?
    You can't. Metaphysics is more important than matter and nobody lives like it isn't. Materialists just cope and lie to themselves.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, can you pinpoint when in scripture says how or when your desert demon created the human Spirit?

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I feel pain

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lmao this doesn't prove anything, its why its a spectactle, if i hit you with a stone you are going to feel pain, what you do next is irrelevant, you can smile or scream it doesn't prove you did not feel pain.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Espectacle
        Take your meds, that's a guy offing himself

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Atheist are so unhinged, schizo and detached from real lufe they think people set themselves on fire for the amusement of others.
        Lmao holy shit, literal mental illness

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The usual theist sophistry, literally just descarte's cogito phrased differently
    >demand the highest degree of proof and adopt the highest degree of skepticism
    >this leads to impossibility of knowing anything and absolute uncertainty
    >therefore god otherwise knowing anything is impossible

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Or to put it more humorously:
      >Isn't existence really weird?
      >That the world exists and life exists within it is even more unlikely
      >It must have had a cause
      >...
      >Thus I conclude you need to cut the skin off the tip of your penis

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the highest degree of proof and adopt the highest degree of skepticism
      >>this leads to impossibility of knowing anything and absolute uncertainty
      god otherwise knowing anything is impossible

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I felt the same way when I realised the people running Western society for at least the last 200 years have not been able to justify any of it, it's like the West decided to collectively lower their intelligence and critical thinking skills despite having the philosophical means to understand the root problem. Nietzche tried solving it, but it's such a futile and intellectually insulting attempt that it would have been better if he didn't waste his time trying to become a philosopher. The responses you're getting to this dilemma are laughable at best.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The responses you're getting to this dilemma are laughable at best.
      Ok?
      Then explain these posts and tell me why it is wrong:

      [...]

      (my position is

      We exist whether you like it or not.
      Dead matter is a form of existence, and is the one most commonly found in the universe.
      Living matter however is rare.
      Now we could have a discussion on what constitutes life itself, but without going into that...
      If we accept that life is more valuable than lifeless existence, basically a huge range of things follow.
      Continuation of existence it necessary for you to follow certain rules which pertain to your life.
      Like hedonism, may sound enjoyable, but you will eventually die.
      If you procreate, you cannot squander wealth and energy on self enjoyment alone, you need to invest in your offspring.
      Who then perpetuate life.
      Now to many this may still sound like of little importance, in the end what is the point of perpetuating this cycle.
      To this however I would argue that there are always thing we do not know about the Universe.
      Thus making the conscious decision to end the life perpetuation cycle, would be akin to claiming that we know all hence we don't need to perpetuate life to investigate more or additionally we have found out that existence truly has no meaning.
      Now technically speaking such a determination cannot be made, since you can never know if you know all there is to know.
      Thus the life perpetuation cycle is to be upheld eternally.

      But, it also may be in some turn of events that we discover a meaning beyond the mere material, something outside, and more extraordinary than anyone could've thought...
      Maybe...
      But in that case it could be something akin to meeting God, but rather than basing a relationship with him on faith, we would have proof.
      (however god here is merely an example, there may be completely different discoveries, having the same impact though)

      tl;dr we should perpetuate life Indefinitely because you not doing so ends the possibility of discovery of anything, which would be akin to claiming that there is nothing to discover, which cannot be determined

      )

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I consider my points vindicated

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How does one justify anything in a materialist worldview
    MORE GOOD LESS BAD

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But anon, what is good and what is bad?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not him, but I’ll give you an example. Cuddling with your girlfriend in bed laughing and kissing - good

        Smashing your dick with a hammer - bad

        Those are just two examples

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would that be the case?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *