Is there a more anti-intellectual stance than atheism?

Is there a more anti-intellectual stance than atheism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y2pWUvPqKEo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Islam

Atheism is inherently illogical.

Agnosticism makes more sense. Because it's intellectual consistent to say "Hey, I can't prove that a black swan doesn't exist, but I haven't seen proof yet."

Marxism

Nihilism, but I'm probably repeating myself.

yes

We have a winner

Thanks

Stop pestering me christcuck.

Theism

All of these.

There's nothing anti-intellectual about demanding evidence before believing in something that is clearly improbable. Inb4 le epic tipping fedora meme

Agreed. In fact, agnosticism is the only purely rational stance. All others rely on faith.
But user, atheism is intellectually dishonest. They pretend they're rational but they are not. They're as rational as a guy saying extraterrestrial life doesn't exist.
You could be up to something user, after all it insists on challenging reality.
Is it really more anti-intellectual, though? I agree that it's more barbaric, but they believe a higher being has illuminated them with his wisdom. The atheist, on the contrary, in his smug arrogance believes himself capable of knowing what he cannot possibly know.

>1 line type of sentence that brings a lot of shit fling
>1 post by this id

nice slide thread

>Religion
>Intellectual
Pick one.

>current year
>people still believe in gods
>people still literally believe a virgin had a kid and some niggas walked 40 years through the desert n shieeet

Plz, wake up, Dunmer.

Yes, theism. I get that atheists can be pretentious twats, but that doesn't make them wrong.

There's a lot of anti-intellectualism is saying something you don't know doesn't exist though.
>m-muh christcuck
lmfao

What about wanting empirical evidence before believing in a claim as important as the afterlife is illogical?

Reason and facts operate in different realms. God (e.g. the Abrahamic) has all the weight of reason on his side, but not a fact to his credit. It's dishonest to yourself to believe in him and dishonest to others to contrive this haughty, high tower of "pure rationality" called "agnosticism" from which you can sling shit in the debate.

You're confusing rational with intellectual. And the only rational stance is agnosticism.
That should make you an agnostic, not an atheist. Nice try though.

Christianity

>God (e.g. the Abrahamic) has all the weight of reason on his side, but not a fact to his credit.
It's actually the other way round. Faith isn't rational. But there's facts that support the idea of God. Jesus Christ was crucified because he confronted (((them))) and that's objective fact. Non-Christian historians from the era confirm it.

Oh and BTW, the problem of the unmoved mover remains. Atheism is anti-intellectual, deal with it.

>that's objective fact. Non-Christian historians from the era confirm it.

One doesn't relate to the other.
Whether historians say something happened or not doesn't mean it happened.

It's even difficult today to get a reliable account of something that happens in the world. Why would you count on the supposed word of dead historians?

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus, or his miracles, and that is a fact. If you are referring to Josephus with "non-Christian historians," it's pretty obvious why Josephus, a Jew who defected to the Roman side during the conquest of Judea, would want to chronicle a story that makes the Jews (still fairly open in their rebellions) look bad. If Christianity didn't function well as Roman propaganda it wouldn't have later been adopted into the state by Constantine.

In short, eat a dick.

Yes.
It's called being a theist

Because they lived in that era and reported on it. Denying the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure is the height of ignorance.
Whether he was God or not is a question of faith.

shill detected

there are atheists and religious people here,you are trying to cause a divide to weaken us

fuck off kike

*tips menorah*

Yeah, fundamental conservativism.

nah, I'm trying to get the atheists to reconsider their dumb stance.

>Because they lived in that era and reported on it.

Reporters today report on lots of stories. They're all wrong.
Lots of people claimed to be a messiah. Saying that this or that one is the one from the bible is nonsense.

youtube.com/watch?v=y2pWUvPqKEo
I recommend you watch this series so you can correct some of your misunderstandings.

Saying extraterrestrial life doesn't exist is irrational because we know it will exist if certain conditions are met on some other planet. The evidence to extraterrestrial life is us and there is nothing preventing another planet with the same conditions as earth to host life. There is no evidence of god just like there is no evidence of mythological creatures.

>L-look guys, i-it's the J-j-jew!

Wonderful argument Gunther

>Saying that this or that one is the one from the bible is nonsense.
yeah, Jesus the Nazarene who got crucified by Pilatus after he asked the (((pharisees))) could have been another one. Give me a break Chaim. The people of your tribe are trying to this day to find the body of Jesus to disprove he was the messiah and resurrected, lol.
>There is no evidence of god
Prime mover.
Or I could use some cheap shots like the eucharistic miracles. Blood clots that liquify on the same date each year, myocardial tissue in the shape of a host that hasn't rotted in centuries, among other stuff. All with the same DNA and blood type.
It's always amusing to see you recoil and get so injured and then shrink back as you say to yourself "I've been found out", Jared.

Pure semantic garbage. If a homeless man comes up to me and claims he is God, the rational decision is to reject his idea until he can prove what he is saying is true. It's not rational to assume what he is saying could be true just because there is a possibility of it being true.

You can replace the homeless man with any book or idea that claims supernatural phenomena and you'll see how dumb it is to claim that agnosticism is.

This is really a part of a larger problem, the idea that claims without proof have legitimacy. An agnostic (an idiot) will have to accept the possibility that I am God to be equal to the possibility that I am not God. Like I said, only a moron will discuss these things as anything but moronic semantic discussions.

>An agnostic (an idiot) will have to accept the possibility that I am God to be equal to the possibility that I am not God. Like I said, only a moron will discuss these things as anything but moronic semantic discussions.
You're only embarrassing yourself with your pseudointellectual babble.

>The people of your tribe are trying to this day to find the body of Jesus to disprove he was the messiah and resurrected, lol.

Well, let me know when you watched the series and educated yourself. Until then, count yourself among the irrational idiots.

Let's see you try to address the argument instead of avoiding it.

You can't though, because you are a sub-90 IQ moron. All you are discussing is the meaning of these words in strict definitions as if it applies to anyone or anything.

Yes. Natsoc and faganism.

>It's always amusing to see you recoil and get so injured and then shrink back as you say to yourself "I've been found out", Jared.
What the fuck does this even mean? Is this le neu ebin Sup Forums meimei?

>whole program is bullshit about biblical numbers
lol, those are symbolic
that's what happens when someone claims to be an expert on the Bible without studying its context.

oy vey
How are those anti-intellectual?

Communists?

WRONG.

He discusses all sorts of errors. Among them, that fake passage that you think is evidence of jesus.

>Is there a more anti-intellectual stance than atheism?

Christianity.

>Atheism is inherently illogical.
>Doesn't know what atheism is
Beliefs are irrational
Non-belief is rational

Maybe

Honestly, I don't know how many jews you've actually talked to, but the few I've met in my life don't walk around saying "Oy Gevalt Schlomo! These goyim sure are getting uppity. How can we encourage miscegenation today?"

You people really do dig your own political graves.

Atheists don't believe in God because they don't want Him.

>muh new definitions
you're like a little baby lol, keep falling for the Syme figures of the real world. Atheism isn't mere lack of belief, it's belief in non-existance of God. Mere lack of belief is simply agnosticism.
>hurrr muh pedos mean God doesn't exist
atheist anti-intellectuality, everyone
The guy didn't even know biblical languages, he wasn't an expert. Might as well ask Neil Degrasse Tyson about helicopters.

That must be why you don't believe in jupiter.

It's ok though. Jupiter isn't a faggot.

Of course you try to mimic us when among us, that's not news. You only shrink back when called out.

>be raised without years of religious indoctrination
>don't believe in god

>u r le anti intellectual atheists are retards may may!

It's actually hilarious you think anyone is obliged to argue with you based entirely on a series of false positions you hold then attempt to use to persuade others to agree with.

>beliefs are irrational
>non-belief is rational
Rational according to an irrational logic system that is intentionally crafted to avoid paradoxes rather than incorporating them as religion attempts to do. This is why you physicalist retards will never solve the hard problem of conc.

>The guy didn't even know biblical languages
Doesn't affect the argument though.
It's not an interactive experience.

Not believing in God isn't atheism, saying no deities exist is atheism

Yea

Its called Anti-Theism

Can't get any worse than anti-theists

Well, they're synonyms if you don't fall for the newspeak definition of atheism.
Yes it does, a lot often gets lost in translation.
Exactly, plus the diagram he posted reminds me of the horseshoe theory

Actually both are atheism, depending on the definition you use.

Religious theologies are paradigms for the explanation of the behaviour of qualia in the same way that scientific paradigms explain the behaviour of matter. None of them are canonically true, just humanities best attempt at explaining things. Theologies come and go, just like scientific theories come and go. Why don't you believe in Lamarckian evolution?

I only go by the non-pozzed definition. Doing otherwise is giving ground in the language war. It's like using the word "gender" when "sex" is the correct one.

>get raised without any beliefs in deity
>u r le false for not believes in Odin!

>None of them are canonically true, just humanities best attempt at explaining things.

I think you're quite wrong about that.

Many religions are also a worldview. In other words, aspects of a religion are true by definition. They're axiomatic.

It's true that there's an aspect of religion that takes the place of science in explaining things, but that aspect is doomed for all religions. The former aspect, the axiomatic part, is what people cling to the hardest. It's what intellectuals hold on to when they realize that their superstition is bullshit.

>missing the point this hard

Axioms can't be demonstrated, the problem is finding out which ones are consistent with reality.

>Axioms can't be demonstrated, the problem is finding out which ones are consistent with reality.

Some sets of axioms are inconsistent with reality.... but there are many possible sets of axioms which are each general enough that you will not run into any scientific or logical inconsistencies.

It's possible to say "reality is the mind of god" -- and to base your concept of reality around that.

It's also possible to say "reality is what I observe"

Natsoc generally claims that a strong country requires racial homogenity. It fails to factor in the incalculable military costs to forcefully expel the unwanted inhabitants, and the untennable political ping ponging that eventually comes around when establishing international trade. Split votes and bickering until it leads to an ideological collapse.

Faganism proposes to re-establish a long dead religion. Mostly done by larpers on Sup Forums. The numbers don't support it and it will never gain ground. Faganism has no claims to discriminatory sufering and thus cannot get the sympathy vote. Faganism has no military might and therefore cannot claim any land. Faganism also ceeks to convince people to worship their own special snowflake deities but the market has already been cornered by mainstream religions. It's like opening up a facebook account to compete in fingerpainting. It's a failure even before it started.

You will not find a way to disprove either of these worldviews experimentally because they don't make experimental claims.

They construct a linguistic/conceptual framework to talk about the world.

The most anti-intellectual stance is placing faith above truth

Ie faith in hebrew mythology

You can know a tree by its fruits.
>It's also possible to say "reality is what I observe"
takes a special kind of ignorant fool to claim that in our day and age

>It fails to factor in the incalculable military costs to forcefully expel the unwanted inhabitants, and the untennable political ping ponging that eventually comes around when establishing international trade.
a fucking leaf

>above truth
>implying

You now realize Natsoc is exclusively a Stormfront fantasy.

apatheism is the way to go.

>You can know a tree by its fruits.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with consistency with reality. Some axioms may be better for producing certain kinds of people... but this has nothing to do with "truth"... just usefulness.

>takes a special kind of ignorant fool to claim that in our day and age
Well I stated an abbreviated version of what someone might claim today... but may i suggest that the reason you think it's ignorant is because you're applying the wrong concept to the word "reality". You're thinking of plato's definition of reality, but the whole point is to define it differently than that. It's a different way to construct the way you talk about the world.

Yes- a-political. The most anti-intellectual position of them all

Nah, I was calling out your defeatism

Communism?

>Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with consistency with reality. Some axioms may be better for producing certain kinds of people... but this has nothing to do with "truth"... just usefulness.
That's not quite what I was getting at though. I meant that you can see the things announced in the Bible and our reality confirms them. It's not just a moral manual or a book about the past, it's also about the future.
From Revelation 2:9:
>I know your hardships and your poverty, and -- though you are rich -- the slander of the people who falsely claim to be Jews but are really members of the synagogue of Satan.
It's talking about (((them)))

i think blind faith in god is a bigger disgrace than just admitting your an atheist.
people in the religions that talk about god
that truly have never had a vision or spiritual experience where the god is revealed to them
while they are alive are blind followers and know very little about God.

meanwhile there are many people that have experienced genuine God phenomena.. real visions.. real God..

and what is fucked more than anything.
some within the churches and religions straight up refuse and deny the real deal.

even blind faith believers...
you tell them a genuine god experience...
nope... that's not true... that's bs...

fuck em all.

i got god'd over 11 years ago.
was an atheist all my life...
and then BAM MOTHER FUCKER!
YOURE FUCKING GODDED NOW.
GUESS WHO BITCH
GOD YOU PIECE OF SHIT
ITS ME BITCH. GOD.
and now here.
I am.
feels good knowing God deemed me worthy enough to know the only truth.

How does the saying go? That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? The main reason why I'm not religious is that there is no basis to believe in a deity other than the fact that it may feel good. I have a difficult time accepting the fact that a supreme being created the entire universe just for us, just so we can live for a couple decades and then go to heaven or hell. And then what?

I was raised Catholic and I can appreciate religion, specifically Christianity, as a tool for social cohesion and a sense of purpose, even if I don't understand how it gives purpose. I'd like God to be real, because who wouldn't like an omnipotent friend? There simply isn't much that compels me to believe.

I was agnostic and had a similar experience, 6 years ago. I was a soft agnostic at that point though, I stopped being a hard agnostic after my contact with Descartes, which opened my eyes to the idea that you might be given faith by God himself and get to know him that way.

For the record:
Hard agnostic: it's not possible to know if deities exist or not
Soft agnostic: I don't know if deities exist or not

I was also an apathetic agnostic during both phases

>The main reason why I'm not religious is that there is no basis to believe in a deity other than the fact that it may feel good.
Being agnostic felt better in a way tbqh. I'm convinced I'm going down as an unrepentant sinner lol.
>I have a difficult time accepting the fact that a supreme being created the entire universe just for us, just so we can live for a couple decades and then go to heaven or hell
Why would you believe that?
>And then what?
There's no "then", only eternity. It's all ogre now.

Plain agnosticism is a strange position to me. I understand how you can think it's impossible to prove or disprove God, which is true, but if you're not currently practicing a religion then don't you technically lack a belief in God and are an atheist by definition?

I think the problem is that people think atheism is an explicit claim that God doesn't exist, but it's not. It's simply the lack of belief.

>Why would you believe that?
That's what our existence boils down to in Christianity, or am I mistaken?

anti intellectual stance than atheism? hmmm well if i dont know the answer to a question of the nature of the universe and i'm a believer in god i dont look for an answer because it's god. god is the answer. but if i don't believe in a god, then i still must search for the answer, so i must search until i find it. if i have a holy book that tells me a set standard of morals or ethics then i have something to go by that is binding. yet if i do not, then i can constantly improve my morals and ethics as society learns and improves. if intellectualism is about improving ones self, then atheism is the way to go.

This dude gets it.

I feel exactly the same.

can you prove that santa exists?
can you prove that tooth fairy exists?
can you prove that unicorn exists?
use same logic for these and same series of questions and methodology for these as you do for odin, yaweh, or any other diety. they all have ancient roots, books rooted in history, and such.

Try to get above contradiction in an argument against Islam.

You're in no position to determine whether what he is saying is true or not. Taking either stance will make you look stupid.

>It's not rational to assume what he is saying could be true just because there is a possibility of it being true.

But that is rational. It would be irrational to believe him, and irrational to disbelieve him.

It would not be irrational to disbelieve him. It would be irrational to claim what he is saying is impossible because, for all we know, he could be God. But for the time being you don't believe him because he didn't provide any evidence for his claim, and if he were God then it should be easy to prove.

Atheism is just the lack of faith in a personal god. You're confusing atheism with the cultural marxism and degeneracy that has been attributed to it by the media and christians. Of course kiddy fucking child diddler in a woman's dress has an interest in claiming that atheism obviously can't be an alternative, because all those bad things you don't like are the fault of atheist's you know? It's like the fucking church has a dogma against condoms or whatever, contributing to overpopulation in the third world, just to then import the foreign dispora they themselves created.

And don't give me that crap about hurr durr I don't get christianity because it's not meant to be taken literally. The vast majority of christians are not fucking jungians thinking about integrating the shadow and shit like that. Granted it provides a sense of community but so does Islam, I don't want those assholes in charge either. Keep your religion to yourself. If you're only nice because there's a divine threat or reward you're a cunt.

I don't want quasi religious wannabe atheists in charge either, with their marxist shit. I just want to be left alone.

True that!

>god is inseparable from religions

Why are atheists so fucking dense and uneducated? Look up deism.

I'm aware of deism. I don't discount the idea of a God and if I were to believe in one it would be a deistic God. Thanks for being abrasive, though.

>if you're not currently practicing a religion then don't you technically lack a belief in God and are an atheist by definition?
>merely pretending

I wouldn't have a problem with peoples religons so much if it didnt require me to believe in their creator, and if i don't then i'm going to the bad place when i die? santa clause is more probable

And how would you know it does exist? I don't mind theists at all, especially christians, but holy mother of fuck are you guys hypocritical.