"Dude... God isn't real... LMAO."

>"Dude... God isn't real... LMAO."

Other urls found in this thread:

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I mean, probably not. I don't know though.

yeah, that is not the point of the film at all, turbopleb

TWBB didn't have a point.

>first year film student

ur dum

post modernism needs to fucking die

ok god isnt real. now what to replace my moral values with... oh wait there isnt anyting! we need god to fight off the filthy retarded heathens

spent 2 and a half hours just to hear him say "I drink your milkshake"

...

>now what to replace my moral values with...
Please don't tell me this is actually the way you think.

"He has anger issues... also he drills oil" The Movie

postmodernism is not inherently athiest

>Ambition is bad lmao
Is much closer to the actual message.

Karma.

I may have to watch this one again....

I love Daniel Day Lewis and PT Anderson, but this just struck me as a dud.

I think the name "There Will Be Blood" was used specifically because it's a slow slow pointless movie, it's insinuating that there will be a payoff at the end, but goddamn that was a disappointment.

But I'm willing to accept that hype can ruin a movie, it was built up as one of the greatest ever and certainly the greatest PT Anderson movie, and what I got fell very short of that.

But I may have to see it again with fresh eyes and lower expectations.

I saw The Master with no expectations and it was a million times better.

It's all buildup with no payoff. Well, there's a small payoff but it's a joke.

>This is what Untermensh actually believe.

>Without God as a crutch I automatically become an amoral piece of shit
>Even with God as a crutch I'd still behave like an amoral piece of shit, only I'd claim God approves

Hello Sup Forums

I am not articulate enough to put the words together to explain how much I disagree with you but if you were in the room I'd just grab you by your shoulders and shake you.

Do you really need the threat of eternal damnation to behave like a decent human being? What kind of a man are you that the only reason you are civil is because you are afraid of punishment? You're literally an animal who avoids shitting and pissing on a carpet only because it's afraid of getting smacked with a newspaper.

"I shitpost on Sup Forums.. I also shitpost on Reddit" The Post

from where does morality derive if not God?

biological morality exists only to the point in which it begins to limit my own reproductive potential

>I may have to watch this one again
fuck you

PTA is a very emotional film-maker. His movies always, in one way or another, ground themselves in extreme visceral emotion. By extension, I think he's given to thematic whimsy, as well.

So, I think TWBB is a very emotional denunciation of capitalism and of acquisitiveness. I think PTA is equating the will to power and to financial success with bloodthirstiness and hatred for humanity.

It's a very extreme movie in that way, but I personally really like it.

Funny because I watched both movies this week and TWBB blew me away as one of the best movies I'd seen in years and the Master was a boring soulless dud of a movie hanging off the performances of Phoenix and PSH

Do you understand Eli? That's more to the point do you understand?

Holy shit, im-fucking-plying.

You need to raise people to understand punishment and teach other people how to punish without going to far. That's it. Jesus fuck.

>religion is bullshit
>daniel drilled for oil, built a pipeline, and made people's lives better

the free market is the closest thing we have to God. it's a universal invisible force that harnesses man's selfishness and converts it to the betterment of society.

Daniel was "bad" but did good. Eli was "good" but did nothing.

It is.

Daniel Plainview fell down a silver mine and nearly died and dragged himself to civilization because there is no God.

With that money, he started drilling for oil, and some guy down in there died because there is no God.

Later he raises the guys' bastard as his own, because it helps with business deals, because he only wants money because there is no God.

Later when Plainview has made it, the self-righteous preacher comes back, Plainview gets him to say God is a superstition, and he murders him, because there's no God.

"As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill. And, ultimately, 'freedom of religious belief' — the right to worship false gods." -Slavoj Zizek

Postmodernism holds there is no absolute truth. From that you get moral relativism, atheism, etc.

Bad guy of the film is a Christian priest that exploits a town. Good guy is an atheist that lifts the town out of poverty, protects a little girl from abuse, adopts a kid and raised him like a son etc.

Yeah the point of the film is fuck religion.

Most people aren't decent human beings. So yes, the idea that you are being watched helps get people to behave, and God is the ultimate version of that.

>So, I think TWBB is a very emotional denunciation of capitalism and of acquisitiveness. I think PTA is equating the will to power and to financial success with bloodthirstiness and hatred for humanity.

I think it indicates that the oil industry had beginnings that were rotten to the core.

Then people fool themselves into thinking that good fruit can come from a toxic tree.

>the free market is the closest thing we have to God. it's a universal invisible force that harnesses man's selfishness and converts it to the betterment of society.

No. A free market left to run free becomes a monopoly, just like bigger fish eat smaller fish.

The bigger fish doesn't exist for the betterment of society, it exists to feed itself, and prey on smaller fishes.

>no sniffing

Fake quote.

What does that have to do with my favorite movie?

>good guy

From mankind, idiot. If it came from God, where did he get the idea? It must have been a thought-up concept, so why would you attribute it to a mystical being? Especially when you're a grown adult who should be well past the point of literally believing in magic.

Buy what if you're not a brainlet who literally believes in magic? What if you've been living in the real world long enough to understand that fantasy concepts like miracles don't real? What then?

>From mankind, idiot.

Name one moral rule that all of mankind agrees on.

>If it came from God, where did he get the idea?

God said love thy neighbor as thyself. Where would God get such an idea? By incarnating as mankind.

>It must have been a thought-up concept, so why would you attribute it to a mystical being?

God doesn't have to be a mystical being.

>Especially when you're a grown adult who should be well past the point of literally believing in magic.

God doesn't have to be supernatural in any way. In pantheism, God and the universe are the same thing.

In that case, a moral rule like "love thy neighbor as thyself" is about God preventing harm to Itself, by Itself, like when Jesus said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Matthew 25:40, "when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me"

With advances in technology, surveillance takes the place of ancient belief in gods. Now someone really IS watching your every move. The main motivator that prevents people from doing bad things is fear of getting caught.

And God could exist and miracles not exist. One does not necessarily mean the other.

>If it can from God where did he get the idea?

your seem not to understand the concept of God, it exists as the upper ceiling of existence, a system above our own, and the ultimate source of all things. To say that their is a system above Him from which concepts can either be conceived or learned means you've invalidated his supremacy, thus rendering Him non-divine.

>from mankind

this is why the argument that states their can be no morality with no God would end up being correct. If it comes from man that means it would inherently subjective, as upon what truth could it be based? Biology? As i said above, biological morality extends only so far as i does not limit my own reproductive potential.

Clearly you don't understand the Natural Laws of Mankind, as laid out by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and to a lesser extent the Ubermensch himself.

Pleb. Read a book sometime, it'll do you good. There's a reason that all societies, including non-christian and non-theistic ones share a small set of basic universal laws that are almost word-for-word identical. "Thou Shalt not Kill" exists everywhere, dumbass, not just in Judeo-Chrisitan society.

And before you get wise by saying that those cultures condone ritual sacrifice and death as a punishment, I would remind you that the Holy Bible condones ritual sacrifice of humans and death as a punishment as well.

You're just making your own goalposts at this point, none of that is an argument. Going "you can't ask where God got his morality, otherwise he wouldn't be God" is asinine. If you're claiming God is a real entity which exists, you have to subject him to logic. As it is, you're using him as a philosophical concept and nothing more.

And as for subjectivity...well, yeah, that's entirely true. Most of western society will tell you racism is immoral, but ask Sup Forums about it and see what they say. Pretty much everything you believe is subjective, you just think of it as objective because you have a fragile, narrow and inflexible worldview.

>If it comes from man that means it would inherently subjective, as upon what truth could it be based?

I think atheism does entail moral relativism (and even encourages things like the regressive left to apologize for Islam because "we cannot judge other cultures by our own").

But years ago, Sam Harris (an atheist) argued that we can use science to answer moral questions, and that morality concerns the wellbeing of conscious creatures. I think that's a "utilitarian" stance. However, it doesn't really settle questions like "Is it moral for someone to smoke cigarettes?" (since cigarette smoke does harm to themselves).

Negative utilitarianism (NU) holds that the only things that matters, morally speaking, is the reduction of suffering. Death is the elimination of suffering, so NU would seem to entail that all life should go extinct in order to completely reduce suffering. Some people do think all life should go extinct. Others argue that killing people in order to reach that point would be more suffering, therefore wrong. In 1958, R. N. Smart argued that NU entails that someone who was able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do it, creating the concept of the "benevolent world exploder" (think the Death Star in Star Wars). Although, a more painless way would be like in the movie Spaceballs, a spoof of Star Wars, where they suck the oxygen off of Earth.

>subject him to logic
Again, no you can't. Thats the entire point. If logic can be used to dissect and classify an entity, it means that logic is inherently of a higher order then said entity. God being subject to anything, including logic, removes omnipotency.

>There's a reason that all societies, including non-christian and non-theistic ones share a small set of basic universal laws that are almost word-for-word identical. "Thou Shalt not Kill" exists everywhere, dumbass, not just in Judeo-Chrisitan society.

Yeah, like you said, except for human sacrifice, or even cannibalism. And in the military.

Again, you're trying to claim he's a real actual thing which exists, but talking like he's an abstract philosophical concept. I don't think you understand what logic is.

This is a fantastic film. Contrarians / people with bad taste will try to tell you otherwise

Christ you're dumb. What's your point even meant to be here?

In classic logic, something is either/or, true or false.

In quantum logic, something can be all possibilities at once, simultaneously.

The point is that classical logic is manmade, and reality doesn't necessarily conform to it.

fuck this was a good movie.
how can other movies even compete?

The point is that there is no moral code universal to all humans in all cultures in all times.

"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't carry over. Even "thou shalt not eat people" doesn't carry over.

There is no taboo that persists throughout all human cultures.

Riddle me this, Sup Forums.
Everyone knows that ghosts exist. So why wouldn't an afterlife exist?

but God isn't real

>Good guy

>Everyone knows that ghosts exist.

Suppose everything is happening at once. Suppose a ghost is just a kind of "recording" of reality from another time, that for some reason people can see now. In that case, a ghost isn't stuck in an "afterlife", it's just an after-image, just when someone looks at the sun and later blinks their eyes and sees dark spots in their field of vision.

Explain to me what makes this reasoning any more plausible than a religious one.

oh ok. I get it, omnipotency extends only to the point of being scrutinized by language or proofs. And logic existed before God. Logic is eternal and uncreated. You don't really grasp omnipotence friend.

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I think some physicists argue all events are happening simultaneously, or some physicists argue that time either does not exist, or that particles can move forward or backward in time. In that case, photons from 1850 could theoretically travel to 2017 and appear, as a "ghost."

Although I also reject the premise that "everyone knows that ghosts exist."

if ghosts are dead people, shouldn't all ghosts be naked?

how are there ghostly clothes?

Your entire argument is a handwaving excuse to deflect those who question religious dogma. "Nuh uh it doesn't work like that, God can't be questioned just because". Only you've actually swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It's pointless arguing with you because the goalposts are entirely arbitrary, whatever I say you're just going to say it doesn't apply to God. That's the beauty of supporting a fantasy, it's entirely fluid.

>quantum logic
...is a system devised to support theoretical particle physics, allowing for calculations and hypotheses regarding particles and an u n observed quantum state. You've heard the term somewhere and decided to use it without understanding. In any case, it's completely irrelevant to my point.

Refuge in pedantry, got it. The exact same applies if you sub god in as the source of morality; god kills, and advocates the killing of, many.

>With advances in technology, surveillance takes the place of ancient belief in gods. Now someone really IS watching your every move.

you should read some books instead of just relying on cutscenes from deus ex to explain philosophy to you.

people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god or think they are being filmed. human society has ingrained into every facet of itself the belief in the "big other", the implied registrar of all action and thought, without whom life would not have meaning. drop the video games and read some lacan.

When you die you get a choice between going to heaven naked or roaming the earth fully clothed. Ghosts are self conscious people. Source: god

Contemplating the existence of something that cannot will not be measured in any empirical way is colossal waste of time.

Whether you're pro-Yahweh or anti-Yahweh its pure mental masturbation.

Another guy was saying you can't subject God to logic, you said "I don't think you understand what logic is" and I explained how classical logic is manmade, it's a manmade system that reality (which includes God) doesn't necessarily conform to. Quantum mechanics is much weirder than that.

And if God really is an Absolute Being, what makes you think God would conform to manmade logic?

>people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god

Sounds to me like a pretty clear indicator of morality being an inherent human concept, as you've just said yourself if exists regardless of belief in god, but I doubt you'll entertain that notion.

It's not manmade though. The world wouldn't stop following logical rules if humanity vanished tomorrow. If there are four apples on a tree and one falls down there will be three apples left. Human participation or observation is not required here, that's a fundamental truth that cannot be changed. All humans did is notice the way things are and write them down.

But why even lend it credence? It's Russell's Teapot

No, you don't get it. For those who claim that morality only comes from humans, they are left with moral relativism, and how can you say any moral code is better or worse than another? Without an ultimate authority, there is no authority at all when it comes to morality, it's all he said/she said. But the whole point of having moral codes is so that others follow them. If someone invents a moral code that only they themselves follow, they might as well have no moral code at all, because they can always just invent a new one later.

You could argue that God kills, and advocates killing. But only according to certain religions. However, just because a human writes or says that God does something, doesn't make it true.

That's the big question. If God exists, how can you know that a human description of God is correct?

>In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I think some physicists argue

oh jesus christ don't tell me you've skimmed some wikipedia articles. or did you have this explained to you by a science fiction novel?

here's a rule of thumb: when a sentence starts with "according to quantum mechanics", it will always be followed by either a shitton of complex math or a moronic fairytale. i'm not seeing any math in your post.

>you should read some books instead of just relying on cutscenes from deus ex to explain philosophy to you.

I've never played Deus Ex, but I have read The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, about the past 2,500 years of philosophy in the West. How about you?

>people behave as if they were being observed by a higher power whether or not they believe in god or think they are being filmed. human society has ingrained into every facet of itself the belief in the "big other", the implied registrar of all action and thought, without whom life would not have meaning. drop the video games and read some lacan.

Lacan is bullshit. Let me guess. You like Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Credence is a ego thing.
So what if your gf is asking if the living room carpet should be grape purple or plum purple.
Fuck the carpet just buy something and move on.

This argument you guys have going on is pure gold, im betting neither of you will give in and you just end up getting consumed by eachothers "idiocy" for a couple of days.

The clothes didn't die. So why would there be ghost-clothes?

>Contemplating the existence of something that cannot will not be measured in any empirical way is colossal waste of time.

Like what? Human suffering? How do you measure that?

>The Passion of the Western Mind

lol

you're seriously being this smug about having read a single-volume introduction to a subject?

look out people i've read a high school textbook

>Lacan is bullshit.

i mean how can i argue with a man that read "philosophy for dummies, second edition"? the whole thing!

well, if the clothes are made from plant or animal material, they actual did die, the cells at least

even plastic material is derived from dead organics

really there should only not be metal, but plenty of ghost knights...

how did he remotely seem like a good guy to you, you downsyndrome

What an irrelevant analogy

should have been food related

kikes rule and should be wiped out, sluts are retarded, whites are the best, holocaust revionists make alot of good points, etc. but christianity is still retarded

>how can you say any moral code is better than another?

For nuanced issues, you can't. This isn't an argument. For broader issues, like murder, we are social animals with an evolutionary imperative not to kill each other, steal from one another, etc.

>if god exists, how do you know that a human description of god is correct?

By extension, how can morality come from god?

Morality is present in every society, not exclusively human society. Take a look at chimps, elephants, dolphins or other higher brain function mammals. All of them have social rules and behavioural tendencies to make societal commune possible. It is of evolutionary benefit for morality to exist for social animals, even if it doesn't boost your own reproductive chances directly, it increases stability and survival chance of communities which in turn increase reproductive chances. Don't think that all evulotionary traits are directly linked to sex.

The only reason to participate in a meaningless dead-end debate is if you want to swing your dick around and assert ego.

There is no outcome, no answers.

>I've never played Deus Ex, but I have read The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, about the past 2,500 years of philosophy in the West.

that all could mean hes an ambitious dick, doesnt mean god isnt real. oil men built this country they were some of the first great capitalists and im sure plenty of them were meanies dude

Who would win in a fight, Jesus, Muhammad or Buddha?

A better analogy would be if there's somebody at the door, you say "it's probably the mailman" and your girlfriend says "what if it's the president?" Until you go check she could technically be right, but there's no reason to believe the president has come to my home.

if buddha is as big and fat as he is in the statues and it was hand to hand combat prob him

Social groups increase viability, and "ethics" in species create cohesion. However this only remains relevant if behaviors are observed. If one could surreptitiously, say, rape the wife of a friend with neither of them knowing, and have her concieve a child, one has increased his own individual reproductive potential without the group shattering behavior being observed. No biological morality would be truly be violated, assuming this behavior always remained unnoticed among future generations.

the fact that morality is observed in all human cultures is a wash in regards to God, as, assuming Christian theology at least, this would be expected. One could be a good person regardless of believe in God, since non belief does not invalidate the existence of something, Christianity instead has issue with the notion of being good without God's involvement which, Him being the ultimate source of good, be either viewed as impossible, of attempting to claim divinity oneself

jesus would have asked the other two to beat the shit out of him because of his inversionary ethical eschatology, but buddha would stay out of it

Classic logic is manmade

>The world wouldn't stop following logical rules if humanity vanished tomorrow. If there are four apples on a tree and one falls down there will be three apples left.

No, there wouldn't. The human eye sees an apple as "one" thing. If humanity vanished, maybe a different animal would see an apple as "one" thing. But they certainly wouldn't see it as there being "three" apples left. Plus, saying there are "three" apples suggests each apple is identical to the next, otherwise how would you group and count them? But apples are not identical, but for human purposes they might as well be, so it's "good enough" when humans group them together, because human perception did not evolve to perceive truth, human perceptions were tuned to fitness. And in the quantum world, an apple isn't "one" thing at all.

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
>Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman explains why human perceptions of an independent reality are all illusions.

>According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.

>Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth.

>Human participation or observation is not required here, that's a fundamental truth that cannot be changed.

When it comes to math? Yes, four minus one equals three because those are symbols that humans have agreed on in a consensus reality, and addition itself first requires division, seeing things as separate "things", thingification. For a monist who sees reality as one thing, there can be no addition.

>All humans did is notice the way things are and write them down.

The human brain did not evolve to perceive truth. That's the thing I don't get about atheists. The human brain did not evolve to understand reality, so why believe that the human brain ever could understand reality?

Yes your analogy is better, but involves determining likelihood.

The average christ warrior or amazing atheist doesn't deal in likelihoods.

>i'm not seeing any math in your post.

Are you the guy who said "everyone knows that ghosts exist"?

All I'm doing is explaining Reggie Watts' take on ghosts. In Spatial. On Netflix.

>hur hur they're both as bad as each other aren't they I'm so above it all

At leaat Christfags take a stance, even if it is retarded. You're just a faggot

All you're taking about, again, is human observation. I'm talking about what it is that we observe, and that's something which exists independently of us. So there's nobody around to assign numbers to apples, or even invent the concept of math; the apple still falls, and the total amount of apple left in the tree is less than its was before.

All you can says is "lol", like a retard.

>The Passion of the Western Mind became a bestseller, selling over 200,000 copies by 2006. It "became a staple in some college curriculums". It gave Tarnas' work international respect and was hailed as an important work by Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Stanislav Grof, John E. Mack, Stanley Krippner, Georg Feuerstein, David Steindl-Rast, John Sculley, Robert A. McDermott, Jeffrey Hart, Gary Lachman, and others. According to Christopher Bache, Passion is "[w]idely regarded as one of the most discerning overviews of Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks to postmodern thought."

And yes, Lacan is bullshit. Read Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek.

Why is having an opinion on something incalculable and immeasurable considered a virtue?

Sounds like a surefire way to make retarded statements that hold no water.